Cool! Matching his/her 20mm rifles with camo finish. I wonder if the Secret Service would let them plink in the back yard? Scratch that, there's probably a city ordinance against discharging firearms in the city limits or some such nonsense.

Maybe they could bring them to Camp David when they go on vacation!

 

i really think we should just buy one of these instead. the Dillon Aero Mini-gun.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVvkp...eature=related
here it is with tracer rounds
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avU04m3XFvY&feature=fvw

 

I think it is more of a case that the OP feels the FBI should not be purchasing them at all, as the FBI has no valid reason to be in possession of them, being Investigative as their primary function.

This is what I was getting at ( posted can kill, not would be used to kill ).
Civilians have the right to purchase what ever weapon they wish ( within given rules ), and operate them legally, why can't the FBI ?
The assumption is that the FBI being in possession of this type of weapon has to be for evil use.
This is along the same lines as the anti-gun nuts proclaim about us legal citizens purchasing items like 50 cal rifles. They can be ( and for the cost & purpose, I would say 99.999% of the time are ) used legally.
For anyone to make the assumption that a specific weapon is not 'needed', is to let our gun rights slide that much more.

This is a sad day when someone starts the 'need' topic on gun ownership, it is a slippery slope that leads to nowhere good.

We already have a 'federal law does not apply to state law' Supreme Court Justice, this topic of 'need' will lead to we can only own flint lock muskets, and to that point they should be dismantled, and locked in separate safes.

My comment was to make the point of the government is not going to back us into a corner with 20mm guns, if they are going to use force, think tanks in Tiananmen Square.
These days it is a lot easier to back us into the corner by financial means vs brute force, no blood lettings.

 

Hallelujah, somebody finally gets it! The function of the FBI is INVESTIGATION. If they want to know how a 20mm performs on a car or truck, you think the military would know considering how many cars/trucks they destroyed in Desert Storm and all of the other sand castle peace keeping they've been doing. There is zero reason for the FBI to own one let alone two. If they need performance info, they can call the military.

FWIW, the Russians used the 20mm for anti-tank weapons on the Yak fighter airplanes. It would eat thru a Tiger tank in a heartbeat. Unfortunately, the Yak was not built for the recoil of the 20mm and the airframes suffered.Failures were common. The Yak usually carried 3 of these "cannons" with one variant carrying four. The Germans learned early on that they could not escape the YAK.

 

No, Raoul already got it:


The FBI should be well-trained with no need to call the military. Whoever thinks the FBI shouldn't have large guns for training purposes is a nut-job.

 

And yet you and apparently SSCULLY still don't.

What exactly are their investigative responsibilities?

Investigate that and you might discover the need for weapons such as the Anzio20mm.

 

Don't lump me in with him.
He took the post out of context, and left off the major part of it.
Feel free to look back and read the full post, it is NOT supporting what he says. He obviously has no clue what it takes to investigate something, must have taken his investigative courses from watching Dragnet or HI-5-0.

I am on the side that once you start to question what your gov "needs" you will be hearing it back double time.
If one were question a law enforcement agency's purchases, what do you think they will do to our purchases ?
As I said, cut them back to flint lock muskets.

The questioning over 2 20mm weapons, with the undertone of the FBI is going to use them on the public is just plain stupid. I even made the black helicopter comment to this end.

The funny part, is they probably already have something larger, don't recall seeing the FBI inventory list floating around the internet. Not quite sure if that is public knowledge.

If fiscal responsibility is the message, it should have been clear, and pointed at something other than 50K in expenses. I would bet they spend more than that per week in toilet paper at the trailing grounds / lab in VA.

 

Roger that. You were summarizing the OP's stance. I apologize for wrongfully characterizing your position.

ox

 

No problem.

The problem is the OP seems to be stuck on the Investigation part only.

I don't care if the FBI bought them to test with, stop a tank, or take out other valid targets.
To question their need, is to start an action of questioning 'need' with every purchase ( ours, and that is something I don't want to happen more than it already does ).
The FBI does a bit more than Investigate, but that seems to be the holdup with the OP is the name of the organization.

If one were to take a name as the function, the OP's name has lab in it, which means no real world implementation of anything, only controlled carefully planned tests.

 

Some of you need to search "Lahti" and "Solothurn"

Better yet, for the lazy just click

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lahti_L-39

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solothurn_S-18/1000

That said the tanks of WWII and the M60 Abrams are nowhere near the same beast.

Count me in the column that thinks the FBI shouldn't be able to have one if a regular American citizen can't have one. if they need more long range firearms lets make the ATF hand over the .50's they claimed the Brand Davidians had at Waco.

 

What I want to know is why does the FBI have file cabinets.
Why can't they just store documents in the bureau?

 

Where does it say we can't? I'd imagine you'd probably need a special permit, but other than that, why can't a regular, law abiding citizen buy one? Assuming of course, that they have the $12,000+ to spend.

- NCSU

 

Brain fart, 20mm = DD which needs a form 1 to build and a tax stamp to own. I was thinking that they would have to be in the register which was closed in 86.

 

Edit.


My comment was already covered.



carry on....

 

They aren't unless otherwise authorized. They have eroded a lot of those laws in the name of "public safety" though. They claimed that the Davidians were making drugs at Waco in order to use military assets on US soil.


Waco: Military Involvement

Guide Extra: 09/05/99
(About the GAO)

Why were military personnel used in the 51-day siege of the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas? What did they do? What did it cost? Was it legal? Those are just the kind of questions the General Accounting Office (GAO) is in business to answer.

Why Were They There?
According to an August 26, 1999 GAO report, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) had received a warrant to search the Branch Davidian property for the existence and operation of a methamphetamine laboratory and other illegal drugs and related material. Fearing difficulty and danger in serving the warrant and conducting the search, ATF requested assistance from military counterdrug units.

What Did They Do?
The GAO reports that units of the Texas National Guard, US Army, Alabama National Guard and US Air Force provided the following services and equipment:

* Surveillance
* Reconnaissance
* Transport
* Maintenance & Repairs
* Training & Instruction
* Helicopters
* Unarmed tactical ground vehicles

What Did it Cost?
GAO investigators estimated the total cost of military involvement at about $1 million, with 90 percent of that being incurred by units of the Texas National Guard and US Army. The FBI and ATF reimbursed the US Army and Texas National Guard about 75 percent of their expenses. Counterdrug programs would have repaid another 14 percent, but the military waived those payments.

Was it Legal?
The GAO concluded that ATF's request for military counterdrug assistance did meet the requirements for authorizing such assistance under the relevant statutes. In addition, GAO found that the military's decision to provide the support was appropriate and authorized under the statutes.