Trump Reverses Restrictions on Military Hardware for Police

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(08-30-2017, 11:42 AM)Benton Wrote: Maybe it's my lack of understanding their function or watching too many movies, but I always thought that was the function of the National Guard. Which, in my inexperienced opinion, should be armed as well as the military. I know some view them as 'temp workers' for the military, but they're supposed ot fit more into that role of an armed militia. 


All in all, I'm not opposed to some of it. If there's helmets, vests, or whatever that can protect an officer, even if it's not something the guy is likely to ever use, then it's better to have it and not need it. On the other hand, there's not reason for some municipalities to spend taxpayer money on something a department is likely to never need/use. Surplus it at that point.

Joe Blow from Cincinnati is sitting at his desk, doing TPS Report covers at work. An attack happens. Police respond, but find out it's too much for them to handle. They report that up the chain, and it reaches the Governor. They make the call to activate the National Guard. Joe Blow gets a call saying he needs to report. He leaves work and makes the 1 hour, 30 minute drive from Cincinnati to the Springfield National Guard Armory. His unit gets assembled, briefed, armed, and then has a however long drive to where the actual problem is. Total time, probably like 5+ hours.

I am not saying it's a frequent or reasonable need, but just one that I could see on my pro/con list. I wasn't saying that the NG couldn't handle it, I was more going off the time required to respond to something unexpected.

But yeah, I agree that the cost versus probability of actually needing it means it's probably a waste of money for anything other than things like vests, helmets, and maybe some rifles. Plus for cities, maybe some bomb suits and robots.