Military vs. Local Law Enforcement
08/23/14 19:02 Filed in: Current Events
In his infinite wisdom he said the equipment may not be needed because there is "a big difference between our military and our local law enforcement and we don't want those lines blurred."
It’s nice to know that bullets and shrapnel know the difference between the two and don’t intend to inflect damage to our law enforcement officers! It's nice to know that with hundreds of rounds fired at officers in the North Hollywood shootout, and similar shootings, the officers need no real fire-power to take down thugs in full body armor. Thugs who are firing "military hardware" freely at the officers.
The arriving patrol officers, responding to what was initially a bank robbery, carried 9mm and .38 special pistols. Some were fortunate to have shotguns. They were up against two men who had a trunk load of ammo (literally) for their fully automatic weapons which were firing armor piercing bullets. Over 2,000 rounds of ammunition where fired before it all came to an end.
What makes the "military" the military is not the weapons in use. Likewise, weapons don't define "local law enforcement." You would think that a Commander in Chief would understand that.
But Barack Obama, in his great wisdom, wants to draw lines between "military" and "local" action. When armor piercing bullets are flying towards you, and when the enemy itself is in full body armor, do you stop to think... "Am I military or am I local law enforcement?" The president would ask you to do just that... after all, "we don't want those lines blurred."