506
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Pons_Aelius@kbin.social 123 points 11 months ago

The cops justify needing that because you have an ar15.

[-] pc_admin@aussie.zone 35 points 11 months ago

Yeah, it's really not that complicated!

[-] Alteon@lemmy.world 29 points 11 months ago

If everyone gets rid of their ar-15's, do the cops sell this vehicle?

[-] Knusper@feddit.de 22 points 11 months ago

They might not sell it, but they probably wouldn't get funding for buying another one.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Pons_Aelius@kbin.social 11 points 11 months ago

Yes, once every person in the USA voluntarily hands in every semi-auto rifle...the cops will decommission the tanks.

[-] snooggums@kbin.social 14 points 11 months ago

Sure they will, because most police forces have used them in situations that require an armored vehicle and aren't just doing it to cosplay being the gestapo.

[-] Pons_Aelius@kbin.social 27 points 11 months ago

sorry. I thought once every person in the USA voluntarily hands in every semi-auto rifle. made it obvious I was not talking about reality.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Sharpiemarker@feddit.de 91 points 11 months ago

I can ask more than one question. They're both valid.

[-] Leviathan@lemmy.world 75 points 11 months ago

I can ask both. I can even ask if maybe one of the reasons cops have that is that people are more heavily armed?

[-] Mr_Pap_Shmear@lemmy.world 17 points 11 months ago

how else are they gonna arrest shop lifters?

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] killeronthecorner@lemmy.world 13 points 11 months ago

Boy, if I was a school shooter, I'd hate to see this thing parked up outside at a safe distance with the engine off.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Zoidberg@lemm.ee 10 points 11 months ago

Exactly. One of the big outcries to upgrade police weaponry started with the North Hollywood shootout.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] mitch8128@lemmy.ml 51 points 11 months ago
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] BrisvegasLukass@lemmy.world 47 points 11 months ago

No one commonly owns AR15s in Australia. None of our cops have this stupid shit.

[-] lennybird@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago

What's more is thanks to the gun ban there, the black market cost for a glock handgun not counting ammunition is around $12,000 cash versus what, 10x less in the US?

Now my conservative acquaintances who adore supply-side economics should understand that increasing cost inhibits demand.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] greavous@lemmy.world 42 points 11 months ago

It's probably because nutters are running around with ar15s!

[-] InternetUser2012@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago

They are but the bigger problem is, the cops driving the war machine are part of the nutters.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de 40 points 11 months ago

Own an ATGM for home defense, since that's what the founding fathers intended. Police APC column rolls toward my house. "What the devil?" As I grab my powdered wig and Stugna-P. Blow a golf ball sized hole through the first car, it's dead on the spot. Draw my mortar on the second car, miss it entirely because it's smoothbore and nails the neighbors dog. I have to resort to the MT-12 mounted at the top of the stairs loaded with APFSDS, "Tally ho lads" the tungsten dart shreds two cars in the blast, the sound and extra shrapnel set off car alarms. Fix FPV drone and charge the last terrified rapscallion. He Bleeds out waiting on the more police to arrive since multiple fragmentation wounds are impossible to stitch up. Just as the founding fathers intended.

[-] cosmicrookie@lemmy.world 36 points 11 months ago

"Because you're allowed to have an AR15"

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] regalia@literature.cafe 32 points 11 months ago

Zero civilians need AR15s unless they're planning a mass shooting.

[-] Shapillon@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Or a revolution ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

(agreed we're not there but that's another use of civilians owning warfare weapons)

[-] Kage520@lemmy.world 16 points 11 months ago

That's exactly the argument that conservatives always give for gun ownership. But like, how would they possibly overrun the largest military in the world with their personal arsenals?

Maybe they could take a city but I can't see it being a long lasting victory.

load more comments (17 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] SpicaNucifera@lemm.ee 31 points 11 months ago
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 30 points 11 months ago

Seems fair to ask both questions.

load more comments (9 replies)
[-] Hangglide@lemmy.world 29 points 11 months ago

They probably need it because you have an AR15.

[-] Globulart@lemmy.world 29 points 11 months ago

Can't I ask both?

[-] charliespider@lemmy.world 28 points 11 months ago

I think it was in California in the 90s that some guys tried to rob a bank, but they had full body armour and helmets, and were armed with assault rifles and high capacity magazines. The cops were useless against them as all they had were squad cars, pistols, and a few shotguns. It was a huge wake up call for police forces across America and it didn't take long for them to start acquiring better equipment.

If you don't like the militarization of your police, then you need to do something about the militarization of your general populace.

[-] Heisme@lemmy.world 28 points 11 months ago

I mean… “¿Porque no los dos?” Neither should exist in civilian hands. A MRAP has no use for civilian police nor does an AR15 have any use for a civilian.

[-] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 27 points 11 months ago

But why do you need an AR-15? That wouldn't do much against a tank. Why not get artillery instead? 🤔

[-] Entropywins@kbin.social 9 points 11 months ago

You've got a good head on your shoulders friend.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 24 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] ricdeh@lemmy.world 23 points 11 months ago

Maybe because of people like you, armed to the teeth for no rational reason whatsoever?

load more comments (8 replies)
[-] finkrat@lemmy.world 18 points 11 months ago

This highlights a weird side effect of weapons rights. The right to own weapons by the citizens to protect themselves from government tyranny, combined with the need for law enforcement to arm themselves adequately against heavily armed citizens breaking the law, becomes an arms race between the citizens and their country, with whoever is better funded being the winner.

Telling the citizens to drop their weapons doesn't mean the cops drop theirs. Telling the cops to stop arming themselves against citizens just sends them to their death during confrontations.

I suggest we all go play video games instead

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] bobzilla@lemmy.world 17 points 11 months ago

Pretty sure the answer to both is little peepees.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] the_q@lemmy.world 15 points 11 months ago

Neither is needed. Fuck.

[-] Pratai@lemmy.ca 15 points 11 months ago

As others have said, both questions are completely valid. However- at this point- no one should expect a reasonable answer to either from anyone that is asked.

[-] SwedishFool@lemmy.world 14 points 11 months ago

Wasn't these basically donated because the military had too many? I understand them completely. The SWAT units needs armored trucks, even in Sweden they have Sandcats. The options were these extremely cheap former military MRAPs that are bulletproof, or buy armored civilian vehicles which costs multiple hundreds of thousands.

I'd bark up the tree of military spending rather than the police accepting hand-me-downs.

[-] lud@lemm.ee 8 points 11 months ago

If I remember correctly pretty much every small town in the US has a ridiculous SWAT team like this. I think this kind of equipment is rare in Sweden.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] rarely@sh.itjust.works 14 points 11 months ago

why not both?

[-] Jeanschyso@lemmy.world 10 points 11 months ago

Probably one is because of the other, dontcha think?

[-] dx1@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Police militarization is not because of citizens having arms. Rather, overproduction by the military trickles down into surplus sales to domestic police, and they eagerly gobble it up for various reasons such as "they like power", "they like to feel like big men", etc. They aren't outgunned against anything besides a civilian uprising.

[-] Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 11 months ago

My best guess is that this is just one of many things they were able to grt acceas to using federal subsidy programs. The very famous Obama-era 1033, but also The Department of Homeland Security's "Urban Areas Security Initiative".

We all know that they can be used by SWAT, ATF, etc. When it may be needed - but they also get used to intimidate protestors and violate their rights.

[-] over_clox@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Something something Killdozer something something...

https://youtu.be/8OzKxKdsBq8

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2023
506 points (84.4% liked)

Political Memes

5023 readers
2414 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS