Terrs hit America: LE or Military Response?

[Skinny Shooter]

I've heard it said that during the Clinton administration, terrorism was considered a law enforcement issue.
Bush considered it a military issue.

What do you think about either one being used here in the States against terrorism?

My first thought is, it should be a LE response, but, the bad guys are receiving the types of training that LE may not trained for.
So that leaves the military.
How do you get trained military shooters to a school within 15mins? I don't think you can.
Looking forward to your thoughts.

Allen

[GoodOlBoy]

First problem is use of the military within the US for ANY sort of combat operation is more than a little no-no when considered against the constitution. Second of all even if it wasn't if you allowed it to start, then it would be easier and easier to just call in the military and declare martial law as people would get use to it (kinda like TV violence eventually desensitizes kids to real violence)

AND it should be the PEOPLE of the US defending it within the borders along with LE and FBI.

That being said working with LE in a state that has some pretty hefty requirements for training I am still staggered at how many LE here don't go to the range except twice a year to qualify, AND how many of them don't own any firearm except their sidearm.

IE if it happens it is gonna be bad no matter what happens. We were once a nation of riflemen. Now we are a nation of passive let somebody else protect me while I hide behind the "safety" of plaster walls at home.

GoodOlBoy

[bulletpusher]

Inside the confines of the Continental United States the U.S. Military is not allowed by Law to function as an active attack force. That is the job of the National Guard (which is under the control of the Governors of each state to keep the Federal Government from trying to take control of the country by Martial Law, etc.,etc.)

The Constitution strictly forbids it, even though it looks like President Bush and soon to be Obama are making plans to move 20,000 U.S. Troups into an active force inside the borders of this country by 2010 or 2011.

I think the people in will have to do the defending along side of the Law Enforcement personnel. That way the Law Enforcement personnel will have someone beside them, that knows how to do the job.

We shall See

Bulletpusher

[Skinny Shooter]

Originally posted by bulletpusher
The Constitution strictly forbids it, even though it looks like President Bush and soon to be Obama are making plans to move 20,000 U.S. Troups into an active force inside the borders of this country by 2010 or 2011.
Bulletpusher

And that is what prompted this thread.
I don't see Bush using troops to take away rights, but, future presidents who we don't know are what scare me.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...002217_pf.html
Passé Comitatus Act... Passé Comitatus Act...

[Rapier]

The real problem you have of course is that the LE orginizations are not trained or equipped to handle a full blown terrorist attack. Best example is the two that robbed the bank in CA, they were just well armed bank robbers. Just imagine a dozen well trained and well armed folks doing the same thing, with ambush tactics, grenades, claymores, etc. The death toll cold be staggering and mostly LE.

I voted LE due to the Constitution, but like the Constitution itself, there is a reason for doing a lot of things, including changing old rules or habits. I am most framiliar with what Franklin said and think he was dead on, but things do change.

I remember the "good old days," when we had but two deputies covering the entire county at night and they came to my home and asked if I would ride with them on Friday and Saturday night, as a backup in an emergency. I rode with them for three years. The LE job is scary at times and that is just handling the normal local stuff. I can not imagine getting a call to go to a terrorist shoot out or firefight in progress.
Best,
Ed

[GoodOlBoy]

Yes but what it boils down to is that LE departments need to get off of their arses and train better swat teams, and force better training on officers. There is absolutely no reason for them to not be practicing on a range once a week and doing live fire (simunitions etc) training at least once a month. PERIOD. Local LE departments require them to hit the range twice a year and burn at least two magazines for qualification purposes. BTW most LE Swat Sniper/countersnipers rarely practice beyond 200 yards. Thats nice. So what do you do when the sniper is in the top of a 30 story building and you can't get to him? You throw a shoe at him or what?

As for the kalifornistan shootout the problem was that you had body armored targets and NOBODY willing or capable of taking a head shot, or a groin shot. Had they had a swat sniper who could have taken a shot from say 400 yards out then they could have shot the head (madula oblongata casserola) or a groin shot (femoral artery salsaria) then it would have been over in minutes, AND the officer would have been out of the line of fire. Also let us not forget that the real issue in that fight was underpowered weaponry as much as lack of a jerk on a trigger. Try shooting the armored bad guy with a 308, 30-06, or any mule deer capable caliber and see if it don't work a wittle better than 9mm, and buckshot from 30+ yards.

I feel for the officers, I really do. When time came for a local department to long gun up what did they buy? AR-15s in 223. Why? In case a maniac with a deer rifle opened fire. Well uhmmm how about an AR-10 in 308 instead you putzes? You are worried about a drunk with a deer rifle and you buy a overzealous squirrel gun? For the love of all that is good and holy buy a freakin caliber that can do the job FROM FURTHER OUT so that you don't get officers killed. I mean after all you aren't going to train them properly to shoot the gun anyway (the same local agency trains from no more than 50 yards out with long guns because thats as big as the range is. . . . . ) why not give them a caliber that an idiot can graze meat with and still do damage?

I gotta stop now before I lose my mind and my blood preassure reptures, but I will say this last thing. Until we stop letting bean counters make the choices LEOs are NEVER going to be up to par for a heavy situation. PERIOD.

GoodOlBoy

[GoodOlBoy]

Ed I just thought about I missed a critical point. You are DEAD ON when you mention riding along and LEOs depending on your aid. The very fact that LEOs cannot, or will not depend on civillians anymore that they KNOW can back them up is insane. I know half a dozen good men that I have shot with MANY times who can outshoot your standard LEO any day of the week. I would count on them. And I know alot of HCers would too.

GoodOlBoy

[Adam Helmer]

Rapier,

I have watched endless videos of those two North LA bank robbers. The responding cops could not shoot nor could they hit what they shot at! IF any cop had a .308 or .30-06 deer rifle and shot either, or both, of those bank robbers in the HEAD or legs, they would have bled out quick, fast and right away.

GOB is right on about the "Posse Committas" which says the PEOPLE help the LEOs restore order. ALSO, GOB, I concur about "Enough Gun." I was issued a MATEL 16 in 1965 and that .223 did not impress me then or now about a RIFLE gun. Nuff said.

Adam

[Rapier]

GOB,
You understand exactly. I stopped riding when the head shed told the deputies that civilians could no longer ride with them. I felt real bad leaving my deputies without anyone to cover their backsides in drug busts and late night bar brawl visits, real bad.

I did not mention the Hollywood, Florida FBI fiasco because I really did not want to go there but..... That was two US Airborne trained bank robbers, just two, with semi auto guns who shot up the FBI guys. I used the CA bank robbers, which was just as bad if not worse. Just think what a dozen bad guys could do intent on a real killing ambush, with military training and equipment, including explosives. It would not be real difficult to pull an entire police force into a big buzz saw.

The military with recent deployment would be better equiped mentaly, training and actual equipment to handle the problem, but you run square into the Constitution.

Best solution would probably be for the military vetran NCOs to train LE in antiterrorist tactics and LE departments to secure equipment to work the problem, not pea shooters. If nothing else we could offer our LE folks captured or surplus weapons.
Best,
Ed

[GoodOlBoy]

Not to mention there should be a MUCH heftier bonus for trained vets who go to work for police departments. The bonus on them around here is LESS than the bonus a newbie out of the academy gets if he speaks spanish. (Not that spanish isn't important but sheesh)

The sadest part of our society and history is the underapreciation and villanization of ex-military. A close second would be the villanization of "rough men" who are capable and willing to do what is needed to keep family, friends, and community safe, but are turned away, and looked down upon because it is not politically correct for them to do so.

God Bless and keep us all. I fear we need that blessing in the comming days more than ever.

GoodOlBoy

[BILLY D.]

Originally posted by Adam Helmer
Rapier,

I have watched endless videos of those two North LA bank robbers. The responding cops could not shoot nor could they hit what they shot at! IF any cop had a .308 or .30-06 deer rifle and shot either, or both, of those bank robbers in the HEAD or legs, they would have bled out quick, fast and right away.

GOB is right on about the "Posse Committas" which says the PEOPLE help the LEOs restore order. ALSO, GOB, I concur about "Enough Gun." I was issued a MATEL 16 in 1965 and that .223 did not impress me then or now about a RIFLE gun. Nuff said.

Adam

Adam

Did any of the guys you served with refuse to carry an M-16 and use a captured VC weapon?

A few people I know tried it but their rifles sounded different than ours and some guys almost shot their buddies, thinking they were VC.

It was one of those damned if you do, damned if you don't type things.

Best wishes, Bill

[Skinny Shooter]

Not meaning to start an argument here because this thread is starting to go off topic already but...
This stuff about the AR being a piece of crap is just that, crap.
The AR platform has come a long way since Vietnam and with the correct ammo it can do the job.

Is there anyone here willing to stand up at 300 yards and take a hit from my AR? Probably not.
LE actually has a better deal going for it than the military. They are not limited to specific rounds like the FMJ and can select what they want.

I do like the AR10-series rifles but that is a hefty gun for the average guy not to mention a female that may have to schlep it around.

The 6.8spc may be the better caliber because its available now and just means swapping out the upper.

I've been reading stories coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan about ammo performance.
Bad guys are being killed by 5.56 and 7.62. And then there are instances where some are taking multiple hits from either till they are stopped.
Each situation seems to be different.

Check out these articles:
http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Self_De..._FAQ/index.htm
http://www.ar15.com/content/page.html?id=185
http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19881

[GoodOlBoy]

Ain't sayin its a bad gun sayin its underpowered. And it is. Period. Yes in the right hands it is deadly. But it requires MORE percission than a 308 (or even a 7.62x39) in order to get the job done. I don't want to take a shot from a 22lr at 300 yards much less a 223. But a 223 is underpowered. I have read plenty of reports from iraq and afganastan in which the tango was shot six, eight, ten, or more times before he went down. It is ALWAYS related to the 223 or the 9mm. With a 308, or 30-06 you are talking about a layered cloth/body armour penetrating round that does the damage and keeps on trucking.

GoodOlBoy

[Skinny Shooter]

Originally posted by GoodOlBoy
Ain't sayin its a bad gun sayin its underpowered. And it is. Period. Yes in the right hands it is deadly. But it requires MORE percission than a 308 (or even a 7.62x39) in order to get the job done. I don't want to take a shot from a 22lr at 300 yards much less a 223. But a 223 is underpowered. I have read plenty of reports from iraq and afganastan in which the tango was shot six, eight, ten, or more times before he went down. It is ALWAYS related to the 223 or the 9mm. With a 308, or 30-06 you are talking about a layered cloth/body armour penetrating round that does the damage and keeps on trucking.

GoodOlBoy

GOB, you need to read those links when you get a chance. I added one after you posted.
I'm sure they won't change your mind and thats ok for you.
I'll never say that the 5.56 is as powerful as the weapon system it replaced but I've read that 5.56 ammo does work.
And I've also read of bad guys needing multiple hits from 7.62 caliber weapons to be put down. So which one wins?

I'd be comfortable with a fast twist AR using 5.56 ammo (not 223) if I had to patrol the streets.
I would not want to wield a heavy AR10 (unless its a carbine version) or M1A1 for patrol. Its not needed.

[GoodOlBoy]

Skiiny I am not saying that the 5.56 (or 223 +10000 CUP pressure) does not work a good portion of the time. I am saying that it is underpowered for the job it was purchased for here, AND that it is underpowered for the job overseas. You have pretty well hit the nail on the head when you said of hearing the 7.62 failing to stop in all cases. THAT is EXACTLLY my point. If a 7.62 which is more powerful won't always do the job then why would I want the 223 in that situation? Short answer is I wouldn't. The military made a GRAVE mistake when they picked the 5.56 over the 222mag after the M16 trials. It was a MUCH better round. So where half a dozen others that were tested. Worried about weight? Why? I have the same opinion on it as I do the 9mm. Sure you can put 1 in the head and 2 in the chest to do the job. OR you can use the right caliber and put them down with 1. The standard 9mm holds 15 + 1 rounds and it can take 5 oponents with that mag on average. The 45 holds 8 + 1 and can take down 9 opponents with that mag at single shot each on average. Yes the 9mm is lighter, but the trade off is that you are getting so much less knockdown that the extra ammo you are packing to do the job (or get left with a dry well) offsets the lighter weight. And yes I understand that on paper numbers don't really translate to a battlefield.

I would even choose a 30 caliber carbine over a 5.56 any day, but thats just me. Then again I would also choose a HK/UMP 45 over the 5.56 any day. The AR/M16 platform is a good design. The choice of caliber leaves MUCH to be desired in THAT kind of firefight. It is one of the reasons that platform can be obtained in so many variations now.

Is it better than the firearm it replaced? Todays version probably is, yes. The vietnam era one not so much.

Is the caliber better? Not by a long shot.

Does the caliber have a use? Yes it does thats why I own one.


I have a very big problem with saying that any gun/caliber is useless. There is no such thing and often you have to make do. My point is that the boys and girls fighting for us overseas, and at home should never have to make do with a lighter, less expensive caliber simply for the sake of a bean counter.

GoodOlBoy