TexasCHLforum.com

Wes wrote:No, but this was driving through the parking lot in Colleyville over lunch, not something you see everyday

My dad built a model kit of one of those when I was a kid; I still have it, amazingly enough. Its a British Saladin armored car. Obviously somebody bought it and refurbished it to make it drivable, but I'm sure the main gun no longer functions. Pretty neat, though.

strider67 wrote:

K.Mooneyham wrote: But please, give me a real world example that would require Homeland Security to have an armored car, for that is what it is, and to have what amounts to large numbers of them (more than two or three).

They bought them to transport all of the .22lr and 9mm they now possess...

I'm not wearing a "tin-foil hat" about this. I believe my question was a serious question. Those things are on the light end of the scale but they are still AFVs (armored fighting vehicles). If they are going to be having those things, and spending the taxpayers' money on them, then I want to see some dead cartel members on the news, at least. Because I have yet to see anything that justifies them having those. Otherwise, they are just driving around, trying to look like a bunch of toughguys and eating up MORE taxpayer money on fuel (and I'm sure they ain't fuel-efficient).

Abraham wrote:I understand with Obama/Holder and the rest of the socialists in power why citizens are often distrustful of federal type agents, but painting ALL federal agents with the "them against us brush" doesn't make sense to me.

There are many, honorable federal agents.

I'm not speaking of individual agents, I understand that many men and women put in long hours trying to do what they think is right; I'm talking about Homeland Security as a whole. To me, that was one of Mr. Bush's biggest mistakes, creating another overarching Federal bureaucracy that answers to very few people. I want to know exactly what they are doing to keep us safe by buying multiples of these armored cars. Yeah, I saw the "serve a high-risk warrant" thing...then the vehicle should have something to identify it as such, not Police/Rescue. Sounds like them playing euphemism games, like "seek and destroy" became "sweep and clear". I don't think the actual bad-guys will have any guesswork to do if that shows up at the crackhouse.

I, for one, am trying to figure out just why Homeland Security needs a vehicle like that, much less multiples of it. I can see the FBI having a couple. I can see the DEA having a couple. Both agencies might need them for some sort of fortress drug-house siege, something like that. But please, give me a real world example that would require Homeland Security to have an armored car, for that is what it is, and to have what amounts to large numbers of them (more than two or three). I'd feel better with state agencies having this stuff before I would Homeland Security. And if HS never uses them, its a waste of taxpayer money.