xd ED wrote:captnviper wrote:The Richland County (S.C.) Sheriff's Department has acquired an armored personnel carrier complete with a turret-mounted .50-caliber belt-fed machine gun for its Special Response Team.
http://m.policemag.com/news/1564/s-c-sh ... achine-gun
A belt fed gun? Seems excessive what scenario would they ever use that in?
?? Cat in a tree??
captnviper wrote:The Richland County (S.C.) Sheriff's Department has acquired an armored personnel carrier complete with a turret-mounted .50-caliber belt-fed machine gun for its Special Response Team.
http://m.policemag.com/news/1564/s-c-sh ... achine-gun
A belt fed gun? Seems excessive what scenario would they ever use that in?
farmerj wrote:I could care less about a belt fed.
Wtf do they need a 50 cal for?
farmerj wrote:I could care less about a belt fed.
Wtf do they need a 50 cal for?
captnviper wrote:The Richland County (S.C.) Sheriff's Department has acquired an armored personnel carrier complete with a turret-mounted .50-caliber belt-fed machine gun for its Special Response Team.
http://m.policemag.com/news/1564/s-c-sh ... achine-gun
A belt fed gun? Seems excessive what scenario would they ever use that in?
Lumpy wrote:If it situation requires armor and heavy machine guns, isn't that what the National Guard is for?
jgalt wrote:xd ED wrote:captnviper wrote:The Richland County (S.C.) Sheriff's Department has acquired an armored personnel carrier complete with a turret-mounted .50-caliber belt-fed machine gun for its Special Response Team.
http://m.policemag.com/news/1564/s-c-sh ... achine-gun
A belt fed gun? Seems excessive what scenario would they ever use that in?
?? Cat in a tree??
Don't be effen' ridiculous - cat in a tree clearly calls for a flamethrower. Or maybe a grenade launcher.
Alternatively, they could use one of those non-tank ( ) battering rams to just take down the tree. This both solves the current problem (cat in tree) as well as any future problems (cat - or anyone else - in tree)...
Quite awhile ago on the MN Carry Forum, I asked whether in fact this could be the basis for a court case challenging laws restricting certain weapons like full-autos to the police and National Guard. I made out an argument based on the US Constitution's "Compact Clause" (Article One, Section Ten, Clause 3) that such laws could be challenged as an unconstitutional establishment of state "troops". If I won the Lottery I'd pursue such a claim.jgalt wrote:20mm wrote:Civilians should be able to own anything the police can. They should also be able to obtain the same military surplus.
Seems reasonable, since police are civilians...
xd9 wrote:This ain't a tank??:
redaudi wrote:xd9 wrote:This ain't a tank??:
Nope.
it's a tracked armored personnel carrier.
If we're going to be very deliberate with terminology, such as the difference between a magazine and a clip, or a suppressor vs a 'silencer', or a sporting rifle versus an assault rifle, then let's not play the game of using 'scary' terms for things.
redaudi wrote:xd9 wrote:This ain't a tank??:
Nope.
it's a tracked armored personnel carrier.
If we're going to be very deliberate with terminology, such as the difference between a magazine and a clip, or a suppressor vs a 'silencer', or a sporting rifle versus an assault rifle, then let's not play the game of using 'scary' terms for things.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 46 guests