Are they going to use suppressors on their flashbangs, since their hearing is important?
They already have them. They’re called ‘Internal Affairs’.
>> In the News/Activism forum, on a thread titled Illinois SWAT Gets OK on Silencers, smokingfrog wrote:
OK for me, but not for thee.
My idea on where to draw the line on “banned” weapons —
If the cops can have them, then ordinary citizens can, too. ‘cause really, you’re talking about the dividing line between military and police/militia — not between police and the citizenry.
Silencers? Full auto weapons? Body armor, short-barrel shotguns, personnel carriers? Fine! If cops want to have ‘em, citizens can possess them too. No permits required.
Nuclear weapons, RPGs, shoulder fired AA missiles? Probably not, for either cops OR civilians.
Well, that’s nice to know. Don’t want to disturb anyone’s sleep when the SWAT team arrives in the middle of the night to dispatch a bunch of “terrorists”; and that would be “terrorists” as defined by the Obama regime... meaning anyone that disagrees with them.
There are no telling how many laws that the government has made and exempted themselves from.
Even europe has no restrictions on silencers.
Within ten years - APCs in the streets.
To serve and protect.
I’m good with silencers. The last man standing cleans up the mess and claims nothing ever happened! ;^)
For their safety, put them in armored vehicles with turrets to help avoid hearing loss.
I Illinois they don’t even want you having a gun at all.
Short of it is you can get one but the tax on it is a few hundred dollars and is technically considered a weapon itself.
I really woulda thought they’d wear the type of hearing protection that cuts out above a certan decibel level. Voices can be heard, as can gunshots, but damaging noise is eliminated.
Why do they want to kill the hostages? Oh, that's right: It's Illinois....