Home » News » Bizarro » Texas Preparing Its Own Riverine Navy

Texas Preparing Its Own Riverine Navy

by John Reed on March 1, 2012

We don’t often write about law enforcement tech here at DT but this is almost paramilitary. The Texas Highway Patrol is getting a small fleet of 36-foot armored speedboats, hell they’re almost riverine patrol boats, each one armed with three M240 7.62 machine guns, a pair of Barrett .50 cal sniper rifles and a bunch of carbines, submachine guns and pistols.

The state recently took delivery of the first of six of the “Shallow Water Interceptors” — powered by three 300-horsepower outboard motors — that are meant to serve protect the state’s waters from Mexican drug cartels. As Jalopnik notes, this is very Texas.

Click through the jump to see more pics of the gunboats.

Via Marsec4.


Share |

{ 163 comments… read them below or add one }

Gunther March 1, 2012 at 3:15 pm

Aww Yeaah Texas!!!

I'm glad of this purchase, as the tag says, You can run….


Musson1 March 2, 2012 at 8:49 am

All we need now is a pony keg and some water skis!


Skyepapa March 1, 2012 at 3:15 pm

Don't mess with Texas. Other border states pass laws playing with immigration enforcement; Texas buys gun boats. I rather like being a Texan.


Steven R. March 1, 2012 at 10:43 pm

It's funny because if the cartels get past the boats and law enforcement the people get them. Real Texans shoot those poor bastards


JEFF March 1, 2012 at 3:16 pm

I love Texas. These people get it.


Kevin March 1, 2012 at 3:21 pm

I had less firepower on my humvee in both Iraq AND Afghanistan.


elportonative77 March 1, 2012 at 3:21 pm

As a Californian I sigh in defeat and acceptance….GO TEXAS! Damn that was hard to type. I think a bit of me died with that oh well.


guess March 1, 2012 at 3:38 pm

As a fellow californian I feel your pain. Live in louisiana now and spend allot of time in texas. I have to say its nice to be in the south. Common sense its a nice change


Black Owl March 2, 2012 at 1:41 am

I'm from California too. I have to agree. I envy Texans for the mentality that is practically educated into them and passed down.


blight_ March 2, 2012 at 8:09 am

Born in the suburbs of Los Angeles, now in the inner city of Minneapolis. I have to get used to those hilarious "visit california" commercials on TV, and sadly no longer follow California politics…instead I have to contend with a crazy Republican governor who wants to subsidize football stadiums for football team owners by raising taxes. And the Vikes aren't even that great! If it were the packers, well…


Praetorian March 2, 2012 at 1:12 pm

Im from Wisconsin, so your right the Vikes do suck.

mn citizen March 2, 2012 at 5:04 pm

The MN governor is a Democrat – idiot. Thanks for showing your true colors.

Andrew March 1, 2012 at 3:23 pm

What, no Mk-19?


LtKitty March 1, 2012 at 3:23 pm

.50 cal? Might as well slap a cannon on the bow! Awesome. It's good to see the Texas Highway Patrol getting what it needs to do its job.


BorderClaymore March 1, 2012 at 3:24 pm

They need about 100 more. And the should buy a dozen more IR equipped helicopters. More cameras and outposts as well.

But any who saw the recent YouTube video of the AZ border fence being lift jacked open by the drug mules knows what we are up against. Infuriating.


Lance March 1, 2012 at 3:41 pm

Taking over from the Coast Guard. Heck for less maintenance and more surplus parts id use M-60s and M-2 machine guns rather than the expensive M-240 that is heavy regulated by the Government. I doubt this plan will fly the USCG will start protesting domestic Law Enforcement getting mixed in there job and have the feds stop it.


Skyepapa March 1, 2012 at 3:51 pm


This is Texas's hot poker in the USCG's rump.


Mastro March 1, 2012 at 7:27 pm

M-60's? Yeah- they're cheap for a reason-

What regulation applies to the M-240 but not the M60 and M-2-? they are all full auto-

What's the price difference $500-maybe $1000? For that I'll take a gun that 3-4X's as reliable.

Jeez- most of the gear on this site- $500 won't get you an email back from a salesman- let alone a visit- pay the money-


Nicky March 2, 2012 at 12:59 am

Isn't the Rio Grande a Federal Waterway and if so, then Texas may have violated some federal law in buying a boat and doing a job that the US Coast Guard should have done with armed boat. Also isn't the M-60, M-2 and M-240B illegal for domestic Law enforcement to posses and own. I think Texas highway patrol may have violated that as well.


STemplar March 2, 2012 at 1:18 am

It's not a federal waterway and police boats aren't something new, every town/city with a significant body of water has law enforcement boats.

MGs are not illegal for private citizens to own if they get their tax stamp, so law enforcement certainly can have them.


Nicky March 2, 2012 at 11:25 am

I always though it was illegal for domestic law enforcement to posses and own military grade hardware and equipment such as Machine guns and military grade Nightvison gear. Only Federal Law enforcement such as the US Coast Guard could own Machine guns. Maybe this is something that borders on Mission Creep and Domestic Law enforcement try to pretend to be Spec ops and pretending to be a military force.


STemplar March 2, 2012 at 12:17 pm

Not guns, only things classified as destructive devices, which is military speak for grenades, missiles, mines, etc. Certainly not NVGs, every legitimate SWAT team in the US has them.

kRISTIAN375 March 4, 2012 at 10:59 am

If the Texas Highway Patrol figured out a way to purchase M240B than I am pretty sure they figured out a way that it is legal for them to employ them. Domestic law enforcement certainly can buy military grade night vision like PVS14. While I believe the M240B and Barrett .50 Cal can be justified given the threat, I think the National Guard would be a better option than militarizing the police.

blight_ March 2, 2012 at 2:28 am

Re machineguns…even California has this exemption to their Dangerous Weapons Control Law.

12201. Nothing in this chapter shall affect or apply to any of the following:
(a) The sale to, purchase by, or possession of machineguns by police departments, sheriff's offices, marshals' offices, district attorneys' offices, the California Highway Patrol, the Department of Justice, the Department of Corrections for use by the department's Special Emergency Response Teams and Law Enforcement Liaison/Investigations Unit, or the military or naval forces of this state or of the United States for use in the discharge of their official duties, provided, however, that any sale to these entities be transacted by a person who is permitted pursuant to Section 12230 and licensed pursuant to Section 12250.
(b) The possession of machineguns by regular, salaried, full-time peace officer members of a police department, sheriff's office, marshal's office, district attorney's office, the California Highway Patrol, the Department of Justice, or the Department of Corrections for use by the department's Special Emergency Response Teams and Law Enforcement Liaison/Investigations Unit when on duty and if the use is within the scope of their duties.


blight_ March 2, 2012 at 1:20 am

And you don't think the M-2 wouldn't be "heavy regulated"? A machinegun that would run afoul of NFA and be designated a destructive device outside of LE hands?


Stormcharger March 2, 2012 at 11:43 am

Actually it's designated Class III in anyone's hands. Military and law enforcement have waivers within that law that allows carry and use, which is why private security companies can use military equipment legally, as can law enforcement. The only real impediment is civil authority and taxpayer cost.

Texas obviously has the support and will of the taxpayers behind them and are sending the message that if someone tries to kill a Texan, they'll kill em right back.


jack March 1, 2012 at 3:52 pm

Good 4 Texas!

If it was California they'd tell them to only use non lethal weapons as a last resort.


Sailingbum March 1, 2012 at 4:05 pm

Paint guns!! he he he


Mastro March 1, 2012 at 6:28 pm

Didn't work too well for that subway cop in Oakland who thought his gun was his taser. OOops!


m167a1 March 1, 2012 at 7:25 pm

If only there were more like him.


A. Nonymous March 1, 2012 at 3:59 pm

And on NBC this fall, you can see the new Shallow Water Interceptor in action on episodes of "Walker: Texas Water-Skier"…


Riles March 1, 2012 at 4:04 pm

Beautiful. Qustion though, why have all the machine guns on one side?


Skyepapa March 1, 2012 at 4:35 pm

Because Mexico in only on one side of the river. Hahaha.


blight_ March 1, 2012 at 5:06 pm

Well, boats have to turn some time…

Edit: It looks like there are two gunshield mounts, side-by-side and facing opposite directions. However line of sight occludes one from sight.


guess March 2, 2012 at 1:04 am

Upon closer inspection it appears the first image shows 2 weapons on a pintle on the port side. And I’m fairly certain the 2nd picture shows the same set up on the starboard side. On the plus that is one more machine gun :)


blight_ March 2, 2012 at 1:21 am

Yup. Two pintle mounts with gunshields with dismountable M240's, plus weapons carried aboard. Definitely impressive armament.

Think twice…punks.

tiger March 1, 2012 at 4:22 pm

Next step? Super Tucanos for the Texas Naval Aviation arm…..
Texas, been doing things it's own way from BBQ to law Enforcement since 1836.


joe March 2, 2012 at 7:57 am

Occasionally the barbeque and the law enforcement being the same thing…


UAVGeek March 5, 2012 at 9:59 pm

You do know the Texas ANG flies F-16's right?


blight_ March 1, 2012 at 4:39 pm

These look like Regulators? I could be wrong.

Go Texas for picking up the tab for border security…since DHS is apparently occupied, and doesn't think border security is "Homeland" security. And hasn't really since it was created in 2001. Though I suppose since the feds are hamstrung by bureaucracy and advocacy, and the state can move a little faster.

This'll just drive them to New Mexico and Arizona; just like Operation Gatekeeper in California drove "them" to Arizona.


tiger March 1, 2012 at 4:52 pm

Obama will be not be pleased. If he had issues with the Gov. of AZ.; Rick Perry has reached the top of the White House do not invite list.


michael ARMSTRONG March 2, 2012 at 4:21 am

NOthing against you tiger,but Obama needs to butt out of Texas's business.THOSE are some bad looking boats.WAY to go THP.


Lexington NC September 27, 2013 at 6:49 pm

Technically, that counts as an honor.

Ours is a union of sovereign states. The states do not relinquish the right to defend themselves and to establish laws for living within their borders. Unfortunately, Texas is one of the few states that is willing to tell the fed gov't. where to go and what to do when they get there.


ty_a March 1, 2012 at 4:54 pm

You know it would be a lot smarter to figure out why there is a well funded para-military force bringing drugs into Texas.

This is a typical big government, big hammer, everything looks like a nail solution.

I'll also echo Kevin's comment. That's almost more firepower than I ever used in my two tours in Iraq. I was a Bradley gunner and 25mm was verboten, so we had just the coax.


charlie G March 1, 2012 at 4:55 pm

Gotta love the Texans.


RCDC March 1, 2012 at 5:03 pm

They probably need to make the M240 into a remote so the operator may have easy access between the boat steering wheel and the M240 joystick while driving the boat .


Andrew March 1, 2012 at 5:17 pm

Or you know they could put more then one person on the boat. Either way.


Patrick Busche March 1, 2012 at 5:27 pm

I just love these patrol boats. And although I thoroughly love the appearance of those three magnificent 300 HP Mercury Verado Outboards, I wonder if an easier approach would have been to have a couple of GMC 572 V8 inboards – each V8 easily capable of 620 to 750 HP in naturally aspirated form. Regardless, I'd just love to hear all of those three Mercury outboards running!


M.L. Texan March 1, 2012 at 5:57 pm

The boats are fine and dandy but we really need a Texas Infantry.

Oh, and tanks.


Steven R. March 1, 2012 at 10:46 pm

Texas Rangers are a light infantry group of Texas, they do operations together with the coast guard, national guard, and border patrol all the time.


M.L. March 1, 2012 at 11:03 pm

Them Rangers are pretty BA but we need more. Got a long border down here!


blight_ March 2, 2012 at 1:24 am

SWAT teams can get M113's surplus, If I recall correctly…


Carolyn March 4, 2012 at 2:41 am

you need a Texas Infantry ? that shouldn't be too hard to do – just form one – hell, Texas doesn't ask permission to do much – they are almost self-sufficient – I wanna live in Texas ! ! ! !


kristian375 March 4, 2012 at 10:53 am

You already have Texas infantry? Texas has two National Guard infantry brigades, a battlefield surveillance brigade with it's own reconnaisance troops AND a seperate Airborne Infantry BN. Not to mention two active duty Army divisions…


blight_ March 4, 2012 at 4:46 pm

The active duty units belong to the feds. The NG is technically a state force, but to save money and minimize disruption they can't be "deployed" for long periods of time. A state's only really "standing" army is its law enforcement officers.


Black Owl March 1, 2012 at 6:03 pm

Only Texas…


BigRick March 1, 2012 at 6:35 pm

Holy Cow, That thing has more firepower then the LCS
and I bet it doesn't cost 1.3 billion a copy either


blight_ March 2, 2012 at 1:25 am

It would probably cause twelve million dollars of damage to an LCS at close range…


M.L. March 1, 2012 at 6:58 pm

Has anyone else ever seen people blurred out like that before?


Mastro March 1, 2012 at 6:30 pm

No- it is cool- like they are going into warpspeed or something.


guess March 2, 2012 at 1:07 am

Possibly very slow shutter speed


Nik March 2, 2012 at 9:18 am

That's the Texas Stealth Infantry System in action!


Coastie August 14, 2012 at 6:22 pm

They blur out the face of our officers so that the cartels' don't find out who they are and murder them or their family members.


R L Tacy March 1, 2012 at 7:36 pm

Only thing missing Port & Stb Honeywells


DockScience March 1, 2012 at 7:40 pm

It is terribly sad that police must become armies to deal with a problem the federal government is unwilling to address.

But then again, the original Texas declaration of secession from the union had the federal government lack of securing the border against criminal intrusion as a major reason to leave the union and join the Confederacy.


jamesb March 1, 2012 at 7:52 pm

Mission Creep…..


Nicky March 2, 2012 at 1:00 am

I do smell Mission Creep somewhere


blight_ March 2, 2012 at 1:19 am

Meaning the feds should be protecting the international border? Though I suppose 10th amend means the states can protect their own "border" as well. The international element means there are limitations in their ability to pursue people across the border or to collaborate with cross-border counterparts (since the powers to negotiate with other countries are reserved for the federal governent). Though the constutition does mention states not being able to maintain navies, but this is more of a police force?


MGC March 1, 2012 at 7:53 pm

Boy now I bet we will confiscate another 2% of the drugs being shipped through Texas leaving only 88% of drugs getting through mostly by road under the noses of Feds and Texas state L.E. But heck at least some Troopers can have fun on the water. Buying working dogs with the cash and just patrolling all the Wal-Marts in the state would yield much more loot.


chris March 1, 2012 at 8:07 pm

Three rounds and that lump would be dead in the water..


Skyepapa March 1, 2012 at 8:25 pm

One round and that lump knows where you are.


TMB March 1, 2012 at 8:13 pm

Are there any fun lakes to party at during Spring Break in Texas? If so, maybe not for long…


Dr. Grzlickson March 1, 2012 at 8:33 pm

I trust no Federal money (of which, Texas is a top recipient) is being used.


B Balard March 1, 2012 at 7:55 pm

They were paid for by drug money officials confiscated from drug cartels.

No tax payer money was used. I know they did not mention this and some media are saying it was Federal Grants + State Funds but the money came from the confiscated drug cartel money that have been caught.


Dr. Grzlickson March 1, 2012 at 11:25 pm

How do you know that? I'm just poking at the myth of Texas as some self-sustaining, independent land inside of America, when, in fact, they are a giant mooch.


a holt March 2, 2012 at 2:43 am

dude you seriously need to shut the fuck up.


blight_ March 2, 2012 at 8:08 am

It is mostly the highly populous states (Texas, Cali, NY, et al) subsidizing states in the Midwest and deep south (which usually trend Republican, and would have been Democrat states before the '60s; at least in the south)

Stephen Russell March 1, 2012 at 8:44 pm

Need to sell TX those Riverine boats from Act of Valor, with Dillon Gataling gun fwd.
Now thats TX Firepower, Yes.


steve henry March 1, 2012 at 10:34 pm

I normally would not support a law enforcement (DPS) having access to military weapons, like the M-240 and other automatic weapons. I believe they are fast becoming a paramilitary force, which is disturbing and unconstitutional. However, the president is NOT doing his job in adequately funding border security so It has come to this. We must secure the border one way or another, but giving state police more power and military weapons is not good. The role of law enforcement is to enforce laws and serve its citizens, not patrol borders with machine guns!


Walter March 1, 2012 at 10:46 pm

Since they are facing military weapons heavier than this they have the right to reply with this minimal armament. Patrolling the borders with machine guns is part of enforcing laws and serving the state's CITIZENS. I don't see how adequately patrolling the state on land, air, and water is giving DPS more power.


blight_ March 13, 2012 at 4:47 pm

Put the referendum to the people of Texas. Are you okay with this? Y/N

As long as the people retain the right to keep their government accountable; and no federal/state conflict exists, one of the basic expectations of government is to provide for common safety.


crackedlenses March 1, 2012 at 11:09 pm

The only alternative would be to give the citizens on the border the machine guns. Personally I'd be all for it, but many will probably not agree…..


Walker March 1, 2012 at 11:16 pm

LE is also supposed to deter crime and protect its citizens. Now, if my inland local PD started to patrol all the lakes like this then yes, that'd be a problemo.

Border security is a lot different than the more conventional law enforcement.


quantum mech March 13, 2012 at 3:53 pm

All public water associated Authorities carry M-4′s as a matter of HS water defense.


quantum mech March 13, 2012 at 4:02 pm

Predator E class are currently surveying most of the counties in N Texas
with the new THz back-scatter that can “see” under dense foliage.
I was aware of the flights in June 2011.


Zeta March 1, 2012 at 10:59 pm

Well this gun boat will not stop us because we have plenty of $$$$$$$$$$$$$ to pay for intel from you gringos


Zeta March 1, 2012 at 11:00 pm

Bring it out to the river and watch it get blow up


Iowa Don March 4, 2012 at 2:19 pm

You are the kind of scum that floats to the top of the sewer flotation tank. The cure for you is 230 grains of hot lead from a .45ACP to the back of your head. You are such a low-life even the sewers are up from where you are. Tu madre es la puta del mundo y tu padre es un bastardo.


blight_ March 4, 2012 at 5:43 pm

I'm sure someone on DefTech will say bring it on, if they haven't already.

Then again, I guess if the Zetas haven't assassinated El Presidente of Mexico; then they're not as good as they claim to be (though they remain quite capable of killing law enforcement officers).


Punisher1 March 2, 2012 at 1:29 am

I need to move to Texas, Florida f’n sucks


Roland March 2, 2012 at 1:40 am

I think Texas was doing the right thing. Threats are real from drug cartels, terrorist, Iran, rogue, socialist and communist countries . The navy, marines, coast guards should not be alone on protecting our sea, lake, river boundaries and territories.


Roland March 2, 2012 at 1:58 am

How ever Texas should coordinate their task with the navy. marines, coast guards, land patrol rangers and airforce. From my research drug trafficker use speed boats, submarines, planes and ships to ship their cargo's.


STemplar March 2, 2012 at 3:07 am

Not many subs on the Rio Grande Roland.


Roland March 2, 2012 at 3:45 am

I am just posting in general terms however Venezuela safety and security webpage forecast advises travel80km (50 miles) of the Colombian border in the states of Zulia, Tachira and Apure the Colombian border in the states of Zulia, Tachira and Apure and advise against all but essential travel to the remainder of Tachira state. Drug traffickers and illegal armed groups are active in these states and there is a risk of kidnapping. In addition, travellers should take particular care if attempting to cross in to Colombia from any state since border crossings can attract criminal activity. The advise travellers to use official crossing points. Also news report on Jan 9 2012 Undercover agents with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, working with their Mexican counterparts, helped transfer millions of dollars in drug cash and even escorted a shipment of cocaine via Dallas to Spain. The covert activities were undertaken as part of an operation to infiltrate and prosecute a major Colombian-Mexican narco-trafficking organization moving cocaine from Colombia to Mexico and the United States.

I hope these would help catch the bad guys.


Rupert M. March 2, 2012 at 5:03 am

As if firepower would stop Drugs getting into the US. These things would serve Texas well if the Gulf Cartel would call all of its sicarios and launch a frontal assault. This is so not gonna happen folks, sorry. The whole War on Drugs is as failed as the prohibition, get over it and legalize!


Vaporhead March 2, 2012 at 7:05 am

I see that it's also illegaly parked in a fire lane, but those nice machine guns authorize that infraction. ;-)


WRG01 March 2, 2012 at 10:06 am

The militarization of law enforcement is a mistake. The cost of equipment acquisition is only part of the $$$ story. You have to staff these craft. You have to maintain these craft. You have to fuel these craft. You have to store these craft. Etc… If indeed drug cartel seized money did purchase or offset the cost of these craft, then where else could those funds have better been applied in the toolbox of TX DPS? Officers conducting very dangerous felony stops along Texas' highways may have an opinion as to where else this money could have been spent. Next, these craft cannot engage Mexican drug cartels on the Rio Grande. Border Patrol must cease pursuit when people reach the water. They cannot fire on persons or craft on the water or on the Mexican bank. These boats are "cool"…their armament possibly excessive, but also "cool"…maybe several deployments and defense work both govt and private between 2002-2011 have left me jaded…or just tired of the nonsense, but I wish Texas would get more excited about education, health care, workplace safety, etc etc etc than it does about guns and combat kit. BTW…I'm a Texan living in Texas. A green to blue to govt gray veteran who put on the private def hat.


tiger March 2, 2012 at 10:51 am

The Days of Andy Taylor & Barney Fife law enforcement is long gone.


SMSgt Mac March 2, 2012 at 6:42 pm

I am against the militarization of urban police forces, where it seems every stinking precinct gets its own black-costumed SWAT boys while the county makes do with one (I'm looking at you L.A.) But this is a State Police force dealing with a state-wide problem that just also happens to be a national one being ignored (or as in the Fast and Furious case -'fostered') at the Federal Level. We won't see these boats on the inland lakes enforcing fireworks bans or drunk boating laws on the 4th, but we will see property values and economic activity start increasing along the Rio Grande which in turn will generate more than enough tax dollars to offset the operation of these boats.


UAVgeek March 5, 2012 at 10:09 pm

" There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people." -Bill Adama


4FingersOfBourbon March 2, 2012 at 11:41 am

They should get issued javelins…


blight_ March 2, 2012 at 5:28 pm

I think they need more boots on the ground before we start throwing out weapons.

If we had soldiers for every 100 meters we'd run out of people before we ran out of border.


Taggert March 2, 2012 at 12:33 pm

900 hp of Mercury power, gotta like that.


domingo March 2, 2012 at 3:14 pm

Texas, should commercialized that boat probably with additional more weapons like anti-ship missile and sell that to poor Philippines Navy to guard its coastal territories without breaking its back.


AlC March 2, 2012 at 11:35 pm

Am sure I will get flamed, but it has to be said:

This is wrong.

But the root cause is that it is needed by the Texas police.
The Feds should be doing this job.

Go far enough back and the US Cavalry used to patrol the borders. Local cops were for local matters.

We need to get back to these standards. This is a work around solution.
The more we do it, the more the Feds can ignore their responsibilities.

Let's fix the real problem.


blight_ March 2, 2012 at 11:37 pm

The jurisdiction of law enforcement ends at the state border. Where does the state border begin and end when the national border equals the state border?


STemplar March 3, 2012 at 2:27 am

They are one and the same.


AlC March 3, 2012 at 6:43 pm

The Feds have primary responsibility to defend our borders.
Give them whatever space they want (within reason) to do this on our side of the border. If they did their job, the Texas cops wouldn't be needed at the border.
Get the Feds to do their jobs.


AlC March 3, 2012 at 6:52 pm

Should at that illegal immigration is a national problem. Not a state problem.
It costs all of us in the USA billions of dollars per year both in Federal expenditures as well as local expenditures (NYC is a good example of local expenditures)


blight_ March 3, 2012 at 6:58 pm

Since discharged vets seem to have problems finding jobs, pass a supplemental that transfers soldiers to serve as muscle under the direct control of BICE and put them on the border. Ideally, keep soldiers in their home states or states their units are based in (of course, this might favor Texas which has a large military population, but Texas also has the most population who needs protecting)


AlC March 4, 2012 at 3:59 pm

I'll go you one further.

Restore the draft. But only use draftees in the USA (all 50 states) for border control. No danger of getting involved in foreign conflicts.

The draft used to act as the great melting pot of society. Since it's been eliminated we've become a hyphenated nation.

AlC March 4, 2012 at 6:27 pm

I'll go you one further. Bring back the draft.

Have draftees serve only in the US (all 50 states) and use the manpower for border control.

Be good for the country and good for the draftees.

@GG20TexaS March 2, 2012 at 11:50 pm

Hell yeah Don't ya Mess With TEXAS NOW !!!


kjatexas March 3, 2012 at 1:17 pm

Don't mess with Texas


Roland March 3, 2012 at 5:31 pm

I think each state should have a armed Mark V speed boat say 1000 each for defense and to police each state against drugs,crimes, terrorist gangs, facing threats from rogue, socialist and communist countries.


blight_ March 3, 2012 at 6:54 pm

Is this with a side order of F-23's?


Roland March 3, 2012 at 10:51 pm

It will all depend on the Potus and the State. My post is just an idea, no offense intended.


blight_ March 4, 2012 at 4:48 pm

Fair enough. But we don't need a Mk V SOC. We need boats in quantity with the firepower to deter and fight….but more importantly is the manpower issue. You can mitigate manpower issues with tech and equipment up to a degree, but in the end more boots mean better coverage and control of the border. Every agent on a boat is one not on an SUV patrolling the border. And unlike boats, you can put a patrol agent on a vehicle or horse on station for a longer period of time.


Jay Matthew King March 3, 2012 at 5:54 pm

I think you need to mount a 7.62mm minigun just for that little something extra and a towable tree mulcher to get rid of the bodies so we dont infuriate the liberal left and most of the politicians in america!


blight_ March 3, 2012 at 7:53 pm

…I don't think LEOs got into the business so they could throw people's bodies in a wood chipper. And frankly, I wouldn't trust a law enforcement system that did that as a matter of routine.


Hunter78 March 4, 2012 at 8:16 am

Toys for cowboys.

All we need now is a riverine drug cartel navy, and break out the popcorn.


Charles March 4, 2012 at 11:43 am

If you look there are three per side for a total or six. The writer needs to watch what he says.


Iowa Don March 4, 2012 at 1:52 pm

Now you know why they say don't mess with Texas–we'll blow your ass away! Are there alligators in the Rio Grande? Seems like that would be a "green" and very natural disposal system for what ever is leftover. Leftovers?


Pubic Enemy #1 March 4, 2012 at 8:15 pm

We need some of them things here in Kentucky, to help keep those goons from Ohio on their side of the river.


cam March 5, 2012 at 4:08 am

Why spend the money on fast boats to begin with? Why not reactivate the old USS Texas (BB35) which is sitting at the San Jacinto Battlegrounds park? With ten 14-inch/45 caliber guns; six 5-inch/51 caliber guns; ten 3-inch/50 caliber guns; ten 40mm quad-mounted guns; forty-four 20mm guns, those puny drug cartel boats would be blown out of the water, and if you wanna make the Texans real mad, those ten 14 inch guns would level anything over 12,000 yards….


Roland March 5, 2012 at 4:56 am

Its a good idea but it needs some overhall and paints


Roland March 5, 2012 at 5:00 am

I'm for more armed speed boats and USS Texas BB35 reactivation for defense.


blight_ March 5, 2012 at 11:01 pm

The Texas has had a painful maintenance history. It's old, ancient even.

Armed speed boats, preferrably low draft. But borders are secured with manpower, manpower, manpower.


Roland March 5, 2012 at 5:07 am

And instead of cannon balls fit it with long range gps guided missiles on ever turret of USS Texas BB35 .


Andrew March 5, 2012 at 6:17 pm

I'm really having trouble trying to determine if your actually serious with these posts or not.


blight_ March 5, 2012 at 11:01 pm

And F-23s!


Jsmith March 5, 2012 at 12:04 pm

Go Texas! Drive them Okies into the sea!


online diploma March 6, 2012 at 3:12 am

I am absolutely amazed at how terrific the stuff is on this site. I have saved this webpage and I truly intend on visiting the site in the upcoming days. Keep up the excellent work

online diploma


LWGII March 6, 2012 at 10:07 am

That's a great start. Now, if the other 56 states, including my home state of Maryland, could do the same thing…


Wakko March 13, 2012 at 4:51 pm

What is not reported around the country is that the Mexican army is being used to help run drugs across the border in Texas. The national media does not and maybe will not report this. There have been shoot outs on the border between sherif deputys and smugglers. What shows up to help the smugglers a Mexican military APC. I say if the FEDS will not do their job its time for the states to take over and show them how its done.


@MiddleAmericaMS April 3, 2012 at 2:52 am

Screw funding for schools!


CommentatorandPoet May 2, 2012 at 5:13 pm

"I Love Texas" She has no rival as a great state in our union.


guess July 7, 2012 at 7:07 pm

NBC Nightly news talked bout these boats tonight. they are only 3 plus months behind


CAJeffO July 11, 2012 at 11:58 am

Ya gotta love it!!! Texas get's it and responds to Obama closing border patrol stations = LOL http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/10/closur


Behr Schitte September 4, 2013 at 8:21 pm

Be happy to work as a deckhand, had some experience in the late 60's and early 70's


Cecil September 4, 2013 at 10:32 pm

The Texas Navy will prevail in spite of Obama and his crybaby rules…As a retires weapons specialist, I might have to volunteer my services…


ofcommonprayer.com June 14, 2014 at 7:05 am

Excellent blog post. I absolutely love this website.
Stick with it!


Mazie June 17, 2014 at 11:05 am

Very quickly this site will be famous among all blog viewers, due to
it’s nice content


Riceball March 2, 2012 at 11:57 am

They already are ". . . a pair of Barrett .50 cal sniper rifles. . .".


blight_ March 2, 2012 at 11:40 pm

That's where issues get thorny. Can a state trooper "attack" across the border? The power to execute acts of war resides with the feds. I don't think anyone will question self defense though…


T_Civil March 2, 2012 at 12:39 pm

Its about time someone mentions this. Sure Texas, NY, California recieve tons of federal money but how much money is sent from these states to the Fed gov't to subsidize the rest of the country. By the way I'm a New Yorker and God Bless Texas. Boy a little piece of me died when I said that.


Skyepapa March 2, 2012 at 12:43 pm

I'd be willing to bet that per capita federal remittances are about the same as all the other states. Texas contributes as a whole — but not per capita — a greater amount of income tax from it's much larger-than-average-population. So stands to reason it's representatives can advocate for a larger sum — as a whole, not per capita — of federal dollars. Per capita it probably all balances out. But welfare state? Sounds like Texas envy.


Nicky March 2, 2012 at 2:55 pm

I always though that US Domestic Law Enforcement can't posses or own a M-60, M-240B or even .50 cal Sniper rifle. It seems now that you are starting to see SWAT teams wanting to play Special forces and pretending to be one. I think they should ban domestic law enforcement from owning and possessing curtain military grade Hardware and not be allowed to have what the US Military is currently using


STemplar March 2, 2012 at 3:18 pm

You thought wrong. Private citizens could own a M-60 if they wanted one. Kinda expensive and cost a fortune to shoot as well. Most police departments aren't going to have a use for a MG anyway, liability being what it is in the US slewing a bullet hose around is not likely in an urban setting anyway. I don't see the point in limiting what firearms LE uses since the crooks don't seem to be hamstrung by your sentiment.


Nicky March 2, 2012 at 5:00 pm

True, but one day, Crooks will have weapons on a terrorist scale that will make Law enforcement feel outgunned. Can you imagine a crook getting their hands on a RPG-7 or even an RPK. No domestic US law enforcement is now trained to deal with that and they would be wiped out in one swipe. That's why what Texas has, would be sunk if a Drug Cartel got it's hands on some RPG or RPK


blight_ March 2, 2012 at 5:35 pm

If they wanted them the cartels could easily buy this stuff. They already have drug distribution networks extending from the Americas to Africa to Europe. Run the pipe backwards and funnel some guns back home.


STemplar March 2, 2012 at 5:44 pm

The cartels have them. They don't use them because they aren't interested in the DoD being brought to bear on them. The word is the couple where the husband was murdered on the TX lake on the border was a mistake and the cartels disposed of the members involved precisely because they don't want to have an incident on the US side of the border.


SMSgt Mac March 2, 2012 at 6:31 pm

The most current 'who pays' data available at the Tax Foundation website: http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/266.htm
Texas is a net 'contributer' vs 'taker'. Dr Limp-whatever is, of course, full of….wrong.


Nicky March 2, 2012 at 8:01 pm

Besides if the Cartels did get their hands on an old Soviet Foxtrot or Kilo Submarine It's game over. Even if the Cartels were to use an RPG or RPK on the Border, then you know for US domestic law Enforcement, It's Game over. US domestic SWAT Teams would not survive an IED attack , an RPG or RPK attack from the Cartel's. The Cartels would simply out match them but would be a match for DoD.


blight_ March 2, 2012 at 11:39 pm

Dayton is most definitely DFL. Thanks for the catch.

That doesn't change my opinion of him. If you think his ideology has to do with my position on the Vikes stadium being a grave burden on the state, then you are gravely mistaken.


STemplar March 3, 2012 at 2:26 am

LE can defend themselves, regardless of border.


blight_ March 3, 2012 at 12:19 pm

True. But it's hard to imagine the defensive applications of a light fifty when you're being shot at. Though I suppose if you are taking long range fire (Mexican army humvee with a machinegun?) then you break out the Barrett.


blight_ March 4, 2012 at 4:45 pm

Thanks for the numbers. This is true of even the major states that are Dems.

What's generally true is that states with greater economic power subsidize the weaker ones, while people decry "big government" and bring home the bacon.


UAVGeek March 5, 2012 at 10:06 pm

California pays $1.00 and gets back .78 cents, Texas pays $1.00 and gets back .94 cents. For all that smacktalk about self sufficiency those of us who live in NY, Texas, CA and a few other places subsidize the whole of the rest of the country. If Texas and CA left the union we'd be sorely missed.


blight_ March 5, 2012 at 10:59 pm

We just want our government that gives us money and stays out.


blight_ March 5, 2012 at 11:02 pm

It would bankrupt the country if all these draftees qualified for TriCare.


UAVGeek March 7, 2012 at 2:18 am

Not from my California based coffers! Hey we're one country I can accept that other states can't hack it on their own, but let's be real, don't talk BS about "self sufficiency" and "Small government" if your state is a currency importer.


blight_ March 13, 2012 at 4:45 pm

Hrm, 17 states giving, and the rest are taking? I find it interesting Alaska is in the taker list, considering they have enough oil dividend money for their people up there. WV, ND and SD, being energy states are high up on the taker list as well.

Take that back. This is a 2005 list. Things were a little different back then…


Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: