wonder who these will be used against

If you're implying that it'll be used against YOU, you must own some sort of armored vehicle since thats what they're made for. In that case, you're probably right.
 
ib1yysguy said:
If you're implying that it'll be used against YOU, you must own some sort of armored vehicle since thats what they're made for. In that case, you're probably right.
Click to expand...

I don't know that the FBI faces many armored vehicles, but we can give that a pass.

Why do they need suppressors for them?
 
ib1yysguy said:
SO THEY DON'T GIVE AWAY THEIR FUCKING POSITION you nitwit.
Click to expand...

So the FBI is going to need to shoot an armored vehicle without giving away their position?

WTF scenario do you see than being needed for?

So you think the FBI should open fire on someone or on a vehicle that may have people in it, without annopuncing themselves or attempting to get the people to surrender?
 
WinterBorn said:
So the FBI is going to need to shoot an armored vehicle without giving away their position?

WTF scenario do you see than being needed for?
Click to expand...

There are right wing militant groups that are heavily armed and the FBI and ATF occasionally stand off with them. If they have lightly armored vehicles, these things will take them out without revealing their positions to right wing militant snipers.

The reason STY is upset about this is because he's clearly a member of a right wing terrorist organization with illegal weapons and an armored vehicle.
 
ib1yysguy said:
If you're implying that it'll be used against YOU, you must own some sort of armored vehicle since thats what they're made for. In that case, you're probably right.
Click to expand...

Th implication is that, because of the nature of the agency, the nature of the options, and the nature of the firearm itself, it will be used on AMERICAN citizens.
 
WinterBorn said:
So you think the FBI should open fire on someone or on a vehicle that may have people in it, without annopuncing themselves or attempting to get the people to surrender?
Click to expand...

What is it with you and inferring the dumbest shit from stuff people say? It's like I'll say, "The sky is blue." Then you'll say, "So you think every other color is inferior and we should ban every other color and execute people who dare speak their name?"

Seriously man. Get a grip.

No, the FBI and ATF have protocol for dealing with these situations. If you have a problem with how they handle hostage negotiations or dealing with right wing terrorist groups then take it up with them. Large calibre rifles are used to disable vehicles, not usually to kill the occupants.
 
ib1yysguy said:
There are right wing militant groups that are heavily armed and the FBI and ATF occasionally stand off with them. If they have lightly armored vehicles, these things will take them out without revealing their positions to right wing militant snipers.

The reason STY is upset about this is because he's clearly a member of a right wing terrorist organization with illegal weapons and an armored vehicle.
Click to expand...

Or maybe STY is remembering the Ruby Ridge murders. And maybe STY doesn't think a suppressed weapon is suitable for a police operation.
 
CaptBillyTheKid said:
Th implication is that, because of the nature of the agency, the nature of the options, and the nature of the firearm itself, it will be used on AMERICAN citizens.
Click to expand...

Yeah, American citizens to happen to have an armored vehicle and find themselves in a standoff with federal agents - probably because they're part of a right wing terrorist organization.

I don't understand what's so controversial about this. The FBI needs guns to enforce federal law sometimes.
 
ib1yysguy said:
What is it with you and inferring the dumbest shit from stuff people say? It's like I'll say, "The sky is blue." Then you'll say, "So you think every other color is inferior and we should ban every other color and execute people who dare speak their name?"

Seriously man. Get a grip.

No, the FBI and ATF have protocol for dealing with these situations. If you have a problem with how they handle hostage negotiations or dealing with right wing terrorist groups then take it up with them. Large calibre rifles are used to disable vehicles, not usually to kill the occupants.
Click to expand...

As I said, I am giving them a pass on the caliber of the weapon. There may be times that they need to hit an armored vehicle.

It is the suppressors that I have an issue with. Suppressed weapons are not known for being used in open operations.
 
ib1yysguy said:
Why? Suppressed weaponry makes it too hard to kill federal agents?
Click to expand...

And you were just saying something about inferring the dumbest shit?

No, I am saying that a suppressor is meant to hide the sound of the weapon. If you are the police and are attacking (or defending against) militant criminals, then hiding your weapon's sound is not a requirement.

However, if you are doing something that you may not want to acknowledge, then a suppressed weapon is the ticket.
 
ib1yysguy said:
Yeah, American citizens to happen to have an armored vehicle and find themselves in a standoff with federal agents - probably because they're part of a right wing terrorist organization.

I don't understand what's so controversial about this. The FBI needs guns to enforce federal law sometimes.
Click to expand...

Its not that hard to disable an armored vehicle.

But there are plenty of other uses for a 20mm rifle with a suppressor. Most of the ones that come to mind involve military or blackops scenarios. You know, the ones our gov't have been involved in so often?

If there are serious right-wing militants that need to be dealt with, the FBI can always call in the National Guard. They have plenty of firepower, being military.

And why is it that you seem to have so much trouble with me wanting to have a handgun to protect my home, but trust the gov't with weapons designed for clandestine attacks?

I have never harmed anyone. I have never attacked anyone without cause. You cannot say that about the federal gov't.
 
WinterBorn said:
And you were just saying something about inferring the dumbest shit?

No, I am saying that a suppressor is meant to hide the sound of the weapon. If you are the police and are attacking (or defending against) militant criminals, then hiding your weapon's sound is not a requirement.

However, if you are doing something that you may not want to acknowledge, then a suppressed weapon is the ticket.
Click to expand...

I read it as a flash suppressor, not a sound suppressor.
 
WinterBorn said:
Its not that hard to disable an armored vehicle.

But there are plenty of other uses for a 20mm rifle with a suppressor. Most of the ones that come to mind involve military or blackops scenarios. You know, the ones our gov't have been involved in so often?

If there are serious right-wing militants that need to be dealt with, the FBI can always call in the National Guard. They have plenty of firepower, being military.

And why is it that you seem to have so much trouble with me wanting to have a handgun to protect my home, but trust the gov't with weapons designed for clandestine attacks?

I have never harmed anyone. I have never attacked anyone without cause. You cannot say that about the federal gov't.
Click to expand...

The FBI cannot call in the national guard. The national guard is not a branch of federal law enforcement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top