LEOs subject to same restrictions as peasants?


PDA






MudPuppy
August 6, 2005, 12:12 PM
What do you think, good or bad to have a Federal Law requiring law enforcement to abide by the law?
No SBRs without permits, no FA (although they'd just buy all the legal ones with our money...grrr), no evil normal cap magazines, etc.

If you enjoyed reading about "LEOs subject to same restrictions as peasants?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
DeseoUnTaco
August 6, 2005, 12:37 PM
I think that LEOs should be subject to same gun laws we all are. Basically in the US, LEOs are not a privileged class of people. They are just people who have volunteered for a special and dangerous responsibility, but it doesn't come with any privileges. It does come with some extra powers and some extra legal protections, and some extra respect, but no privileges.

It's not like that in other countries. In many parts of the world, LEOs and military are a privileged class, and everyone else has to give them special treatment, bribes, etc, and they are not bound by the same laws. Fortunately that's not the case here.

You'll note in the constitution that our government may not give titles. We have no titles, no royalty, no legally-established classes of people.

Eightball
August 6, 2005, 12:47 PM
I agree. Make them abide by the same standards as the rest of us, and then see how effective the laws make them. That way, mayhaps people will realize how innately idiotic the rules against firearms really are :fire: . That, and maybe we'd recruit LEO's to our side in repealing/preventing other antigun measures from taking place :) . Hopefully they'd repeal the no FA thing, and allow civvies to purchase the weapons that only they were allowed to purchase beforehand (since, if they abide by the same laws as civilians, they'd have a very limited choice of firearms to choose from, which is a problem they'd presumably want to fix).

Firethorn
August 6, 2005, 12:59 PM
I'm all for it.

seed
August 6, 2005, 01:07 PM
Agreed...with all of you. But don't forget that everytime a law is introduced, not only are LEO's exempted from restrictions, but they are practically bribed to endorse their implementation amongst us peasants.

One more thing...Isn't it funny how certain guns are considered unsafe (in California, for instance...drop test) and yet LEO's are exempted from being restricted from owning/carrying them? If the the damned thing is considered to be "too dangerous" for people to carry, then why are you allowing our mighty, holier than thou protectors to have them? Just another example how gun laws are made for the sole purpose of slowly, but surely bypassing the 2A and taking away gun choices from us peasants...always under the BS transparent guise of "safety".

Powderman
August 6, 2005, 01:10 PM
No SBRs without permits, no FA (although they'd just buy all the legal ones with our money...grrr), no evil normal cap magazines, etc.

Friend, wake up and smell the coffee.

WE ARE SUBJECT TO THE SAME LAWS THAT EVERYONE ELSE IS!!!!

The FA's that you see are owned by the DEPARTMENT.

And, as far as normal capacity magazines, you DO know that the Assault Weapons Ban :barf: is long gone, right? You can buy factory fresh hi-caps now, for pre-ban prices.

If I decided to buy a full-auto, I would have to go through all the paperwork with the .gov, same as everyone else. I would also have to find a fully transferable pre '86 firearm, too. And, I would have to pay the same premium price everyone else pays.

Wake up call coming up:

WE ARE NO DIFFERENT THAN YOU ARE--WE ARE PEOPLE GOVERNED BY THE SAME LAWS THAT YOU ARE!!!

So, can we PLEASE have an end to all the cop bashing? Please?

Otherguy Overby
August 6, 2005, 01:39 PM
There are several states that still restrict magazine capacity for civilians.
---------

Regardless, the proposal was to apply citizen/civilian restrictions to police.

I'd really like to see this applicable to police carry because it would instantly show the idiocy of carry restrictions.

IOW, police should NOT be allowed to carry anywhere a citizen can't.

In someplace like LA, SF or NYC, the number of police allowed to actually carry weapons should be about the same percentage as the general population can obtain CCW.

Police should also be restricted to the same vehicle carry laws citizens are.

CA cops should have to carry their handguns unloaded and locked in a hard sided case in the trunk of their cars, separate from the ammunition. The ammunition must NOT be loaded into magazines because that makes the locked up handgun "loaded".
In California, cops should be restricted to "safe" guns like every other CA citizen and also a 10 day waiting/cooling off period before actually being able to take a "secured" gun along while on duty.

If there's a no guns sign, the cop would have to disarm prior to entry.

It's for the children, doncha know...

Of course the above is ludicrous. Leftists would be the first to say the police wouldn't be able to protect us with their guns securely locked up while conveniently overlooking the fact that police don't have to protect us anyway...

Besides adding guns to a dangerous situation just makes it more dangerous. :banghead:

DMF
August 6, 2005, 01:44 PM
Powderman hit the nail on the head.

If I want a shotgun with a 14" barrel, I must jump through all the same hoops someone who is not a cop must go through to buy an NFA weapon. Same for full auto. If I'd like to get a brand new select fire M-4 for my personal collection, I can't do it, I've got find something built and registered prior to 1986.

Cops don't get any exemption from those laws, the agencies do.

Steve in PA
August 6, 2005, 01:45 PM
:barf: Yawn :barf:

I'll leave it go at that.

beerslurpy
August 6, 2005, 01:54 PM
Doesnt the 14th amendment specify that states must give equal protection of the law to all people? Wouldnt that include themselves as well? Or is the government no longer comprised of the People?

Greg L
August 6, 2005, 02:01 PM
I think the (not clearly stated) point was that the police should have to follow the same rules while on duty. Obviously while off duty you need to follow the same rules/jump through the same hoops as any other citizen. However if the street LEOs had to live by them, hopefully their screaming would penetrate the thick skulls of management/politicians about how asinine some of the rules are.

BryanP
August 6, 2005, 02:05 PM
Law enforcement officers are subject to the same laws we are, just as members of the United States Armed Forces are individually subjected to the same (or more restrictive) laws. It is only when acting in their capacity as agents of their agency (be it a police department or the army) they are permitted to use these things of which you speak.

Now, if you wish to argue that Law Enforcement Agencies should be subject to the same restrictions as everyone else, that's a different question altogether.

mercedesrules
August 6, 2005, 02:07 PM
WE ARE NO DIFFERENT THAN YOU ARE--WE ARE PEOPLE GOVERNED BY THE SAME LAWS THAT YOU ARE!!!
Give me a break. :scrutiny:

You are allowed to lie to suspects. Civilians are punished for lying to agents of the state.

You carry guns around openly on your hip. Civilians are usually punished for that.

You speed whenever you think it's necessary. Civilians get tickets for speeding.

You stop us for questioning and searches. Civilians can't stop you for questioning or searches.

The FA's that you see are owned by the DEPARTMENT.

That's a distinction without a difference. That's like saying, "I didn't run over you; my car did." The department is above the law. Somebody is the department. They are above the law.

As long as you work for the state you cannot claim to be my fellow traveler. I don't fall for that fiction that you are my servant. You are, or work for, my master.

The Real Hawkeye
August 6, 2005, 02:12 PM
The FA's that you see are owned by the DEPARTMENT.But the PEOPLE who work for the DEPARTMENT shouldn't be priviledged to possess weapons that I am not priviledged to possess.

Telperion
August 6, 2005, 02:13 PM
WE ARE NO DIFFERENT THAN YOU ARE--WE ARE PEOPLE GOVERNED BY THE SAME LAWS THAT YOU ARE!!!Cops don't get any exemption from those laws, the agencies do.(cough) ... HR218 ... (cough)

The Real Hawkeye
August 6, 2005, 02:19 PM
I recommend Judge Napalitano's new book. It covers this topic in detail. He would have policemen subject to the same laws everyone else is subject to. There is no room in a free society for police who are above the law. Police are civilians who are doing a job, like anyone else. If a pole climber cannot do it, a cop shouldn't be allowed to.

dustind
August 6, 2005, 08:05 PM
I think the police in this thread missed the point. I think MudPuppy was refering to using while on duty, or put another way he was refering to the police departments.

Steve in PA
August 6, 2005, 08:44 PM
:rolleyes:

Shield529
August 6, 2005, 09:11 PM
You expect us to be held to a much higher standard of conduct then everyone else. A small error or one "attitude" you don't like and people scream for IA, job loss, and jail. For minor issues that non-police do all the time. So if you expect us to be held to such high standards, then don't complain when we get a few extra on-duty privlages.
Please keep in mind that I support your rights to own FA weapons, have nation wide carry, and the removal of most gun law, (sorry felons I still think you lose your rights), but when I get bashed and abused because I happen to be a cop who does not even get such nice things I do find it offensive.

Kurush
August 6, 2005, 09:13 PM
I'll start believing that cops have no special priveleges as soon as I stop seeing little "Member, Fraternal Order of Police" stickers dead center on private license plates :barf:

gc70
August 6, 2005, 10:03 PM
This is not cop-bashing, just fact.

EVERY one of the 9 states in which I have lived has allowed off-duty police CCW, and well before the recent spread of citizen CCW.

Maybe cops don't consider that sort of distinction from citizens a privilege, but I do.

Harve Curry
August 6, 2005, 10:03 PM
Policeman have special privledges:
This elite class now have the new federal interstate CCW after they retire, with qaulifying. The same police lobby groups that vote against the people made sure thay got thiers. Peasants don't.
The present mayor of Elephant Butte New Mexico (also a retired policeman), just introduced and was passed a city ordinance against citizens with CCW cannot carry on any property owned by that city. BUT he can carry as well as the police. Peasants cannot.
This smell of free coffee & donuts is making me sick again :barf:

MudPuppy
August 6, 2005, 11:10 PM
Sorry, I wasn't clear on the original post--I did indeed mean Police Departments and and such (not individuals of the departments, who, of course, must follow the same rules to obtain personal SBRs/FAs/Suppressors).

I'm saying, if the people can't have it, neither should those that police us (the DEPARTMENTS). I'd say its different for Military--unless they're deployed against the population.

Not meant to be a cop-bashing thread at all, rather a "this land is your land, this land is my land" or a "we the people" thread.

Art Eatman
August 6, 2005, 11:54 PM
Until gunfolks get personally involved in local politcs and elect people who see it "our way" and then work to get the same sorts of folks elected to state and then federal positions, we're gonna keep on being second-class citizens.

I'm happy for the LEOs to be exempt from any restrictions that have been placed upon us. The deal is to get those restrictions removed from us.

That can't be done by arising from the bitch-box every two or four years and ambling off to the ballot box.

Art

charliew
August 7, 2005, 12:10 AM
For your information MudPuppy, police departments have to follow BATF regs when purchasing automatic weapons, short barreled weapons, or another other class of controlled firearms and accessories. I know from personal experience as a purchaser for my department that the paperwork takes MONTHS..the only difference is that a departmental (government) purchase does not pay the fee or tax.

If I buy, as a personal purchase, a controlled firearm or accessory I pay the tax and file the paperwork just like you do. When I buy a gun, I fill out the same forms and have a TBI check just like everyone else in my state.

For those who would take the time to study HR318 rather than mouth off about the cops vs. the peasants, us vs. them, etc., they would find that police officers permitted to carry off duty or retired face the same basic restrictions as do those with CCW permits. The Tennessee State Attorney General two or three years ago ruled that OFF DUTY police officers are subject to the same restrictions as those with a CCW permit, examples: can't carry on school property, can't carry in a place that serves alcoholic beverages, can't carry in a community center, and many others.

I rarely visit Glock talk anymore because of the constant cop bashing there. Seems to be fairly prevalent here too. Too bad that we all live in the most free society in the world and many have to constantly bitch about their lack of rights. And no wonder so many cops develop, after a number of years on the job, an us vs. them mentality too. I've been at it for 25 years and feel like I might have made a little difference and done some good. Before that spent four years in the military. Hopefully my service to my country and to my community has meant something to someone....and for those who only criticize and bash, you know what ? you are nothing to me and not deserving of the freedom paid for with the blood of soldiers and the blood of public safety officials fighting for your freedoms for over 200 years.

beerslurpy
August 7, 2005, 12:20 AM
Charliew, we would gladly "put up with" the 3 month wait if we could buy FA for under 1k instead of the usual over 10k. Dont gloss over the 86 ban like it is just some inconsequential detail. Yeah, sure, the right isnt being infringed if you can pay a few grand a year and become a SOT. :barf:

I have seen nothing in this thread on the side of the LEOs except whole hearted apologism for the wide range of priveliges that LEOs have (both on and off the job) that ordinary citizens do not. This is wrong and it is damaging our society. The whole spirit of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution is that we have a government made of men and that these men are all beholden to the same laws. To set certain men apart as being favored by the law is a terrible idea that many of our ancestors fought to put a stop to.

gc70
August 7, 2005, 12:32 AM
...and for those who only criticize and bash, you know what ? you are nothing to me and not deserving of the freedom paid for with the blood of soldiers and the blood of public safety officials fighting for your freedoms for over 200 years.This type of comment only perpetuates the stereotype.

...ex-military and 29 years of additional government service

beerslurpy
August 7, 2005, 12:46 AM
you know what ? you are nothing to me and not deserving of the freedom paid for with

the blood of just your anscestors? Not mine? Just because you wear a badge or draw a paycheck from my taxes does not entitle you to more liberty than others. This is the sort of attitude one might have expected to find in 18th century France, not America of any age.

This sort of "you peasants arent grateful enough for the services of your masters" bit really has to go. For your good as much as ours. History provides ample illustration of the alternative.

kbr80
August 7, 2005, 12:57 AM
...and for those who only criticize and bash, you know what ? you are nothing to me and not deserving of the freedom paid for with the blood of soldiers and the blood of public safety officials fighting for your freedoms for over 200 years.


So public safety officials are now Military? Sorry. I am grateful to all public safety officials, but Military you are not. To put public safety officials in the same sentence with soldiers is just tacky, and a sign that some public safety officials view themselves as soldiers. You arent. If you are not subject to the UCMJ, you are a civilian.

I thank you for the job you do, but please dont twist it around that you are a soldier. Do your jobs, dont trample on my rights, and we wont have a problem.

Art Eatman
August 7, 2005, 01:02 AM
Beerslurpy, the trouble with this umpteenth iteration of a thread on this very subject is that people post comments which merely show envy of cops, and express themselves as though they think the cops pass the laws.

If folks don't like laws, they gotta get off their butts and work to elect people who pass "likable" laws. And to repeat myself again--and again and again--it's not a matter of voting. It's all the scut work and fund-raising that it takes to get anybody elected.

Even liberal, gun-grabbing Democrats gotta do it--and they're obviously a heckuva lot better at it than we are.

Art

charliew
August 7, 2005, 01:28 AM
Unnecessary response removed by Art

DeseoUnTaco
August 7, 2005, 01:48 AM
Charliew, we would gladly "put up with" the 3 month wait if we could buy FA for under 1k instead of the usual over 10k. Dont gloss over the 86 ban like it is just some inconsequential detail. Yeah, sure, the right isnt being infringed if you can pay a few grand a year and become a SOT.
Yeah, I have no problem with background checks and a 3-4 month wait for FA arms. What I do have a problem with is that a) I can't own one at all in my state and b) I would have to pay $10k for an AK-47 that's worth $100.

Becoming an SOT doesn't really work. The "O" in SOT is "occupational". If you're not really in the biz of buying, selling or manufacturing FA weapons for government customers, you're not supposed to have an SOT. A lot of people would gladly pay $1000/year for a license that would let them own FA weapons, but it's not that simple. I would pay it. It is a tax, so it's deductible against federal income tax, so it's actually not that bad of a fee. But it's not for collectors and it can't be used for collection.

I'm hoping that at some point our Supreme Court will throw out this unconstitutional part of the law and let us start buying these guns new again. The whole thing is stupid because there are so few people who would even care enough to go through the paperwork to get them.

Going back to the cops issues... the culture of our local police is determined (to a large extent) by their leaders, namely sherifs, prosecutors, mayors, and other ELECTED officials. Unlike in Federal elections, individual private citizens can make a big difference in these local elections. City council seats are often won or lost by less than a hundred votes. Campaign budgets are in the tens of thousands of dollars. City council members and candidates are easily approachable; you can get them on the phone before the election and get their views and ask for commitments.

If City A wants to have cops who treat citizens as mere subjects, then City A can go out and vote for leaders who will make that happen, and it's the fault of the residents of City A, not the fault of the cops who are following the culture set for them by these ELECTED OFFICIALS. If City B wants to have cops who view themselves as not being from a privileged class, then City B can vote for officials to make that happen, too.

One kind of cop we have no control over are federal LEOs, and they feel entitled to stomp over local laws whenver they want to, and they can get away with it. There's really nothing we can do about that unfortunately. I'm sorry if their are some FBI, DEA, etc agents reading this who don't feel that way, but the fact is, federal LEOs routinely violate state firearms laws and of course no one can do anything about it. Back before the national LEO carry bill was passed, I'm pretty sure that it wasn't even legal for federal LEOs to CCW without a state permit, but of course no one ever did anything about that.

Powderman
August 7, 2005, 05:34 AM
If City A wants to have cops who treat citizens as mere subjects, then City A can go out and vote for leaders who will make that happen, and it's the fault of the residents of City A, not the fault of the cops who are following the culture set for them by these ELECTED OFFICIALS. If City B wants to have cops who view themselves as not being from a privileged class, then City B can vote for officials to make that happen, too.

AMEN, AMEN, AMEN.

Also, for those who still gripe that we get to have access to all that neat full auto stuff:

When was the last time that you actively chased after someone who has made it known that they would KILL the first cop that stopped them? Not hurt or attacked, mind you--KILL.

How about doing a building search for a person inside, known to be armed with an extremely poor attitude toward authority?

Perhaps you have rolled toward a scene where a person has threatened passers-by on the street with a high powered rifle. OK, so you're the one going up the stairs. What would you rather have--a Model 10 revolver, or an MP5 or an M4 select fire in your hands?

The Real Hawkeye
August 7, 2005, 10:34 AM
This sort of "you peasants arent grateful enough for the services of your masters" bit really has to go. For your good as much as ours. History provides ample illustration of the alternative.Beerslurpy! You da man!

Old Dog
August 7, 2005, 11:36 AM
Not meant to be a cop-bashing thread at all,
Well, if you've been on THR more than a few days, just how did you think this thread would turn out then?

This sort of "you peasants arent grateful enough for the services of your masters" bit really has to go.
Oh, for heaven's sake. Fuel to the fire, eh boys? I have yet to meet the law enforcement officer who considers the citizenry his subjects ... If you want to view police officers as your masters, feel free ...

I hear the refrain of the same old, tired rhetoric every time a thread mentions the "special privileges" of the police.

gc70
August 7, 2005, 12:48 PM
...the trouble with this umpteenth iteration of a thread on this very subject is that people post comments which merely show envy of cops, and express themselves as though they think the cops pass the laws.True, citizens do envy cops because there are laws that create differences in treatment. It is also true that cops don't pass the laws about which citizens are envious, but that is no reason to not be able to rationally discuss the laws that are the source of the envy.

I hear the refrain of the same old, tired rhetoric every time a thread mentions the "special privileges" of the police.And we often hear the same old, tired rhetoric because some individual cops personalize the criticism of special organizational police privileges.

It is a fact that police organizations have special privileges that citizens do not enjoy. Even individual cops have a few (albeit damn few) special privileges. When citizens notice those differences, they are entitled to ask "why?" And the thoughtful views of cops would be valuable additions to the discussion.

If folks don't like laws, they gotta get off their butts and work to elect people who pass "likable" laws. And to repeat myself again--and again and again--it's not a matter of voting. It's all the scut work and fund-raising that it takes to get anybody elected.Again, Art is correct... as far as he goes. But part of the process for changing laws involves getting organized and exchanging ideas. THR could be a great place to start that process, except that any discussion in that direction is inevitably hijacked and twisted into cop-bashing or cop-defense ranting.

Well, I'm going to stop preaching and try to focus on the original topic by posing a specific question.

If someone kills me, that person will face more charges and harsher penalties than if that same person killed my wife or one of my sons. Other than the issue of government resource investment, why should my life be more valuable under the law than the lives of my family members or other "mere" citizens?

GunGoBoom
August 7, 2005, 01:25 PM
The answer is:

At work, they should be issued any and all guns necessary to do the job.

But until those same rights of the 2A are restored to everyone, THEN the rule ought to be that each and every LEO; state, federal, local, up to and including the Chiefs/Heads, must check in all guns issued by the dept back to the department, each and every time they leave work and go home or on personal errands.

DeseoUnTaco
August 7, 2005, 01:50 PM
AMEN, AMEN, AMEN.
Thank you!

Also, for those who still gripe that we get to have access to all that neat full auto stuff:

When was the last time that you actively chased after someone who has made it known that they would KILL the first cop that stopped them? Not hurt or attacked, mind you--KILL.

How about doing a building search for a person inside, known to be armed with an extremely poor attitude toward authority?

Perhaps you have rolled toward a scene where a person has threatened passers-by on the street with a high powered rifle. OK, so you're the one going up the stairs. What would you rather have--a Model 10 revolver, or an MP5 or an M4 select fire in your hands?
None of these things have happened to me (thankfully) but the same applies: If you're a home-owner and some thugs have just smashed down the door, would you rather have a Model 10 or an MP5? What about a woman who has a stalker who has promised to kill her? At least when cops handle these situations they have good equipment (vests, flash-bangs, tear gas, dogs, even robots), they work as a big team, they have backup, and they can wait the suspect out in many instances. Non-LEOs have none of these things. I'm not saying that being a LEO is easy, but there are a lot of muders of non-LEOs and being an ordinary Joe can be hazard sometimes. SWAT work looks scary but SWAT officers are actually rarely killed. That's a testament to the quality of people in the SWAT teams, their hard work, training and equipment.

beerslurpy
August 7, 2005, 02:11 PM
This has nothing to do with cop bashing. It has everything to do with railing against unfair laws, passed by our representatives who want to be protected by men better armed than the populace at large.

This sort of attitude has been common since the rise of hierarchical societies. No ruler or ruling caste wants to risk violent overthrow for their actions. No ruler wants it to be remotely possible. Of course, it just means that the ruler is safe until the ruler of a bigger state comes in a deposes him. Even in most countries that have revolutions against tyrants, the winners of the revolution immediately set themselves up as tyrants.

America is the culmination of centuries of technlogical progress that made widespread literacy and firearms ownership possible. People finally realized that they had the faculties and intellect to govern their own lives that that government was simply other men imposing upon the citizens for their gain. With the Swiss, people began to realize that the government wasnt even necessary for defending the nation- defense of the nation was merely a false pretext upon which to form large standing armies. And we did away with it.

Only in the past 70 years have the foundations of our system started to wear away. Our leaders have discovered that by having an overseas war every 20-30 years they can avoid losing any of their accumulated power and often gain new powers as well.

And sorry, serving in vietnam doesnt entitle you to special priveliges. This isnt like europe where serving with distinction might grant you land and title. Youre just a regular peon like everyone else.

wheelgunslinger
August 7, 2005, 02:28 PM
I've had bad and good experiences with cops. There are still some I'd like to catch in plain clothes at the local theater, and some I'd like to send a bundt cake and thank you card. So, I'll expempt myself from the bashing here.

I believe that Art_Eatman has a good point. Lobby on the local level to have change implemented. Let the local Deities in County and City level legislation know that you aren't going away until they change some things.
Then, it becomes more equal. And, you get a taste of the political environment in which the LEOs must operate, too.
Obviously, there's nothing we'll ever do about their fraternity or culture of forgiveness among the ranks. But, that's the way it's always been. Guys with any power get extra amenities. The more power, the more privilege.

There's no way I'd do a city cop's job for what they get paid. I can at least own up to that much. They'd have to pay me double or maybe even triple what a regular cop gets.
But, I should be allowed to have the same stuff as long as I can behave myself.

charliew
August 7, 2005, 02:36 PM
And sorry, serving in vietnam doesnt entitle you to special priveliges. This isnt like europe where serving with distinction might grant you land and title. Youre just a regular peon like everyone else.__________________



Never said I deserved anything anyone else doesn't get. And, I didn't know I had any more priveleges or rights that others don't. Guess I need to do some research and start using some of these 'special priveleges'.

Oh you're right too on the part about having the cops better armed than the peons - guess thats why the the FBI got their butts kicked so badly in the shootout with the bank robbers in Miami and LAPD officers got theirs in the North Hollywood shootout.

As for me and my bunch we certainly are HEAVYLY ARMED - issued Glock 40s and Remington 870s - ready to take on an Al Queda cell we are (or a local nut case with an AK or a dedicated bunch of bank robbers).

I think what you're problem is Beerslurpy, is that you just have a problem with the cops and with authority figures in general.

Oh, and please share with us your occupation, age, and past service to your community, state, and country.

beerslurpy
August 7, 2005, 03:00 PM
Most of the problem laws are federal ones. Local lobbying is not the answer around here. FL LEOs are held to most of the same rules that civilians are, at least under Florida law. And since the local sheriffs all sign off on NFA stuff, there really isnt more burden than the minimum that the federal laws impose.

The difficult associated with repealing federal gun control laws is especially sad considering that every place that favors these laws already has far stricter ones in place on a local level. Stupid. You may ask, "what does this have to do with cops?" Not much really....

Charliew, two points I may have failed to convey:
1- my problem is not with cops, whether on or off duty. I dont begrudge them their duty of having to wrestle vomit covered drunks and chase meth-heads through reptile infested swamps. I have a grudge against the wankers who use cops like pawns in political games and I have a grudge against the wankers who wish to disarm the entire populace, starting with the layer of peasants below you *peasants wave hi*.
2- If this country were attacked, I would gladly defend it. When Iraq, Cuba or Vietnam land on the shores of Florida, I will gladly pick up a gun to help repel them. This is very different from traveling halfway around the world to kick the hornet's nest. I know the domino type theories and I dont agree with them. Failing to overthrow some tinpot dictator and establish DEMOCRACY (liberty sold separately) does not signify the end of western civilization. The US didnt collapse after we left Vietnam and it wont collapse after we leave Iraq.

AF_INT1N0
August 7, 2005, 03:15 PM
8-Ball
That, and maybe we'd recruit LEO's to our side in repealing/preventing other antigun measures from taking place . Hopefully they'd repeal the no FA thing, and allow civvies to purchase the weapons that only they were allowed to purchase beforehand (since, if they abide by the same laws as civilians, they'd have a very limited choice of firearms to choose from, which is a problem they'd presumably want to fix).

Most police are already on our side, with few exceptions but most of the time (like in many businesses) the guys that make policy have no clue what the heck is actually going on in the world (or are in someones pocket) which is why you find alot of cops on pro gun boards, and alot of Chiefs of police and police advocacy groups calling to disarm the general populace.

Just my .02

charliew
August 7, 2005, 03:30 PM
Most police are already on our side, with few exceptions but most of the time (like in many businesses) the guys that make policy have no clue what the heck is actually going on in the world (or are in someones pocket) which is why you find alot of cops on pro gun boards, and alot of Chiefs of police and police advocacy groups calling to disarm the general populace.


I could not agree more. I think that in law enforcement in general, the cops you here screaming more gun control and outlawing firearms period are either Chiefs in large metropolitan areas or feds. Metro police chiefs are usually politicians first and cops second.


Beerslurpy - forgive me for my harshness, but I do get defensive when people paint law enforcement with a broad brush due to one bad experience or problems with government in general. Most of us are just plain people trying to do a just and fair job of keeping our respective states or counties or towns as crime free as we can (crime free in a misnomer - can't ever expect crime free when we send on off and two are released). Every profession has its share of problems and problem people. When the government starts seizing firearms from the general populace, I'll join the rebellion. Don't think that will happen in my lifetime, but in my kids, well who knows. (Beware of Hillary in '08)

billwiese
August 7, 2005, 04:46 PM
Out here in California, many many cops - esp. in metro regions (SF/SJ, Sacto, LA, SD) where bulk of population is - are unionist Democrats.

I am tired of their special "them vs us", "two-tier" mentality. Gun laws are created here to especially garner cop organization support - LEOs here can buy un-approved "unsafe" guns and hicap mags and AWs with little problem for personal use. If I tried that, I'd be an instant felon.

Those cops who stood behind, and in support of, Grey Davis when the California Assault Weapons ban was signed did that voluntarily AND IN UNIFORM.

CA POAs have also cowed populace into killer pension programs - retire a tad over 50+, at 90% inflation-adjusted pay with lifetime health benefits (plus only nominal charge for spouse health insurance). In areas like CA, this means these cops effectively HAVE A $1+ MILLION PENSION FUND - work out TVM formulas for a 30+ year projected lifespan... but, hey, how's YOUR 401(k)?? (And we won't even talk about disability abuse for minor issues, it's rife out here.)

The cops I've met out here - there are exceptions, esp. with ones who've come out of the military, who seem to be much sharper, better-spoken and more adaptive - are not the sharpest bulbs in the world. Around here they can readily get $70K/yr w/OT, without even considering funding that wondrous pension. Most of these folks could not get jobs out in the private sector paying this rate; their skill-set, IQ, etc. just won't cut it there.

Given overall risk - we lose, what, 100+ cops/year nationally, with the major portion of it due to car accidents - they are overcompensated for perceived risk. Taxi drivers and 7-11 clerks have far riskier positions.

Here, cop organizations here continue to fight for "more tools to win the drug war". Even though that's lost & done with, we'll be spending trillions more (nationally) over the next 50 years as full employment for folks otherwise not employable performing a job that doesn't need to be done. (Wanna screw up your life w/drugs? Fine with me. And if not illegal, drug prices would be so cheap you won't rob my house, either, to fund its purchase.)

When cops in CA pull people over and bust them for technical gun violations (such as mere registration, etc. - as opposed to violent/threatening use of guns) their constant mantra is, "We're just enforcing the law, that's our job. Take up your complaint with the legislature." Sure, the legislative branch is at fault, but that very same sentiment was paraphrased by the staff at Auschwitz, Birkenau, and the GULAGs: "We're just doing our jobs, your problem is really with our higher-ups, so move along and breathe deeply."

When I see cops stopping ordinary folks and, seeing a 45 under the seat, say "nice gun" instead of "you're under arrest", then they'll get my support.

Whenever I get a mail soliciting for local cop 'widows & orphans' fund, I return it and ask 'em why their widows & orphans are so special. And I also ask them how in the HELL do they expect me to support them at all when they are chomping at the bit to violate my 2nd Amendment freedoms (not to mention other ones as well.)

This is why I am quite enamored of the current CA attack on state employees' defined benefit pensions: it will cut off rights violators at the food trough.


Bill Wiese
San Jose, CA

LawDog
August 7, 2005, 05:20 PM
Personally, I don't have a problem with non-LEOs having the same -- how was it stated? -- rights -- as LEOs.

As long as those who wish the same 'rights' as me, also take on the duties, obligations, and responsibilities as I di, and do.

In order to carry openly, I had to: Take the tests for college courses;
Pass the interview for the Academy;
Pay for and pass the Pysch test for the Academy;
Pay for and pass what is now a 720 hour Academy, no tests lower than 80; only one retest allowed;
Including the mandatory Spanish language course;
Pay for and pass the State test; two retests allowed;
Pass a second Pysch test for the Department;
Fill out a 31 page Personal History form, listing among other things, past girlfriends, all bank accounts ever had, all addresses lived/jobs/schools/debts/medicals/etc. over last 20 years;
Pass a lie detector test for the Department, in which Personal History form played a large role; and
Pass three interviews.

In order to keep carrying my pistol openly: I must submit to random drug testing;
Requalify every six months;
Take 40 hours of classes every two years;
Take an 8 hour class on Cultural Diversity every two years;
Take an 8 hour class on Special Investigative Topics (Cultural Diversity, part 2) every two years;
Carry only the pistol approved by the Department;
Use only ammunition approved by the Department; and
Only carry said pistol in a holster approved by the Department.

Notice that the above list doesn't include the duties of patrolling - which if I refuse to do, I lose my 'right' to carry openly - and my obligation to run towards violence, bloodshed and dangerous conditions, which again, if I fail to do these things I will lose my 'right' to carry openly because the Sheriff will fire my chicken butt.

Now, if I wish to carry a full-auto weapon belonging to the Department, I have to: Take an additional 40 hour class every year;
Re-qualify every six months;
Carry a pager and remain inside the limits of the County, unless I receive prior permission to leave from both my division head and the Chief Deputy; and
Be prepared to drop whatever (or whomever) I happen to be doing 24 hours a day/365 days a year and deliver my warm body and the FA weapon to wherever we need to be rightbloodynow.

You talking your kids to the park, and your pager goes off, then you get your butt and the MP5 to where y'all are needed -- now. Doesn't matter if you've been promising this trip for six months.

About to score with Miss Texas? Sorry, Charlie, got a stand-off outside of town, get your clothes on now.

Having Christmas dinner with the folks? Or, even better, with the in-laws? Hah.

Because if you don't do these thigns, the Sheriff will fire you -- and you lose those 'rights'.

You want to carry the same as I do? Knock yourself out. Anybody who wants to spend the same amount of money that I did, jump through the same hoops as I did, and log the same personal information with the government that I did, just so they can carry only a Glock 22, only in a Level Two Safariland holster; only loaded with Winchester 180 grains SXTs should be able to.

Oh, I'm sorry, you wanted to carry something else? Well, I don't have the 'right' to carry anything else, so if you want to be like me, I guess you don't hve that 'right' either.

Sorry.

Now, if you want to lose the whining about 'peasants' and 'lords' and the other BS and state your argument in the form of everyone having the same Second Amendment rights, then I'd agree. But not while you're waving the "They've got more 'rights' than me" red herring.

LawDog

beerslurpy
August 7, 2005, 05:34 PM
You dont see your constant indoctrination and "training" as a prerequisite to the keeping and bearing of arms as a very dangerous thing? The whole problem is that your mental state, political attitudes and liberty are very much under the observation and control of the State.

Do you think this control is maintained for our benefit or for the benefit of someone else?

Btw, I have no problem with being on call to fight crime, assuming we are talking about real criminals and not some guy with a bag of coke. Actually, I am sort of on call already, there just arent many people stupid enough to commit burglary in my neighborhood.

kbr80
August 7, 2005, 05:39 PM
You dont see your constant indoctrination and "training" as a prerequisite to the keeping and bearing of arms as a very dangerous thing?


Yes I do. The training and requirements LawDog posted are almost Military Like. Wonder why people think there is a Militarization in Law Enforcement?

LawDog
August 7, 2005, 05:41 PM
You dont see your constant indoctrination and "training" as a prerequisite to the keeping and bearing of arms as a very dangerous thing? The whole problem is that your mental state, political attitudes and liberty are very much under the observation and control of the State.

Do you think this control is maintained for our benefit or for the benefit of someone else?

Y'all are the ones that wanted the same 'rights' as me. Now you get to see what comes with those 'rights'.

LawDog

beerslurpy
August 7, 2005, 05:49 PM
Why do we have to choose between two forms of oppression?

The only reason they need such tight control on police officers is because they currently have so much power to abuse. With the 4th and 5th amendments gutted, LEOs can cause a lot of harm to innocent people. Take away the potential for abuse and you take away the need to screen for people vulnerable to temptation.

I suspect that those who make these bad laws know and want LEOs to have lots of power to abuse and are satisfied that it be under their control. Could you imagine officers telling their superiors that they were refusing to arrest people for drug or weapons violations? The whole idea of slowly tightening around the populace like a boa constrictor is textbook Fabianism. You will likely never be given an outrageous order- the concept of outrageousness will simply shift over time- and someday it will not seem quite so bad to shovel lawbreakers into an oven. Hyperbole? Tell that to someone with one of the tattoos still on their arm.

The only prerequisite for bearing weapons is that you be held responsibile for their misuse. This is common sense. And I do bear my weapons EVERYWHERE (although not openly) with nothing more than 2-3 hours of training on what sort of behavior to avoid. And no harm has ever come from it. I dont think I would suddenly become a raving psychotic because my gun fires 3 bullets instead of one when I pull the trigger.

gc70
August 7, 2005, 05:54 PM
But not while you're waving the "They've got more 'rights' than me" red herring."They've got more 'rights' than me" is NOT a red herring. The national CCW provisions of the Law Enforcement Officers' Safety Act of 2004 are just one example of 'special privileges' that have already been cited.

DeseoUnTaco
August 7, 2005, 06:05 PM
As long as those who wish the same 'rights' as me, also take on the duties, obligations, and responsibilities as I di, and do.

In order to carry openly, I had to: ....... on and on ....
Good post Lawdog. I knew it was rigorous, I didn't know it was that rigorous. Would I go through all that so I could own a FA weapon? No, no way. Still, the laws need to be reformed to allow collectors (who almost never misuse FA weapons) a better way to do this. And off-duty police officers are exactly the kind of people who should have easy access to what they need/want, so they should be able to buy personal MP5s at reasonable prices, and be able to carry pistols of their choice.

The other way to own FA is, as someone said, to become a SOT. No personal history. No training. Really nothing more than a crim. check and a $1000/year fee.

I guess our system has some very inconsistent standards on FA weapons:

Police officers go through all the stuff you described... and they don't actually own them, of course
Military personel have to pass a not-so-rigorous background check and go through a few weeks of bootcamp to get access... but obviously they don't own them or have unsupervised access. AFAIK, they technically don't even have to be 18 years old to get access to 50 cal MGs, etc.
Ordinary joes who want to buy a pre-86 gun just need to pass a simple background and pay lots of money
SOTs can manufacture and own whatever they want, they just have to pass a simple background, pay $1000/year, and have some evidence of "being in business".

Like many regulatory schemes, it's a jumbled-up mess that doesn't make any sense.

If the Supreme Court strikes down the 86 ban, the whole system would be much more rational, and it would help our LEOs also get access to whatever they want/need while off-duty or after they retire.

Harve Curry
August 7, 2005, 06:56 PM
Qoute from Lawdog:" As long as those who wish the same 'rights' as me, also take on the duties, obligations, and responsibilities as I di, and do."

The FACT is I don't read anywhere in the Bill of Rights any of the above requirements. But the name Law Enforcement Officers is usually not to concerned with the Constitution. Like a guy told me once "You pick the trade", and every trade or profession has it's shortcomings. You get good benefits and good retirement (& privledges!). Hard to believe all the hardship stories of service and danger. Citizens pay for your service with taxes and traffic tickets. Mechanics hurt themselves all the time and keep working, social security being along way off, not much benefits, no retirement. Horseshoers, construction, same way. But we pick the trade and live with it. Thats the facts. :neener:

LawDog
August 7, 2005, 07:07 PM
Harve, did you try to miss my point, or is it just a reflexive thing?

LawDog

gc70
August 7, 2005, 07:12 PM
LawDog, I missed your point.

I may be dense, but I don't see how the things you have done or do to get or keep your day job relate to the question of whether cops should have special privileges, particularly when not on duty. A little clarification or expansion would be helpful.

Steve in PA
August 7, 2005, 07:35 PM
Good post LD ;)

Steve in PA
August 7, 2005, 07:39 PM
As for LEO's having "special" privileges......comes with doing a "special" job. :cool:

gc70
August 7, 2005, 07:59 PM
Famous Quotations for $500:
"special" privileges......comes with doing a "special" job. :cool: Wasn't that Louis XVI? :neener:

LawDog
August 7, 2005, 08:31 PM
Okay, let me try this a different way:

I want everyone to read this, and then go back and read it again, okay?

In order for me to exercise my 'rights' (notice the use of inverted commas around that word, if you please) I had to spend several thousand dollars, attend a year-long school and a laundry list of other things I cited above.

Each and every one of you who are thinking that you want the same 'rights' as police officers are saying that you want to have to do all of that for the 'right' to carry one certain pistol, in an approved holster, and using gov't approved ammunition -- only.

And y'all want this? Are you smegging INSANE?

I could go to Chuckie Schumer tomorrow and tell him that I have a collection of gun-nuts who think it would be a good idea to pass a law that says that anybody wanting to own a gun has to pay to go through a year-long school -- 90% of which has nothing to do with guns, take two psych tests, log 31 pages of personal questions regarding love life, finances and other details, take a lie-detector test and then maintain Cultural Diversity training every two years.

In return for all this, the gov't will allow each person who completes this process to buy one Glock 22, and one approved holster. They can't get any other guns, but they can carry this one Glock anywhere they want to. As long as they load it with approved ammunition.

Schumer would think he'd died and gone to heaven. Hell, yes, he'd go for that.

Then, I could go to Sarah Brady and tell her that some gun people want to compromise with her: Pass a law that says anyone who wants a full-auto weapon has to do everything listed above. Then, the Federal Gov't will loan them a full-auto MP5, which they can carry as long as they meet a list of requirements and/or until the FedGov wants their sub-gun back.

Brady would be six feet up a Congresscritters fourth point of contact before I finished the sentence.

Do y'all understand now?

The 'rights' that you are so envious of, are nothing more than privileges, granted by the government, whether city, county, state, or Federal.

Giving up what you have now, much less what the Second Amendment offers you, in return for the privileges of peace officers is so out in left field that I can't even begin to understand the logic behind it.

The Second Amendment may be hurting, but to want to trade in those Rights for the imagined joys of the government-granted privileges of peace officers is not only insane, but it borders on criminally so.

This is why the whole argument is a red herring. You are envious of privileges. You think you want to do the same thing that cops have to do -- guess what, so does the government. You have talked yourself into desiring privileges when you have Rights, and you have managed to do so to the point that you are getting snippy with people who are trying to point this out.

Does that clear it up some?

LawDog

Matt G
August 7, 2005, 08:37 PM
Rave on, Brother Dawg.

gc70
August 7, 2005, 09:01 PM
Good post - thanks for the clarification LawDog.

You have pretty clearly confirmed that we are addressing substantially different things.

I am not envious of the rights or responsibilities of your job. As someone said earlier, I wouldn't do your job for three or four times the pay. But I'm damned glad (and appreciative) that you do it.

What I am interested in discussing is why some laws give cops/police/LEOs special treatment outside their job (off duty, etc.).

As an analogy, doctors have to do a tremendous amount of training for their profession. I am not envious of their professional 'right' to write prescriptions or of their responsibilities in making life-and-death medical decisions. But I don't think they should have off-the-job perks written into law just because they are doctors. For instance, it would be silly if there was a law giving doctors a free pass on traffic laws just because they are busy folks and it's important that they get places quickly.

I hope I have been clear in conveying what I think is the distinction between our points of view.

beerslurpy
August 7, 2005, 09:11 PM
Lawdog, you are assuming a lot that isnt true.

I just resent all of those bits in gun laws that say

a) ..... shall be unlawful

b) ..... except if such is being done under the authortiy of the US govt or a subdivision thereof etc etc

We can attack the evils of the drug war and the erosion of the bill of rights some other time.

JohnBT
August 7, 2005, 09:27 PM
I've never thought of myself as a peasant. A couple of steps up from a sharecropper maybe, but definitely not a peasant.

John

chopinbloc
August 7, 2005, 09:49 PM
first off, i think the way this thread started out was ridiculous. i'm all for fighting to get our rights back but the idea that people who run TO danger should lose some of their tools is preposterous. i think the national carry for cops is a good start. heck i'd like to see national carry for military and medical personnel and pilots and construction workers. i think the nation is slowy pulling back from the "guns are evil" mentality and starting to gain some common sense. yes, cops are civilians who should be subject to the same laws and treatment as everyone else but meddling with other people's "rights" usually isn't the best way to expand your own "rights". i think cops need every tool they have to do their jobs and should get more. m-240b on a helicopter to stop high speed chases? good idea. i should be able to mount one on my truck, though, right?

oh, and lawdog, love the red dwarf profanity. :D

MudPuppy
August 7, 2005, 09:51 PM
Thanks for the rational and very informative posts Lawdog. I need to state for the record that I'm very much NOT anti-cop and have also served in the military (infantry, no less) as did my father. I was stationed over in Korea during the '80s and volunteered for a unit stationed on the DMZ (found out later that all the infantry units rotated for DMZ duty--heh). Anyhow, I'm very aware of the sacrifices that both soldiers and law enforcement (and firefighters) make for the society as a whole. If anyone thinks we'd be better off without the good folks in law enforcement, well, I don't even know how to respond to that. Except for the BATFE. :neener:
I am, however, anti-"anything/anyone that ignores the consitution". The fundamentals of the 2nd is to ensure the people are on even footing with the government and therefore not subject to rule at the point of a bayonet.
In short, if the SWAT team can purchase MP-5s, then I want one too. (At the same price--current law and the resulting supply and demand result in only wealthy people being able to purchase class III weapons--and that's just wrong).

But the "them" I'm worried about is the politicians that would strip us of our rights. Heck, the LEOs are part of "us"--at least I pray they are or we are in much worse shape than I could imagine.

Markcode3
August 8, 2005, 01:06 AM
..beerslurpy,your name says it all,not only do you slurp your beer,you slurp your words...
You are nothing but an anarchist,you dont respect authority,because you have no respect for anything..
you think everything is owed to you..What in the world has beerslurpy done for anyone? NOTHING..
thats right a big fat O...till you get into an armed incounter,or kick some doors down not knowing whats behind them,you can speak.we cops dont have the choice of turning our backs and running..
you are not peasants to us..mearly SHEEP and all we are ,are SHEEPDOGS protecting the flock..
Next time,I will call you when I have to deal with a greiving mother of a dead 13yo that was an inocent bystander in a drive-by,ok....
And NO we dont have special privledges,im a LEO in that lousy state of California,in the most liberal hell hole of the state,we dont and arent alowed to carry FA weapons,unless you happen to be a member of the tactical team..
And as for the other guy in San Jo..It wasnt the rank and file LEO"S that voted or approved any laws or Davis.It was the Chiefs and other political heads..
Beleive me,most rank and file cops are not for handgun control..because the way we are taught is that everyone is assumed to have a gun anyway.
So bottom line is while you all sleep in you warm beds at night,there are men out there to do whatever they have to do to protect you and your loved ones.And who also want to get home to there loved ones also.
Till you bashes walked in my shoes and put away murderers,crack dealers and gangbangers,and they get back on the street,hoping one day to meet up with the one that put them away,that is why I am allowed to carry off duty.
DONT BE A PLAYA HATER,HATE THE GAME NOT THE PLAYA...
its late for me andexcuse for the bad writting..
AKA "The Sheepdog"

Markcode3
August 8, 2005, 01:11 AM
You are damm right we arent military,even though
some of us had Military experience...not taking anything away from the soldiers,but,they put there few years in and get out. We are out there 24/7 365 days a year ,some for 20-30 yrs.dealing with alot more stressful situations that arent as black and white as"that is the enemy,go kill him".
AKA 'sheepdog'

Sindawe
August 8, 2005, 01:22 AM
Markcode3: Sheep? You see us non-LEOs as sheep and your the sheepdog? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... Well if your skills at the keyboard are any reflection of your skills at the job, we are all well and truely frelled.

Markcode3
August 8, 2005, 01:25 AM
WOW 2-3 hours training with a handgun,I would feel very confident with you at my 6..was this before or after you were slurping a beer...and you carry everywhere,wow im impressed..your significant other must think your pretty cool ,huh?
So, exactly what do you do,or have done? and what is your age?

kbr80
August 8, 2005, 01:25 AM
sheepdog

PLEEEASE. Someone over estimates themselves. :banghead: :p

beerslurpy
August 8, 2005, 01:26 AM
markcode3:
Give thanks for what? What have you protected the citizens of CA from? Certainly not your gun banning superiors. Certainly not the leviathan CA state govt. Certainly not the 5-10 million illegal aliens in your state.

And I am capable of protecting myself. How is individualism and relying on 1911 instead of 911 "thinking that I am entitled to everything"?

I am only an anarchist in so far as I beleive in the principles of the constitution. Life, liberty and property are the most sacred of rights. The State's only rightful purpose is to protect those three things. If the state of things in CA is any indication, you have not only failed at your job of sheparding miserably, but are helping to make things worse.

Markcode3
August 8, 2005, 01:28 AM
Yes,exactly.to protect and serve you.........

beerslurpy
August 8, 2005, 01:28 AM
WOW 2-3 hours training with a handgun
To qualifiy for CCW I took a 2-3 hour classroom course. There is no handgun training portion. The CCW system in FL allows you to carry anything that can be concealed, they just assume you will train with the weapon you wish to use.

I've been shooting for a little over 15 years with long guns. Only about 4 years with handguns. Like I said, I can take care of myself.

Markcode3
August 8, 2005, 01:32 AM
No the good citizens of California did it to themselves,with there elected officials.
as far as what I have done,It is done 4 days a week,ten hours a day

Markcode3
August 8, 2005, 01:33 AM
Im sure the people of Spring Hill,Fla are very proud to have you for a neighbor with those qualifications

beerslurpy
August 8, 2005, 01:36 AM
Why would they care what my qualifications are?

Markcode3
August 8, 2005, 01:38 AM
Beerslurpy stated:Like I said, I can take care of myself. Exactly !!!!
thats the difference between me and you,you think of yourself,I think of others....
You still didnt answer my question,what do you do or have you done?

gc70
August 8, 2005, 01:41 AM
It is done 4 days a week,ten hours a dayNow I'm envious. 4x10 is a darn sight better than 8x5. I'd give anything to work longer days to get an extra day off a week. My hat's off to you, dude.

beerslurpy
August 8, 2005, 01:43 AM
"A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves . . . and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms... The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle."
--Richard Henry Lee

If all of my neighbors have guns, what do they need me for? If anyone cries out for help, I will come running of course, but I doubt that will happen.

Remarkably, our guns cause little crime, so I have not had to take any action on anyone's behalf.

Please tell me why having paid professsionals on call to defend me is better than having me defend myself for free. Besides the job security.

Markcode3
August 8, 2005, 01:52 AM
Beerslurper said"please tell me why having paid professsionals on call to defend me is better than having me defend myself for free. Besides the job security."
Well,you tell me where the hell in the world does that happen? only in your little utopia?
again...you said it and answered you own question bro! "paid PROFESSIONALS" not beer guzzlin lynching ,mob rulling anarchists such as yourself.
maybe we are protecting citizens from you,not you from anyone else !!!!
are you by the way a memebr of the anarchist group Black Bloc?

Harve Curry
August 8, 2005, 01:58 AM
As far as protecting us citizens from crime, fact is that don't often happen . Police show up after the crime, they are not present to prevent it.

We have way to many police. It is a good job for the individual but it does nothing for the Gross National Product. Like many goverment jobs it's only good for the employee. They don't produce anything.

beerslurpy
August 8, 2005, 02:00 AM
I fail to see how self defense = anarchy, but whatever. I give up trying to understand your retarded babblings.

Markcode3
August 8, 2005, 02:04 AM
harve curry wrote,while stoned=As far as protecting us citizens from crime, fact is that don't often happen . Police show up after the crime, they are not present to prevent it.
Im not even gonna reply to an insanely stupid comment as that,get your head out of your xxx, and get out from the rock your living under..

Markcode3
August 8, 2005, 02:06 AM
beerslurped= you know,I looked back at some of your 1,400 posts,and not one I found was an intelligent post.
and yes YOU did loose !!!!!!!!!!1

kbr80
August 8, 2005, 02:09 AM
Yes,exactly.to protect and serve you.........

Do you guard my house?
Do you escort me to and from work?
Do you protect my kids?
Do you escort me everywhere I go?

The answer to all the above is NO.

So, you dont protect and serve me. You have a job to do, and I applaud you for it, if you dont trample on citizens rights. But dont pat yourself on the back and make it look like you are some soldier in a ongoing war, you arent. You are a civilian, just like I am.

LiquidTension
August 8, 2005, 02:11 AM
Wow, this thread sure went downhill fast.

DMF
August 8, 2005, 02:16 AM
Markcode3, I rarely ( OK never ), agree with beerslurpy, and as much as some of his posts make me mad, I'd say in this thread you are the one who is being the bigger idiot. Amazingly I'm one of the guys many of the more radical members despise, yet even I think you're behaving badly.

Oh, and before you get your panties in a twist, I'm a cop AND did some time in the military. So please take a deep breath, have a glass of warm milk, and come back after a nap.

If you enjoyed reading about "LEOs subject to same restrictions as peasants?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!