I don't even understand why Police should be barred from the same equipment the average John Q Public can acquire.

Outer Vests as opposed to Inner vests? Everyone can buy them but Police cannot? It's easy to put on and take off and distributes equipment equally around the body as opposed to having it at your waist. It's lighter and more comfortable, and doesn't lead to back problems later in their career since 50Ibs of gear isn't centralized around their waist with the bonus of not having your armored tucked under your shirt. Everyone can buy Outer vests of varying levels of protection. But we shouldn't have Law Enforcement have it, they look too tactical.

Lenco makes the MRAP and the BEARCAT. They both are the same vehicle, the BEARCAT is SIGNIFICANTLY more expensive for the Tax payer, so why not just allow the government to sell the MRAP to Police so that the taxpayer isn't burdened by the expense and at most the only thing that is paid for is shipping, after all it's the SAME vehicle with the only difference being the bigger tires and the armored bottom, it just lacks creature comforts that the BEARCAT gives. All law enforcement needs to do to that MRAP is put lights on it. The average joe can purchase the same vehicle if you know which surplus store/website to look for.

The scary black rifle and shotgun? Are we going to forget about that Bank Robbery which had a man completely covered in ceramic armor save for his feet? Or when the RCMP up in Canada which couldn't advance on a mass shooter because he had a rifle and they had nothing but their pistols? The average joe and jane can purchase these firearms, but I guess if the Police shouldn't have them, then why should the populace?

Does ones constitutional rights end because they choose a profession that is severely undermanned? Do we block Vets from joining Law Enforcement because they have tactics and strategy but we need to avoid militarizing them? Nothing is stopping Jane and her children from being taught how to clear a room or secure their home from invaders or how to take back their neighborhood from Antifa? Do we ban the teaching of such maneuvers? Might as well ban martial arts and firearms instructors because we can't risk bringing these into Law Enforcement, we just might militarize them!

Maybe we should get rid of the rank structure and uniforms because that would make them a Paramilitary Organization. Which they are since they're part of DHS and are part of the Chain of Defense below the Military. Just have them run around in plain clothes and a badge, because that tactical look is scary! While we're at it, ban the sale of camouflage, we don't want to militarize the public.

All this smells like an attempt for more regulation and banning for Firearms, Gear, and Vehicles. Because people don't like the way they look? Well, every 2nd Amendment supporter who buys BETTER Body Armor, Helmets, Pads, Comms, and BETTER firearms look like a Special Forces Operator, and they already outmatch Law Enforcement. Should people argue that the populace is militarizing? Even though they just want the best gear they can afford? In the event a tyrannical government or seditious uprising occurs? Maybe we should regulate more because people can afford these things.

Law Enforcement gears themselves to match the criminal element. But if we ban this, then we allow for the argument, "If Police can't have weapons of war, then why should the Every Joe have it?" I mean, the Conservatives and Libertarians agree! Demilitarize the Police and Demilitarize the Populace!

It's just a long con for more Gun Control and Regulation, predicated on the emotional argument of "They look like soldiers!". Instead what we should do is restore our 2A rights, the populace should be able to be on the level of, or even out match the equipment of our Government. After all, we give them our consent to be governed.

TL;DR: Demilitarizing Police = More Gun Control, Regulation of Gear, Equipment and Vehicles for EVERYONE.