I downloaded the report, after wandering around for 10-15 minutes looking for a site from which to download it.

I understand your issue with no-knock warrants. I'll go and review my information, but one of the things they need to do and they train to do when they engage someone is immediately identify themselves (read as yell "police" really loud). Don't quote me on that one, though. I'll have to go back through my stuff and find it.

As for the issues with auto weapons, police don't deal with the same things that civilians do. They deal with people I like to call "bad guys"... a lot. I do agree with them having fully auto weapons. In addition, they generally don't like to use suppressing fire in the middle of residential neighborhoods because of the risk of hitting kids. It wasn't suppressing fire, they were trying to hit him.

The calibre of the rifle doesn't make a difference. If they want 50 caliber or bullets 2/10's of an inch smaller, doesn't matter to me. If they need it, they need it. The Coast Guard uses those 50 caliber rifles mounted on helicopters for Law Enforcement purposes also. They're quite effective at blowing out the engines of go-fasts. I'd like to thing that those SWAT teams have a reasonable purpose for the weapons they want and aren't going to running amok with their big guns. It's a special weapon for a Special Weapons And Tactics team. Makes sense to me.

[rant]My contention is............... why should the police have weapons that us law abiding citizens cannot own ?? Would it not be easy to make a police state when civilians are outgunned and at a disadvatage ?? Personally, I'm pretty tired of our rights being compromised. I swore to "Uphold & defend the constitution of the United States of America" and it makes me ill that others who have duly sworn to do the same are subverting it for their causes. [/rant]

I can agree with you there, however, the police do not really have control over the laws that allow them to own automatic weapons. They have some, but not a lot. I don't see them subverting it. I also don't think it would be easy at all to make a police state just by a few people having big guns.

One of the things you'll notice with most Police Officers is that they tend to be (this does not mean all of them) pro-gun. Most of the cops that I've talked to fully support the legal ownership and carry of guns.

You can't have it both ways...
- you need them because you deal with 'bad guys'
- but you don't like to use suppression fire - hence why would the LEO's want full autos - given the general nature of "spray and pray"

Maybe you only encounter 'bad guys' in non residential neighborhoods.

Now with an LEO's Average MISS percentage of greater then 80% - why would we non-LEOs want the LEOs to have them?

Don't preceive this as smart ass, but as has been mentioned here and other places, there is a tendancy for LEOs to get an us vs everyone else attitude. I don't belive LEOs should have full autos unless we 'regular citizens' may also be blessed with the privalige of protecting our butts with them.

I believe the responsibility of LEOs as well as carry permit holders is precise fire - this is not possible with full auto, nor with a rifle mounted in a helicopter (unless it is shot while the chopper is sitting on the gound with the engine off)

Your mileage may very...

Mostly-

Hehe, I'm not going to quote that, but I'll respond. I do agree with you on some points, for example, the us vs. them attitude is quite unfortunate. Not all of them have it, but some do.

I can't speak specifically for the LEO's, but I'd imagine that when you're in a house and faced with a guy with a gun who doesn't want you catching him, putting that gun to them and giving a nice burst rather than single bullets could be quite nice. They are selective fire, so you can indeed have it both ways. In fact, you can have it four ways with one gun.

As for the helicopter, again, the Coast Guard fires the .50 from a moving helicopter into the engine compartments of go-fast boats moving upwards of 70 MPH, so I'd imagine it can be accurate enough to do the job that they're actually doing.

I agree, the job of the police is usually (I do save some leeway for situations that may warrant an exception) precise fire. That is indeed possible with "military style weapons". I don't know what your definition of a military style weapon is, but I think they should have AR15's, MP5's, and the like if they want them. They are totally appropriate, IMHO, for the police to use, and they are well equipped with those already.

hehe, this thread has jumped around a little.

Show me the money!

First off... The coast guard goes out in their boats, sticks a paddle in and if it doesn't touch bottom they quickly turn the thing around and head back to shore...

Ok, now seriously - do you have a link pointing to CC choppers equiped with semi Auto 50 cal Machine guns where they are shooting the engines in boats, most likely they are using single or double auto 50 cals.

Second, I think there is a bit of a difference between shooting at boats from a chopper in the ocean and the NYC cops shooting at targets (or thinking they can) in the city. Are you saying this doesn't concern you?

Third - the CC is (loosly) a military unit - not really an LEO (per say). Interesting how this squeeks by when utilization of miliatary units for law enforcement is generally not acceptable with in the US.

In regards to popping several caps at the bg that doesn't want to go with you, I maintain - I believe I have the same right to protect my life from the guy kicking in the door. And you have it wrong "you can have it four ways" doesn't apply to us unwashed masses... Only the 'for the moment' special folks... 'for the moment' ends when they retire and become a member of the unwashed masses once again.

I realize there are LEOs who don't have a use vs them concept and I agree that it is sad for all involved. So I want to make sure you realize - I'm not trying to lump all together. Laws like the National carry for retired LEOs does little to remove this notion though.

Take care -

Mostly-

Absolutely. Here is just one of the examples. This is what they train for. I have looked quite seriously into the Coast Guard, especially into something on the order of a MSST or TACLET or something to that effect.

http://www.riflebarrels.com/articles/50 ... _guard.htm

Again, that's just one example of it that I could find quickly.

Regarding New York Officers, 9/11 was on their turf. I'd imagine they were more than a little uncomfortable with having to call the military to deal with it, rather than dealing with it themselves. I don't know the specifics, or what they say they want them for, so I can't speak to it specifically, and really can't form an argument regarding that for or against it. I tend to give police the benefit of the doubt, though, as I've never had any problems with them before.

I don't understand your paragraph that starts with "In regards to popping..." I'm confused. If you're not understanding my statement that "you can have it four ways," I'm speaking to the fact that they're selective fire with four fire modes. Safe, single fire, two or three round burst, and full automatic. You address different issues, though, so I'm confused.

The CG (not CC) is a military unit indeed. It was previously under the command of the Department of Transportation (not the DOD). It is now under the Department of Homeland Security. It serves a dual role. It provides LE services in peace-time, therefore filling a gap and avoiding paying it's men and women to do nothing but train, and falls under the command of the US Navy when it's needed during times of war, becoming more active as a military unit. I have no problem with the improved function of my tax dollars by having them serve a dual role.

And yes, those who perform Law Enforcement services, such as Boarding Officers and the like, are indeed Federal LEO's enforcing Federal Maritime laws.

Ok, the CG shoots at boat motors with 50 cals from 'copters... I still maintain it is not something I think LEOs should be utilizing (a lot like shooting at a moving car from another moving car - can be done, but why risk it?)

I'm afraid we're going to have to agree to disagree on the topic(s)

Take care

Mostly-