[AnklePocket]

I hope that I'm not out of line. Not to mention any names (and please you NJCSD types don't mention the gentleman's name), but a raging leader against the Right to Keep and Bear Arms was highly motivated by his brother's tragic death as an FBI agent killed in the line of duty. He's outraged that citizens can purchase and own firearms.
What would most LEO's think about this guy especially other FBI personnel? Again, I'll appologize in advance if I'm being insensitive. I have my opinions about this guy, but I'd like to hear some thoughtful opinions from others if I may.
Thank you.

[Ed Brunner]

I don't know the people involved, but I know that a lot of people tend to over-simplify things. The reason the man's brother is dead has nothing to do with the facr that people can buy guns or even that guns exist.
He is using his brother's death to support a separate agenda.

[P95Carry]

He's outraged that citizens can purchase and own firearms. So, was this FBI guy gunned down by a legal gun owning citizen then? or was it a delinquent scumbag ... who aquired a black market piece.?

So one death (tragic tho it is) ... has to be the excuse by which all rights are revoked?? hell .... where is the perspective!? :rolleyes:

[Pilgrim]

I suppose if the government could guarantee the safety of every law abiding citizen, his position would make sense. But seeing that the government cannot even guarantee the safety of its law enforcement officials, his argument is a loser.

Pilgrim

[El Tejon]

He is a scumbag. I took an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States and the State of Indiana.

Both protect the right of the people to keep and bear arms. He who does not is a traitor.

[grampster]

This guy is like Sarah Brady. Mrs. Brady loses her husband (to dibilitating injuries) caused by a lunatic criminal. She then goes on a campaign to destroy the COTUSA. She is bitter and has her world collapse, so she lashes out. Sadly she is lashing out against the wrong objects. She can't hang every criminal so she does the next best thing.......she goes on a campaign to destroy a tool. In the process she becomes a cog in the wheel that is seeking to destroy our freedom and turn us into a South American Tin Pot Dictatorship run by the effete rich elitists, while the rest of us mill around overpopulated urban settings and prey on one another. In another time she would be branded a pathetic fool and ignored at worst and pitied at best. But this is Enlightened America, the Land of Victimhood and she becomes an icon.
The subject of this thread is a Sarah Brady clone.

end of rant!

grampster

[Partisan Ranger]

I think it's pretty appalling that a LEO would use the death of his relative at the hands of a criminal scumbucket (who by definition doesn't obey the law) in an attempt to revoke our God-given rights.

[AnklePocket]

Just as I thought: You're Outstanding.
My new prepared statement/comeback:
"Clearly we have a difference of opinion. My version of gun control is to be tough on crime which doesn't mean banishing guns and violating Constitutional Rights. Guns certainly aren't for everyone, but restricting the rights of the law-abiding because of a fear that guns kill rather than criminals does not make sense. Gun restriction does not prevent crime. Great politicians and great law enforcement will."

[Erik]

Most LEOs do not equate death of another (be they LEO or non-LEO) with the need for greater restrictions on firearms possession and ownership.

Some LEO administrators call for it, of course, but that has less to do with their personal beliefs and more to do with the realities of modern American politics than anything else.

I feel for anyone who has lost a friend or loved one to violence. They are too close to the issue, and should be seen as such. Why they are not is unfortunately another reality of modern politics. (Regardless of which side of the argument they fall on.)

[Mike Irwin]

Had his brother been flattened by someone driving a Buick, would he be as equally outraged that the government hasn't banned automobiles in private hands, reserving them for use only by the agents of said governemnt?