TexasCHLforum.com

I'll take that dog, please.
You can keep the bears and cats.

gigag04 wrote:Want.

I heard you can buy them, but it's gotta be cash, no financing available on assault vehicles with large capacity clips

Doesn't look like a very practical police vehicle to me.

The Annoyed Man wrote:Image of a Bearcat, for those (like me) who didn't know what one is:
[ Image ]

Google Images: CLICK HERE

That looks like a German Shepherd to me.

Abraham wrote:From what little I know, Sovereign Citizens have significantly violent inclinations... They appear to be a type of neo-anarchists.

I know nothing about Free Staters, but if they're like the S.C. types maybe the chief needs two BearCats...

Not true at all, the vast majority of Sovereigns are no different than most of the people on this forum in their views and morals. The SPLC & the media have done a masterful job of fomenting the lie among the public that sovereigns are a bunch of lunatics bent on violence.

wil wrote:

Abraham wrote:From what little I know, Sovereign Citizens have significantly violent inclinations... They appear to be a type of neo-anarchists.

I know nothing about Free Staters, but if they're like the S.C. types maybe the chief needs two BearCats...

Not true at all, the vast majority of Sovereigns are no different than most of the people on this forum in their views and morals. The SPLC & the media have done a masterful job of fomenting the lie among the public that sovereigns are a bunch of lunatics bent on violence.

Well you kind of bring it on yourself when you declare that laws don't apply to you. Mind you I have a friend who is into that movement and honestly he is a threat to the public or at least law enforcement because he has decided he would rather go out in a blaze than register a car. Really he will die and kill others before he will allow anyone to force him to register a car. No threat there. It's all the media.

gigag04 wrote:Want.

All these silly SWAT teams with their funny armored vehicles. Ever see what 30 angry people can do to an "armored" car?

Those things operate poorly when upside down.

OldCannon wrote:

gigag04 wrote:Want.

All these silly SWAT teams with their funny armored vehicles. Ever see what 30 angry people can do to an "armored" car?

Those things operate poorly when upside down.

I guess that's why they want the ones with the turret capable of mounting a machine-gun or grenade launcher. Its possible that someone is eventually not going to be able to resist the temptation to use such powerful hardware, very possibly over-reacting to something that doesn't necessitate the use of that sort of hardware. And it won't be very pretty when they do. Makes me feel a little ill thinking about it.

OldCannon wrote:

gigag04 wrote:Want.

All these silly SWAT teams with their funny armored vehicles. Ever see what 30 angry people can do to an "armored" car?

Those things operate poorly when upside down.

Ummm yep... Most of them don't do so well on fire either...

Abraham wrote:What's the chief's rationale?

The Chief in the next town already has one, with the budget for operating it, maintaining it, training ops, two week sessions with Feds in Boca Raton at seminars and intel sessions, the adoring glances of fashionable fellow officers of the female persuasion, and bragging rights at the state COP Assoc. conventions.

IOW, it's cool!

JALLEN wrote:

Abraham wrote:What's the chief's rationale?

The Chief in the next town already has one, with the budget for operating it, maintaining it, training ops, two week sessions with Feds in Boca Raton at seminars and intel sessions, the adoring glances of fashionable fellow officers of the female persuasion, and bragging rights at the state COP Assoc. conventions.

IOW, it's cool!

And unless one of the cartels is moving into the town in a big way, a complete waste of taxpayer money, IMO. But, yes, I see where you are going with that...

K.Mooneyham wrote: I guess that's why they want the ones with the turret capable of mounting a machine-gun or grenade launcher. Its possible that someone is eventually not going to be able to resist the temptation to use such powerful hardware, very possibly over-reacting to something that doesn't necessitate the use of that sort of hardware. And it won't be very pretty when they do. Makes me feel a little ill thinking about it.

As has been said many times in these discussions: "Once you have a new hammer, every problem begins to look like a nail." If you've got it sitting out there, it's hard to justify the expense if you don't ever use it.

It's a lot cheaper, and loads more effective, to go back to "One riot, one Ranger." Probably safer for all concerned, too.

talltex wrote:

K.Mooneyham wrote: I guess that's why they want the ones with the turret capable of mounting a machine-gun or grenade launcher. Its possible that someone is eventually not going to be able to resist the temptation to use such powerful hardware, very possibly over-reacting to something that doesn't necessitate the use of that sort of hardware. And it won't be very pretty when they do. Makes me feel a little ill thinking about it.

As has been said many times in these discussions: "Once you have a new hammer, every problem begins to look like a nail." If you've got it sitting out there, it's hard to justify the expense if you don't ever use it.

I wonder if they have a wildlife rescue center nearby with small deer.... /sarcasm off

Saw this article, thought it kind of fit the topic.

http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2013/08 ... ypd/68789/