You're mis-reading me. Nowhere have I proposed any well-thought-out secret scheme. I'm pushing back against a story that says there's one precise purpose to thi

You're mis-reading me. Nowhere have I proposed any well-thought-out secret scheme. I'm pushing back against a story that says there's one precise purpose to this, which I thought was your claim above: "pretty obviously just a way for the federal government to subsidize domestic police forces". I suggested one other motivation some people might have felt, of keeping the hardware moving. You've suggested some more, too, now, like looking tough on TV. Maybe that means we agree.