Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7891011 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 105

Thread: Border Patrol Rifles Deadlining

  1. #81
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    PNW.WA.USA
    Posts
    1,825
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Iraqgunz View Post
    It's funny how they can find money to feed and house illegals, and not provide weapons to those protecting the United States.
    Adroitly stated!

  2. #82
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Southern Arizona, in the "Baked Apple"
    Posts
    15
    Feedback Score
    0
    They spend mega-millions on new technology, towers, radar & toys, but have missed the boat on something as simple as a weapon which works. The Feds, as usual, have their heads up their collective asses. SNAFU....
    http://www.jrn.com/kgun9/news/New-bo...290738831.html

  3. #83
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    11
    Feedback Score
    0
    By they, I hope you mean congress or the fed gov as a whole and not USBP. Trust me, if they held the purse ztrings, they would have their weapons.

  4. #84
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    528
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Iraqgunz View Post
    As I stated before, it's a simple fix. There are multiple ways to solve this and they only require money and will. The bullshit about not allowing agents to carry personally purchased carbines is just that. It's real simple. Give the agents a list of 1-3 proven carbines that can be used. Weapons must be configured just like the issued weapons as far as optics, etc...
    What so often passes for 'logical' at especially the local level, as you practically described to a letter the personal carbine policy (well, a more restrictive one than a lot of departments, actually), I guess is lost at the Federal. Too many chefs in the kitchen, I guess. The dispersion & diffusion of responsibility (ie disappearance) in huge organizations is kind of absurd to me.

    I am certainly not against funding the legal immigration process, which process has been drastically underfunded in the face of overwhelming demand, just as Border Patrol has been. This is a Yes, And problem, rather than a rifle problem. The whole enchilada needs to be better funded, period. Then again, DHS is the brainchild of an insane GOP that can't figure out if it likes small government (given that DHS is a monstrosity) or hates funding government or quite what... Regardless, the obstructionism in Congress can barely fund a package of twinkies without first determining if the twinkies are American enough, secure or a threat to the United States, or otherwise worth shutting the government down over.

    At the end of the day, though, you are very correct. Even further, it isn't like the AR-15 requires a PhD in rocketry to understand and maintain. That an individual posting has no individual given the task, much less qual'ed or at the very least vested with the capability, to perform basic maintenance that so many other AR-15 operators the nation over, civilian, military, or LE, perform on a daily basis is just a sign of how Posterior Forwards the whole policy set is.
    Last edited by noonesshowmonkey; 02-04-15 at 08:26.

  5. #85
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    847
    Feedback Score
    6 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by noonesshowmonkey View Post
    What so often passes for 'logical' at especially the local level, as you practically described to a letter the personal carbine policy (well, a more restrictive one than a lot of departments, actually), I guess is lost at the Federal. Too many chefs in the kitchen, I guess. The dispersion & diffusion of responsibility (ie disappearance) in huge organizations is kind of absurd to me.

    I am certainly not against funding the legal immigration process, which process has been drastically underfunded in the face of overwhelming demand, just as Border Patrol has been. This is a Yes, And problem, rather than a rifle problem. The whole enchilada needs to be better funded, period. Then again, DHS is the brainchild of an insane GOP that can't figure out if it likes small government (given that DHS is a monstrosity) or hates funding government or quite what... Regardless, the obstructionism in Congress can barely fund a package of twinkies without first determining if the twinkies are American enough, secure or a threat to the United States, or otherwise worth shutting the government down over.

    At the end of the day, though, you are very correct. Even further, it isn't like the AR-15 requires a PhD in rocketry to understand and maintain. That an individual posting has no individual given the task, much less qual'ed or at the very least vested with the capability, to perform basic maintenance that so many other AR-15 operators the nation over, civilian, military, or LE, perform on a daily basis is just a sign of how Posterior Forwards the whole policy set is.
    I could write a novel disagreeing with one of your paragraphs and explaining how disingenuous it is but this isn't the forum for political discourse.

  6. #86
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    276
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Iraqgunz View Post
    Even when I was in the Army in Germany, the unit armorer (who was a grunt assigned to the HQ platoon) was not allowed to make weapons repairs. He conducted inspections and checked the 2404. If there was a deadline status he notified the support unit.
    .
    That assertion remains true today. Bench stock is not authorized at the company level in garrison and armorers are trained to do paperwork and not repairs.

  7. #87
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,901
    Feedback Score
    14 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Iraqgunz View Post
    As I stated before, it's a simple fix. There are multiple ways to solve this and they only require money and will. The bullshit about not allowing agents to carry personally purchased carbines is just that. It's real simple. Give the agents a list of 1-3 proven carbines that can be used. Weapons must be configured just like the issued weapons as far as optics, etc...

    All rifles get inspected by the appropriate personnel and all personnel must qualify with that weapon. Info is recorded on their qualification sheet.

    It's funny how they can find money to feed and house illegals, and not provide weapons to those protecting the United States.
    This pretty much sums it up. My agency uses pool rifles. Such a bad idea for so many reasons. But better than no rifles. Personally owned/Agency approved guns isn't rocket science either. Have a policy out lining what is an approved gun to qualify with. Two Chief's ago, we had our first Chief from outside of the agency in our 115 year history. New blood, new ways of thinking. All of the sudden, personally owned rifles went from, "Are you nuts! Don't ever mention that idea again!" to "Why not?" With personally owned rifles that meet the agencies requirements, the Border Patrol would obtain access to "X" number of guns without any cost to them. From a management point of view, that should be a "No Brainer".

    Annual inspection of BP owned and issued rifles shouldn't be such a huge issue. Outfit a work van with a mobile armors workshop, and some parts. Make minor fixes in the field as the inspectors make the annual inspections.

    No matter how you want to approach the issue, it isn't that big of a deal to effectively fix the lack of rifles for the Field agents within the Border Patrol. The ONLY issue is for the Border Patrol's senior management to express the desire. In my mind there are no valid excuses to not equip the field Agents with an issued long gun.

    The southern border of our country is the new "Wild Wild West", and has been for a long time. To fail to provide these Agents with the appropriate equipment to protect our border and to protect themselves is unacceptable.
    Last edited by Beat Trash; 02-04-15 at 10:11.

  8. #88
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    25
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by cd228 View Post
    That assertion remains true today. Bench stock is not authorized at the company level in garrison and armorers are trained to do paperwork and not repairs.
    A good Machinegunner was always a better bet to fix a machinegun than the armorer.

    Mike

    Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...

  9. #89
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Southern AZ
    Posts
    108
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Personally owned rifles are not the answer for the Patrol. Agents do stupid shit, destroy gear, are cheap and the amount of bad info floating around at the station level re: firearms is ridiculous. It's the .GOV and we have plenty of M4-A1's out there...someone just needs to properly allocate them. Also, iron sighted pool guns are stupid...adding Aimpoints to the pool guns would alleviate a lot of the issues the Patrol is having now with randomly zeroed rifles and save us a ton of $ on AA batteries for the stupid EoTecs on assigned rifles we have now.

  10. #90
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    N.E. OH
    Posts
    6,742
    Feedback Score
    0
    You put requirements on them. Police agencies have been doing it for a while, and it's been working great. Half the issues rifles are sub par anyways. And I'd take a bushmaster over a pistol any day.

    I don't know if it's THE answer, but it's AN answer. There are many options that are better than the current state.

Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7891011 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •