Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) blasted police militarization at a congressional hearing Tuesday, catching off guard a Pentagon official, who could not explain why local cops need 12,000 bayonets.
But libertarian and conservative gun lovers are even more confused about the Pentagon program that distributes free military gear to local police. Especially since the congressman who drafted a bill to curb the giveaways is a Democrat.
Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) announced the Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act in August, days after dramatic footage of heavily armed police squaring off against protesters in Ferguson, Missouri, aroused national concern. Johnson's bill would prevent the Defense Department from giving local police automatic weapons, armored vehicles, armored drones and aircraft.
For the gun owners who cherish them so dearly, firearms are always good. But is giving more guns to governments sometimes bad? Johnson's attempt to protect the First Amendment for Ferguson protestors seems to be giving heartburn to some who think it's a plot to abolish the Second. Here, a trip through postings on the popular firearms forum AR15.com -- named after the civilian, semi-automatic counterpart to the military's M16 rifle -- reveals the complicated mix of reactions.
I would support this bill, but it's backed by communist, gun-hating Democrats.
"First reaction: Great," wrote user kab85. "Second reaction: Introduced by a Dem."
"If the (police department) is somehow restricted of their use of 'M16s'," the writer warns, "it's going to be a lot easier to justify removing OUR access to what they all equate to an M16."
"The simple fact that it was introduced by a commie (democrat) makes me be against this," chimes in USCG_CPO.
Some users echoed the point that Johnson's bill could be part of a larger plot to take away guns and hurt "the cause."
"Whether you agree with it or not, bitching about LEOs running around with M4s, tactical vest and body armor isn't helping the cause at all," writes AL25. "Liberals are not going to waste an opportunity to push their agenda."
I support this bill, even though it's written by communist, gun-hating Democrats.
Some AR15 posters are willing to look beyond the party tag to agree with libertarians. From Paul to former Huffington Post reporter Radley Balko, libertarians have been at the forefront of pushing back against giving local police departments shiny, deadly, military toys.
As member MikeJGA bluntly put it, referring to a horrifying May incident in which a SWAT team sent a 19-month child into a coma, "No more flashbangs means no more infants disfigured for life by the GA mountain POPOs."
Give us the good stuff, too.
Some forum posters expressed nonchalance at Officer Friendly's armored personnel carriers and jungle camo -- as long as they have the tools to defend themselves when the survivalist apocalypse finally comes.
"Law enforcement should have access to the exact same equipment, weapons, etc. from the same sources at the same price as citizens," wrote Bloencustoms. "In other words, if they can get a post '86 (military surplus) M16 full auto for $55, so should we."
Guns don't militarize police, attitudes do.
Some forum members have a sophisticated argument that exempts the guns they love so much -- and even the Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles they would love to buy if they had a chance -- from blame for militarization.
"The weaponry, the cargo pockets, the black fabric.....those are just symptoms of the actual problem, and that's the attitude," writes fla556guy. "It's not the citizenry that they are protecting, it's the government's interests.....not the people."
And just as libertarians and liberals -- like the odd couple of Paul and Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) -- are coming together to push back against the drug war, some posters have a ready culprit for those negative attitudes.
"The equipment isn't a problem. The TACTICS are what is a problem. We need to do away with things such as no-knock warrants and the like," argues Charging_Handle. "There is just too much that could potentially go wrong under those circumstances, such as hitting the wrong house, a rather common mistake. And most of this can be blamed on the failed war on drugs."
Police love guns, too.
A few cops jumped into the fray to defend themselves, but their argument was not universally well received.
"As a soldier I knew that the american people wanted, hell, demanded that I be provided with the best equipment money could buy. But now that I've traded my army uniform for a blue one those same 'patriots' demand that I be stripped of everything but the most basic of necessities," wrote user MurdocUSA. "I've gone from hero to oppressor with a change of clothing it seems."
One of those gun-loving patriots jumped right in to confirm MurdocUSA's suspicions.
"As a member of the US military, you posed very little risk to violating the Constitutional rights of US citizens," wrote Badseed. "As a law enforcer, you may pose an extremely high risk."
Before You Go
