TMF

Besides what you can tell from the short clip? This one is about six years old and I've seen the full length video.

Once again, not to be a Debbie downer, but these weren't bad guys. They were actually clearing that IED for Americans that were operating in the area.

  The IED likely had an anti-tamper switch in it.  In fact, there's a good chance that the IED was intentionally placed in a manner that it would be discovered by the CLCs and they would attempt to recover it.  This was a common TTP since the enemy knew the CLCs would recover it by hand.  There was a wealth of IED knowledge in the CLC program as there were many former insurgents in their ranks.... they actually made the best route clearance teams since they knew what to look for.  Unfortunately for them, their level of confidence for handling improvised explosives made them an easy target for the enemy.

  Negative.  These weren't the enemy.  This was a group of CLCs/SOI/Al Sahwa (Concerned Local Citizens/Sons of Iraq/The Awakening Movement).  These were the answer to reconciliation of sunni communities and militias who originally rejected the Iraqi government and Shia government control (locally) as a way to empower them to combat sunni insurgent groups (like al Qaeda in Iraq) and reduce the recruitment pool of the enemy.  These weren't enemy.  They were attempting to recover an IED which had been placed by the enemy.  This was standard practice for them.  When we'd travel to their villages they would clear the route for us and recover IEDs as they were found.

  Well, it is their property so I guess they can do with it as they please until told otherwise by Congress.  Nothing is stopping the manufacturers from selling direct to the public though.  You just don't see a lot of folks with tanks and armored vehicles because they're cost prohibitive.  There are folks out there though.

  I'm not saying it isn't fishy.  Their actions are certainly suspect, and it looks (to me) like using law enforcement for political activism, but I'm still not seeing how this is a clear violation of the Constitution or even local law.  It seems to me like they were within their scope to do what they did, and if that is the case the law itself needs to be challenged in court.

Ha, well that would get expensive quick!

I'm not convinced that this violates the 4th or 5th amendment. If the sign was in violation the law the officer had probable cause to enter the person's property, as he observed the violation. How is this different from any other time an officer of the court observes a crime and takes control of the property used to commit the crime? Cars get towed everyday for violating various ordinances or drivers violating laws. Have they said he couldn't have his signs back? If they just took them because they were violating a law it doesn't mean it's stolen. I mean, if you park in front of a fire hydrant and the cops have you towed, are they not violating the 5th amendment every time based on your argument?

I'm on the fence with this one, since I believe the confiscation of the signs was politically motivated. On the other hand, the law is the law, and if that law happens to be unconstitutional it needs to be challenged in court. On the other hand, law enforcement confiscate stuff all the time when it is in violation of the law, such as impounding vehicles when used in violation of the law. If this sign was violating the law then I guess they were within their legal limits to walk onto the persons property and take it. Most places would send you a letter or something and fine you for noncompliance, which is what suggests to me this is politically motivated. That's the part that doesn't set well with me. That's third world type stuff.

Ha, well that would certainly do it. I'm not scared to scuff up my guns, but like OS said, those buffer tubes make poor battle clubs. I remember reading an MOH or similar write up from Vietnam where the awarded party had used his M16 as a club when rounds expended and it went hand to hand. The stock broke off right away and the guy was beating a VC to death with the carry handle.

You're assuming that reading your emails and databasing all your phone calls is not essential work.

So long as all the people on welfare keep getting paid. Those people are the backbone of this country.

I'm wondering if they enforce the same "laws" when political season rolls around and all the libs have their signs up. Just a wild guess but I'm gonna figure not.

And if you can afford one I think you have every right to own one too. I actually have a buddy who purchased an armored SUV years ago that was shipped back from Iraq. In my opinion people should be able to own tanks and fighter jets if they want.... in fact, in pretty sure there are some rich folks that do.

Well the answer would be no one. In my opinion, if the option exists for a department to have armored protection I'm all for it. The only reason I would be against it is cost to the taxpayer. I think it would make sense if county departments had these things so they could lend them to the cities if need be, as opposed to a city hogging one that remains in their jurisdiction. If these are vehicles that can be acquired at little to no cost because the tax payer already bought them, then I see no problem.

Like I said before, that takes a bit of man strength to make happen. I ran a lot of ranges when I was in the army and this was the technique we used when folks would get stuck. Never took a lot of force to free up, and I've never seen a person break their stock or separate the tube from the lower. Not saying a combat silverback wouldn't be capable of doing it, it just doesn't require that much force.

Pelosi uses that same argument in regard to owners of ARs and AKs. I'll let you in on a little known secret: these things aren't designed for war. I realize that was the application they were used for, but they were designed for survivability so that we had less US men and women coming home in pieces. They suck as offensive vehicles. If departments wanted vehicles of war they'd get some tracked APCs or tanks. The vehicle here can be taken out by the average hobbyist with access to $10, a half gallon of gasoline, a couple boxes of matches, 12V battery source and speaker wire. You likely have all the components in your house to remotely mobility kill this vehicle with about an hour's worth of instruction. If the government suddenly decides to start rounding us up into Red Dawn camps using these vehicles, they're in for a world of hurt.

Man, how hard did ya smack it? I've done this a bunch of times and never came close to breaking the tube off. I guess this could be a real problem with polymer lowers, but with a standard mil spec AR you'd have to put a good amount if man strength behind it to mess it up. Doesn't take much force to free up the bolt using this technique.

I have no problem with PDs having the tools necessary to keep them safe so long as it isn't violating anyone's rights. Cops get shot at. The likelihood of being shot at increases with armed standoffs. Vehicles like this allow police to approach a very dangerous situation without being exposed. I want the folks who are charged with enforcing the law to have the tools they need to do their job safely. I don't see the problem here.

This was one of the funnier skits I've seen. Plus, boobies.

This is pretty darn neat.  Especially when you consider the history on how it got there in the first place.  Chances are it's been a long, long time since a person last held it.

If the ATF come after you to investigate the origin of you lower to determine whether or not it's a pistol or rifle on the 4473 I'll eat your hat.

The list of decent ARs is way longer than the list of bad ones. I haven't seen anything bad from any of the reputable companies. If you're just looking for an inexpensive plinker to double as a HD rifle I would look at nothing higher than the $800 mark. Don't be afraid of buying used either. Sounds to me like if you buy anything that is more expensive than around $800 you're paying for features that don't apply to what you want it for. DPMS has sporter models that start as low as $600. It's a polymer lower, but there's nothing wrong with that. I have two polymers out of the stack of ARs I have. For the purposes you stated, they're more than enough to do what you want to do and more.

There are lots of stupid things people do that are perfectly legal. Being legal doesn't automatically qualify something as smart or sensible.

It's the principle of it though. None of us should be worried about this affecting us individually unless we're suspected of committing a crime, but I don't think that is the point here. This just seems like a very back door sort of way to skirt the Constitution, and that affects us as a whole.