[2dogs]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north198.html

Disarm the Police




I begin with an insight offered by Professor Carroll Quigley (1910–1977), who taught history to Bill Clinton at Georgetown University. He had such a profound impact on Clinton that Clinton referred to him in his 1992 nomination acceptance speech. Quigley is famous among conservatives for his book, Tragedy and Hope (1966), in which he devoted 20 pages to the connections between Wall Street banking firms and American foreign policy, which has doninated by the liberal left (pp. 950ff). But Quigley was also an expert in the history of weaponry. One of his books, Weapons Systems and Political Stability: A History, was published in mimeographed form and is known only to a handful of specialists, was a 1,000-page history of weaponry that ended with the Middle Ages. In Tragedy and Hope, he wrote about the relationship between amateur weapons and liberty. By amateur, he meant low cost. He meant, in the pejorative phrase of political statists, Saturday-night specials.


In a period of specialist weapons the minority who have such weapons can usually force the majority who lack them to obey; thus a period of specialist weapons tends to give rise to a period of minority rule and authoritarian government. But a period of amateur weapons is a period in which all men are roughly equal in military power, a majority can compel a minority to yield, and majority rule or even democratic government tends to rise. . . .
But after 1800, guns became cheaper to obtain and easier to use. By 1840 a Colt revolver sold for $27 and a Springfield musket for not much more, and these were about as good weapons as anyone could get at that time. Thus, mass armies of citizens, equipped with these cheap and easily used weapons, began to replace armies of professional soldiers, beginning about 1800 in Europe and even earlier in America. At the same time, democratic government began to replace authoritarian governments (but chiefly in those areas where the cheap new weapons were available and local standards of living were high enough to allow people to obtain them).

According to Quigley, the eighteenth-century's commitment to popular government was reinforced – indeed, made possible – by price-competitive guns that made the average colonial farmer a threat to a British regular. Paul Revere's midnight warning, "The regulars are out!" would have had no purpose or effect had it not been that the "minute men" were armed and dangerous.

With this in mind, let me present my thesis.

THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS FAR TOO WEAK

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution asserts the right – the legal immunity from interference by the State – of American citizens to keep and bear arms. This means a rifle strapped to my back and a pistol or two strapped to my hip, day or night.

It doesn't go far enough. It leaves guns in the hands of a subculture that has proven itself too irresponsible to carry them: the police.

If I were called upon to write the constitution for a free country, meaning a country no larger than Iowa, I would require every citizen to be armed, except members of the police. A policeman would have to apply for an on-duty gun permit. He would not be allowed to carry a gun on duty, just like England's bobbies are not allowed to carry them.

Every child, male and female, beginning no later than age six, would be trained by parents regarding the moral responsibility of every armed citizen to come to the aid of any policeman in trouble. Unarmed people deserve protection.

Children would be also taught that the first person to pull a gun to defend an unarmed policeman or any other unarmed person deserves the lion's share of the credit. Late-comers would be regarded as barely more than onlookers. This is necessary to offset the "Kitty Genovese phenomenon." In 1964, this young woman was attacked and murdered in full view of 38 onlookers, in their Queens, New York, neighborhood. Despite her screams for help, no one even bothered to call the police. This is the "who goes first?" problem.

Anyone so foolish as to attack a policeman would be looking down the barrels of, say, a dozen handguns. "Go ahead, punk. Make our day!"

A policeman would gain obedience, like James Stewart in Destry Rides Again, through judicial empowerment. He would not threaten anyone with immediate violence. He would simply say, "Folks, I've got a problem here. This person is resisting arrest. Would three of you accompany me to the local station with this individual?"

He would blow his whistle, and a dozen sawed-off shotguns accompanied by people would be there within 60 seconds.

Every member of society would be trained from an early age to honor the law as an adult by being willing to carry a handgun. Everyone would see himself as a defender of the law and a peace-keeper. Guns would be universal. Every criminal would know that the man or woman next to him is armed and dangerous. He would be surrounded at all times by people who see their task as defending themselves and others against the likes of him.

The only person he could trust not to shoot him dead in his tracks for becoming an aggressor would be the policeman on the beat. The aggressor's place of safety would be custody.

There would be another effect on social life. When every adult is armed, civility increases. In a world of armed Davids, Goliaths would learn to be civil. The words of Owen Wister's Virginian, "Smile when you say that," would regain their original meaning.

The doctrine of citizen's arrest would be inculcated in every child from age six. Then, at the coming of age, every new citizen would take a public vow to uphold the constitution. He or she would then be handed a certificate of citizenship, which would automatically entitle the bearer to carry an automatic. Note: I did not say semi-automatic.

THE EXPERIENCE OF ENGLAND

In England, where the police have not carried guns for well over a century, violent crime remained low until the mid-twentieth century. This changed when the government began banning the private ownership of guns. This development is presented in full academic paraphernalia by Prof. Joyce Lee Malcolm in her book, Guns and Violence: The English Experience (Oxford University Press, 2002). Dr. David Gordon summarized her findings in a recent book review in The Mises Review.


She proceeds by a learned study of violent crime in England, from the Middle Ages to the present. In her survey, a constant theme emerges. As guns became more prevalent, violent crime decreased. This trend culminated in the nineteenth century, when death by murder was rare but guns were widespread. The seizure of guns during the twentieth century has been accompanied by a marked increase in violent crime. At present some types of violent crime are more common in England than in America. As usual, the statists have their facts exactly backward.
Professor Quigley would have understood the following bit of historical information.


Developments in the eighteenth century should by now come as no surprise. "[A]t the very time that the individual right to be armed was becoming well established and guns were replacing earlier weapons, the homicide rate continued its precipitous decline" (pp. 88–89).
But Professor Quigley's most famous student and his wife would not understand this:


Readers will not earn a reward for correctly guessing Malcolm's conclusions about the nineteenth century. Once again, the number of guns increased while violent crime declined. "The nineteenth century ended with firearms plentifully available while rates of armed crime had been declining and were to reach a record low" (p. 130).
So far, we have a vast example of an inductive argument. Increases in the prevalence of guns have always accompanied decreases in violent crime. Does this not strongly suggest that guns in private hands deter crime? The twentieth century, especially its latter half, gives us a chance to test our induction, since ownership of guns during that period came under strict control. If it turns out that violent crime increased, then as Hume once remarked, "I need not complete the syllogism; you can draw the conclusion yourself."

And of course violent crime did increase. "Scholars of criminology have traced a long decline in interpersonal violence since the late Middle Ages until an abrupt and puzzling reversal occurred in the middle of the twentieth century . . . a statistical comparison of crime in England and Wales with crime in America, based on 1995 figures, discovered that for three categories of violent crimes – assaults, burglary, and robbery – the English are now at far greater risk than Americans" (pp. 164–65).

Gun control advocates, faced with these facts, will at once begin to yammer uncontrollably, "a correlation is not a cause." Indeed it is not; but in this instance, a strong correlation holds in two ways: when guns increase in number, violent crimes decrease, and when guns decrease, violent crimes increase. Further, a plausible causal story explains the correlation: the prospect of armed resistance deters criminals. This is about as good as an inductive argument gets. But I do not anticipate that those who wish to take away the right to self-defense will alter their position. They aim to make everyone totally dependent on the all-powerful state.

SELF-GOVERNMENT UNDER LAWFUL AUTHORITY

Unarmed police, now fully deserving of protection by gun-bearing citizens, would gain immense respect. They would rule by the force of law, meaning respect for the law, meaning widespread voluntary submission by the citizenry. This is properly called self-government under lawful authority. The policeman's word would be law. He just wouldn't be armed.

A criminal would not escape from the scene of the crime by shooting the cop on the beat. He would not get 20 yards from the cop's body.

Citizens would regard a law enforcement officer as they regard their mothers. They would do what they were told with little more than rolling their eyes. If anyone physically challenged a police officer, he would risk facing a dozen Clint Eastwoods who have been waiting for two decades to get an opportunity to make their day.

To make this system work, the courts would have to enforce strict liability. Injure the wrong person, and (assuming you survive the shoot-out) you must pay double restitution. Kill the wrong person, and you must pay the ultimate restitution: eye for eye, life for life. But no faceless bureaucrat hired by the State would do the act. A group of armed citizens will execute you under the authority of the court. Remember, the police are unarmed.

The fact that citizens in no society think this way is evidence of how the defenders of State monopoly power have done their work. They want their agents armed and the rest of us unarmed. A free society would reverse this arrangement.

CONCLUSION

There are those who will reply that my proposal is utopian, that civilians do not have sufficient courage to come to the aid of an unarmed policeman. Furthermore, they will complain, the common man is not sufficiently self-disciplined to live under the rule of law as I have described it. Both objections have validity. I can only respond by pointing out that a society in which its citizens possess neither courage nor self-discipline is not a free society. I am not here proposing a technical reform that will produce a free society. Rather, I am describing why freedom has departed from this nation ever since, for lack of a better date, 1788.

[tyme]

Would disarming police accomplish anything if useless laws remain in force? Is a drug dealer not going to shoot an unarmed policeperson if it means facing decades of incarceration?

[Seminole]

Dang, 2dogs! I was about to post that!

I agree with North's proposition that the 2A is too weak (hence all the regulations on the right supposedly protected by it). However, I don't think that denying police officers the right to carry arms would help strengthen it. Of course, I don't think North does either--he is engaging in argumentation by hyperbole. Notice that even he doesn't propose to ban the right of the police to be armed, though he does propose that they would have to apply for a permit to be armed while on duty.

The real strength of his argument is to emphasize that police officers are not a special class of citizens. [To this he could have added that neither are members of the military a special class.] They have no more right to be armed than do the rest of us. The corollary to this is that if the police are not a special class, then ALL citizens have a responsibility to ensure that society is protected from those who would wilfully violate the rights to life and property of others. The fact that police officers are paid to make a vocation of it does not negate the resposibility of other citizens for their own safety and that of those around them. This is a proposition I think most of the members here would subscribe to--at least from what I've read in threads on the question of why we chose to be armed.

[Baba Louie]

Hmmm.

A return to the days of the American Militia, pre localized Police Departments. When the bad guys had to fear an armed populace who knew the few laws really necessary for daily living, were armed and willing to police up any ner-do-wells and eeeevil-doers.

Nahhh.

Never happen.

Too many statute and case laws, procedures and civil litigation after the fact. Side's that a fellow could get hurt. Better to send in the warrior's we've hired to do our dirty work.

And I would offer that being a LEO is not just a "vocation", but a "Profession" wherein one must know one's stuff, be ready to wrassle with angry alligators at the drop of a hat, dust oneself off afterwards and do it again tomorrow. All that for $40K a year.

Amazing how many people here visit Lew Rockwell's site.

Adios

[sanchezero]

There are some major flaws with the whole 'disarmed LEO' theory.

This guy has obviously never been in a rural are :rolleyes: . Where are the 20 upstanding citizens to back up the cop that responds to the isolated house in the middle of nowhere. I find myself alone quite frequently in the middle of the city as well. It's not always lunch hour.

This idea just flips the problem we have now: the cops aren't gonna get there in time to save you from the effects of immediate violence. What makes him think that citizens would be able to somehow beat the clock.

Why is it that he advocates the loss of an intrinsic right when one becomes an LEO? Is that person no longer a citizen then?

:scrutiny:

[TheOtherOne]

I agree with disarming the police but only when they disarm the public. Since I don't believe in disarming the public, I really don't believe in disarming the police. But the fact that law enforcement is always excluded from the gun bans really pisses me off. If the gun control lobby argues that taking away guns from law-abiding citizens will protect society, then why don't they argue that taking away guns from law-abiding police officers will do the same?

[brownie0486]

"then why don't they argue that taking away guns from law-abiding police officers will do the same?"

Because the police are "charged" and "sworn" to "respond" to calls for help or assistance while the citizenry is not. As well, the citizenry does not do 600+ hours of constitutional law, state laws, etc which are mandate for the officers to know. Is that not enough to set them apart? I think many here may be under the impression they could do a police officers job [ which they could not unless they had the same training [ including the laws necessary fro them not to violate anyone "rights".

And what the gun control lobby professes is not what we here profess. Can't really put that statement into context unless you are talking to anti-gunners.

Ya, let the cops go unarmed and ask them to respond at 3 am to a burglary. Lots of citizens will be out there at the local stop and rob or bank to take care of business hey? No wonder Clinton thinks like he does, the guys an idiot that has no comprehension of the real world. I bet they could institute a system that worked like this: Cops get a call for a domestic dispute, bank robbery in progress, they call several citizens and let them respond? Okay--I have a bridge for sale also.

Whats the time frame on the response by citizens? Longer than a radio call to a cruiser on the street? Bet the woman being raped would really like the extra response time huh? How about the boy being washed away in the cement drainways in LA county, wait for the citizens to gather enough equipment and manpower? Boy dies while waiting me thinks.

Response times being critical to interceding the crime and catching the fellows in the act of a bank heist? Do citizens get radios, have to take shifts to be "on call" and be made to stay up all night in case there is a situation where their guns are needed?

How about CPR/FIRSTRESPONDER quals? Do we have every citizen be so trained? Do we make every citizen carry a gun or just those who want to play in this scenario? Who gets to choose the citizens? Is there some form of exam and aptitude test for them to pass to "protect me"?

Baba Louie: Hit it pretty much on target there sir.

But police are a special class of citizen, see above. They have very specific training, have to requal and retest frequently, as well, they are held to a higher standard than a citizen while working in uniform.

How many wannbe's would be out there running around the streets looking for trouble? Too many, thats how many. It would not work as well the the "professor" states it might. He doesn't address many issues that would need to be worked out for this to even be feasable.

Do the taxpayers pay for the training and equipment of these citizens like we do now for the PD's?

The professor needs a dope slap for even suggesting it MAY work without addressing the many issues necessary to make it possible. Who makes the arrests? The cops? While the armed citizen is holding the BG at bay with a gun?

The professor needs to go off in a corner and continue pulling it, thats what he's doing now by every indication.

Where's Monica when you need her.

Brownie

[TheeBadOne]

Amen browniehttp://www.gifartist.com/artists/uras/handshake.gif

[TheOtherOne]

I didn't like the article but I really don't like the current situation where the cops get to be armed with better weapons then your average law-abiding citizen. I'm saying that if you are going to disarm us, disarm the police... it's only fair.

[HBK]

I don't think the police should be disarmed, but i think some of them need to take the firearm part of the job more seriously. Some of them just don't put in the practice time needed or even practice good gun safety. I would be willing to bet a paycheck that all of the LEOs that frequent this site get plenty of triggertime in and are masters of the handgun, so I'm not talking about the masters. I mean the guy who isn't into guns who happens to be a LEO. I don't think the police should have access to weapons to which the regular law abiding citizen can't have access. I'm not saying felons, I mean law abiding citizens. The police are for the most part underappreciated. They go out and bust their butts to serve and protect the community, doing a dangerous job that people just aren't lining up to do. However, that being said, i would not want to trust the police to save my life in a threatening situation. That is my responsibility. LEO= one hell of a noble profession.

[seeker_two]

!!!!RADICAL IDEA ALERT!!!!.....


Arm the police.....

...and let the people arm themselves....

...and quit trying to protect the criminals.


(Of course, this has as much chance of happening as snow falling in this fellow's :evil: living room...:fire: )

[Oracle]

But police are a special class of citizen, see above. They have very specific training, have to requal and retest frequently, as well, they are held to a higher standard than a citizen while working in uniform.

Lon Horiuchi was really held to a higher standard than a citizen when working in uniform, wasn't he?

The truth is, you are right, the police have become a special class of citizen, a class that can violate the rights of others without being held personally responsible for doing so. Until and unless that changes, police are going to be viewed with greater and greater distrust.

[Art Eatman]

Seems to me this essay is like many: Much merit in part of it; little merit in other parts. I'm guessing I'm like many others, here, whether LEO or non-LEO, in believing more of the citizenry should be more involved in the daily security or safety of their lives.

The whole idea of delegating authority to local political subdivisions such that we have a police force is that citizens in general can devote less of their time to personal safety and more time to making a living. It's the division of labor thing, where a farmer (or equivalent) doesn't have to quit plowing (or equivalent) to go off and chase Indians (or equivalent). We may well have gone too far in the concept, as we've gone too far in many other good things.

Seems to me there are some good points to ponder in that article, but much of it ignores common behavior and human nature...

My personal view of the Libertarian philosophy is that in order for it to be workable in any real-world situation, it requires a far higher degree of a sense of personal responsibility than I have ever seen, anywhere. (Absent filling a lot of graveyards with the irresponible, that is.)

:), Art

[brownie0486]

From everything I have seen, the standards need to be "upgraded" for weapon qualls in most states.

I also firmly believe that you will never get all cops to be "gun people" who will take the time and effort to be considered "more" than proficient.

The gun is just another tool on the duty belt to a lot of officers. No more or less so than another tool like the baton, cuffs, pepper spray, etc.

I think the percentage of "good shooters" for cops is probably close to the percentage of "good shooters" in the civilian world.

You don't necessarily HAVE to be a "gun" guy to be a good cop, but of course it doesn't hurt either.

Brownie

[brownie0486]

Oracle:
You cite one example [ Lou Horiuchi ] out of how many LE in the country?
And thats suppose to make me feel differently about cops being held to a higher standard?

How many cops in the US? Wanna guess? You named one, oh, I know there are others, always will be, facts of life. No one is perfect and thats the rub, many think cops need to be perfect [ like them ].

Mistakes are made by everyone. Not that Lou made a mistake, he probably should have been charged. But ya know something? It wasn't up to the cops to hold him accountable, thats the criminal justice systems responsibility. Seems you may have called the wrong kettle black there sir.
Cope don't prosecute cops, the DA's and prosecutors do. Hold them accountable for no charges being filed, not the cop.

Lots of cops go to jail daily in the US for many different reasons. Your post alludes to some untruth that cops are not prosecuted and have a "free ride". Nice try---that don't wash at all with me, though anyone who didn't know better might just believe the misinformation you allude to by your "the police have become a special class of citizen, a class that can violate the rights of others without being held personally responsible for doing so" comment.

Try again.

Brownie

[Oracle]

Brownie,

You may not think that "the police have become a special class of citizen, a class that can violate the rights of others without being held personally responsible for doing so", but the fact remains that there are a whole lot of people in this country that do. Highly publicized incidences like that of Horiuchi simply reinforce this belief, as does the increasing militarization of police forces, and the increasing isolation of "police culture", with police referring to non-police as "civilians" and things of that nature. Regardless of whether you like it or even acknowledge it, it is happening. The distrust of the police in general is growing, and will continue to grow unless the there is a change in the way the police operate, especially Federal police agencies like the FBI. Do you think that things like Ruby Ridge and Waco, and their aftermath, where the police tried to cover up their wrongdoing, have given police, especially Federal police, a better reputation?

Now, I know that most police aren't completely this way. However, are the police doing anything to try and better the public's perception of them? Are police who violate the rights of those whom they are supposed to be protecting, especially in highly public cases like Horiuchi's, getting publically prosecuted for doing so? What about those who have been killed or injured when a "no knock" warrant is exercised on the wrong house? Unless the police officers that do these things, intentionally or not, are prosecuted, instead of being protected and the evidence of their wrongdoing covered up, as has been the case, then things will continue the way they have been, and people will continue to distrust the police, and that distrust will grow greater and greater.

[TheeBadOne]

Oracle-You may not think that "the police have become a special class of citizen, a class that can violate the rights of others without being held personally responsible for doing so", but the fact remains that there are a whole lot of people in this country that do.
Ok, there are a lot of people who believe they've been abducted by aliens too...?
Oracle-Now, I know that most police aren't completely this way. However, are the police doing anything to try and better the public's perception of them?
Yes, but for many it will never be enough, ever. (some will have fear of things no matter how unreasonable dark/mice/heights/etc)
Oracle- Are police who violate the rights of those whom they are supposed to be protecting, especially in highly public cases like Horiuchi's, getting publically prosecuted for doing so?
In most cases, yes.
Oracle- What about those who have been killed or injured when a "no knock" warrant is exercised on the wrong house? Unless the police officers that do these things, intentionally or not, are prosecuted,
Honest mistakes are not crimes. If procedure is not followed nor good faith there are concequences that should (must) come into play. If the warrant is issued and served in good faith it is not done with malice.

[Oracle]

Honest mistakes are not crimes. If procedure is not followed nor good faith there are concequences that should (must) come into play. If the warrant is issued and served in good faith it is not done with malice.

Then why does the charge of manslaughter exist? Because, even if there is no malice, many times, a crime has still been committed if someone is killed or injured.

Yes, but for many it will never be enough, ever. (some will have fear of things no matter how unreasonable dark/mice/heights/etc)

That doesn't invalidate the fact that many people, quite rightly, distrust the police because of the actions the police have taken and continue to take. Like I said to Brownie, just because you don't like it, doesn't mean that it isn't true.

[TheeBadOne]

Oracle-That doesn't invalidate the fact that many people, quite rightly, distrust the police because of the actions the police have taken and continue to take. Like I said to Brownie, just because you don't like it(the police), doesn't mean that it isn't true.
Exactly! Just because someone believes something or thinks their way is right doesn't make it so. It goes both ways. Not going to war here, just reminding you to look at the other side once in a while. Also "the Police" is once again lumping them all in the with actions of the few or one. Not exactly fair treatment and a big part of the entire problem.

All the best

[cordex]

Silly idea.

Police should be armed, but not to the exclusion of non-police. And vice versa.
There are those on this very board who feel very strongly that police should be entrusted with weapons not available to non-LEOs. Their position is sick, elitest, immoral and wrong, but I do not wish to disarm police as a whole over it.

[geekWithA.45]

It's ultimately not a good idea, for the simple matter that none of us would get behind the idea that RKBA is forfieted when you take up a badge.

The main value, IMO is that it goes to the extreme for the purpose of pointing out the existence of an elitist two class structure, that of the armed agent of the state, and the disarmed subordinate citizen of the state, which is codified in law by all the exemptions that are given, and in NJ, the courts will give police exemptions that are not granted by law.

Incidentally, you'll note that modern full time professional police is a relatively modern concept, {scratches head, drudges through memory} that began in urban areas in the late 1880's (?)

Although I'd need to do a thorough job matching dates and so on, you'll note an at least casual correlation. The growth of police, gun control, the cities seem to happen all around the same times and places.

[12-34hom]

I never fails that in one of these threads - either Waco or ruby Ridge is brought out - ever still beating the dead horse. = MOVE ON.

Are police officers perfect, no and they never will be.

Some look at the world thru rose colored glasses - penning thier thoughts as they go. Does that make it right and or valid?

The poster is pissed off cause the cops can have "better or different" weapons that he can. Yea - SO WHAT. There are lots of distintions and class differences in life. That's just the way it goes. There are many here that have more and better weapons than i'll EVER own.

Difference is; i won't get bent out of shape over it.

If you have armed and trained to take personal responsbility for your own saftey and that of your family= EXCELLENT. But here are those who for whatever reason don't; will be glad to see a peace officer responding for thier need of assistance.

And so it goes.

12-34hom.

[Thumper]

I will bet any amount of money that the previous poster is a cop.

Disarm the cops? Of course not...but that kind of elitist garbage is exactly what's wrong with a lot of departments.

Clear evidence that SOME folks need to be taken down a notch or two.

[cordex]

The poster is pissed off cause the cops can have "better or different" weapons that he can. Yea - SO WHAT.
As I was saying ...

[Justin]

Those who are fixating on the proposal that cops be disarmed are missing the point of the article. It's meant to be an over-the-top proposal to get your attention.

Sheesh.:rolleyes:

[Morgan]

Horiuchi (spit!) was not a cop.

[Gmac]

An armed society (including leo's) is a polite society.

[Oracle]

Exactly! Just because someone believes something or thinks their way is right doesn't make it so. It goes both ways. Not going to war here, just reminding you to look at the other side once in a while. Also "the Police" is once again lumping them all in the with actions of the few or one. Not exactly fair treatment and a big part of the entire problem.

I agree here. I have good friends that are police officers, and the police where I grew up (rural Georgia) are very nice, and always have been. However, you do have to see the trends that are happening with the police. Instead of working with the communities they police and building bonds of trust with them, they are moving further away from them, isolating themselves in their own communities, associating primarily with one another, and many have the "us vs. them" mentality when dealing with the populace they are supposed to be protecting. Add to this the increasing militarization of the police, and the extremely poor record that Federal police (like the FBI) have of violating people's rights, trying to cover it up, and not disciplining the "agents" that do this, and you have a recipe for extreme and increasing distrust of the police by an ever growing section of the populace. It isn't going to get better unless the police, at all levels, Federal, State, and local, really make an effort to change the way they are acting, and thusly, the way they will be percieved.

I mean, how many threads have you read on this board where people simply don't want to get the police involved in a situation that could even be potentially threatening to them, because of the very real possibility that the police will cause them problems? These are honest, law-abiding citizens that refuse police help because it's become more of a problem in many cases than a help. The onus is on the police to change this, not the citizenry.

And, for the record, I don't think that police should be disarmed, but if it would happen, it would go a long way toward stemming and getting rid of the superiority complex many seem to have.

[TheeBadOne]

it would go a long way toward stemming and getting rid of the superiority complex many seem to have.
I do hear what you are saying, really I do.
Now, aside, hear what you also are saying. Us vs Them is what you are promoting (knowingly or otherwise).

Instead of working with the communities they police and building bonds of trust with them, they are moving further away from them, isolating themselves in their own communities, associating primarily with one another, and many have the "us vs. them" mentality when dealing with the populace they are supposed to be protecting
This says a lot (quite accurate in some ways). But it's only 1/2 of the equation. Instead of just saying, "Hey, it's cold in here", take the long view, you may find that your window/door is ajar letting in a draft.
If you go back to how cops did their jobs in the 40's and 50's you find effective neighborhood cops. They stopped in all the stores, got to know the owners and customers, and were quite chummy with many people. Some businessmen gave a "Police discount" to officer on duty.
Switch to present day "Political Correctness". The clamor over "graft" and harsh punishment for 10% lunch discounts(even up to 50% in some areas) has many cops avoiding the public for fear of being accused of showing "favoritism". Some cops are afraid to even wave to people for fear of it being misinterpetated and becoming the subject of a review board.
If a cop gets to know the people in his beat quite well he might give a break on something minor to someone who's life he knows quite well (1950). Now jump to present time and people complain about favoritism if someone in a similar situation gets a break.
IE: Officer Jones stops Joe Citizen (average dude) for rolling a stop sign. He speaks with Joe and believes Joe when he says he was not paying attention on his way to church to pray for his son in Iraq. Next, Officer Jones stops Jimmy Shanks for rolling a stop sign. Jimmy has a rap sheet 1 mile long (not much of an exaggeration) and is well know for selling crack cocaine to schoolchildren. Officer Jones has many calls from parents, some at home late at night, begging him to do something about Jimmy who is selling and even giving free drugs to their kids to hook them. Now Officer Jones is no dummy. Jimmy is one bad dude (but no dummy). Jimmy has only a misd conviction on his record from both being smart, and being able to hire Johnny Cochran. Officer Jones issues a citation to Jimmy for a stop sign violation. Jimmy pleads not guilty AND[ files a complaint of being harassed by the police. Jimmy wins because of today’s PC atmosphere Officer Jones and the police dept can’t tell the review board, “Hey, he broke the law and he is a known dealer who sells to kids”. Nope, all that matters is Citizen Jimmy didn’t get treated EXACTLY THE SAME as Citizen Joe. This is only a small part of what could be a book, but it results in Officer Jones and those like him to not open up to the public. Political Correctness is destroying our country.
Officer Jones pulls over a car with kids in it and marijuana and meth. One of the parents of the kids seems concerned and begs, BEGS, Officer Jones to tell him what he can do to save his kid. Dad asks Officer Jones his opinion of several of Jr’s friends. Officer Jones knows by law he cannot tell Dad a thing. Officer Jones believes Dad is truly concerned about acting like a father and so tells him, “I will tell you this on 1 condition, this conversation never occurred, you didn’t’ here it from me”. Dad gives his word. Officer Jones tells dad that Mike T has been caught twice with rock cocaine and charged 2 with sales. He has also been arrested for felony fleeing and shooting at a rival. Dad thanks him. 3 days later Jr is in filing a complaint against Officer Jones because Dad told Jr, “You can’t hang out with Mike T anymore because Officer Jones says you can’t.” Day tells Jr what Officer Jones told him. Officer Jones appears before the civilian review board and gets hammered. Cause=Effect=Cause.
I mean, how many threads have you read on this board where people simply don't want to get the police involved in a situation that could even be potentially threatening to them, because of the very real possibility that the police will cause them problems?
I hear you here too. How do you weed out the ones who crossed the line and don’t want to get called on it? Drunk driver gets hit and don’t want the police there because he’s drunk, so he keeps all parties from calling 911, then complains the next day that the police haven’t clearly shown the other party at fault for running a red light?
We are all product of our worldviews. I have lived in quite a few cities and states. While not perfect, I’ve been quite happy where I spent my time. I’ve been more upset by city ordinances than anything. I never blamed the cop for enforcing them, but the city council for passing them. Don’t kill the messenger.
As far as “militarization” of ‘The POLICE” (lumped), explain it. Yes, there are some swat teams, but Joe cop is still Joe cop.

All the best

[brownie0486]

As with all professions, there are bad apples that get into the system.

Painting one profession with a wide brush certainly does not further the cause of addressing the issues across the country.

Case in point. 9-11, how many officers lost their lives in the towers attempting to "go up" when everyone was attempting to "get down". They were moving in that direction [ toward danger ] out of duty and concern for all of the people trapped inside.

Given the above, how many officers [ percentage wise ] would have been the type to be branded "bad apples" by people on the forum here either due to their attitudes/actions toward the general public normally.

We should be able to at least agree that there were a few of those types in the group of officers who died attempting to save others. And there is another rub some people here forget too frequently. The fact that an officer normally considered "rude" or associating with their own for the most part, had the us vs. them mentality, etc etc etc, did not hesitate to "go in" when the time came in crisis.

Sure there are jerks out there wearing blue uniforms, but those same people risk their lives, put their lives on the line everyday for others, even with a bad attitude. Why is that do you suppose? There are probably a multitude of reasons why one wakes up and has a bad hair day. Many who paint the men in blue with a wide brush probably have their own "bad days", many here also may be considered an ********* whether they wear blue or not.

The point is that even a bad cop will rush into a burning building without hesitation, or confront the bank robbers at the bank door as they exit. It's a profession that is subject to higher suicide rates than other professions due to the nature of the work and the stresses incurrred while attempting to do the job.

Some will see a cop as "just another jerk" when he is making 40.00 an hour standing in the middle of the road doing nothing during a road detail.
Some will look at him with disdain and paint him with the wide brush without knowing anything about him personally.

Attitudes work both ways here. The general public complains about the cops actions/attitudes, presence, authority, etc and feels it is an intrusion into their lives. They are afraid of asking for help at times due to bad experiences. They have a right to feel the way they do for numerous reasons. Noone really dislikes something "just because", they are a product of their environment and act and think according to their experinces in the past or knowledge of others experiences related in the news or by friends/family/acquaintances.

Now look at the cops view. He sees the worst of the filth day in and day out. Not only does he see it like the rest of us, he has to interact with that element daily [ very few nice people are arrested as a general rule ]. He sees the deaths from speeding in auto accidents, the deaths due to the drugs and their associated problems, the lawsuits filed against their every action by some organization hell bent to make a statement or a civilian who thinks he has been wronged. He deals with an administration who wants to be politically correct which is in direct conflict with being able to effectively do his job. The average LE has to be careful when he picks his nose, wipes his butt, as someone MAY be offended and bring a complaint against him for the smallest thing.

You can be politically correct and have dept's that are now impotent to handle the crimes in our society due to the fears generated by frivolous lawsuits and the accompanying ills of "nonfeasance" on their part for fear of retribution/lawsuits/dismissals by the people who employ them or as an officer, you can fight against the tide and do your job with common sense [ opposite being politically correct ] until the powers that be figure out you are then a liability and are considered "rogue". So you fall in line and follow the leaders [ admins ] or you shovel it against the tide until you have to find another job [ hopefully before you have been sued by someone ].

No wonder many officers just want to do their time and get out without having to address the issues necessary to straighten the country out. Most dept's officers have their hands tied for the most part. The politically correct society want the best of both worlds.

They want to have the criminals caught and put away. But they don't want their little "Johnny Bastard" going to jail either. Little Johnny could not have done that, the cops are lying, they set him up, they were out to get him, he's a good kid.

How do I know this? I wore the blue for 9 years. After I went after a neighboring towns chief of police for corruption and theft of funds to the tune of 42,000.00+ [ which he was made to pay back ] I was given every dirty assignment my chief could find [ he was friends with the chief I mucked with, of course ].

Now did I know that I was in deep doo doo if I persued him? Sure I did. I was in a position that allowed me to get out and not have my family suffer financially when I left the dept., but others are not in that position and have to "remain silent" or suffer the same fate as I.

Regrets? Nah--None, zip, nada, no way. Should I feel as some here do about cops? I certainly have as much reason as the next "joe" to do so I would think, but No-- I don't--Why?--------Because though the system isn't conducive to an officer being "as effective as we could be" I know first hand that most of the officers I worked with and many others on other depts. that I know would go the distance for a citizen when push came to shove. Do these same officers have attitudes at one time or another? Sure--Do they get complaints filed against them from citizens? You bet, but they are the same ones who will be the first to respond to help others.

Keep it in perspective folks, it's not us against them unless you make that way.

Brownie

[cordex]

Case in point. 9-11, how many officers lost their lives in the towers attempting to "go up" when everyone was attempting to "get down".
All told, 23 NYPD and 37 Port Authority officers. Oh yeah, and 343 fire rescue, but they're not police.
Keep it in perspective folks, it's not us against them unless you make that way.
Not quite. This is not a case of "It takes two to tango." Any group or individual can implement an "Us vs Them" policy or attitude with or without "Them's" agreement. This is especially true in the case of an authority situation such as police or politics. Either side can get entrenched in the mindset, and just because I don't think like that doesn't mean things will change at all.
Painting one profession with a wide brush certainly does not further the cause of addressing the issues across the country.
Agreed. Entirely.
Though, you'd think from some here that some wide brushes are fine. Like the brush some officers tend to paint non-LEOs with, for instance. It can be excused because he deals with lots of bad people. Or the "Police can be trusted with stuff that mere civilians cannot" brush which can be excused because a police officer has gone to the Academy, and those of us who aren't LEOs shouldn't complain because that's just the way things are.

[brownie0486]

Cordex:

We were talking cops here, everyone knows the firefighters were on scene as well.

Things can only change when we work together to effect change as a society in lieu of the easy way out of the "us vs. them" mentality.

When cops paint with the wide brush relative citizens they are just as wrong as their counterparts. I did mention that many of them had attitudes didn't I?

Police are not "trusted" with "stuff". They are issued equipment with which they need to do their job. Civilians are not in the habit of responding to hostage rescues, barricaded suspects, fleeing felons, etc. And therein we see the "attitude" come forward by the very comments made about their "trusted" and "stuff".

They are not trusted, they are issued equipment that they have trained and qualled on or they don't get it issued and can't carry the "stuff" at all.
As well, not all LE are entrusted with certain equipment like smg's and sniper rifles. They are picked fro their better gun handling skills and demeanor with others for the most part. The rank and file get standard equipment, very few officers get the other "stuff", and only after they have shown proficiency with same.

Citizens/civilians want to go through the standards course to carry it as well? Or do they believe they should be able to carry it without any prior indication and/or testing to determine they are capable of handling this "stuff" like the cops go through?

Oh ya, Almost forgot, they have to normally go through a psych profile as well to be allowed to perform in these roles. Civilians would have to expect to do the same I would think to be fair. Or should we allow all citizens access to the equipment SOME LE carry to perform their duties without any training like the cops have to go through?

See, it can't be as simple as " hey, that cop has an mp5sd, I should have one as well.", without the same indoctrination and training the LE's receive before they are allowed to tote it around. And lets not forget, the LE's who do carry this "stuff" don't do so on a daily basis like some citizens believe they have the right to do.

Brownie



Brownie

[Intune]

See, it can't be as simple as " hey, that cop has an mp5sd, I should have one as well."


Why not? Is it more dangerous than a 12 ga pump in the room?

[brownie0486]

It's not a question of being more dangerous.

The point is it takes special training to handle a smg with some proficiency.

The cops quall on EVERY weapon they are issued and use during the performance of their duties, citizens do not have to meet the same requirements. Thats the point I was making. Because a cop is seen with something tacticool doesn't mean every Tom Dick and Harry has the same level of training on that particular weapon like the officer. And as well, the citizen would be allowed tro carry it everywhere/anytime which the LE's are not allowed to except under certain situations.

See, the cops don't have the same luxury citizens enjoy, they have to have a need to have it issued, and then have a specific need to carry it in the performance of hteir duties.

Brownie

[Thumper]

Brownie,

Please explain how your reasoning doesn't apply to the handgun?

As you know, it's much easier to teach a newbie to get accurate hits with a subgun than with a handgun.

[tyme]

(sanchezero) Why is it that he advocates the loss of an intrinsic right when one becomes an LEO? Is that person no longer a citizen then?
I think it's a poorly thought out extension of the philosophy that elite classes should have fewer rights so they don't abuse those rights they retain.
(12-34hom) The poster is pissed off cause the cops can have "better or different" weapons that he can. Yea - SO WHAT. There are lots of distintions and class differences in life. That's just the way it goes. There are many here that have more and better weapons than i'll EVER own.
Other people having cooler weapons is one thing, and I can deal with that. Other people having cooler weapons that I am not legally allowed to own is something else.

Similarly, class distinctions formed by society are one thing. Class distinctions imposed by government are evil because government has plenty of power already and allowing them to dictate class distinctions is a recipe for disaster.

[Airboss]

In Califorina a Cop can have a"Assult Rifle" Owned by him not the Dept.he works for and can keep it when he retires.LEO in NY Calif. and NJ carry off duty try to get a carry permit(spit)if your not rich or conected in any of those places.
Some animals are more Equal than others.
Law Enforcment have no legal requirement to protect you, see Warren vs.D.C.They show up to write what happened after it happened.
Would I want their job? No perhaps Thats why I went into a different line of work.
It sounds like the Teachers crying,"oh I don't get paid enough""my job is sooo bad I have do x and I only get x for it poor me"
If you don't like what you do get a new job!Otherwise shut up I for one am feed up with hearing about all of the problems that the people that suck up my taxes have.
The response time where I live is greater than 20min.Should I ask the BG's Put it on hold for a 1/2 hour.
People that believe the police are there to protect them have a better chance with the Easter bunny.

Police don't prevent crime they report it.
Call 911 and Die

[Thumper]

Similarly, class distinctions formed by society are one thing. Class distinctions imposed by government are evil

Preach!

[brownie0486]

Thumper :
The cops where I live had to do 40 hours on the new glocks when transitioning from revolvers. A whole week of handgun, then requall every year and some twice a year.

Civilians do not do 40 hours normally before they are issued a permit to carry. I know the average citizen doesn;t get anywhere near that time in a structured course to get the CCW.

Hell, civilians go 8 hours and pass the state prescribed course here and then apply for their ccw. In that 8 hours, 6 are classroom and 2 on the gun, and a 22 at that usually.

Yes, I feel the subgun is easier to learn for about everyone as you question. The point was the cops are not issued them and the ones who are have very dedicated training on them, then they ONLY get to carry/use them in limited situations when the powers that be feel they are necessary to end a conflict.

A civilian doesn't write a 10 page report scrutinizing his every move, thought processes while under fire, observations etc like the LE will have to if a weapon has been discharged for ANY reason. If EVERY LE carried an mp5sd then perhaps a case could be made when we here others state " if the cops have them so should I" but that doesn't hold with me as not every cop carries one nor do the ones who are authorized to carry and use one get to do so on a regular basis. As well, most of the swat types are ther best shots on the dept., and not your average "joe citizen" whwere weapons are concerned.

Airboss:
That certainly is true. Yet they do protect us by patroling the neighborhoods, responding to crimes in progress, getting to play first hand with the gangbangers on the streets. To say they only take reports after the fact is to ignore the facts that LE all over the country, on a daily basis, get into shootouts, foild bank robberies in progress, chase them into others jurisdictions, etc etc etc. They are not just note/report takers as some suggest.

While I was on, I took my share of reports, I also stopped an arsonist from buring down a Catholic church on stakeout at 3 am after months of being away at night from my familywhile waiting for him to carry out the threat. As well, I had the priveldge of responding to a bank robbery where I got there in time to see two leaving the back door of same. Little bit of gunplay but no injuries to myself. Thats not report taking, and to suggest officers are only good after the fact is to ignore common sense and the facts of their function within society.

"It sounds like the Teachers crying,"oh I don't get paid enough""my job is sooo bad I have do x and I only get x for it poor me"
If you don't like what you do get a new job!Otherwise shut up I for one am feed up with hearing about all of the problems that the people that suck up my taxes have."

The above quote could be any number of professions. Hell, I know stock brokers who make 3-5 million a year and complain about how hard the job is, let alone a hundred other occupations where complaints are made relative the same issues. Everyone complains, yet you make it sound like it's only public servants who do so. Thats a falsehood as well and could lead another less informed with the impression the cops have cornered the market on whining [ which of course we know they haven't ].

Your "Police don't prevent crime they report it." is not valid for the most part. You are taking one of their duties and making it sound like thats all they do 24/7/365. Thats not being objective and of course when you have lost objectivity you have no basis for what the reality of the situation is.

Clouded/closed subjective thinking doesn't solve the problems that need to be addressed, it only perpetuates the whining from that side about the perceived injustices brought upon them by the "establishment" and the "cops" who work within that system. They don't make the laws, they enforce the laws created by others. If you feel it unfair or lopsided in their favor, you need to bitch to the powers that be who created the rules, not the ones who are charged with enforcing them.

Cops in my state are not allowed to own anything citizens can't legally own here. Get the forms filled out, sent to the BATF and you too can have the mp5sd in your hands in a few months. That may not be the case in every state but then I am not the one who stated the cops can have something legally that I can't have. If thats the case where you live, change the laws, get better politicians, but to blame the cops who don't make the rules is calling the kettle black when the kettle had nothing to do with boiling over.

Brownie

[TheOtherOne]

Get the forms filled out, sent to the BATF and you too can have the mp5sd in your hands in a few months.Well, I would have to find a legal one first. It has to be almost 20 years old, transferrable... oh and I have to pay what $12,000 or more for it?

Law enforcement officers, being the special people they are, won't have any of those issues.

[Airboss]

Brownie, I'm sure you speaking of a post 86 MP-5 right?Oh and another small thing a LOE's MP-5 transfers on a ATF form 5 mine Transfers on a AFT form 4,and another minor difference,I pay a $200 Transfer Tax on a form 4 weapon,no tax on a form 5,form four requires a Chief LEO sign off.
AS George Orwell Said"Some pigs are just more equal than others"
As for cops being better trained than "normal citizens" B/S Ihave shot against and still shoot against cops in IDPA .90% of the time I can clean their clocks and I'm a old fat guy!
Im going to break it down for you Brownie:
I think what bothers me the most and perhaps others here alson is we arent the ones that started the use vs. them atitude.
It was the "move along Citizen theres nothing to see here"I'm a cop,I'm soooo special,that you and all the other LOE's have,and if you cant see this then you are the problem.

[brownie0486]

LE doesn't buy as a civilian in that case either. They belong to the dept, are told when they can use them and in what circumstances.

If you had the same need, perhaps it would be different, then again, you don't chase bad guys or do entries into buildings where people are waiting to shoot you when you come through the door do you?

One of the best you can find is a walther smg thats 35 years old. You don't need to have the latest to be effective, and they are not 12,000 either.

Brownie

[TheeBadOne]

In Califorina a Cop can have a"Assult Rifle" Owned by him not the Dept.he works for and can keep it when he retires.
Very true, but do you know what it really means? Problably not, so here it is.
1) The rifle is an AR-15 type (read SEMI-AUTO, not selective, not burst). In other words it's the same rifle you can own, unless he gets the M-4 police caribine which is the same but has the flash hider and bayonet lug.

2) The cop pays for it with his own money. He gets a slight break on the tax, saves about $30-$70 over what you may pay.
--------------------------------
Sooo, you have a cop who pays for a rifle he gets to carry for 20+ years and he keeps it at the end of career. Ok, what's the big deal. He gets to keep the flashlight he paid for, the boots he paid for, the desk clock he paid for, the pens and pencils he paid for, the t-shirts he paid for, etc.

All the best

[Intune]

I don't have to provide a NEED for a weapon. Saying that the cops need them is bogus. If they do, I do too. I don't have to obtain TRAINING for a weapon. All of these are infringements on my rights as a citizen. If I MISUSE said weapon I pay the consequences. I daresay that I come under much more intense scrutiny if I shoot someone outside my castle than a police shooting. Let me shoot someone dead who has a cellphone in their hand and you can come visit me in the funhouse.

I really doen't understand this argument from the LEO side. They should WANT every law-abiding citizen to be armed to the teeth. You know, another cog in the Justice Machine. UNLESS, we are looked at as CIVILIANS!!!

:banghead:

[Oracle]

Now, aside, hear what you also are saying. Us vs Them is what you are promoting (knowingly or otherwise).

I don't see how I'm promoting an "us vs. them" mentality by pointing out the true statement that many police seem to act as if they are superior because they are LEOs. You've most likely seen it, as have I.

TBO, I agree that the extremely overly-litigious society we live in has made things difficult for police officers. You know what, it's made things difficult for a great number of other professions as well. Turning your back on your community, associating primarily with other police, and seeing yourself as a different "class" than the "civilians" doesn't do anything to help that. You can also avoid many "harrassment" or "favoritism" charges simply by not showing any favoritism. Not giving breaks to your friends and people you know doesn't mean that you aren't building bonds with your community and making yourself a part of it, instead of separating yourself from it and isolating yourself in your own community. It means that you're enforcing the law fairly and equally, as you should be doing in the first place. Why should I go to jail and someone else "get a break" because the police officer knows that person? It makes little sense.

As for the militarization of police departments, that is well-documented. Every police department in the nation seems to want a SWAT team now, regardless of whether they need it or not. There is even a small city in Louisiana that purchased an APC (I believe with a .50 caliber machinegun on it) for their SWAT team. Why would they need that? The answer is: they don't.

And, "Joe cop" may still be "Joe cop" but there is a greater possibility that the "Joe cop" of today is living in a primarily police-only neighborhood, primarily associates with other police officers, calls non-police "civilians" (when, in truth, he is just as much of a "civilian"), and generally views himself as a "class apart" from "ordinary citizens". It's no wonder that "Joe Citizen" doesn't trust "Joe Cop".

[brownie0486]

Saying the cops need them is bogus?

Guess we'll have to end the discussion there then with you, as you do not apparently have a grasp of reality and are letting some emotional issues cloud the objectiveness of your posts.

Do you enter homes with barricaded suspects? Do you have to deal with gangbangers waiting to shoot your butt when you go through the door? If you do, then you need what they have as well. If not, well, just of the opposite.

What infringments of what rights? You granted a right to carry a machine gun somewhere I'm not aware of? Now be specific when you cite the act that states you have the right to a machine gun.

Why would I want to visit you in the funhouse when it's easier to keep you away from them to begin with without any proficiency exam before posssession takes place [ like the cops ]. Civilians show no proficiency [ whether they have any or not is irrelevant ] but the cops are made to quall and be so [ proficient ] or they don't get to play. You now want more rights than an officer? UMMMM--thats sounds vaguely familiar in a round about way as many here seem to think just the opposite in that the cops have more than they do, now you want to have what they have without having to go through the scrutiny they do? Guess what, it ain't goin to happen in your lifetime.

We get back into the old 2a argument about "I want what they have" it's in the 2a and guarenteed. Though I agree in theory, I mwerely point out that many civilians want what [ some ] of the cops have but would not be willing to get the mandatory trasining like the police to use one as that would again somehow infringe on their "rights".

Cops don't want to take the course and pass proficiency testing with them? They don't get to carry one. Same with the military. You, as a civilian, think you can have one with none of the training either group gets before they are allowed to use one?

Where's the logic in that?

Brownie

[TheeBadOne]

I don't see how I'm promoting an "us vs. them" mentality...
Exactly
many police seem to act as if they are superior because they are LEOs. You've most likely seen it, as have I.
Yes, but I've seen far far many more who consider themselves superior to LEO's, read some of the posts here.
Why should I go to jail and someone else "get a break" because the police officer knows that person?
I'm not talking about "breaks" based on friendship, but based on knowledge of personal situations (gained by getting to know the residents).
As for the militarization of police departments, that is well-documented.
Please point out the documentation.
There is even a small city in Louisiana that purchased an APC (I believe with a .50 caliber machinegun on it) for their SWAT team. Why would they need that? The answer is: they don't.
Please provide the evidence they don't need it. What is their mission statement for that peice of equipment?

Cops are people too, in fact, they are people first.

[Thumper]

If you had the same need, perhaps it would be different, then again, you don't chase bad guys or do entries into buildings where people are waiting to shoot you when you come through the door do you?

What if I'm the guy waiting on the other side of the door?

Isn't that what the Second is about?

Why should Lon Horiuchi be given access to full auto if I'm not?
MOLON LABE

[Starpower]

My, My! What a real bucket of worms this has turned out to be?? Ok, let's play, What if?? What if the moderators took away ALL of the replies of everybody who has never tried to face down a 250 lb beef jerky at midnight, in a dead end alley, alone? 20 armed citizens ready to respond with help?? Get out of bed, rub the sleep out of your eyes, put on some clothes, get your supposed sawed off shotgun and go down to the...... Aw the hell with it, that pigs on his own, that's what he gets paid for, let him do his job. I gotta get up in five hours to go to work, so I need my sleep!!!
He gets paid to risk his ??? for me, I don't.
Have you ever heard of the ME Generation? That's how we got to this point in the first place. Add that to NIMBY (noy in my backyard) After you are done with that adding, the sum total? Dead cops!! As a cop AND a citizen, I'll add my challange to Charlton Heston's voice " when they pry them from my cold dead fingers".


The only thing required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Burke


Starpower

[tyme]

Brownie, nowhere in CA law is there a provision for any sort of opportunity for civilians to show they can safely handle an "assault weapon" to get the transfer ban waived. And if there were such an opportunity, you can bet it would be bundled with classroom time that few interested in purchasing "assault weapons" would need, and would cost upwards of $100.

Nowhere in federal law is there a provision for civilians to demonstrate safe handling of post-ban "assault weapons" to get that ban waived.

[brownie0486]

Oracle,
I have no idea where you live and your circumstances but cops don't live in communities of cops around these parts, not even in the slightest degree.

That comment holds no water in NE. Hasn't happened here and I can't see it happening in my lifetime. I live in a residential neighborhood where no cops are residing. Same place I lived when I was LE.

No LE communities here, they are dispersed like the rest of us, next to a banker, a drug dealer, a fireman, a postman, and on and on.

They tend to socialize, for the most part, with themselves as they go to a party of others and listen to people all night long lamenting the ills of their profession and how unjust things are and how much the cops get away with [ just like on this forum ]. They don't want to talk shop when they are not working anymore than I do after I get home at night.

Some set themselves apart from the rest of us. Hell, I have seen friends who were cops I worked with now disassociate themselves with me for the most part as I no longer hold the LE status. Course they still watch their tongue around me as even when I was LE, I didn't really put up with anyones crap, cause I didn't have to and wouldn't. Unfortunately, most have to put up and shut up.

To ask others to enforce the law completely unbiased is unreasonable. It's human nature to not be so as we all have prejudices to deal with. As LE are human like you and I, we have to expect them to be human and have the faults we all share from time to time.

Life will never be fair, you are not guaranteed anything in life, and you make it on your own or not at all for the most part. It is what you make it.

Again, people blame the cops for things that ater legislatured into law and they are sworn to enforce. If that doesn't suit society, they need to change their politicians until they get someone in to vote their views into law.

Blaming the cops for the mess they find themselves in is not the answer.

Rememeber, I have been on both sides of the fence. I have seen both sides, many here can't see the other side or even comprehend the problems when you hop that fence. Easy enough to say "whaaa, whaaaa, whoe is me, lifes unfair, the cops get to have toys I can't, the neighbor has a new car and I can't afford one, and on and on.

Same holds true of an electrician. If you know one, you get that flood light put up for cost or nothing if they are a good friend.

Same holds true of a plumber. If you have one as a friend you get the clogged drain and new pipes at cost or for free.

Same holds true if you have a computer tech friend, then you usually get a computer that is fixed gratis right?

It circle of life can not be changed. You will always have people that have things and otehrs who want them but can't afford them or don't know someone who can get it for them at cost.

I know a car dealer who gave me the new Lincoln at cost. Does that mean everyone should get one at cost because I did?

Didn't think so. People who know LE as friends or have them as relatives can expect to be treated differently than those of us who don't, as in all walks of life.

Brownie

[Thumper]

This is the pervasive, elitist attitude in black and white.

Frankly, I'm wondering who this guy is and what he did with brownie.

[Oracle]

You, as a civilian, think you can have one with none of the training either group gets before they are allowed to use one?

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Guess what, Brownie? You're a civilian too. All police are, as they are not military. The 2nd Amendment guarantees our right to keep and bear arms, it doesn't exclude arms based upon whether they are fully-automatic, or whether people need training to use them (virtually all arms require training to use them properly, including things such as knives and swords).

It's the "you're a civilian, I'm not, I should have access to weapons that you should not have access to, as I am in a different class than you are" attitude that makes people distrust the police. Unless the police eradicate this attitude from their ranks, the distrust of them in the general populace is simply going to continue to grow.

[Oracle]

The difference between the plumber, electrician, computer tech, and car salesmen is that none of them have the ability to use force to take away your rights. The police do. The laws should apply equally to police as they do to every other civilian, no police officer should have access to weaponry that any other civilian does not have access.

Brownie, it's not about the "toys", it's about the unequal protection of the rights of the people of this country. The "rights" of the police to use weapons to protect themselves is no greater than that of any other civilian, thusly, the police should not have access to weapons that any other civilian does not have access. By your argument, anyone who isn't a police officer with police officer training (which is woefully inadequate in many places, btw), should be unable to have a weapon of any kind.

[brownie0486]

Oracle, My point exactly, I'm a civilian who has been on that side of the fence.

Hence, I can speak from experiences of having to deal with the scum of the earth while others sleep peaceably, as well as how I have been wronged by certain officers and actually have been through more, including being threatened by that chief with death in my own kitchen.

All that aside, I still have much respect for the LE community, even though there are ????heads out there within their ranks. Even had one following me around for a few months for the chief, talk about harrassment. I've been there and done that as a civilian, harranged by them incessently over the chief incident, ya know what?

I still carry the CCW today even though they wanted to pull it. You fight the battles as they come your way. I chose that fight with the chief, I do not fear LE anymore than I fear anyone else on earth. They put their pants on like I do and if they think they are better and have an attitude with me, they get it right back, the only difference is I know the law as they do having been to the same academy and having taken the same mandatory courses.

I defend the LE's here not because I was one but because I see too many here who have no comprehension as to the difficulties in performing their duties, not dying, not getting sued, and not being respected for the services they provide all of us at one point or another.

Brownie

[TheeBadOne]

The point is brownie's court is he's been there and done that. You haven't. He's walked in LEO shoes, you haven't. His perspective is broader.

[brownie0486]

Oracle :

I can agree with most of your last post but please keep in mind that the police have no more rights when they leave their shift than you and I do, nor are they allowed to carry the mp5's around off duty while in civilian clothes.

They have more rights while on the job, it's the nature of the beast. They do things civilians do not concern themselves with and which most would be calling the LE's in to handle it.

Firefighters have their gear, police have theirs. You don't see cops carrying their mp5's under a sweatshirt while off duty while the average citizen is denied same.

You can not say the cops have more rights than the rest of us unless you can show when they leave the shift they are taking the mp5's home to go to the movies [ which they don't around here ].

Brownie

[cordex]

Or should we allow all citizens access to the equipment SOME LE carry to perform their duties without any training like the cops have to go through?
We should. Exactly right.
Unlike the article, I'm not saying "Cops don't need guns, only non-Cops need guns". And unlike you, I'm not saying "Non-cops don't need [ certain ] guns, only Cops need [ certain ] guns ."
If you had the same need, perhaps it would be different, then again, you don't chase bad guys or do entries into buildings where people are waiting to shoot you when you come through the door do you?
I don't "need" a car with a beefed up suspension, high dollar tires and an extremely powerful engine because I don't get involved in high speed car chases. Does that mean I shouldn't be allowed to buy one? Or that I should be forced to get special training before I can drive one?

"Need" does not figure in to the equation, because when you get right down to it, all you really "need" is oxygen, water, nutrition and a reasonably non-hostile environment. "Need" is a valid argument when figuring a department's budget. Not for lawmaking.
people blame the cops for things that ater legislatured into law and they are sworn to enforce. If that doesn't suit society, they need to change their politicians until they get someone in to vote their views into law.

Blaming the cops for the mess they find themselves in is not the answer.
What about the cops that support the passage these laws, hmmm?

[Thumper]

TheeBadOne,

So you agree that you should have to be trained and show a "need" to exercise an intrinsic right?

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed*

*except for those that don't need to (we'll decide) and aren't properly trained (that too).

[brownie0486]

Cops don't have the right to an opinion?

So waht if some have the eliteist attitude, thats already been a given here.

It's the broad brush that all LE are under by most here thats incorrectly used against them in general.

The LE's only use something [ smg's] when they need them. Otherwise they are put away. They have to show a need to use them and carry them, you think you should be any ddifferent?

Brownie

[TheeBadOne]

They have to show a need to use them and carry them, you think you should be any ddifferent?
Obviosly they don't as they say they are no different than a cop.

[Intune]

Brownie said: "Saying the cops need them is bogus?"

Intune: No, saying that the cops may find themselves in a situation where they need an MP5 does not trump the rights of a citizen who may find themselves with the same need.



B: "Do you enter homes with barricaded suspects? Do you have to deal with gangbangers waiting to shoot your butt when you go through the door? If you do, then you need what they have as well. If not, well, just of the opposite."

I: Home invasion by three or four gangbangers is sooo different for the homeowner? See my answer above.



B: "What infringments of what rights? You granted a right to carry a machine gun somewhere I'm not aware of? Now be specific when you cite the act that states you have the right to a machine gun."

I: The 2nd Amendment. Just because I pay a $200 tax and buy an old one makes it kosher? See BOGUS again ;)



B: "Why would I want to visit you in the funhouse when it's easier to keep you away from them to begin with without any proficiency exam before posssession takes place [ like the cops ]. Civilians show no proficiency [ whether they have any or not is irrelevant ] but the cops are made to quall and be so [ proficient ] or they don't get to play. You now want more rights than an officer? UMMMM--thats sounds vaguely familiar in a round about way as many here seem to think just the opposite in that the cops have more than they do, now you want to have what they have without having to go through the scrutiny they do? Guess what, it ain't goin to happen in your lifetime."

I: "Easier to keep me away from them to begin with????" Therein lies the problem. Should a woman who has been nearly killed by her estranged husband who has a RO have to prove she can use a Glock? Does my years of shooting 105 tank rounds, coax & .50 machineguns, M16's and grease guns qualify me in your world?




B: "We get back into the old 2a argument about "I want what they have" it's in the 2a and guarenteed. Though I agree in theory, I mwerely point out that many civilians want what [ some ] of the cops have but would not be willing to get the mandatory trasining like the police to use one as that would again somehow infringe on their "rights"."

I: OLD???? Does it offend thee in some way? Citizens clamoring for their OLD rights? Is "because it does infringe" not good enough for you? Rhetorical question, your stance on citizens is glaringly clear.



B: "Cops don't want to take the course and pass proficiency testing with them? They don't get to carry one. Same with the military. You, as a civilian, think you can have one with none of the training either group gets before they are allowed to use one?"

I: Can I purchase the tax stamp and own an MP5 with no training?



B: Where's the logic in that?

I: I will answer you with one of you own statements, words that I wouldn't normally use in a discussion. "Guess we'll have to end the discussion there then with you, as you do not apparently have a grasp of reality and are letting some emotional issues cloud the objectiveness of your posts."


C'mon Brownie, can't you see it?

[cordex]

Cops don't have the right to an opinion?
Sure they do. But we can blame those who support anti-gun laws right along with the gun grabbers (or "evil guns, not yo' daddy's thutty-thutty" grabbers, as the case may be) that they support.
The LE's only use something [ smg's] when they need them. Otherwise they are put away. They have to show a need to use them and carry them, you think you should be any ddifferent?
I'm confused as to why this is so hard to understand.
Here is the way I think things should be:
Me: Allowed to buy, sell or carry a buzzgun or what-have-you if I so choose.
If I'm at work and my boss says, "Cordex, I don't like you carrying that without qualifiying on the company range. Too much liability, you understand. How about we schedule you for 40 hours of training - we'll buy the ammo." then I've got to qualify to carry the gun on company time. My carrying off-hours is none of my boss's business. No hu-hu.
Cop: Allowed to buy, sell or carry a buzzgun or what-have-you if (he/she) so chooses.
If (he/she)'s at work and (his/her) boss says, "Officer, I don't like you carrying that without qualifiying on the department range. Too much liability, you understand. How about we schedule you for 40 hours of training - we'll buy the ammo." then they've got to qualify to carry the gun on department time. (His/her) carrying off-hours is none of their boss's business. No hu-hu.

In other words: Equal
Obviosly they don't as they say they are no different than a cop.
In what way?

[Oracle]

The point is brownie's court is he's been there and done that. You haven't. He's walked in LEO shoes, you haven't. His perspective is broader.

So, I have to actually have done a job to be able to criticize those who do that job? Where is that written? Do you criticize politicians for the things they do, TBO? Have you ever been a politician, have you "walked in their shoes"? What about corporate executives who have committed fraud, do you think that you shouldn't be able to recognize what they have done is wrong and criticize them for it, simply because you haven't been the executive of a multi-billion dollar company?

The point is, you don't have to have been a police officer, a politician, a military officer, a corporate exective, or any other profession to recognize abuses, trends, and problems that concern those professions.

Brownie's experiences simply reinforce my opinion that the police are, in general, corrupt, and not as concerned as they should be about protecting and upholding the rights of the people they serve, even though they have sworn to do so. There are a lot of police that prove otherwise, Brownie is a good example of one, and I know others. But, there is so much corruption and perception of corruption that it drowns out much of what the good cops do. The onus is on the police to show that this isn't true, to root out the corruption and dispel the perception of corruption within their departments and agencies. But, that doesn't seem to be a priority. And, thusly, the distrust grows. You can't say that distrust doesn't exist, and isn't spreading, as it is. That's just a simple fact. Elitist attitudes among police officers ("we should have access to weaponry that you shouldn't have access to" is simply one example) only contribute to that.

Only the police can change the public's opinions about them. Simply saying that the opinions are unfounded isn't good enough, the damage has already been done. It will take a lot to reverse this widely-held opinion, and the police in general are doing little to nothing to challenge it.

[TheeBadOne]

cordex, a cop can't carry whatever he wants or whenever he wants. He must follow dept. policy. Some are very limiting on what they may carry. As far as range time/ammo, usually only covered for standard duty arms. Backup/offduty is out of your own $$$. Some dept prohibit offduty carry.

[Thumper]

Can you honestly not see a difference in a job policy and a federally mandated one?

[cordex]

cordex, a cop can't carry whatever he wants or whenever he wants. He must follow dept. policy. Some are very limiting on what they may carry. As far as range time/ammo, usually only covered for standard duty arms. Backup/offduty is out of your own $$$. Some dept prohibit offduty carry.
That's all good information, but entirely off subject.
If your department or my company want to set policy as to what you or I can or can't carry while we're working, that is fine. No problems there. That is an issue only between employee and employer.

As Thumper indicated, there is a difference between law and internal policy.

[Quartus]

Brownie, I kept reading to make sure if my first take was correct, and it was.

You completely missed the point about you being a civilian. It's an important point. It's not just playing word games. So here it is again.

You are a civilian. When you were a cop, you were a civilian. When you were a cop on duty in uniform, you were a civilian. Cops ARE civilians. They are NOT part of the military. They are under the CIVIL government, not the Department of Defense.

Except in a police state, which is why the distinction is HUGELY important.

In most states, cops have exactly the same powers of arrest as any other civilian. They have the same right to use "necessary force" to enforce arrests. It's not ususally PRACTICED that way (because of ignorance), but it's the law in most states.

What they have that is DIFFERENT is a job requirement to go in harm's way. We hire them to do that because most of us don't want to deal with the bad guys. They agree to do that for us, and for that they have my respect. I wish I could pay them more than most of them get. It's a tough, mostly thankless, and often dangerous job. I appreciate those who do it well. I salute them. I thank and salute YOU for the time you spent on The Thin Blue Line. I really mean that.

But that doesn't give them any special rights. The 2A is clear, and does not confer any special rights on police officers.


What's so hard about that?


And as far as broad brushing goes, yes, some here do. But not all criticism of the current situation is intended to convey that ALL cops are JBTs and crooked. I think most of us realize the the majority are good people doing a rough job. But if we can't point out and discuss the problems, we can't fix them.

There are problems that need fixing.

[TheeBadOne]

Brownie's experiences simply reinforce my opinion that the police are, in general, corrupt.....
Again, another "generalization", which reinforces my opinion of said opinions.

[Thumper]

OK, a hypothetical:

If "they" ever come to get your guns, who do you think "they" will be?

[seeker_two]

brownie0486: Please clarify something for me...

1. Do you believe that the wording of the Second Amendment indicates an absolute, unlimitable, uninfringible right for a person to own and carry firearms?

2. Do you believe that law enforcement officers should be allowed to possess and use certain equipment (including certain types of firearms) that cannot be possessed & used by the general public?

The answers to these two questions would go a long way in understanding your arguements. Thanks in advance...:)

[Thumper]

Thank you, seeker, for beating me to it.

A third question, brownie, regarding your "training" requirement.

Is it easier to train someone to defend themselves with a gun...

or the knives you sell?

[Intune]

If I have my G27 in my car does that affect you? If I have my Red Ryder BB gun in the trunk does it affect you? If I have my Ruger #1 '06 in the car does it affect you? If I have an MP5 in the trunk does it affect you? As soon as I pull one of these out and act in an unlawful manner with it, THEN it affects you. Until then…

Criminal use of a tool justifies the intervention by law enforcement or Joe Blow whether that tool be a hammer or an Uzi.

If I had enough cash could I buy an AK? Do crooks buy full autos? Do they steal them? Did the numbnuts in the Hollywood shootout have tax stamps? So crooks & cops have full auto but Joe Blow has to prove a NEED for same??? Heck, given the actions by some in these two groups should be justification enough for an M1 tank! Just teasing guys, don't fire up the foogas yet!!

[TheeBadOne]

If I had enough cash could I buy an AK? Do crooks buy full autos? Do they steal them? Did the numbnuts in the Hollywood shootout have tax stamps? So crooks & cops have full auto but Joe Blow has to prove a NEED for same??? Heck, given the actions by some in these two groups should be justification enough for an M1 tank! Just teasing guys, don't fire up the foogas yet!!
Don't blame the cops, blame the law makers, you know, the guys you vote for every few years.

[TheeBadOne]

And as far as broad brushing goes, yes, some here do. But not all criticism of the current situation is intended to convey that ALL cops are JBTs and crooked. I think most of us realize the the majority are good people doing a rough job. But if we can't point out and discuss the problems, we can't fix them.
Substitute the word "Guns" in your post and you have the same logic the anti's are using.

[tyme]

(brownie) The LE's only use something [ smg's] when they need them. Otherwise they are put away. They have to show a need to use them and carry them, you think you should be any ddifferent?
Again, civilians don't even have an ability to "show need" for a post-ban AW or MG, so that argument is just a straw-man.

And speaking of "need," most places that won't grant civilians carry permits have this concept that "need" only occurs after a mugging/shooting. If that's the case, there are plenty of police that don't have "need" for a handgun, much less an AW or MG.

And, of course, police get to carry (on the beat) for free, yet civilians have to pay to carry at all...

[Intune]

I hear ya TBO. 99% of the LEO's that I have come into contact with have been waaaay better than the non's that I have encountered! But I think it's a numbers thang!! ;)

[brownie0486]

wow, I step away from the puter for an hour and so many questions, which I appreciate being asked, as well as having the opportunity to respond.

I'll try to get to all of them here.

Tyme, I don't think citizens should have to show a need to own a firearm, the legislatures do, which inlcudes the police being restricted in my state. They mandate the state requirements for qualification standards and what needs the police have and in what circumstances, not the police themselves.

Guns are weapons, not tools. I carry an SAK multi-tool, I also carry several weapons. Tools may be used, like any other object, as a weapon but the gun and knife are considered weapons. There are no tool laws in my state but there are dangerous weapons statutes which cover guns, knives, and other implements whose primary use is normally as a weapon. Again, the legislature says this, not for the most part the police depts., they just follow the laws as written.

Cops don't have access to full auto generally. A dept. like LA with 30,000+ cops has perhaps a few hundred who have access to full auto, and then under strict guidelines of use during and training under certain types of action necessary to restore the piece of the general public, as well as respond to incidents which have been deemed, through past experience, necessary to insure better officer saftey while perfroming their duties. The comment that cops have full auto would lead one to believe we all had them, thats not the case anywhere in the US that I'm aware of.

Thumper: The knife is harder to learn to defend with than any firearm I'm aware of.

seeker_two: Yes, everyone has to right to carry firearms under 2a thats not a convicted felon in my opinion. Types of firearms is another matter. I personally could have class 3 weapons if I wanted to, I don't own any, and let me explain why.

While being trained in swat tactics at HK in Virginia we used navy triggered mp5's to clear houses. Some were sd's as well. I chose to use my personal weapon that week which was a gov45 warhorse that has been made utterly reliable. I could have as easily brought the glock or sig but i took the colt gov45 that week. I went all week as first man in [ due to the skills level I had which was determined prior to clearing exercises ] with the handgun. I was not disadvantaged but I believe thats due to the skills level with a pistol and years on them and the muscle memory gained in it's use. One disadvantage was when it came time to take a perp to the floor who refused to cooperate once inside the homes. With the mp5's, they were slung and could be released where it sat in front of you if you needed it again, the pistol was not the same in that area. I can get everything I need done with a pistol but that doesn't mean other officers would fare the same and so the mp5's gave them an advantage they otherwise would not have had.

I believe if the citizen can show proficiency on the subguns as I have had to do in training before being qualled to carry such an arm, then yes, they should be allowed to carry/possess one. The problem as I see it in this regard is that too many seem to think they should be allowed to just "own" one without any experience, and thats a dangerous thing. If you just look at the civilians who own handguns, the majority have had no formal training in their use defensively, and we see idiots on the ranges all the time who haven't a clue what they are doing, pointing them all over the place [ no muzzle control ], haven't a clue how they operate, can't tear them done and clean them, worse, they don't clean them. I know that may not include many here but the majority own them, never use them, never get the ttrianing to use them safely, etc etc. Why would I then want them to have full auto capability with the same lack of knowledge as to their operation and maintenance? They are more dangerous than a semi auto pistiol, if they "get away" from an inexperienced user they spit many out the muzzle before anyone can react around them.

I run a MG shoot every year at the local club. The public can come onto the club that day and fire any weapon on the line. After seeing the problems [ avoided due to range officers on each of their shoulders ], I would not want to be anywhere near these people with a full auto unsupervised. They require a higher level of proficiency to be safely handled, which MOST don't and won't go get the proper training once they own one.

When you say "when they come for your guns" My impression is it will be the UN peacekeepers. I have no doubt that many LE may take the orders but from my own observations, the majority of police will not take up arms against the populace and go door to door for the gov. As a matter of fact, the gov boys already know this. The military [ one unit of marines ] was queried years ago about taking up arms against the citizens of the US to disarm them. Their response was not what the gov had hoped. I think they know they'll need the blue berets on our soil to do this if they ever attempt it. Your worries/fears about the police coming to your door enmasse across the country to disarm you are probably without merit.

Quartus: I never forgot I was a citizen serving fellow citizens within my community. Cops have more powers of arrest and here's why. Civilians are not mandated to uphold the laws and are not expected to react to crime or interject themselves in situations that do not affect them directly. The police are. If a civilian does nothing, he is not charged with a crime. If the cop does nothing, he can be charged with nonfeasance. If he does something wrong while performing his/her duties jhe can be charged with misfeasance, and these are just the criminal laws, lets not forget if convicted of not perfroming his duties in a strictly prescribed manner he is also subject to civil litigation and stands the chance of losing his home and belongings. Citizens who are not LE do not suffer the same potential fate. They screw up and it's bye bye to the career and possibly sued for everything. The average citizen suffers not these fates by not acting when they could have. Thats a lot to remember when the doo doo is flying and someone is trying to kill you or put you in the hospital for an extended visit.

2a has nothing to do with LE's and their mandates to perform. The two themes are worlds apart.

Cordex: If your job mandates you carry a firearm like police are mandated it's the law. You can't work without being proficient with the "tools of the trade" in the LE community. There's a world of difference when they leave the station at the end of shift. Again, they don't walk out with the mp5's under their sweatshirts, thats a no no, so they are not given any special privledges
outside their mandated job descriptions and responsibilities.

BTW--cops are under federal mandates/guidelines as well, not just their depts/towns/cities mandates. Thats why they need to go through the same process as a citizen to won and use a MG outside their work.

Oracle: you don't have to walk in that persons shoes to critize at all. It does, however give you a broader sprectrum of information to make an informed decision about the state of affairs being discussed here if you have as in all areas of life.

Remember the saying? " I once complained I had no shoes, until I saw a man who had no feet".

I don't think the police are corrupt "in general", though there certainly is enough of it everywhere. Thats a pretty broad stroke to paint "in general".
Again, as in all professions, there is corruption and apethy towards others, these are the us vs. them types within the LE community. They need to be weeded out as in all venues and occupations. Look to the town officials who supervise their depts., they are the ones charged with weeding them out. I agree the perception of many is that the "system" is corrupt "in general", but it is more isolated incidents than an overall problem. It starts with the chiefs who have to control their officers. Keep in mind the chiefs are admins and not line officers. If a dept is corrupt, look to the authorities. Many officers get into the job and find out too late it is not what they expected. They do their job, keep their mouth shut and attempt to go home at the end of the shift. Believe me these people so not like the "status quo" for the most part. They end up protecting their jobs [ they have families to feed ] and doing their time as best they can when the system fails them locally. I'm sure others in various professions see it and have said nothing knowing to that say anything means their job or blackballed.

I was not one of them, but I was in a different set of circumstances than most who enter the profession. Hell, I make twice the money I did as a cop for half the stress and still get the satisfaction of helping others through the night in my own way. In essence I serve the community as before, just in the private sector. I made the stand, carried it to fruition [ had no choice once I started down that road ], and left for greener pastures.

Would I do it again? Sure would, but the age thang would be an issue if I were to pursue it again I'm sure. I enjoyed working as an LE and helping others who were in need of assistance. There was much to dislike, but much to like about the time spent in that venue. There will always be +'s and -'s to every job. But not every job carries with it the potential weight of someone trying to kill you at every corner just because of your job, and so some understanding [ which some here have and some do not ] of the potential to die before you get home at night has to be in order. Cops don't carry smg's to play with, they are necessary to survive certain situations they run across all too frequently, and they are only issued and use them under heavy restrictions and proficiency testing, not just the use of them mechanically but the understanding of the tactics necessary to use them effectively and still keep the public safe at the same time.

Theres no free ride to full auto because you are LE as some suggest. If you want to carry/ own one, go into the profession. It's not a matter of he can use one so I should be ableto use one also.

Brownie

[Thumper]

I believe if the citizen can show proficiency on the subguns as I have had to do in training before being qualled to carry such an arm, then yes, they should be allowed to carry/possess one. The problem as I see it in this regard is that too many seem to think they should be allowed to just "own" one without any experience, and thats a dangerous thing.

Vs.

The knife is harder to learn to defend with than any firearm I'm aware of.

It certainly follows that, since a knife requires more training than an MP-5, you believe that all knife owners should be trained and licensed.

I mean, a person killed with a knife or a 115 gr. jhp is just as dead, right?

Last question...what do you believe the purpose of the Second Amendment is?

[brownie0486]

All knife owners who carry that weapon with defense in mind should most certainly have some training in it's use. The problem is not all knife owners carry a knife with defensive play in mind like the poster who stated he should be able to own one [ an mp5 ] for the time when the bangers come through his door [ he's alluding to wanting one to protect himself without having a need for training mandates.

I carry a knife with defense in mind [ after training ] , I buy them with that in mind, and I train with them with that in mind, just like I practice with the sticks [ after training ], the guns [ after training ], and empty hands [ after training ].

To go untrained and carry with defense in mind in a weapons platform of your choice [ which most civilians do ], is asking for disasters on the streets and in the neighborhoods.

As an instrcutor in defensive knife, firearms, H2H, and stick I'm a firm believer if you take the time to learn the platform of choice and have a basic demostrated proficiency with that weapon you are certainly entitled to own and carry such. Hell, I have $30,000+ in training education, and thats the private training alone. I'm qualled to carry about anything I want I would think.

Know what I carry daily? A few knives and a 640-1 5 shot S+W. I don't need much more than that as a civilian whose only goal is to protect MY a$$ and not the genreal publics, even if the bangers are breaking in, it's tactics that get you through [ software ], not the hardware you have in your hand.

Brownie

[Thumper]

To go untrained and carry with defense in mind in a weapons platform of your choice [ which most civilians do ], is asking for disasters on the streets and in the neighborhoods.

Right, but what you're saying advocates making it illegal for them to carry (or own) knives at all.

[Quartus]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And as far as broad brushing goes, yes, some here do. But not all criticism of the current situation is intended to convey that ALL cops are JBTs and crooked. I think most of us realize the the majority are good people doing a rough job. But if we can't point out and discuss the problems, we can't fix them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Substitute the word "Guns" in your post and you have the same logic the anti's are using.

:confused: So you're saying that we should never criticize LEOs?


That makes for a comfortable police state.


People who will only tell me what they think I want to hear are not my friends. REAL friends tell you the truth. Even when it hurts.

[brownie0486]

Not unless they are specifically carrying a knife for defensive purposes like all firearms are carried. Andthats one of the reasons we have restrictions on certain types of knives, like the guns. Some are made for killing, others are made for utility reason but may be used as a weapon. The ones made with killing in mind are restricted accordingly.

Do you know anyone who carries a gun daily that doesn't carry with defense in mind? I don't.

Brownie

[seeker_two]

seeker_two: Yes, everyone has to right to carry firearms under 2a thats not a convicted felon in my opinion. Types of firearms is another matter.

So, am I correct to conclude from the statement above that, despite the wording of the Second Amendment, you advocate the government passing laws to restrict the TYPE of firearms a citizen can own? :confused:

[Thumper]

Brownie, a lot of the time I also choose a j-frame and a quality folder as my self defense tools.

However,

if I feel I have the need (which you have no right to try to qualify), I would like the option of going to my gun safe and picking up the same weapon I used as a soldier. Especially since it might be a soldier I'm fighting.

That's what the Second Amendment is about.

Has nothing to do with protecting you from local gang bangers. It has everything to do with protecting you from your Standing Army.

Go look it up.

Again, I'm really surprised to hear all this from you.

[brownie0486]

You and I both know we do not live in a police state. Go oversees to see that.

It certainly sounds good though doesn't it? Really gets the people worked up to further someones agenda and subjective views about the state of affairs here in the good old USA though.

You see roadblocks and unfetted searches daily do you? I don't, and thats part of the police state, we, on the other hand have search and seizure laws, thats not a police state to my way of thinking.

It's not so much a matter of questioning LE practices in certain instances, but the broad brush that a few paint with as if all LE's agree with others actions [ which they do not ]. Question away with particulars but leave the wide brush on the bench.


Brownie

[Thumper]

Not unless they are specifically carrying a knife for defensive purposes

Good Lord.

So you believe that a Spyderco Civilian should require a government license? Actually, I'm mistaken...according to your logic, it shouldn't be restricted from sale altogether.

[brownie0486]

Tactics and numbers will suffice, but I agree that we should be able to own an AR like the boys in green do, just not full auto. I don't own one myself, and if all I had was semi's [ which is the case with me ], I'd be just fine through tactics and training and proficiency.

Swat school was one week and 3000 rounds through the subguns. 99% of that week we were on semi auto entering the house [ for a reason ]. Even the military has determined that full auto is a waste of ammo and does not produce better results, but worse results from those using them.

If 30 mil types surround your house, the full auto AR/mp5 won't be of much use to you. Aimed fire, thats the right way at all times.

Full auto is for suppressive fire while others advance into postions, not for killing. The military has figured this out the hard way.

Brownie

[Thumper]

You and I both know we do not live in a police state. Go oversees to see that.

I have, partner. Also seen the redecorating job ol' Lon did with Vicki Weaver's head.

So, since you believe that "it can't happen here" you also don't believe in the Founder's intent for the Second?

Madison was very plain in the Fed. papers. I strongly urge you re-read them.

[Quartus]

Quartus: I never forgot I was a citizen serving fellow citizens within my community.

But you keep using the term "civilian" as though it refers to those citizens who are not sworn LEOs. That's the problem. LEOs ARE CIVILIANS. Obviously they are citizens - so are Army troops. But Army troops aren't civilans. Cops ARE civilans.

Except in a police state.


Cops have more powers of arrest and here's why.

Have you checked that in your state? It's not so in most. Joe Ordinary can arrest someone for the same things and with as much authority as a sworn officer. The difference is that he has no DUTY to do so.



Civilians [there you go again] are not mandated to uphold the laws and are not expected to react to crime or interject themselves in situations that do not affect them directly.


Hmm. Yeah, I said that. Which is why we should pay cops better, and try (as best we can, not having BTDT) to understand the responsibility and pressures under which they work. Hmm, work nothing - under which they LIVE. And when it comes to a shooting, we should remember that everyone (yeah, cops too!) is innocent until proven guilty. And just like anyone else, the burden of proof of wrong doing is BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.


But that doesn't change the fact that cops CANNOT be allowed to operate without the scrutiny of the general public. They CANNOT be above criticism. That criticism should be accurate and fair, but it cannot be silenced just because sometimes it's not.

The reality is that we are descending into a police state. That's not the fault of every cop, mostly it's a reflection of society as a whole, and the laws that we pass and the judges we leave on the benches.

But SOME cops do contribute to it. Some DO have an elitist attitude. And refusing to face that is damaging to the law enforcement community.

Broadbrushing is bad no matter who does it.

[brownie0486]

Now now, I didn't mention anything about a gov license to carry a civilian.

I stated they should have some semblance of how to use the damned thing if they are going to carry it. It's difficult at best to use a folder or straight blade in ones own defensewith training, let alone with none, and thats the point, not that they need to be registered or licensed.

Brownie

[brownie0486]

I rarely play word semmantics.

Citizen, civilain, same to me, I was both as LE in my mind while working that profession.

No, citizens can not arrest with the same authority, it's against the law to refuse to obey an officers commands while in uniform, not so with citizens/civilians. I have no obligation to obey another citizen, I do, by law have to obey the uniformed officers who are commanding me to do something.

Uniformed officers will charge you with non-compliance, the courts would not recognize the same in a citizens arrest.

There is a difference. One you will be deemed guilty of refusing to submit to an officers authority, the other you will not. Who has more powers of arrest?

Brownie

[Thumper]

Given: You said that an MP-5 should be licensed because of it's difficulty to train with.

Given: You said that training with a knife is harder than training with an MP-5

Given: You said all knife owners who carry that weapon with defense should have required training.

Given: You said (in other forums) that the Spyderco Civilian is a killing knife only.

Therefore (according to your reasoning)...why should one be allowed to buy a Civilian without the proper government permits and training?

[Thumper]

I swear, some statist thug has brownie's password. Something should be done.

:D

[brownie0486]

I said if you want an mp5 you should be made to show proficiency, I stated nothing about being licensed for it.

Training and licensure are two different entities.

Yes, the civilian was expressly designed for a fed agent [ by request ] who needed a backup weapon that required no skills to use. It was made for worst case scenarios as a last ditch weapon and the design was such that it would kill [ bleed out ] another if a slash was delivered about anywhere on the body.

I never mentioned permits, just training requirements. Show me you have been trained and I think you can carry it [ my opinion ]. You can have training on an item without having to be licensed.

I have training in the asp, I carry the cert with me at all times, it is a cert not a license to carry it. Same theory with the certain knives, and mp5s'.

Brownie

[Thumper]

Whew, that makes me feel a little better.

To clarify:

You believe that anyone should be legally able to own an MP-5, but only if they can show proof of training?

Similarly, you also believe there should be required training to own certain defensive knives. Correct?

[brownie0486]

Thumper, again,

Lou Horiuchi is an individual who mucked it big time, he was not told to kill them with extreme prejudice by the gov.

That does not make a police state in my mind. It does go toward needing more training and holding them accountable on an individual basis. Course that doesn't matter to Vicki Weaver at this point.

The higher ups mucked it big time as well in that situation and let it get out of hand. There are many reasons this ocurred, bit one of them isn't because we
are a police state.

Brownie

[Thumper]

Gotcha.

Was I close in my clarification?

[brownie0486]

Thats correct. My belief there is founded in the fact that it is prudent to show proficiency with ones chosen weapon if carried in public.

I believe it is a prudent approach and one that ought to be addressed nationally. We may just get to have more weapons available to us and at the same time keep the sheeple at bay with the sense of resposibility of owning and carrying such items by those who choose to go that route in life.

Not all knives would fall under the training, certainly that uncle henry slipjoint isn't much of a defensive choice, but that civilian would be on the list. People who show proficiency with a weapon are just trusted more than one not so trained in its use. I think it is one of the root causes of the sheeple fearing everyone carrying anything which might be used defensively, it might just take some wind out of their sales and advance the goals of all concerned here for the betterment of society in general

The bangers would not be getting certified, they have a criminal record. The logistics would have to be worked out of course, nothing is that easy, but the theme is valid.

We take mandatory gun safety course here to show proficiency before the license is issued. I don't think we need to license knives but a cert approved by someone everyone would agree to could not hurt the cause, and may just alleviate others fears of everyone carrying deadly weapons.

Brownie

[12-34hom]

I often hear they term "they" used in the context of firearms being taken from law abiding CITIZENS.

Just who are "they".

Could be "they" are the non existant delusions some make up to valadate thier paranoid beliefs, yet :another crutch to lean on = yawn.

"They" don't exist - never have - never will.

I've been reading the same B.S. for over five years on the internet BB over this topic.

How many guns have been taken from you??

I still have all the ones i bought.

Turn the record over.

12-34hom.

[Oracle]

Yet, Lon Horiuchi is still walking the streets, after murdering (or at least negligently killing) Vicki Weaver.

And, even after what happened at Ruby Ridge, Waco happened. Dozens of people died, including women and children, and we still haven't heard all of what happened there.

And now, we have citizens of the United States, arrested on U.S. soil, being held without trial, in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

I hate to say it, the evidence is mounting that we are moving into being a police state, if we're not already there. When the government can arrest you, and hold you indefinitely without trial (as Jose Padilla is being held right now), then you are in a police state. And, it is the LEO's that are and will be enforcing this.

[TheeBadOne]

Look at what he's being held on. Is it DUI, no, is it Domestic Abuse, no, is it grand larceny, no, is it posession of class III firearms, no. The terrorism thing is in an entire different realm of things.

[brownie0486]

There's the rub,
The LE's are doing the enforcement per their orders. Nonfeasance on their part otherwise. They are doing what they are told to do, does that automatically make them all agree with the orders?

Look elsewhere than the lE community for who is responsible. Look higher. Perhaps the justice dept. or sec. of state perhaps, why all this on the streeet cops?

And no, terrorists do not have the same rights whether they be Americans or not. Go terrorist and I'm all over you the same way. You have then become a threat to my very existence and way of life.

It's sickening how we house and feed the gitmo terrorists. My taxes at work right?

Brownie

[Thumper]

Thats correct.

Whew, that's more restrictive than most States, but at least we're getting closer. I was beginning to worry.

It should be stated here that I have the utmost respect for Brownie's opinions on anything related to cutlery. His reviews have saved me from making poor purchases many times in the past.

[Oracle]

And no, terrorists do not have the same rights whether they be Americans or not.

Per the U.S. Constitution, they do. Remember, all you have to be is accused of terrorism to be held without trial, not proven to be a terrorist. That is wrong, and is in violation of the law. Per Marbury vs. Madison, any law repugnant to the U.S. Constitution is invalid. Invalid laws cannot and should not be enforced.

[telomerase]

>And no, terrorists do not have the same rights whether they be Americans or not. Go terrorist and I'm all over you the same way. You have then become a threat to my very existence and way of life.

Yes, of course, ditto for any murderer. The point is that we have to determine who is really a murderer by using evidence, not by giving arbitrary power to rulers.

>It's sickening how we house and feed the gitmo terrorists. My taxes at work right?

Even the Army has admitted that some of the Gitmo detainees were people that were given to us by the ex-Soviet warlords that are our "allies" (i.e. just people from villages that our "friends" didn't like). Killing random Third World villagers is not going to make us safer from terrorism, and we have to give credit to the officers that tried to straighten some of this mess out.

Look at the big picture: governments in the 20th century killed over 200 million people, and most of those governments (including Pol Pot) received your tax money. That's the big problem. Keeping government within limits has always been the big problem, which is why Jefferson, Paine, etc. are still relevant today. Limiting government is a lot harder (and more dangerous) than just killing random Third World children with cruise missiles, though, which is why most politicians aren't interested.

[cordex]

*laugh*

Assault knives indeed.

I'm also amused with the idea that because you received training at your police department before you were allowed to carry on the job (I'm always supportive of training, by the way) that the same policy should be applied Federally to all things Dangrous or Scary.

Before I got my first handgun, I sought out training from a professional and have never regretted that. However, I don't think it should be mandatory, any more than I think mandatory training is in order before someone buys cleaning products or paint or power tools or sharp sticks, or food, or fertilizer or gasoline or anything else that can be dangerous.

[Intune]

“The problem as I see it in this regard is that too many seem to think they should be allowed to just "own" one without any experience, and thats a dangerous thing…”
”Why would I then want them to have full auto capability with the same lack of knowledge as to their operation and maintenance? They are more dangerous than a semi auto pistiol, if they "get away" from an inexperienced user they spit many out the muzzle before anyone can react around them.”

Scary. The whole premise & outlook.

Follow the basic rules of safety and firearms are safe. Notice I said firearms? “get away” ?? Ma Deuce jumping off the tripod again? My son fired an MP5 at the age of 6. Super Boy? (I think so too) Which auto have you seen “get away” from someone? Share please. Then I’ll tell you a story about the whirling dervish with the Benelli !!

I believe the resistance here is due to the fact that we will be equal to ANYONE busting our door down. Some obviously don’t care for that. Straw arguments notwithstanding.

[brownie0486]

Try an HK 308 smg sometime. Ya just know the "boys" would be jumping all over the biggest, baddest they could lay their hands on.

I've also seen citizens on the MG day who let a micro uzi in 9mm get vertical real quick, so it isn;t just the big bore stuff either.

Easy to say 'follow the basic rules of safety", have you never seen an idiot who had enough money to buy the toy and then couldn't keep the muzzle pointed downrange? I have seen too much of it to trust ANYONE I don't know or have knowledge of their ability with a firearm to stand anywhere near them. It's so easy to state follow the rules but most haven't a clue about proper gun handling, including a lot of men whose egos won't let you explain to them what they are doing thats dangerous. We all know them, and if you don't you aren't on the firing lines that often.

Oracle: Per the Consitution they may "in theory" have those rights, but they don't have them as far as I'm concerned, and I think a good many agree with that. Thats just my personal view on the terrorists whether it be right or wrong. I'm not really interested in being PC most of the time. It's black and white with no grey areas people like to reside in as they can make excuses as to why things are the way the are. In reality they are the way they are because we [ as a whole ] have allowed society to fall into the namby pamby crap from the bleedign heart liberals. There was a day in US history when we bloddied the noses of our enemies without worrying about whether they died humanely, we need to get back to that order of business.

Cordex: I didn't say all things Dangerous or Scary. You did. I received training at the PD [ mandatorily ] as well as privately so I wouldn't look like a dumba$$ on the streets with weapons. I believe everyone should be so trained and in fact many states that issue CCW's require at least a minimal standards test beforehand to show a basic proficiency and knowledge ot the weapon of choice. Seems like that would certainly cut down on a lot of silliness we see on the ranges today.

If we were moving toward being a police state the various states would not be issuing ccw's fot the first time like many have in the last decade. I don't believe we are moving in that direction myself, though in certain areas it may appear to be that way.

Brownie

[Thumper]

Brownie,

"Because someone might hurt themselves" is not a valid argument. People hurt themselves (and others) with kitchen implements, vehicles, single shot shotguns, and fishing string every day.

There is no Proper Training clause in the Constitution. Quite the opposite, in fact, if you read Federalist 29.

I couldn't find the Show Need clause anywhere, either.

[Gmac]

One may legally OWN a car/pickup/whatever WITHOUT any training/license whatsoever and operate it on their own property. A license /training is only required to operate said vehicle on public thoroughfares.

[Thumper]

:confused:
Where in the heck does the Bill of Rights address automobile ownership?
:confused:

Owning a car is not a natural, inherent right...I'm sure you understand.

[brownie0486]

Not because they may hurt themselves[ I could care less if an idiot wants to off himself through lack of training and negligence ] , but they may kill me or one of mine while standing next to them one day.

Let me get this straight, your position is that if it isn't in the constitution it doesn't make sense? That appears what you are saying to me at this time.

You may fall back to that position and continue from that veiwpoint, but that doesn't make it reasonable or senseable to allow smg's and mg's to just every citizen within the USA. Remember why they were regulated to begin with [ there was a problem with the citizenry using them to cause mayhem and kill LE during the commision of crimes ].

My younger brother always wanted things I had been given when growing up. His whining sounded like " well he has one, I want one to" "it's not fair, he has one and I don't". He really didn't need it or want it, but the idea I had something he couldn't have really bothered him.

Some here seem to be in that mode with " the cops have them, so I should too" posts. Well, the cops have them in limited quantity, as in not all or even most have them, but I don't feel the need to have one because they do or make the issue about " it's in a piece of paper" written over 200 years ago.

Show me you have the training and are educated in their proper function and use [ thats the only way the cops get to use them on duty for a reason ] and I have no problem with you having one. If you don;t believe they are dangerous, come on down to the line some day while we are holding the MG shoot and watch all the idiots who think they know waht they are doing make an a$$ out of themselves, some even being asked to leave the line for the day.

That reasoning may not be anywhwere in the piece of paper folks keep referring me to, but it is logical, prudent, and probably a good idea.

Let me ask you folks this, as you have all been asking opinions from me.

If you could certed on an mp5, and then buy and own one becuase you were certed, would you not go get the training and cert? Or would you argue it isn't necessary to do so because of a piece of paper that doesn't referr to it and continue to refer to the document and complain that what it says is not the way it is out of principle.

I can carry an asp as I am certed in this state to carry one. I can perform cpr and first responder as I'm certed in those areas as well. Not licensed mind you, just certed. Now I could make the claim that I don't need no strinkin cert to carry a stick or to have something to defend myself with, or I can get certed and go happily along my way knowing I have the means to defend myself with it as I got certed and am now considered abiding by the law [ whether that law is just or not ].

I don't know about most of you but I take the path that produces results I'm looking for with the least resistance and hasstle possible in doing so. Should I need to cert to carry a stick? Probably not, but if I don't and get caught carrying one, I'm going to lose my ccw and then the "tools of the trade" I need to put bread on the table.

Brownie

[Oracle]

Brownie,

I'm not interested in being PC either. However, there is no "theory" involved when you're talking about someone's rights. Either everyone has them, or everyone doesn't. You can't pick and choose whom they apply to and whom they don't. Now, I agree, if someone takes actions that abridge another person's rights, then they forfeit their rights. However, that must be proven, in a court of law, before someone is denied their rights. Otherwise no one has rights, because they can all be arbitrarily taken away on the basis of accusation and rumor.

What if you were accused of being a terrorist and then imprisoned and denied your right to a trial by a jury of your peers? What if someone that you truly care about and know would never do something of that nature was? Would your or their rights simply not apply anymore, because you or they were accused of being a terrorist?

Let's look at this another way. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, all laws in the U.S. that violate or negate the laws contained within it are invalid, null and void. Thusly, as the U.S. Constitution guarantees a speedy trial by a jury of one's peers, how can a U.S. citizen, arrested on U.S. soil, be legally denied this?

[Thumper]

Let me get this straight, your position is that if it isn't in the constitution it doesn't make sense? That appears what you are saying to me at this time.

I'm saying that if a restriction is strictly prohibited, that restriction is unconstitutional.

My younger brother always wanted things I had been given when growing up. His whining sounded like " well he has one, I want one to" "it's not fair, he has one and I don't". He really didn't need it or want it, but the idea I had something he couldn't have really bothered him.

This has nothing to do with your younger brother's GI Joe. It has to to with the minions of the state having better repression tools that the plebes can deal with. Again, read the Federalist Papers. The Second is to prevent Tyranny of the State.

What part of "shall not be infringed" is throwing you?

[brownie0486]

Oracle, I don't have the answer.

If I were arrested for suspicion of terrorism or association with them, I would most likely have done something to get there, in my opinion.

If I say I'm going to blow up the plane I'm boarding and they find explosives in my shoe, I'm sure most would not be out there fighting for me to be released on bail so I could go attempt it again while awaiting trial.

Do process? Not when there is evidence to support the danger they present. Again, thats a personal opinion, maybe harsh, may be wrong, but it's all mine. I believe we should kill indiscrimately all sworn enemies of the US. As a soldier in the RVN in "70" if we had been allowed to perform our function in lieu of being PC in combat and held back at every turn by the admins and powers that be in Wash. we could have saved a whole lot of my friends lives as well as thousands I never got to meet.

How far do we take the Constitutional rights of these people when we start seeing daily bombings blowing up restaurants, gov buildings, schools and killing our loved ones like Isreal is experiencing daily? How about it? Do we say nay nay in the name of the document, give them due process while they continue to murder us and take our freedoms away through fear and intimidation?

To that I make a resounding NO vote right now. I believe in an eye for an eye, not turning the other cheek and being PCed to death [ literally ].
Preemptive strikes against our enemies is a good thing. Course it's not in that document so I guess we'll have to continue to let them use it against us. No thanks---------

Brownie

[Thumper]

Great Brownie...suspend the Constitution, screw Habeus Corpus, grant emergency powers...fine.

Terrorists wanted to change our way of life. Some folks want to let them.

You want to throw out all the Constitutional safeguards that you (and I) fought to protect? Great.

But remember, Hillary could be test driving this new nation you propose.

[brownie0486]

I understand 2a quite well as others here do and the non-infringement of same.

Thats a lot different than being prudent and reasonable. I'm not saying don't let them have them, but I am of the opinion there's a need to demonstrate some semblance of proficiency before "everyone" gets to go to Walmart and start carrying them around.

I understand what you are saying and quoting, but does all that make sense to you? So it's against the letter of the document, can't we be reasonable and take prudent nmeasures to ensure those who would own them will not be a threat to me?

Perhaps not, but then, if we go back to everyone carries anything they want, there are going to be a lot of dead people laying about when some idiot "paints" me with one on the street. May not be his fault, after all he was only exercising his rights to carry it. On the other hand I would be executing my own rights to be safe in my environ according to the same doc. He makes my environ unsafe, he gets wasted and then I'm back to be safe in my person.

Oh, we couldn't do that? I see, I need to then put up with idiots exercising their rights while jeopardizing mine? I don't ever think that will happen in my lifetime or yours. Thank God.

Brownie

[Thumper]

Perhaps not, but then, if we go back to everyone carries anything they want, there are going to be a lot of dead people laying about when some idiot "paints" me with one on the street. May not be his fault, after all he was only exercising his rights to carry it. On the other hand I would be executing my own rights to be safe in my environ according to the same doc. He makes my environ unsafe, he gets wasted and then I'm back to be safe in my person.

Ever go to Georgia? Everybody I KNEW was armed when I lived there. There is NO training requirement. Same for Vermont...and Alaska...and any number of other areas.

Yeah, without proper training there'll be blood in the streets. Whatever. Doesn't happen.

You do realize that you're parrotting the antis, correct? And that they keep getting proven wrong?

[cordex]

I didn't say all things Dangerous or Scary. You did.
I'm well aware of who first used that phrase.
But we've gone from eeeevil killdeath guns (buzzguns and such) and your "reasonable" and "sensible" restrictions you'd like on those to eeeevil killdeath knives (spyderco civilian) and your "reasonable" and "sensible" restrictions you'd like on those.
The progression does tend to lead towards Mommy.gov protecting little Timmy citizen from any thing Dangerous or Scary.

The primary problem I have with weapon control through certification is the ability for arbitrary denial through legislation.

If you wish to deny me the ability to own or carry something (I notice you waffle on this a bit ... it would be okay to own scary knives sans cert, but not own scary guns without an arbitrary level of training?), you'd damn sure have a better reason than "I think it is reasonable and prudent that you do exactly as I say".

[brownie0486]

Cordex,
I didn't say or allude to that either.

What I said was the cert idea MAY just get more of the items we want into our hands. CCW's already carry cert and qualls as preconditions in many of the states, I was extrapolating this to knives and MG's as well.

People who want to carry in a shall issue state already cert [ to a degree ] prior to being issued a ccw, why not carry that into the mg's and knives.

It may just calm the sheeple into letting all of us carry what we want without their fears of accidents through negligence which we see often enough with handguns today under the present situation.

Though I agree it may not be the solve all to the theme, it may help as it follows what has been instituted for the most part with handguns carried upon our person in the shall issue states.

Can there be abuses, of course. Will there be abuses? of course, there are now with the ccw's, but to sit and cry that it is a right you need not show anything for really doesn't wash with the masses nor is likely to be allowed by the general public or politicians. I merely threw out a scenario where it may benefit all of us in all areas of selfdefense by doing so.

We can fight the liberals and stand the ground and not get much farther in the next decade or we can compromise [ I know, it's an ugly word to some ] and get the ultraa libs to do the same, in the end I thionk we would all be happier than standing toe to toe and shouting at each other whose right and whose wrong with no one actually accomplishing much on either side.

It's just a thought, it may not be a good one, but I haven't seen anyone come up with something better that MAY appeal to both sides [ which of course means compromising ]. If you or others feel thats not acceptable we then remain at a stalemate with neither side giving in to their beliefs

Brownie

[TheeBadOne]

What brownie said. Very limited. I'm familiar with what the cops in my 1/2 of the state carry. One metro swat team has mp5's. The largest swat team belongs to the local sheriffs dept. They have AR-15's, semi-auto only. One nearby PD has MP-5's with 3 shot burst for their patrol cars. Most others don't have anything other than the shotgun. Those that do have semi-auto only AR-15/M4A3 rifles. I'd say that less than 3% have access to full auto/burst weapons. That one local PD is the only one I know that has them at the patrol level, the other is swat only. That local pd does a lot of drug interdiction as a major interstate runs through it. They get all kinds of nasties hauling drugs/cash through it.

[Thumper]

The point is that trying to appease whatever opinion is prevailing at the time is running counter to what made this a great country in the first place.

The Bill of Rights isn't subject to popular opinion.

The Constitution is a rock. It's the framework that made us what we are. You keep trying "just bend it a little" to appease the ninnies, or those that would just "kill em all" (I'm one of those) and you start to tear up the document.

All this was predicted and covered by the Founders 200 years before we were born.

[seeker_two]

Per the Consitution they may "in theory" have those rights, but they don't have them as far as I'm concerned, and I think a good many agree with that.

brownie: I respect the job that you held & the sacrifices that you made to protect the public. So I do not denigrate your efforts when I say this...

You, sir, are an ELITIST --a staunch member of the "Laws for Thee. but Not for Me" crowd that includes the likes of the Kennedys (don't really have to report traffic deaths), the Feinsteins (I can have a CCW, but my constituents can't), the Gores ("no controlling legal interest") and the Clintons (I can lie to the grand jury & rifle through FBI files, but you can't talk about MY pecadilloes).

You believe that others should be denied access to the same rights & priviledges that you yourself possess. You believe that a God-given RIGHT can be marginalized by law & regulation. And you believe that your opinion should be held to higher regard than others simply because of your position.

You are in the same frame of mind as the hunters who think that handguns & semi-auto rifles should be banned as long as they get to keep their hunting rifles & shotguns. You are in the same frame of mind as the high-dollar firearms owners who think that SNS's & SKS's should be banned because they are too "cheap" and easy to get. You are in the same frame of mind as the "sportsmen" who believe that only firearms that have a "sporting purpose" should be allowed. And you are in the same frame of mind as certain Europeans who believe that the general public should not be allowed to defend themselves while they live in gated communities surrounded by armed guards.

Yes. You are an ELITIST . And I think that your future statements should be read by everyone with that in mind.

[brownie0486]

If 2a was strictly abided by, we would not be having this discussion to begin with, see, compromised already. I'm not advocating something that hasn't already been compromised.

If others feel so striongly about no compromises, they should not be carry in shall issue states on principle alone, hell, I don't need no stinkin permit to carry, it saysso right here in the document.

Instead, we have people who do compromise and carry with a license to do so issued by some authority through legislative action within that states carry laws.

It's already been diluted, do you really think it will get back to it's original intent one day? I don't, and consequently have no problem finding common ground we can agree on which serves both sides views equally in lieu of holding out that the truths are self evident and not willing to discuss anything other than the written rights in a document which has been amended and will continue to be so.

They added amendments over the last 200 years to the original document. Perhaps we should make them null and void as the founders did not include it in the original. Lets see, no women get to vote, slaves come back into vogue, etc etc.

The document isn't written in stone, it has taken its twists and turns and has been changed as society addressed issues that were not relevant during the original signing of same.

The hardline with no room for compromise is one tact. The probelm is that road doesn't usually get you to where you want to be.

Brownie

[Intune]

It better get back to it's original intent or one of two things will happen. We will lose this country or there will be revolution. Seeker Two and Thumper, before this thread gets closed, you are exactly right on the money.

[brownie0486]

seeker_two :

I own no auto weapons [ though I can if I want to ].

I abide by the same rules as others in my state. No more or less.

Others are not denied anything I have, as I only have semi's, a permit to carry them and the training to use them effectively.

God given rights have already been marginalized long before I was put on the earth.

My opinion is only my opinion, nothing more or less.

Please explain where I made statements that lead you to believe:

"You are in the same frame of mind as the hunters who think that handguns & semi-auto rifles should be banned as long as they get to keep their hunting rifles & shotguns. You are in the same frame of mind as the high-dollar firearms owners who think that SNS's & SKS's should be banned because they are too "cheap" and easy to get. You are in the same frame of mind as the "sportsmen" who believe that only firearms that have a "sporting purpose" should be allowed. And you are in the same frame of mind as certain Europeans who believe that the general public should not be allowed to defend themselves while they live in gated communities surrounded by armed guards."

Though you have the right to your opinion of my views, I really would like the extrapolation of comments I have made to conclusions you have come to and how you got there.

BTW--I have stated in this thread everyone should be allowed to carry. Does that sound like Kennedy talking?

Brownie

[seeker_two]

Per the Consitution they may "in theory" have those rights, but they don't have them as far as I'm concerned, and I think a good many agree with that.

I received training at the PD [ mandatorily ] as well as privately so I wouldn't look like a dumba$$ on the streets with weapons. I believe everyone should be so trained and in fact many states that issue CCW's require at least a minimal standards test beforehand to show a basic proficiency and knowledge ot the weapon of choice.

Show me you have the training and are educated in their proper function and use [ thats the only way the cops get to use them on duty for a reason ] and I have no problem with you having one.

Do process? Not when there is evidence to support the danger they present.

Thats a lot different than being prudent and reasonable. I'm not saying don't let them have them, but I am of the opinion there's a need to demonstrate some semblance of proficiency before "everyone" gets to go to Walmart and start carrying them around.



This is just from the last page. I'd find more, but I have work to do...

[Thumper]

I have stated in this thread everyone should be allowed to carry.

No...you said everyone should be able to carry that you deem capable.

That's elitism.

[tyme]

How far do we take the Constitutional rights of these people when we start seeing daily bombings blowing up restaurants, gov buildings, schools and killing our loved ones like Isreal is experiencing daily? How about it? Do we say nay nay in the name of the document, give them due process while they continue to murder us and take our freedoms away through fear and intimidation?
Yes, that's exactly what we should do in that situation. If it's so obvious that they bombed something, what's the problem with running such cases by a jury?

I understand what you are saying and quoting, but does all that make sense to you? So it's against the letter of the document, can't we be reasonable and take prudent nmeasures to ensure those who would own them will not be a threat to me?
Yes, let's be reasonable and prudent. Let's store everyone's DNA, fingerprints/palmprints/hand geometry, retinal patterns, urine samples, dental records, and full-height front/back nude pictures. Nobody shall be allowed to linger in a public place without having a biometric smartcard certifying they're a good citizen. All stores shall require said certification before selling anything to anyone if it could conceivably cause harm to yourself or another... which includes everything because receipts can be used to inflict paper cuts, and anything sold without a receipt can cause mental anguish if it's defective. Anyone buying a suspicious item shall be detained until identity is verified by both the smartcard and by the government archive. Further, anyone providing an unsatisfactory answer for purchasing a suspicious item must undergo a thorough psych exam.

Aside from the excessive biometrics, the above is currently standard procedure for getting a CCW in some places. The public won't tolerate similar measures for many other products today, but what about 50 years from now? Firearms regulations wouldn't seem reasonable and prudent to someone 50 years ago; who are you or I to say that people 50 years from now wouldn't consider mandatory biometrics and showing of a "good citizen" certificate to be "reasonable and prudent?"

[brownie0486]

Not that "I" deem capable. Never said that, again, thats what you read into the statement. Which is okay, but if you are going to reiterate what I said, at least be accurate lest someone get the wrong impression that your statement of my stated views is correct.

Though I think I could fit into that role. Hell, if that happened, a lot of cops wouldn't be carrying either. Some of the worst offenders to gun handling skills I know are line officers.

Not their fault, the admins and states set the standards for quall.

Brownie

[Intune]

:what: :banghead: :rolleyes:

[Oracle]

If I were arrested for suspicion of terrorism or association with them, I would most likely have done something to get there, in my opinion.

Do process? Not when there is evidence to support the danger they present. Again, thats a personal opinion, maybe harsh, may be wrong, but it's all mine.



So, there is absolutely no chance that you or anyone else could be wrongly accused of terrorism? That is why we have these safeguards, so that the government cannot deprive a person of their rights without proving, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the person has committed the crime that the government accuses them of doing. Allowing the government to deprive a person of their rights arbitrarily, simply because a government official accuses someone of terrorism, is completely antiethical to every principle this country was founded upon. You would cast aside your and my freedom, and the principles that this country was founded upon, and give the government the ability to imprison a person and deprive them of their rights simply on the SUSPICION that they may be involved in terrorism?

Well, to that I only have one response, the same response that Sam Adams gave to those who were willing to cast aside their liberty and the liberty of others:

"Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."

[Thumper]

Ol' Ben Franklin had something pretty interesting to say on the subject, too, IIRC.

[cordex]

I didn't say or allude to that either.
Didn't say or allude to what?
You didn't say that you supported "reasonable" and "sensible" restrictions on "weapons" (with no concrete definition there, either ... ask Agricola for his definition and see if it fits)?
Or was it denying my ability to own an item based on your arbitrary criteria?
Sorry, I must've misunderstood you. No other possible explaination.
Let's just get this clear so there is no more confusion.

TheeBadOne and Brownie,
If it were up to you, how would weapons be regulated?
Would police have access to arms that non-LEO do not?
Would individuals be forced to take mandatory training, psych exams, strength tests, reading comprehension test, etc before they were allowed to buy or own weapons? All weapons or just some weapons?
What would be the conditions of carry? Would there be mandatory training to receive CCW?
How will you define weapons? Will evil looking or well-designed fighting knives be regulated and Swiss-Army knives unregulated?

Remember, this is an attempt at determining where you stand on the issue, not the best tactics to use to get to where we want to be.

[brownie0486]

By the numbers: In the real world--------

Weapons would not be regulated [ unless they are gas operated ]:rolleyes:

No, they would not

Yes, they would [ training, just like the LEO's ]: No to psych, strength, reading, [ they are not germain to the safety issues.]

not all weapons, just some like smg's

Yes, mandatory proficiency to ccw. [ we have that now in shall issuse states like mine ].

Knives: certain knives would be restricted as they are today without cert on them al;lowing them to be carried
____________________________________________________
By the numbers in Utopia:

Weapons would not be regulated

No they would not

No training to own and carry anything you like up to but not including WMD[ there's a caveat to this at the end ]

No training or tests of any kind. See below

No knife would be illegal to carry
_____________________________________________________

In utopia, I think we need the following understanding with the answers
above.

1. There are no mistakes made, you screw up and injure another with a weapon through negligence, stupidity, whatever, the person you injured or his family get to kill you or your first born if you have children [ it's an open society and you need to take responsibility for your actions and there is no blame tranferrence allowed]

2. You drink and drive and injure me or mine, I get to kill you with my gun.

3. You violate me or mine by stealing, vandalism, tresspass, whatever, get to kill you on the spot and bury you in the garden.

There is no other way for an open society to deal with lawlessness from others and others stupidity.

Lets say you spill coffee at the driveup window on yourself and sue me as I have no disclaimer the coffee was hot. I get to kill you. You are responsible to yourself and your own safety, come after me in a blame transferrance, you get the hot lead.

You hit me in your car and injure me, I get to kill you.

Anybody care to live like that? Didn't think so, and thats why we don't live like that folks, cause in the lawless old west it was everyman for himself and if you were wronged you got to address the issues with that person up close and personal.

BTW--In the old west, they left their guns at the sheriffs office and were not allowed to carry openly in town. Imagine that, restrictions on carry from Wyatt and Will Bill themselves way back then hey? Anyone wonder why? I'm sure you can figure it out, if not, let me know you need the enlightenment.

So when I hear others complain about they can't carry openly or at all, I have to wonder what they would have thought about coming up against old Wyatt himself and arguing about the legality of disarmament.

And one more thing, I never hear or see anything in print about 2a and their rights when they were told to "take em off" at the city limits back in the 1800's. Wonder why?


Brownie

[Thumper]

In the old west, they left their guns at the sheriffs office and were not allowed to carry openly in town. Imagine that, restrictions on carry from Wyatt and Will Bill themselves way back then hey? Anyone wonder why? I'm sure you can figure it out, if not, let me know you need the enlightenment.

Yes, it was about control...as they write themselves in their memoirs...they wanted total control.

You may like that. I don't.

You came close in your previous post to what works...Responsibility.

You break it, you buy it. You mess up with your gun, you pay the price...

Not "I can own full auto but you can't, because I have to control you."

Hey brownie, the three Texas LEO's I've had look at your responses find them repulsive. Where exactly were you a cop?

[cordex]

Re: real world.
Gas operated? As in internal combustion engine or semi/full auto that are gas operated? Blowback full-auto is okay?

So, officers on duty couldn't go back into the armory and pull out guns that Joe Notacop couldn't go to the gun store and buy (assuming Joe Notacop passes your arbitrary training program, anyway)?

Just some thoughts:
Psych: you don't want some psycho buying guns, do you?
Strength: You earlier said that guns can get away from people under some conditions. Plus, you don't want someone else to disarm the gun owner, right? Should be strong enough to hold on to their weapon, shouldn't they?
Reading: Gotta make sure they can read the manual of their weapon, right?
Safety, safety, safety. That's what the government is there for.

Why increased training on SMGs as opposed to semi-shotguns? "Like SMG's"? What about GPMGs? Or selective fire rifles? What about 2 round burst only?

In my state, auto-knives are illegal. That's about it. Not sure what you are saying here, though ... so auto-knives are still illegal unless I get certified on them? No other changes?
So when I hear others complain about they can't carry openly or at all, I have to wonder what they would have thought about coming up against old Wyatt himself and arguing about the legality of disarmament.
What? A lawman arguing to disarm everyone but himself? Say it ain't so! Why, who has ever heard of such a thing? *grin*

Funny how you define the rules of "the Wild West" by the actions of a few towns.

[brownie0486]

Funny, The old west only had a few towns. The major ones had gun restrictions. I also notice no one is commenting on any 2a issues brought forth by the folks who were being disarmed back then, is thaty too touchy to deal with?

Thats right, citizens could have exactly what the LE had, thought I said that. Ans there is no assuming about it, they need the training like the line officers need the training before they can carry. You see any difference between yourself and LE's when it comes to proficiency with a firearm? Not trying to set yourself apart from the LE community standards are you?Thats what you are accusing the LE of doing here isn't it?

Let the psycho buy the gun, he'll be dead soon enough after he mucks it up and injures someone.

Strength has nothing to do with controlling full auto, anyone trained on them knows that. My wife handles them just fine who is 4' 11" and 93 pounds, stength, nah, it takes training.

Nope, don't have to make sure they can read the instructions, they can have someone read it to them or they can muck up and suffer the same fate.

Safety safety safety, thats what being responsible would bring, however I see many who act irresponsibly with weapons on the line, they would of course be among the missing shortly as well.

No, knives would be made legal across the board [ all knives ], act irresponsibly and you're among the missing as well.

You see me arguing to disarm everyone? Thats not been stated by me anywhere in this thread. Show me where I said it and use quotes if you would please.

See, you folks want to read all kinds of nastys into the statements made and I can only assume it is the thought process and disturbing thoughts that bring you to assume I said something when it hasn't been spoken.

I want to see some quotes to the allegations of my statements made in the last few posts. Find them or admit that the comments about the statements are your own thought process at work [ an assumption not based in fact ].

It wasn't that they wanted control, it was becuase the range riders and drovers would enter the town, get soused up and shoot the town up injuring/killing and causing potential mayhem in the streets. But the mindset that "they wanted control" show through with the anti-LE thought process pretty well there with that statement.

The gas operated comment was a "joke" speaking in terms of "regulating" the gas system on some of the designs used.

I'm sure they do there Thumper, not everyone in the lE crowd agrees with me either. Nothing new about that to me. Keep in mind these are my thoughts, not the LE communities, or did someone get that mixed up as well in their thought processes.

I see no one has responded to the alternative where everyone is responsible for their actions and can die for being stupid. I could live under that scenario very well through training and responibility.

BTW--What about the posts do they find repulsive, please be explicit so we know it is a quoted thought I had and not something they gleened from their own thought processes.


Brownie

[Thumper]

Well, the worst was:Why would I want to visit you in the funhouse when it's easier to keep you away from them (MP-5s) to begin with

I've been asked to make the point (again) that the hypothetical Tyranny that comes in the night after your guns will undoubtably be toting a select fire weapon. You know cops that would do it and so do I, so don't try to say it can't happen.

The Second is NOT about your right to tote a 5 shot J-frame. It is about having effective weapons to augment Jefferson's "teeth." The teeth that our Founders say are our only guarantees against Tyranny.

Please tell me what, if anything, you disagree with in that statement.

To repeat, this is some silly enfantile response to "they can have it and I can't." Who cares if they get to take their Mp-5 home at the end of the day.

The point is, they'll have it when they come for my guns.

[brownie0486]

If the US cops come, they will have mp5's and 16, glocks, sigs, sniper rifles etc.

If the blue berets come, they will be toting whatever they carry.

My thoughts run to training on them or not issued period. You show proficiency in other areas of your life that can affect others in the general public like your car. Why is it so hard to understand prudence and responsibility need to be interjected into the equation, unless it is the attitude people have that "screw em", the 2a says different and I'll be stubborn and pout if they don't follow the lwetter of the written word.

The written word has been altered, and more added to teh doc since it's creation. Again, I saw a shying away from the bill of rights being changed by adding other amendments.

If you don't want the training and to show proficiency, I don't think anyone should have them. Others feel they have the "right" to not need the training to use/own one yet the cops have to pass standards tests to do the same. Why? because it cuts the problems of misuse through lack of training which reduces everyones liability and saves lives in the end.

May not be written into 2a but then many things are that common sense would dictate as prudent in "todays" world, not theirs.

As I stated gert the training and own them, where's the issue unless you are holding out that you don't think you need to be prudent in your actions.
And I would agree, don't be prudent, but allow me my pound of flesh when you injure me and mine even by "accident".

By keeping the mp5s from you I would also be including any LE's who think they can handle one without the training. There was no wexclusion to the statement made.

They may have the 16's, and you can have yours, in that scenario you will lose through sheer numbers anyway. Is there a difference in dying with a 16 in your hands or a 640-1? I don't see the difference myself. You resist and they'll get you by the numbers against you. You do realize that barricaded is not the place to be when they come for them right?


Brownie

[TheeBadOne]

Hey brownie, the three Texas LEO's I've had look at your responses find them repulsive.
~Thumper
....and I've shown them to 6 who agree with the majority of brownie's points.
Should we begin a series of "I know you are but what am I?" ;)

[Thumper]

Please tell me you understand that this is about arbitrary restrictions, brownie...otherwise I've just been wasting my ephereal "breath."

Training? Have to have training...OK. What kind of training? Well, If I'm Janet Reno, I'm going to dictate that all civilian applicants complete a basic 2000 round course of fire. 200 dollar fee to take the test. Now we've successfully moved from "right" to priviledge...Good. Now we require insurance in case of liability. OK. Now a two year application process. Outstanding.

By requiring even 5 minutes of training, you have successfully qualified a "right." No citizen should have to apply to exercise a what you claim to understand is an intrinsic right.

Intrinsic...Inherent...that means you're born with 'em, not that you have to train to someone's standard to earn them.

[Thumper]

TBO and brownie,

Why was the 2nd included in the BOR? What is its purpose?

Please answer this time.

TBO...get your cop buddies responses, too.

[seeker_two]

http://www.oldwestreproductions.com/images/28ShoulderHolster2.jpg

THIS was Texas' answer to the restrictive LEO's like Earp & Hickock... :D

And all his efforts to "control" those guns didn't do Hickock a bit of good in the end (maybe if he'd had more training...:rolleyes: )

BTW, who trained Hickock & Earp to handle those guns better than the citizens that they disarmed? :scrutiny:

(Guess JW Hardin had a better teacher than Hickock, eh?)


Keep talking, brownie. You're just making the case for me... :evil:

[tyme]

(brownie) You show proficiency in other areas of your life that can affect others in the general public like your car.
You wouldn't know it driving around here in Dallas.

The problem with even a free competency test is -- how do you enforce it? Are you going to have a database that cops have to check anytime they run into someone carrying a firearm?

The solution is simple: mandatory gun handling and range practice taught in school. All secondary school students should have to demonstrate safe gun handling and reasonable accuracy before they turn 16, and nobody may drop out of school at age 16 unless they've already satisfied the requirements.

[Intune]

They may have the 16's, and you can have yours, in that scenario you will lose through sheer numbers anyway. Is there a difference in dying with a 16 in your hands or a 640-1? I don't see the difference myself. You resist and they'll get you by the numbers against you. You do realize that barricaded is not the place to be when they come for them right?

I'm not gonna hijack this thread into a revolution discussion but we once again disagree. They'll get the first few hundred, maybe thousand and then THEY will become the hunted. Once Uncle Sugar trains ya he can't take it back. WE the PEOPLE are the sheer numbers. I don't think your "reasonable training restrictions" have anything to do with safety. I believe it's a fear that the 55 million out there could resist, resist well and triumph. Stick to the gangbangers with autos, they're safer for you.

[Thumper]

Remember, you're talking about an Army whose members swore to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Every one of 'em. I used to have this conversation a lot with my buddies. You might be surprised at how many of those M-16s end up pointed at the Feds.

[Thumper]

Speaking of which, brownie, you swore that same Oath.

Change your mind?

[Thumper]

I propose we start a new thread. This discussion has nothing to do with "disarming the police."

Anyone?

Perhaps a poll, brownie?

[Intune]

Wouldn't that be a shocker for the alphabet feds- "Hey, they got TANKS!!! That's not fair!" We are NOT the few, we are the MANY. Don't let anyone ever "allude" that we're not. :neener:

[brownie0486]

Well,
I actually like the idea proposed about the school kids. Training is training anyway you slice it. Proficiency with a weapon is most important to my way of thinking, perhaps thats jaded as i have plenty of it in different formats, I'm not sure as I hadn't really thought about why I feel that way except it is reasonable to believe it's prudent.

When you are sitting in your home and they come for the guns you are not the masses. That was the scenario, barricaded, and the scenario was relative having to need a 16 to thwart their advances. That 16 won't do you much good when 30-50 "takers" [ whoever they may be if it happens at all ] have surrounded your residence. The others reply is taken out of context, once again.

I have made no statements that I don't support the right to bear arms, the 2a, or the constitution. I have laid out a possible scenario where with qualls [ however you choose to get them] you get to have the MG's and anything else you would want with no restrictions. Of course, that would take compromise on both sides to work it out and apparently others here are stuck in the rut of the old 2a "why should I have to, it doesn't say I have to in the BOR". It's not about why you should have to or not, it's about finding ways that the opposition may find acceptable where we could then be qualled and have the items we desire. Alas, that won't happen as long as the 2a proponents do not think there is a need to find middle ground. In the meantime we have no access to full auto, or other desireable weapons of choice. Not that my proposition would get us there but it could be discussed as an alernative and see what the anti's have to say.

Thumper, I already wrote about the Marine unit quieried at 29 stumps [ palms, for you non jarheads ] who said no way to going after civilians guns in the US. Thats means if it happens they will likely use the UN peacekeepers to cary out the orders. In that scenario it will be us vs. them as they will be foreigners on our soil.

tyme: I would expect a cert card would be all thats necessary, not a license. I agree with the drivers comment in your area, it's the same here. One of the reasons is that they give the test here in 30 languages and the street signs are in English. I reall like the idea you propose about the schools, it solves a few issues with me and in the final analysis we would have many coming up behind us who would be competent when they were carrying or using the firearms they were trained on.

The old west boys kicked butt, took names, and sent em packin. They were considered thugs by many then like others see LE today.

It's not qualifying a right, do you have the right to carry an auto now? qualling to get certed [ not licensed ] could lead to ownership where you have none at this time [ for the most part ]. Even non shall issue states would fall in line with the cert and all those ewho can't carry now in those states would certainly appreciate the advances wouldn't they?

Life is full of compromises. Some do not see the possible end result of compromise to getting certed. As an LE, anyone walking up to me and certed on an mp5 would have no worries about being hastled. Keep in mind this is only an idea, but from some fo the replies it won't happen so we are left where we are today, different viewpoints looking for the same results [ for everyone to be able to carry what they want]. There isn't a cop out there who hasn't qualled to carry his duty arm and show a minimal level of proficiency.

Brownie

[TheeBadOne]

Of course, that would take compromise on both sides to work it out and apparently others here are stuck in the rut of the old 2a "why should I have to, it doesn't say I have to in the BOR"! That's it in a nutshell. I won't assit in beating the dead horse this thread has become.

All the best

[brownie0486]

TBO:

Agreed,

Brownie

[seeker_two]

"Why should I have to pay taxes when I don't have representation?"

"Why should I have to feed & shelter soldiers in my home?"

"Why should I have to buy tea only from a business approved by the government?"

"Why should I let soldiers come into my community and seize my firearms?"

These were questions asked 227 years ago.

As I remember, the Continental Congress didn't "compromise" when they asked all these questions...

..."why should I have to, it doesn't say I have to in the BOR"! ...

Another good question.

Why should we compromise now? :scrutiny:

[Thumper]

Evidently our boys have fought and died for over 200 years to get us to the point that we can "compromise" the Bill of Rights.

Nice.

How'd that oath you took go again, brownie?

[Intune]

When you are sitting in your home and they come for the guns you are not the masses. That was the scenario, barricaded, and the scenario was relative having to need a 16 to thwart their advances. That 16 won't do you much good when 30-50 "takers" [ whoever they may be if it happens at all ] have surrounded your residence. The others reply is taken out of context, once again.

What “scenario”??? See, still want to be in control like the “good ol days,” eh? You can’t set the “scenario” when a person has freedom & power. I envision the “scenario” a little differently. Something like 20 or 30 M16 & AK armed compadres ambushing gungrabbers on their way to the party. They will do us plenty good. We ARE the masses & the power… Oooo, a long distance shudder was felt. Must… Not… Lose… Control.
:cool:

[cordex]

Thats right, citizens could have exactly what the LE had, thought I said that.
Just wanted to clarify.
Ans there is no assuming about it, they need the training like the line officers need the training before they can carry.
We're not just talking carry here. You've specified training requirements to own some items as well.
You see any difference between yourself and LE's when it comes to proficiency with a firearm? Not trying to set yourself apart from the LE community standards are you?Thats what you are accusing the LE of doing here isn't it?
I'll try to go slowly here.
LEO can have restrictions on duty weapons - nothing wrong with that. With me so far?
LEO or non-LEO should not have restriction on private weapons. Okay?
One more time:
There is a difference between departmental policy and federal law.
You see me arguing to disarm everyone? Thats not been stated by me anywhere in this thread. Show me where I said it and use quotes if you would please.
Never said you did, brownie. But their are cops who would disarm all non-LEO/non-Military.
You're just for more restrictions than I agree with. Arbitrary training just begging to be abused administratively.
I want to see some quotes to the allegations of my statements made in the last few posts. Find them or admit that the comments about the statements are your own thought process at work [ an assumption not based in fact ].
*sigh* Okay, fine.

Advocating arbitrary training requirements & limitation on ownership of weapons if requirements aren't met:
Citizens/civilians want to go through the standards course to carry it as well? Or do they believe they should be able to carry it without any prior indication and/or testing to determine they are capable of handling this "stuff" like the cops go through?

Oh ya, Almost forgot, they have to normally go through a psych profile as well to be allowed to perform in these roles. Civilians would have to expect to do the same I would think to be fair. Or should we allow all citizens access to the equipment SOME LE carry to perform their duties without any training like the cops have to go through?

See, it can't be as simple as " hey, that cop has an mp5sd, I should have one as well.", without the same indoctrination and training the LE's receive before they are allowed to tote it around. And lets not forget, the LE's who do carry this "stuff" don't do so on a daily basis like some citizens believe they have the right to do. Some [knives] are made for killing, others are made for utility reason but may be used as a weapon. The ones made with killing in mind are restricted accordingly.Show me you have been trained and I think you can carry it [ my opinion ]. My belief there is founded in the fact that it is prudent to show proficiency with ones chosen weapon if carried in public.

I believe it is a prudent approach and one that ought to be addressed nationally.Show me you have the training and are educated in their proper function and use [ thats the only way the cops get to use them on duty for a reason ] and I have no problem with you having one.CCW's already carry cert and qualls as preconditions in many of the states, I was extrapolating this to knives and MG's as well.I believe if the citizen can show proficiency on the subguns as I have had to do in training before being qualled to carry such an arm, then yes, they should be allowed to carry/possess one. The problem as I see it in this regard is that too many seem to think they should be allowed to just "own" one without any experience, and thats a dangerous thing.


General advocation of restriction of arms:
I agree that we should be able to own an AR like the boys in green do, just not full auto.I understand 2a quite well as others here do and the non-infringement of same.

Thats a lot different than being prudent and reasonable. I'm not saying don't let them have them, but I am of the opinion there's a need to demonstrate some semblance of proficiency before "everyone" gets to go to Walmart and start carrying them around.

I understand what you are saying and quoting, but does all that make sense to you? So it's against the letter of the document, can't we be reasonable and take prudent nmeasures to ensure those who would own them will not be a threat to me?


Inability to understand the difference between duty weapons and privately owned weapons.
Cops don't want to take the course and pass proficiency testing with them? They don't get to carry one. Same with the military. You, as a civilian, think you can have one with none of the training either group gets before they are allowed to use one?

Where's the logic in that?The LE's only use something [ smg's] when they need them. Otherwise they are put away. They have to show a need to use them and carry them, you think you should be any ddifferent?

I've probably missed a few.


The gas operated comment was a "joke" speaking in terms of "regulating" the gas system on some of the designs used.
Sorry, didn't pick up on that, but very funny now that I understand. Maybe you need to work on timing?