David Spade Donates $100K to Phoenix PD for AR-15s


PDA






CWL
December 22, 2008, 07:52 PM
David Spade gives $100K to Phoenix PD to buy 50 AR-15s for patrol use.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081222/ap_en_tv/people_david_spade

If you enjoyed reading about "David Spade Donates $100K to Phoenix PD for AR-15s" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
seale
December 22, 2008, 07:53 PM
Woa. Is he pro gun or just a government worshiper?

The story references how police tend to plead poverty and buy their own rifles. At least the fool who was just parted from his money is a hollywood type. If the swat team is ever called out on him, I'm also sure they will remember who paid for their toys (riiiight).

{resists urge to make reference to "just shoot me"}

MikePGS
December 22, 2008, 07:56 PM
Not a big fan of his, but surprised to see someone who is (kind of) in Hollywood buying guns for anyone.

Sinixstar
December 22, 2008, 07:56 PM
Woa. Is he pro gun or just a government worshiper?

Neither as far as I know. He donates a lot of money to various causes. He donated $25k to the family of a cop who was killed, and another $10 to help keep an animal shelter from going under (that I can think of off the top of my head).

I've met him once or twice - just a really down to earth kinda guy who isn't above helpin people out if they need it.

Sinixstar
December 22, 2008, 07:58 PM
Not a big fan of his, but surprised to see someone who is (kind of) in Hollywood buying guns for anyone.


You know Charlton Heston was one of the biggest names in Hollywood at one point...

ColinthePilot
December 22, 2008, 07:59 PM
That comes out to $2K each. They had better be real M-16's or M-4's if they're costing that much. They should be able to get 115 or 120 AR-15's for that much money.

Sinixstar
December 22, 2008, 08:02 PM
That comes out to $2K each. They had better be real M-16's or M-4's if they're costing that much. They should be able to get 115 or 120 AR-15's for that much money.


I imagine they probably have some tactical (not tacti-cool, since these are actual LEOs) goodies to go along.

Mohawk
December 22, 2008, 08:03 PM
Excellent move on his part. Nothing wrong with our LEOS being well armed for any situation. Price of ARs are through the roof. IMO

hankdatank1362
December 22, 2008, 08:06 PM
Good for him!

I always liked his biting sarcasm.

taliv
December 22, 2008, 08:09 PM
good for him.

btw, prices of ARs are not through the roof for teh po-po

Sinixstar
December 22, 2008, 08:10 PM
Good for him!

I always liked his biting sarcasm.


I saw a live stand-up show he did awhile back - pretty funny.

Mrs. Armoredman
December 22, 2008, 08:11 PM
Good for him!! I did hear the police department could not afford rifles. I am glad he stepped up.

Coronach
December 22, 2008, 08:13 PM
That comes out to $2K each. They had better be real M-16's or M-4's if they're costing that much. They should be able to get 115 or 120 AR-15's for that much money.Add in parts.

Add in tools for the armorers.

Add in training for the armorers.

Add in magazines.

Add in training for the riflemen.

Add in training ammunition.

Add in duty ammunition.

You can exhaust $2k/per very quickly.

Mike

taliv
December 22, 2008, 08:43 PM
Add in doughnuts.

:)

Double Naught Spy
December 22, 2008, 08:46 PM
My opinion of David Spade just went up exponentially.

seale
December 22, 2008, 08:51 PM
Good for him!! I did hear the police department could not afford rifles. I am glad he stepped up.yea, it's not like there are any taxpayers there or anything :rolleyes:

Sinixstar
December 22, 2008, 08:57 PM
yea, it's not like there are any taxpayers there or anything


Depending on the local laws, Emergency Services only have access to funds from specific sources, and they have to compete for funding with other agencies of government. Normally it's from a "general fund" of some sort. This is to eliminate the possibility of preferential treatment towards a specific group that happens to pay taxes into a given tax pool.

That said - in those cases where agencies have to compete for funding, it can really make things difficult. When you consider all the costs that go into running a police force, new AR-15s are probably not exactly the top of the list.
Couple that with a senator who refuses to get federal support for local agencies (ie - earmarks) as many other Senators do for their cities and towns - and it can put agencies in a pretty tough spot.

besides - if the story was about how taxes are being raised to pay for LE - we'd have a half dozen threads about big government, gov't waste, tax and spend blah blah blah.

Damned if you do, damned it you don't.

seale
December 22, 2008, 09:35 PM
That said - in those cases where agencies have to compete for funding, it can really make things difficult. When you consider all the costs that go into running a police force, new AR-15s are probably not exactly the top of the list.I have sure read a lot of stories over the years where new ARs WERE at the top of the list for a lot of police agencies around the country.

Voluntarily giving money to government is about as dumb as it gets. It's like giving cocaine to Whitney. Sure, she'll appreciate it but it doesn't do ANYBODY any good

T191032
December 22, 2008, 09:53 PM
A little surprised, but better than the multitude of anti-gun crap that typically comes from the typical Hollywood boredom.



"Damned if you do, damned it you don't."


Oh. . .you know how I live everyday. . . :what:

P90shooter
December 22, 2008, 09:58 PM
Voluntarily giving money to government is about as dumb as it gets

This from the same guy who feel's its his 2nd Amnd right to be able to CCW without a permit when State law requires it.

Do you enjoy Trolling for flames?

michiganfan
December 22, 2008, 10:03 PM
He could have my Bushie for 2k

ServiceSoon
December 22, 2008, 10:05 PM
The real story would be if he purchased them for average citizens. Call PM me when that happens.

coosbaycreep
December 22, 2008, 10:08 PM
Instead of giving money to a government organization that will likely squander a good portion of it, and can't operate effectively within their budget, I'd like to see a celebrity give money to regular citizens who can't afford a firearm for home defense. The citizens would have to pass a background check and a firearm safety course, and then they could get a cheap shotgun or something to protect their family. That would be a more cost effective way of protecting more people than cops with ARs would, and it would show support for the second amendment.

FoMoGo
December 22, 2008, 10:11 PM
That would open them up for lawsuits from hell...
They buy a guy a gun... guy shoots himself or someone else...
Since hollywood guy HAS money... everyone involved goes after him.


Jim

seale
December 22, 2008, 10:20 PM
Voluntarily giving money to government is about as dumb as it gets
This from the same guy who feel's its his 2nd Amnd right to be able to CCW without a permit when State law requires it.

Those two subjects are entirely separate. Do you enjoy trolling with hostility? Apparently.

sharpshooterz98
December 22, 2008, 10:25 PM
That's pretty damn cool of him (the other stuff too - animal shelter, cop's family, etc).


Lol @ those criticizing him giving to a government organization.

Lucky Strike
December 22, 2008, 10:25 PM
now if i can just convince him to buy me some ARs

RoboDuck
December 22, 2008, 10:29 PM
Good guy!

shotgunjoel
December 22, 2008, 10:38 PM
With the huge hole the feds are in right now those PDs probably won't get much federal support so giving local govt may not hurt, especially if it's for something specific.
I went to impact guns and put together a little wishlist. You have a $1030 M4, 6 $30 mags, $68 of cleaning supplies, a $48 gun case, and one tacticool item, a $350 surefire light. All that together without any ammo or armourer's equipment that totals up to about $1700 worth of gear. Sure, you don't need the light but it would be handy for any use at night when they might get a lot of their call outs. Just $300 of ammo goes real fast.

Gunsafe
December 22, 2008, 10:40 PM
I'll admit I've only seen a few of his movies and watched maybe one or two Comedy Central specials. Regardless, my opinion of him is now a positive one. I could care less about the cost per rifle, the add-ons that may be included, which agencies are claiming to be broke, etc. At least he saw a problem and helped out. I applaud him for that!

jerkface11
December 22, 2008, 11:43 PM
He has the money and uses it to help other people instead of just indulging himself. Good for him.

seale
December 22, 2008, 11:55 PM
He has the money and uses it to help other people instead of just indulging himself. Good for him.I guess I just fail to see how giving free money to government helps anyone. Please enlighten me. Because of course, what government just doesn't have enough of is guns.

sharpshooterz98
December 22, 2008, 11:57 PM
Would you prefer they just jack up taxes a little more to pay for the guns?

jerkface11
December 23, 2008, 12:06 AM
seale it's his money he can put it in a big pile and light it on fire if he feels like it. He's helping people by keeping the government from taking money from them to pay for the guns.

MikePGS
December 23, 2008, 12:06 AM
You know Charlton Heston was one of the biggest names in Hollywood at one point...
Sorry I should have qualified that as being from modern hollywood types.

seale
December 23, 2008, 12:08 AM
He wasn't giving the money to "the government".
He was giving the money to a bunch of guys who bust their hump and risk their lives every day, who already don't get paid very much, and have to deal with pissants on the internet talking about how they don't deserve anything, and they're all scumbags for doing their jobs - so they don't have to spend what little money they DO make buying guns to do their job.That is not factually correct based on the story. If he plans to transfer them to each individual officer then I stand corrected, however the story seems to clearly state that he is giving them to the DEPARTMENT, ergo, he is giving them to government. Sorry to bother you with the facts

I think you need to calm down because NO ONE here, repeat NO ONE, has said that cops "don't deserve anything," or that cops are "scumbags." I think everyone who has posted in this thread does not appreciate you lying about them because that is what you just did.

YOU sir, on the other hand, just called all of us "pissants." Go relax, all you're doing is poisoning the discussion with your anger and name calling.

Sinixstar
December 23, 2008, 12:09 AM
Sorry I should have qualified that as being from modern hollywood types.

You know Robert DeNiro has a CCW for NYC...

jakemccoy
December 23, 2008, 12:17 AM
I hope the police departments don't pull a 2008 bank bailout maneuver: "We're not telling where the money went."

Mach2
December 23, 2008, 12:19 AM
Spade in Tommy Boy. One of the funniest movies ever made.

A Hollywood type buying AR15s? I'm impressed.

seale
December 23, 2008, 12:20 AM
I hope the police departments don't pull a 2008 bank bailout maneuver: "We're not telling where the money went."Now hold on, I will be the first to say that is not fair. I have no idea how the transaction will take place but I have plenty of confidence that the officers will end up with the guns that Mr. Spade intends them to end up with.

CowardRubi06
December 23, 2008, 12:23 AM
Props to David Spade for that. My respect for him went up as well.

rondog
December 23, 2008, 12:29 AM
Isn't/wasn't he dating Heather Locklear too?

Sinixstar
December 23, 2008, 12:32 AM
Isn't/wasn't he dating Heather Locklear too?

I don't know - but he did recently knock up a playmate.

taprackbang
December 23, 2008, 12:33 AM
Is he pro gun or just a government worshiper?

Hmmmm.. Interesting..
Arming the police, to disarm the populace....
Sounds highly probable to me that he is a government worshipper

Sinixstar
December 23, 2008, 12:35 AM
Hmmmm.. Interesting..
Arming the police, to disarm the populace....
Sounds highly probable to me that he is a government worshipper


He's from the area. He's donated a lot of money to local causes, government or otherwise - when they're facing financial hardship.
I wouldn't read more into this then simply local guy who made it big looking out for his hometown.

Dean Williams
December 23, 2008, 01:01 AM
Three people in my family work locally as LEO's. One for the county, two for the state. I'd think it was great if someone had donated money to better arm these three young men. I don't care who the money came from, if it helped them get the upper hand on situations and added to their chances of getting home safe every day, I'd be for it.

I don't care for Spade's acting, or the movies he's in, but helping to better arm individual officers puts him in a pretty good light, to me.

Paladin_Hammer
December 23, 2008, 01:07 AM
Well at least there are some good Hollywood types out there. Almost every stinkin one of them screams and cries like a baby when the police have to use their gear. Spade seems to at least understand that these guys do have a need weapons like AR's. For two-thousand dollars a piece, they must have got some good stuff (no low-end rifles like Olympic or Bushmaster, but real Colt or Armalite rifles).

chris in va
December 23, 2008, 02:36 AM
I like David Spade, but...something is fishy about the deal.

The thought of LE having military-style weapons gives me a cold chill, especially in light of the botched SWAT raids I keep hearing about.

armoredman
December 23, 2008, 02:42 AM
Phoenix PD is in the same boat as the rest of us in this economy, struggling to balance incoming with outgoing, especially since the new state budget actually requires cities and counties to donate from thier budgets to the state. Kudus to Mr Spade.

goon
December 23, 2008, 03:08 AM
The real story would be if he purchased them for average citizens. Call PM me when that happens.

That would be a story if you'd purchase some AR's for private citizens too.
Let me know when you put your plan to buy us some AR's into effect - I'd like to get on the list.

Don't know the guy's politics, but at least he's willing to step up and use his wealth for something worthwhile.
He has my respect for that.

CWL
December 23, 2008, 03:17 AM
I don't get some of you guys. Why do some people always try to turn a positive event into a negative? Sometimes people are "good" just because it is in their heart.

Here's someone laying out cash to help a PD, without being asked, just because he feels he can help.

His action may save some lives, what is the problem with that?

RockyMtnTactical
December 23, 2008, 03:35 AM
Good. He helps some cops, it also helps the gun industry and the economy. :D

VINTAGE-SLOTCARS
December 23, 2008, 03:47 AM
He's funny guy. He is very pro police and this proves it. He has the means to help a police agency that needs some equipment. He is to be commended for his efforts. Any negative comments of his actions or intentions are unfounded. He just jumped up several points on my personal "Awsome Dude", scale.

Kind of Blued
December 23, 2008, 04:37 AM
I guess I just fail to see how giving free money to government helps anyone. Please enlighten me. Because of course, what government just doesn't have enough of is guns.

Obviously they DON'T have enough guns, otherwise LEOs wouldn't be asked to buy their own.

I imagine if you had been strolling around in North Hollywood on February 28th, 1997, you would have been "helped" if the cops would have had rifles, as would everybody else that was nearly killed.

Those rifles also would have assured that more officers could finish their shift without any holes in them, and go back to working for you and I the next day.

Dr.Rob
December 23, 2008, 05:26 AM
Sounds like Mr. Spade saw the Fox news story about Phoenix cops asking for rifles, which they have BEEN asking for since the N. Hollywood shoot-out.

Kudos for him.

R.W.Dale
December 23, 2008, 05:48 AM
The only thing surprising about this headline is that David Spade has 100k do do anything with

Kind of Blued
December 23, 2008, 06:49 AM
The only thing surprising about this headline is that David Spade has 100k do do anything with

Me too. :D But I guess that makes it even more generous. If Bill Gates gave 100K to the Phoenix PD, I'd probably just giggle in a state of confusion.

If anyone's interested, here's the response from a LEO forum:

http://forums.officer.com/showthread.php?t=108229

Double Naught Spy
December 23, 2008, 07:08 AM
I don't get some of you guys. Why do some people always try to turn a positive event into a negative? Sometimes people are "good" just because it is in their heart.

Here's someone laying out cash to help a PD, without being asked, just because he feels he can help.

His action may save some lives, what is the problem with that?

Simple, Spade has stepped up to the plate and the negative Nellies haven't.

C-grunt
December 23, 2008, 07:35 AM
Thats awesome. Im on that list to get one of those rifles. I believe we will end up with Bushmasters because, from what Ive heard, the dept has had an order from Colt for a LONG time that hasnt been filled.

Just FYI, these rifles are going to patrol Officers, not SAU (our SWAT). They are needed too. Its getting pretty violent here in the south west with the drug wars in Mexico spilling over and the human smugglers.

I know someone, cant remember who at the moment, who went to school with David Spade and said he was an honest, stand up guy.

This donation is the thing we needed. These rifles have been a big issue here in the dept. The patrol guy want them, higher up office types dont. They have been slowly talked down and their last excuse was the budget. Got em now!

redneck2
December 23, 2008, 07:43 AM
If you haven't seen "Joe Dirt", it's one of his movies. By far my most favorite comedy ever.

Back to the thread. So, all you guys that think cops shouldn't have AR's... Maybe next time you call them out for a robbery in progress, they'll bring sling shots.

About the time I think I've seen every stupid comment that can be made, I read another thread like this.

Old Guy
December 23, 2008, 07:55 AM
Good on him.

A nice Christmas present for some!

A rifle is a must in these days of long distant threats, or not so long distance, but only a small portion of an armed and dangerous individual is visible.

A 30-30 Winchester was a common sight in the days when the Law in that area rode horses, what has changed?

ravonaf
December 23, 2008, 07:58 AM
I'm mixed on this subject. I'm sure his heart is in the right place. But those weapons are much more likely to be used against the public for gun confiscations or on the failed war on drugs than against real bad guys. That's not anti-cop, it's based on current trends in arming the police like the military.

Then again, you don't blame the weapon, you blame the politics behind the coming police state.

LIQUID SNAKE
December 23, 2008, 08:08 AM
I herd an interview with him tonight on the way to work. He seems like a generally normal sounding guy on the radio. In fact the majority of the interview was about how hollyweird ****s up people and destroys them over time. Interestingly he was talking about how those Nazi Kalifonians influenced Chris Farly mentally and led him to ultimately destroy himself.

cornman
December 23, 2008, 08:21 AM
AR-15s for patrol use?? What is this country coming to?

Shung
December 23, 2008, 08:21 AM
now wait..

did he just brought assault weapons that belong to foreign battlefields to your streets..?

scary..

;)

edSky
December 23, 2008, 08:46 AM
Davis Spade Movie Ticket: $9.50
C-grunt's Well-deserved Bushmaster: $2000.00
David Spade's Donations: Priceless

expvideo
December 23, 2008, 09:06 AM
What a nice guy. I had no idea that he was such a kind hearted person.

AR-15s for patrol use?? What is this country coming to?
Welcome to the 21st century. Most departments have switched from shotguns to rifles. I don't think this is really a surprise to anyone.

ravonaf
December 23, 2008, 10:20 AM
Welcome to the 21st century. Most departments have switched from shotguns to rifles. I don't think this is really a surprise to anyone.

And with the switch from patrol cars to tanks I'm not going to be surprised either. Using a force with army gear and army tactics to police citizens isn't a good thing.

woodybrighton
December 23, 2008, 10:29 AM
FFS its a tool as you continually tell people what are they supposed to use if a shotgun is too little gun?
aks lever actions bolt guns what?
some wood furniture mini 14 because it does not look too scary.
police can dress in Armour and roam around with flamethrowers does'nt automatic make them bad guys.
metropolitan police in London were unarmed and wore old fashioned friendly uniforms didn't stop them torturing and locking the wrong people up for a terrorist bombing:(

RockyMtnTactical
December 23, 2008, 01:54 PM
AR-15s for patrol use?? What is this country coming to?

What is wrong with that? Everyone should have a rifle, including cops.

Double Naught Spy
December 23, 2008, 02:19 PM
AR-15s for patrol use?? What is this country coming to?
Its senses.

But those weapons are much more likely to be used against the public for gun confiscations or on the failed war on drugs than against real bad guys. That's not anti-cop, it's based on current trends in arming the police like the military.

And just what "trends" are you talking about? There are no such trends occurring where arming the cops like the military is resulting in gun confiscations.

Of course, maybe the cops would not need to be better armed if the bad guys weren't better armed. And that's not anti-bad guy (or maybe it is).

expvideo
December 23, 2008, 02:23 PM
And with the switch from patrol cars to tanks I'm not going to be surprised either. Using a force with army gear and army tactics to police citizens isn't a good thing.
Please never EVER call a semi-automatic AR-15 "army gear". I have the same rifle that the cops have and I would appreciate you not trying to insinuate that it is a machinegun. Take that anti-gun talk somewhere else, it is NOT wanted here.

ravonaf
December 23, 2008, 02:28 PM
Please never EVER call a semi-automatic AR-15 "army gear". I have the same rifle that the cops have and I would appreciate you not trying to insinuate that it is a machinegun. Take that anti-gun talk somewhere else, it is NOT wanted here.

I would love you to show me where I said an AR-15 is army gear. You can't find it because I didn't say it. I know the difference between auto and semi-auto. I was speaking of the general practice of arming police forces as you would the military. If you want to get into this I can cite source after source.

expvideo
December 23, 2008, 02:30 PM
I would love you to show me where I said an AR-15 is army gear. You can't find it because I didn't say it. I know the difference between auto and semi-auto. I was speaking of the general practice of arming police forces as you would the military. If you want to get into this I can cite source after source.
What else could your bolded statement mean? Please explain.

ultradoc
December 23, 2008, 02:30 PM
just saw this on Fox news. way to go David!!

ravonaf
December 23, 2008, 02:35 PM
What else could your bolded statement mean? Please explain.

http://www.google.com/search?q=police+militarization&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&safe=active

http://www.newswithviews.com/Evensen/greg.htm

http://www.reason.com/news/show/121169.html

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=14363

http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp-050es.html

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/1999/Jun-13-Sun-1999/opinion/11359171.html

I can go on and on. But I think you understand what I mean.






between the lines Joseph Farah The militarization of the domestic police
Posted: November 06, 1997
1:00 am Eastern

By Joseph Farah
2008 WorldNetDaily.com



* In California alone, more than $30 million in excess military hardware has been distributed -- mostly free of charge -- to more than 200 law enforcement agencies since November 1996.

* Nationally, a total of 43,253 items originally valued at $204.3 million went to more than 11,000 government law enforcement agencies in all 50 states over a one-year period.

* Bayonets, weapons of deadly hand-to-hand combat, have bolstered the arsenals of police in 23 states as part of a massive flow of surplus military gear.

What gives? Why is all this deadly hardware purchased with U.S. taxpayer dollars to fight foreign enemies now being turned on unsuspecting American civilians at the very moment they are being disarmed by local, state and federal governments?

The militarization of local police departments is getting so brazen even many local governments are having second thoughts about the program. In Los Angeles, for instance, one of the nation's biggest police departments is saying it was a mistake to accept the bayonets and is shipping them back to the Army.

More than 6,400 surplus bayonets went to law enforcement agencies between Oct. 1, 1996 and Sept. 30, 1997, according to the federal Defense Logistics Agency in Washington. But what on earth would domestic police departments do with bayonets?

For once I agree with the American Civil Liberties Union.

"We can imagine no circumstances whatsoever where it would be appropriate for a local police agency to put a bayonet on the end of a rifle," said John Crew, an ACLU attorney.

It turns out they were requisitioned by a sergeant in the LAPD. But what about elsewhere? What about North Carolina, Connecticut and Indiana where far more bayonets were distributed? And why is the federal government even making this stuff available for the purposes of domestic law enforcement? Do they so distrust the American people? Evidently so. Washington won't even report to the people where the gear is going.

Just imagine if the Illinois state police had bayonets on their rifles the day they kicked down Shirley Allen's door in Roby? Instead of being unfairly incarcerated in a mental ward right now, she might have been shish kebab.

This whole program turning over military gear to local cops got started in 1990 with the requirement that agencies use the weapons to fight drugs. But that rule was quietly dropped by the Clinton administration last year when the program was dramatically expanded.

What other goodies are local and state police departments getting from the military? Everything from fatigues to office equipment to helicopters, armored vehicles, body armor, assault rifles and night-vision gear. Hmmm. I'll sleep better at night knowing I'm so well-protected.

All of this wouldn't be quite so alarming if it didn't occur simultaneously with the militarization of the growing ranks of federal cops. There are now more than 80,000 armed federal personnel involved in law enforcement in agencies as diverse as the FBI and the Environmental Protection Agency. It's the standing army the Founding Fathers so feared might develop along with a strong central government.

Another ominous trend is the growing cooperation between not only the dozens of federal law enforcement agencies which routinely perform joint military-syle raids on unsuspecting civilians, but also the way the feds work so closely with local and state cops. The federal government has also taken the lead role in training local and state police officers as well at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center that has plans to turn out some 25,000 new U.S. cops each of the next three years.

On top of that, if you really want to venture into the realm of the paranoid, there's the plan currently before Congress to authorize the hiring of more foreign police -- specifically those from the Royal Hong Kong Police department -- into the federal law enforcement agencies. Such hiring is already permissible, under earlier legislation, at the local and state level.

What ever happened to the concept of "government of the people, by the people and for the people"? Have we strayed so far? Has the schism between government and the governed become so large that only one side can be trusted with guns? Is this not the path only to tyranny?

expvideo
December 23, 2008, 02:44 PM
I can go on and on. But I think you understand what I mean.
I understand that you have a problem with the police having the same "gear" that I have. Your reasoning being that it is similar to military gear, and that this kind of thing should only be for the military, which you didn't say, but insinuate (whether or not intentionally). You have the same problem that the antis have. I own almost everything that a police officer would use. I have a right to own it. Having a problem with the police having it IS having a problem with civilians having it.

BTW, your quoted article is sickeningly anti. "Deadly weapons of hand-to-hand combat". It's a freaking knife. Come on!

ravonaf
December 23, 2008, 02:48 PM
I understand that you have a problem with the police having the same "gear" that I have. Your reasoning being that it is similar to military gear, and that this kind of thing should only be for the military, which you didn't say, but insinuate (whether or not intentionally). You have the same problem that the antis have. I own almost everything that a police officer would use. I have a right to own it. Having a problem with the police having it IS having a problem with civilians having it.

No. Please go back and read my post. I specifically said it's not the weapon but the politics of how it may be used. I have no problem with inanimate objects. Those are just tools. I have aproblem with living in a police state. I have a problem with Police using those tools in an inappropriate manner.

CoRoMo
December 23, 2008, 02:48 PM
...giving free money to government...

I guess this money will actually be given to the firearms industry.

expvideo
December 23, 2008, 02:56 PM
No. Please go back and read my post. I specifically said it's not the weapon but the politics of how it may be used. I have no problem with inanimate objects. Those are just tools. I have aproblem with living in a police state. I have a problem with Police using those tools in an inappropriate manner.
And when you put it that way I agree with you, but when you try to make a quick point without explanation and simply say "army gear and army tactics" it is easily misinterpretted. Had you explained this in the first place, we wouldn't be arguing. You need to consider how someone reading your post will interpret it, because we all aren't on the same set of tracks. Try reading your first post from the perspective of someone who thinks you are complaining about the police having semi-automatic rifles, and you will see what I mean about how it could easily be misinterpretted.

Thank you for clarifying.

ravonaf
December 23, 2008, 03:05 PM
And when you put it that way I agree with you, but when you try to make a quick point without explanation and simply say "army gear and army tactics" it is easily misinterpretted. Had you explained this in the first place, we wouldn't be arguing. You need to consider how someone reading your post will interpret it, because we all aren't on the same set of tracks. Try reading your first post from the perspective of someone who thinks you are complaining about the police having semi-automatic rifles, and you will see what I mean about how it could easily be misinterpretted.

Thank you for clarifying.

I see your point. I'll try to be more clear in the future. There's a fine line between appearing to be anti-LEO and pro-freedom. Some of my best friends are LEO's.

I happen to believe everything is connected. For every action there's going to be a re-action. Police budgets across the country are sky-rocketing. They are arming up. There are far more Police in this country than ever before by a long shot. When I see a story about Police needing AR-15's I see the worst case scenario, and others may not. Anyways, Merry Christmas :)

expvideo
December 23, 2008, 03:13 PM
I see your point. I'll try to be more clear in the future. There's a fine line between appearing to be anti-LEO and pro-freedom. Some of my best friends are LEO's.

I happen to believe everything is connected. For every action there's going to be a re-action. Police budgets across the country are sky-rocketing. They are arming up. There are far more Police in this country than ever before by a long shot. When I see a story about Police needing AR-15's I see the worst case scenario, and other may not. Anyways, Merry Christmas
Well I'm sorry for giving you a lecture. I do agree with you about the militarization of the police force. I am fine with them having rifles and body armor, but the ones that are wearing tactical uniforms with external vests that have rifle pouches and look like a dark blue/black version of military gear... Those are the ones I have a problem with. I see it all the time. Walking through the mall, even. What the hell is wrong with them? It's the mall, not Iraq. I really hate the attitude that goes with it too.

It's not the rifles that bother me either, it's the tactical clothing and tactical attitudes that create a very strong us-vs-them impression, and makes the police completely unapproachable. They are not here to fight terrorism on the streets. They are here to help keep our communities safe, investigate crimes and enforce the laws. They need to do it in a friendly and professional manner, not through fear.

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a58/expvideo/terror.jpg

Is this what a public servant looks like?

rondog
December 23, 2008, 03:14 PM
The police in this country are "arming up" because the criminals they're up against are "arming up". There's hundreds of minority street gangs all over the country armed with AK and SKS variants, and God only knows what kind of machineguns, and you don't want our cops to be able to defend against that threat? Open your eyes.

expvideo
December 23, 2008, 03:19 PM
The police in this country are "arming up" because the criminals they're up against are "arming up". There's hundreds of minority street gangs all over the country armed with AK and SKS variants, and God only knows what kind of machineguns, and you don't want our cops to be able to defend against that threat? Open your eyes.
Yeah. They should be arming up. But they shouldn't be trying to look like black and blue storm troopers. And they shouldn't be treating everyone they meet like a terror suspect.

Here's my point... It's ok for cops to look like this:
http://erickayne.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/protest_ek_001_blog.jpg
http://blog.mlive.com/grpress/2008/04/large_SHOOTING1.JPG

But they're starting to look like this:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/02/02/nyregion/02machinegun.600.jpg
http://earthhopenetwork.net/police_state_cop.jpg

That is a BIG problem. One style is appropriate for interacting with the public and one is not. I think that is pretty obvious.

kd7nqb
December 23, 2008, 03:35 PM
I saw the story on TV News saying that officers wanted to buy their own and the Chief would not allow it due to training and "need" issues. As far as I am concerned David Spade did a great thing by eliminating the money argument but I wonder if there is something deeper going on.

As far as the Hollywood thing goes I think there are a few guys out there that are pretty solidly Pro 2nd Ammendment, I am specifically thinking of when Drew Carey bought his friends and Family AR's in 1994 under the argument of if the Government does not want you to have one, you need one.

Erik
December 23, 2008, 03:44 PM
Good for David Spade.

rondog
December 23, 2008, 03:54 PM
Your feelings about how they dress and "appear" is just your opinion and your problem. I personally don't give a rat's ass how they dress, as long as they have the tools they need to keep the maggots under control. We have cops here in Denver that wear cowboy hats and ride horses, I suppose THAT would bother you too? Oh, and the motorcycle cops wear leather jackets and knee-high boots! <shudder>

You people that are all freaked out about this country becoming a "police state" crack me up.

expvideo
December 23, 2008, 03:55 PM
As far as I am concerned David Spade did a great thing by eliminating the money argument but I wonder if there is something deeper going on.
I doubt it. It sounds to me like he just wanted to help out his hometown cops, and he has the money to do it.

I am specifically thinking of when Drew Carey bought his friends and Family AR's in 1994 under the argument of if the Government does not want you to have one, you need one.
Really?! I have a newfound respect for Drew Carey. I never really liked him that much, but that's a pretty cool thing for him to have done.

woodybrighton
December 23, 2008, 04:36 PM
there is a point high speed low drag stuff fine if your kicking in doors not really needed if your standing around.
not sure why you'd want bayonets probably somebody clearing out an armoury

hankdatank1362
December 23, 2008, 04:45 PM
While I hate to drift off topic about the "need" for tactical gear and weapons available to rank-and-file Law Enforcement, everyone must realize that it is not a black and white issue.

When better guns, gear, and training are NEEDED (i.e. North Hollywood bank robbery), they are truly needed, and any delay in their implementation will only cost lives.

However, when they are not needed, they are possibly just as dangerous as a standing army (misuse of tactical teams for minor drug offenses, possibly at even the wrong address.)

Sinixstar
December 23, 2008, 05:00 PM
And with the switch from patrol cars to tanks I'm not going to be surprised either. Using a force with army gear and army tactics to police citizens isn't a good thing.

So you're saying only the military should have military hardware? :rolleyes:

expvideo
December 23, 2008, 05:02 PM
I agree hankdatank. It is a complicated issue and it is not black and white. Unfortunately, that's how life is, though. I could legally walk around with an AR-15 slung across my back and a tactical vest full of magazines and a pistol in a leg holster. I could even run into a situation where I needed them. But it is very inappropriate for me to run around in that stuff all day and interact with other people. Having it in your car is one thing. Wearing it to the mall is another. As a citizen, I would rather wait 10 minutes for SWAT to show up than to have every cop I see at the mall thinking that they are SWAT.

Sinixstar
December 23, 2008, 05:10 PM
I'm not sure I understand the argument that cops shouldn't have AR's.
The stuff i'm seeing tossed around is the exact same argument antis use to say average people shouldn't have AR's. Our response is - if it's pointed at your head, it doesn't matter if it's a full auto or a 22 bolt gun.

So I guess my question is - why the double standard?
If you got a bad apple who wanted to play tough guy in uniform - does it make a difference whether he has an AR or a Riot Gun, or even just his side arm? Last I checked bullets were not self aware, and any of 'em would kill someone just as dead.

I mean, it's just mind boggling to me. Any joe off the street can go buy an AR with cash in hand and a simple background check - yet we're saying the police shouldn't have them because they're dangerous and could be misused?

seale
December 23, 2008, 05:24 PM
Wow, this thread has been completely hijacked by the government worshiping mentality. It was about 50/50 yesterday but today if you don't have this ultra idealized view of government and it's agents, you're not only not welcome but you will be called names.

The government worshipers have totally altered the debate of this thread in a way that has chilled dissent. They have changed the whole debate to cast you as "negative" if you dare look critically at giving gifts to government.

Put simply, a fool, who is free to be foolish with his money, has just handed $100,000 over to government, an entity which taxes us to death, and the fool is getting nothing in return. This fool (mr spade) is REWARDING government for mismanaging our piles of tax money.

This is why I have no respect for government worshipers. You have to think and speak in glowing adoration of government agents or they insult your patriotism, cast you as being mean to their heroes, cast you as "negative," and cast you as ungrateful for their glowing "heroism."
I'm not sure I understand the argument that cops shouldn't have AR's.No, you understand it, you just refuse to accept it. Many of us do not want the police MILITARIZED. Many of us do not want ANYBODY spraying 5.56mm rifle bullets in our neighborhood and the supposed "need" for cops to be carrying ARs is baloney because almost no criminals use ARs. This notion that police are "outgunned" is television created FICTION.

Sinixstar
December 23, 2008, 05:47 PM
No, you understand it, you just refuse to accept it. Many of us do not want the police MILITARIZED. Many of us do not want ANYBODY spraying 5.56mm rifle bullets in our neighborhood and the supposed "need" for cops to be carrying ARs is baloney because almost no criminals use ARs. This notion that police are "outgunned" is television created FICTION.


So basically what you're saying is - these guns are too dangerous to be on the street?

takhtakaal
December 23, 2008, 05:50 PM
Those of you who don't want the police to have patrol rifles really should watch the video on this thread:

http://shadowspear.com/vb/showthread.php?t=6771

hankdatank1362
December 23, 2008, 05:51 PM
Many of us do not want ANYBODY spraying 5.56mm rifle bullets in our neighborhood

So you don't want anyone - LEO or average law abiding citizen - having access to these arms?

athensguy
December 23, 2008, 05:55 PM
I guess my problem is that the police think we're all maggots, as rondog suggested. With more than half of the folks in jail being there for non-crimes (making something illegal doesn't make me consider it to be a crime automatically. I wouldn't feel guilty of a crime if I carried by Glock 19 in Cali., but I would be guilty of breaking the law.) and the US having the highest rate of incarceration along with the most complicated law structure and the most laws of any country, I feel like we could do with fewer police and less police equipment, rather than more.

The trafi-cops down the street from me wear fatigues and do nothing but issue traffic citations in their one red light speed trap.

Sinixstar
December 23, 2008, 05:56 PM
EXP - that last picture was taken looking into the WTC Path train station from Chruch Street (NYC). From the looks of the number of cops in the background - that's probably a mid-morning shift rotation. Probably around 10:00-10:30 am.

If you want to see something a bit "scarier" - you should go two-three blocks west, and a half dozen blocks south. On the corner of Wall/Broad. Nice big police barricade set up in front of the NYSE, makes your picture there kinda look wimpy in comparison.

actually, if you look at the satellite view :
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=50+broad+street,+new+york+new+york&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=55.148262,114.257812&ie=UTF8&ll=40.707041,-74.010514&spn=0.000815,0.001743&t=k&z=20

You can see all the Police Emergency Response vehicles lined up facing west on Wall Street.

But ya know, I suppose - there's no real NEED for any kind of protection there. I mean, WTC is already gone - just a hole in the ground now. No reason why anybody might want to commit any terrorist acts or anything. Ya know, all that talk of attacks against the Holland Tunnel, and the NYC subway system - that's just talk. I mean, they haven't actually DONE anything yet - so - this is just police trying to bully people around obviously.

Sinixstar
December 23, 2008, 06:00 PM
I guess my problem is that the police think we're all maggots, as rondog suggested.

Is this something you're gathering from direct personal experience with police, or direct personal experience with people on the internet?

rondog
December 23, 2008, 06:12 PM
I guess my problem is that the police think we're all maggots, as rondog suggested.

Wait a damn minute!!! I did NOT say that!!!! I was referring to the CRIMINALS and GANGBANGERS in our society that the cops NEED these type rifles to be on more equal terms with!

DO NOT put words into MY mouth to support YOUR twisted agenda!!! The police are not our enemies, they're our friends, neighbors and relatives, fighting the CRIMINAL MAGGOTS that would do us all harm!

I have absolutely NO problem with every patrol officer having an AR-15 or equivalent in the trunk of his car, just in case he needs it. And I couldn't care less what their uniforms look like, or how many pockets they have on them. Anybody that thinks a cop with an AR and a black uniform is automatically going to go on a power trip and start "hunting citizens" with it, is insane.

KBintheSLC
December 23, 2008, 06:16 PM
You know Charlton Heston was one of the biggest names in Hollywood at one point...

I think that era of a respectable Hollywood presence is long gone.

I guess my problem is that the police think we're all maggots

I disagree... most of the cops I have had dealings with are good people that treated me with respect. Only once have I come across a cop that was on a power trip, and I doubt his presence on the force lasted very long. Every group of people have bad eggs in the mix... even cops. But to say that all cops think we are all maggots is just ridiculous. I would have no problem donating duty gear to the local police if I were a wealthy man. Cops work hard and risk a lot every day... they deserve our support.

Anybody that thinks a cop with an AR and a black uniform is automatically going to go on a power trip and start "hunting citizens" with it, is insane.
That is insane thinking... and it would be insane to do any such thing. I doubt that LE and Gov officials want to wage a war against gun owners. That would be suicide.

Sinixstar
December 23, 2008, 06:17 PM
I think that era of a respectable Hollywood presence is long gone

Was there ever one to begin with?

Kind of Blued
December 23, 2008, 06:29 PM
It is touchy subjects like these that bring out the antis that we have in our midst.

You're either for unabashed freedom for EVERYBODY, or you're for "reasonable regulation" which thus far means the nearly 300 federal gun laws we have today and more.

Sinixstar
December 23, 2008, 06:35 PM
One style is appropriate for interacting with the public and one is not. I think that is pretty obvious.

I actually just noticed this line - and I think perhaps there's something you're not realizing.

The guys you posted pictures of in full tactical get up - are not there to interact with the public. They're not there to help find your lost dog or give you directions. They're posted outside of high-value targets. The picture you posted of the cop standing outside the path station? Within a 1 mile radius of that you have the World Financial Center, Federal Courthouses, City Hall, The Holland Tunnel, Staten Island Ferry, the stock exchange, several high schools, several hotels frequented by various foreign entities (such as the Millennium Hilton directly across the street from where that cop is), the federal reserve, and that's just what I can think of off the top of my head. (I used to work down there, and have probably walked past that exact cop many times walking through that train station).

I know my last post on this was probably a bit sarcastic - but really, I mean - what exactly do you expect them to do? Any one of the places I named would make a pretty big target if someone wanted to come over here and cause some havoc. Should we taken the Indian approach and let someone take control of one of these buildings before calling in any kind of force?
They're not harassing average people. In fact, if you have to talk to them or deal with them for some reason (such as asking directions) they're actually quite friendly.

I also find it interesting that the picture of the woman in a "regular" police uniform is okay, while the guy in the "tactical" getup is not. It's interesting - because they're both holding AR-15s.
Aside from accessories - can you tell me why one is acceptable and one is not?

http://blog.mlive.com/grpress/2008/04/large_SHOOTING1.JPG
http://earthhopenetwork.net/police_state_cop.jpg

ravonaf
December 23, 2008, 07:04 PM
You're either for unabashed freedom for EVERYBODY, or you're for "reasonable regulation" which thus far means the nearly 300 federal gun laws we have today and more.

First of all. I have no real problem with cops having AR's. It's a tool to do a job. It's how they do the job that I have a problem with.

Second of All. Cop's having AR's have nothing to do with freedom and the 2nd amendment. It has nothing to do with being an anti or being pro-gun. I don't recall anyone, ever, fighting for the freedoms of LEO's to have firearms. The police have plenty of weapons in countries that have abolished private firearm ownership. Let's not confuse the 2 issues.

Sinixstar
December 23, 2008, 07:09 PM
First of all. I have no real problem with cops having AR's. It's a tool to do a job. It's how they do the job that I have a problem with.

Second of All. Cop's having AR's have nothing to do with freedom and the 2nd amendment. It has nothing to do with being an anti or being pro-gun. I don't recall anyone, ever, fighting for the freedoms of LEO's to have firearms. The police have plenty of weapons in countries that have abolished private firearm ownership. Let's not confuse the 2 issues.


I don't think you can separate one issue from the other.
The argument is that "cops don't need more guns". "These guns are too dangerous to be in the hands of police", "we're militarizing our police".
If we start making these arguments to regulate one group of people, how do you NOT apply the same statements to another group?
How do you avoid the double standard that - average people can buy these guns, but police can't?

For the sake of this conversation we might be specifically talking about the needs/wants/uses for LEO application - but it is absolutely impossible to completely separate the two issues.

ravonaf
December 23, 2008, 07:12 PM
So you're saying only the military should have military hardware?

I think there's should be a limit to Law Enforcements role in dealing with the public. I think the REASONS they want military hardware are what's wrong.

The worst case scenario at this point is there will be a total economic collapse/great depression and this military hardware is used to round people up to be put into FEMA camps for thier own good.

sharpshooterz98
December 23, 2008, 07:12 PM
God damn, there's a lot of whackjobs here. I guess its just not enough that a guy tries to do a nice and donate cash to his local PD so they can buy better guns.


Maybe he would have been better served giving the money to a gun control group, or bailing out Detroit. I guess there's idiots on every internet forum, but I do have to wonder what, if anything goes through your minds when you post stuff like 'great, now the government can better suppress us'. Sure, it isn't perfect and they make bad decisions but some of you guys make it seem like we live under a military dictatorship. Let me know when they come SWAT style through your door to arrest you for thought crimes posted on the internet, until then just enjoy a simple act of charity, and one that benefits the firearms industry.

:cool:

ravonaf
December 23, 2008, 07:21 PM
How do you avoid the double standard that - average people can buy these guns, but police can't?


Let's put it this way. An average person buying AR's with the purpose to commit a crime is bad. Law Enforcement buying AR's to possibly victimize the public is just as bad. I'm concerned with the reason the politicians think the police need to be militarized. Not with the fact that they have weapons.

There are plenty of Law enforcement agencies with histories of breaking peoples civil rights. You would think nothing of letting that department have a tank or having way more weaponry than they need to do average police work. But a private citizen with a history of gun violence can't own a gun (and rightfully so).

goon
December 23, 2008, 07:23 PM
How many of us on here have load bearing gear to go with our rifles?
Got a vest or old ALICE set-up to accessorize your AR in the event you'd need it?
Is that really an unreasonable thing to do?
Anymore, I'm thinking that having a decent rifle and a few loaded magazines ready to roll RIGHT NOW isn't a half bad idea.

If it's OK for us to be so armed, why not also the police?

Frog48
December 23, 2008, 07:24 PM
AR-15s for patrol use?? What is this country coming to?

I used to think that way too. But I've come to realize that there are some circumstances where an AR15 is perfectly appropriate for patrol use.

I strongly support the fielding of any and all weaponry necessary by police depts and sheriff's offices on or near the border. US Border Patrol and CBP rely heavily on local law enforcement for backup, due to insufficient manpower. And when Border Patrol and local cops are dealing with gangs like Los Zetas (primarily Mexican ex-Special Forces) on a regular basis, LEO's toting AR15's seems very reasonable.

Sinixstar
December 23, 2008, 07:26 PM
Let's put it this way. An average person buying AR's with the purpose to commit a crime is bad. Law Enforcement buying AR's to possibly victimize the public is just as bad. I'm concerned with the reason the politicians think the police need to be militarized. Not with the fact that they have weapons.

There are plenty of Law enforcement agencies with histories of breaking peoples civil rights. You would think nothing of letting that department have a tank or having way more weaponry than they need to do average police work. But a private citizen with a history of gun violence can't own a gun (and rightfully so).


But again, you're talking about "they don't NEED that to do their jobs". Well - nobody NEEDS an AR to defend themselves. Nobody NEEDS an AR to go to the range, NOBODY NEEDS and AR period (aside from active duty military).

So again - where do you draw the line? By your logic - police should be disarmed. Very rarely do they NEED to draw their weapon. Take their service pistols, put them in a locked container in the trunk of the car. If they get in trouble - they have mace. Right?

ravonaf
December 23, 2008, 07:33 PM
God damn, there's a lot of whackjobs here.

I guess with the name calling you aren't taking the high road?

Let me know when they come SWAT style through your door to arrest you for thought crimes posted on the internet,

Are you claiming this never happens? I can find you plenty of examples of non-violent people being mistakenly victimized by no-knock drug searches or for other minor infractions. How about examples of Police doing raid drills on elementary schools without telling the school staff? How about food co-op families getting raided for selling organic food and having their kids held at gun point for six hours?

Sinixstar
December 23, 2008, 07:40 PM
Are you claiming this never happens? I can find you plenty of examples of non-violent people being mistakenly victimized by no-knock drug searches or for other minor infractions. How about examples of Police doing raid drills on elementary schools without telling the school staff? How about food co-op families getting raided for selling organic food and having their kids held at gun point for six hours?


And in any situation you mentioned - is it any more or less outrageous if this happens with or without an AR-15?

Again - when the gun's pointed at your head, it's not the caliber that makes you pee your pants.

ravonaf
December 23, 2008, 07:41 PM
So again - where do you draw the line? By your logic - police should be disarmed.

Police should be disarmed only to the point of needing the equipment to do their job and nothing more. It's not a gun rights issue. It's a public servant doing their job issue. If it isn't their job to wage war then they don't need the tools to do so.

I don't want the Army performing law enforcement duties either. It's not their job. I don't want public school teachers carrying around shovels to dig street ditches during recess, it's not their job. And I don't want the Police to have military hardware for the purpose of waging war on the public, it's not their job.

taprackbang
December 23, 2008, 07:43 PM
The thought of LE having military-style weapons gives me a cold chill, especially in light of the botched SWAT raids I keep hearing about.

Good point....Agreed

Sinixstar
December 23, 2008, 07:47 PM
Police should be disarmed only to the point of needing the equipment to do their job and nothing more. It's not a gun rights issue. It's a public servant doing their job issue. If it isn't their job to wage war then they don't need the tools to do so.

I don't want the Army performing law enforcement duties either. It's not their job. I don't want public school teachers carrying around shovels to dig street ditches during recess, it's not their job. And I don't want the Police to have military hardware for the purpose of waging war on the public, it's not their job.


But again - you have no more right to decide "need" then the Brady Bunch has to decide your need.

It's not your job to wage war, so you don't need instruments of war. You keep saying it's not a gun rights issue - but as soon as you start talking about what groups of people, civilian or otherwise NEED to perform a given task - game over.

If the police, who's JOB IT IS to take down criminals don't need AR's for that task - then how in any stretch of the imagination can you justify YOUR needing it to take down a criminal in your own home?

You might not look at it as a gun rights issue - but at the end of the day, that's exactly what it will come down to. If you open that door - people will gladly walk through it.

ravonaf
December 23, 2008, 07:49 PM
And in any situation you mentioned - is it any more or less outrageous if this happens with or without an AR-15?

Again - when the gun's pointed at your head, it's not the caliber that makes you pee your pants.

I would just prefer they stop doing those things altogether.

I recognize a need for SWAT. There are real bad guys out there. But the entire police force doesn't need to be armed as such. Just my opinion.

sharpshooterz98
December 23, 2008, 07:51 PM
I guess with the name calling you aren't taking the high road?


Are you claiming this never happens? I can find you plenty of examples of non-violent people being mistakenly victimized by no-knock drug searches or for other minor infractions. How about examples of Police doing raid drills on elementary schools without telling the school staff? How about food co-op families getting raided for selling organic food and having their kids held at gun point for six hours?

I apologize for the name calling, it was juvenile. Just kinda calling it as I see 'em but could have said it differently.

Please, link me to someone being arrested for thought crimes. To start, I don't agree with no knock warrants as they're currently used. They serve a legitimate purpose, but they've been bastardized and overused now. I also said that mistakes happen and it isn't perfect. To say that the occasional wrong house for a no knock warrant constitutes a totalitarian police force is a bit absurd. I don't agree with everything the police and government do, but many in this thread are painting a very inaccurate 1984ish picture of the USA.

ravonaf
December 23, 2008, 07:54 PM
But again - you have no more right to decide "need" then the Brady Bunch has to decide your need.

Yes I do. The Police work for the tax payer. I don't work for the Brady Bunch.

It's not your job to wage war, so you don't need instruments of war. You keep saying it's not a gun rights issue - but as soon as you start talking about what groups of people, civilian or otherwise NEED to perform a given task - game over.

The entire police force should never have to perform that task. They have SWAT. If need be, they have the National Guard.

If the police, who's JOB IT IS to take down criminals don't need AR's for that task - then how in any stretch of the imagination can you justify YOUR needing it to take down a criminal in your own home?

I'm not talking about just AR's. I have no problem with having an AR in the trunk. It's the entire militarization that I'm talking about. The precise reason I may need an AR is clearly stated in the 2nd amendment.

You might not look at it as a gun rights issue - but at the end of the day, that's exactly what it will come down to. If you open that door - people will gladly walk through it.

That's why we need to be forever vigilant. ;)

Sinixstar
December 23, 2008, 08:01 PM
I'm done with this. Seriously - i cannot for a second even begin to imagine how you rationalize this thought process.

I give up.

ravonaf
December 23, 2008, 08:03 PM
I apologize for the name calling, it was juvenile. Just kinda calling it as I see 'em but could have said it differently.

It's all good.

Please, link me to someone being arrested for thought crimes.

This is what scares me.
http://www.roguegovernment.com/news.php?id=4682

bpsig
December 23, 2008, 08:04 PM
Actually A lot of the officers already have them. But the leadership have stated it is forbidden to use personal weapons. Must be issued . But they ppd won't let them or spend the $ to buy new ones nor even call USARmy and get free ones from them m16A1 . So It's like the old easier to do than ask for permission.

JImbothefiveth
December 23, 2008, 08:20 PM
But those weapons are much more likely to be used against the public for gun confiscations or on the failed war on drugs than against real bad guys
The war on drugs is a fight against "real bad guys".

And besides, if Joe-sixpack can own these weapons, why shouldn't officers be allowed? What if an officer wanted to buy one to hunt varmints, could he buy one then? Should he be allowed to take it to work?

kilo729
December 23, 2008, 08:29 PM
Way to go David!

JImbothefiveth
December 23, 2008, 08:30 PM
Put simply, a fool, who is free to be foolish with his money, has just handed $100,000 over to government, an entity which taxes us to death, and the fool is getting nothing in return.
The government wasn't getting rifles for the officers, so Mr. Spade did. He did not give it to the government, the people who request earmarks on capitol hill, but to police officers.

ravonaf
December 23, 2008, 08:32 PM
And besides, if Joe-sixpack can own these weapons, why shouldn't officers be allowed? What if an officer wanted to buy one to hunt varmints, could he buy one then?

Of course he can. It's his right under the 2nd amendment to own those weapons. It's not their right for the taxpayer to issue them to them however.

Should he be allowed to take it to work?

I don't know. It depends on how they plan on using that weapon. As I stated many times, it's not the having of the weapon, it's how it's going to be used.


Should school bus drivers demand that the tax payer buy them military weapons and equipment? How about the burger flipper at McDonald's?

ravonaf
December 23, 2008, 08:34 PM
The government wasn't getting rifles for the officers, so Mr. Spade did. He did not give it to the government, the people who request earmarks on capitol hill, but to police officers.

So those rifles are now privately owned by the police officers? I'm thinking he bought the AR's for the department to issue to the officers. Not for their private ownership. In which case the government owns them.

hankdatank1362
December 23, 2008, 08:37 PM
The question isn't even about gun rights in specific.

It's about rights in general.

We have the right to self defense. Period. Using the best tools for the task.

Why should the police be any different?

They can have anything we can have, no problem. Conversely (and here's where we all get pissy) is when we can't have things that they can (Full-Auto, "Destructive Devices", etc...)

How can you say that you "don't want someone carrying an AR?" What if I said that I don't want you carrying an AR?

Guess what? I don't care if you want an AR. I don't care if you want a friggin' MK239 or Ma Deuce, as long as you don't hurt anyone with it that shouldn't be hurt.

I don't care if the police get these things either, as long as they only hurt who needs to be. If they cross the line, punish them just like anyone else convicted of a violent crime.

JImbothefiveth
December 23, 2008, 08:40 PM
Law Enforcement buying AR's to possibly victimize the public
How do you know someone buying a gun in a gunstore isn't buying it to possibly commit a crime?

Of course he can. It's his right under the 2nd amendment to own those weapons. It's not their right for the taxpayer to issue them to them however.
Actually, the government has the power to spend their money however they want, within the law. This has ended up creating some negative consequences, such as earmarks.

It depends on how they plan on using that weapon
Do you know that they are going to use it for bad?

Should school bus drivers demand that the tax payer buy them military weapons and equipment?
Bus drivers usually do not get shot at, and besides, David Spade payed for them, no government money was used.

ravonaf
December 23, 2008, 08:52 PM
Actually, the government has the power to spend their? money however they want, within the law.

That's funny. I wasn't aware the government had their own money. If that's the case why do they continue to take mine? When did we become a country of people who work for the government rather than government who works for the people? They do indeed have that power, only because the take it with deadly force.

Do you know that they are going to use it for bad?

I would say the odds are pretty good. Every time a person's rights gets violated it's bad.

Bus drivers usually do not get shot at, and besides, David Spade payed for them, no government money was used.

Police officers where being shot at long before they became militarized. The old standby's served them well.

And, as I've stated over and over again. I have no problem with David's AR's in the trunk of police cars. It's complete militarization with the intent to create a police state that I'm against.

hankdatank1362
December 23, 2008, 09:05 PM
Police officers where being shot at long before they became militarized.

Yup. Remember all the gangsters in the 20's and 30's using Tommy Guns?

Well the police went and bought some Thompsons of their own to match the BG's firepower.

That's how it works. Adapt. Improvise. Overcome.

Bad guys out there with AKs? (And there are... one national incident here in SC made the news on Halloween involving a dope dealer with an AK)

Match (or overcome) their firepower.

Law enforcement may have taken on a decidedly military look as of late, but that's because they are using the quasi-law-enforcement-esque role the military has adopted in the war overseas as a paradigm.

A solution is a solution. Don't forget, you can't just "call in the National Guard" like you suggested every time there is an imminent severe threat to the public. Rank and file law enforcement are the first responders.

Who arrested Timothy McVeigh? A regular ol' Sheriff's Depty. Who arrested Eric Rudolph? Regular ol' cop.

Do you really want law enforcement to have to hold out for 45 minutes waiting for SWAT the next time someone decides to go "North Hollywood" on them? Do you want more people riddled with bullets, as cops run to borrow guns from the nearest gun store, when they could have had a 30 second solution in their trunks?

JImbothefiveth
December 23, 2008, 09:06 PM
That's funny. I wasn't aware the government had their own money.
Soryy, I could have phrased that better. They have the power to spend money they tax however they want, within the law.

They do indeed have that power, only because the take it with deadly force.
Congress is given the power to levy taxes in the constitution, and the power to spend probably comes from the "elastic clause".

I would say the odds are pretty good. Every time a person's rights gets violated it's bad.
Out of the thousands of police officers in this country, how many have violated people's civil rights?

Police officers where being shot at long before they became militarized. The old standby's served them well.
Please see: North Hollywood shootout.

Actually, they've had to borrow actual military weapons before.(NOT semiauto AR-15s, actual military equipment.) They used BAR's(not the semi-auto sporting rifle, but rather the light machine gun) against Bonny and Clyde.

BTW, when did they become militarized? Given that example, it might seem they have become less militarized.

ravonaf
December 23, 2008, 09:19 PM
Please see: North Hollywood shootout.

Actually, they've had to borrow actual military weapons before.(NOT semiauto AR-15s, actual military equipment.) They used BAR's(not the semi-auto sporting rifle, but rather the light machine gun) against Bonny and Clyde.

I would have said they should have stood down until SWAT arrived. However, that's one example in literally hundreds of thousands of police encounters where they didn't need those weapons. I would say the odds are hundreds of times more likely they violate a citizens rights with those weapons than they need them for a North Hollywood style encounter. But lets say they need them. Just how many times do I have to say I'm ok with them being in their trunk?

BTW, when did they become militarized? Given that example, it might seem they have become less militarized.

The trend has been ongoing since at least the 90's. I've cited lots of examples above.

Congress is given the power to levy taxes in the constitution, and the power to spend probably comes from the "elastic clause".

Actually, an argument can be made that the 16th amendment to the constitution was never ratified by enough states to become law. But that's an entire different subject all together and completely off topic. :)

http://political-resources.com/taxes/16thamendment/default.htm

JImbothefiveth
December 23, 2008, 09:20 PM
But lets say they need them. Just how many times do I have to say I'm ok with them being in their trunk?
But if they have them in the trunk, and they really are out to oppress people, wouldn't they take them out of the trunk?

telomerase
December 23, 2008, 09:24 PM
Voluntarily giving money to government is about as dumb as it gets.

Yeah, but giving it involuntarily doesn't make us geniuses either... especially when it's the whole :cuss: economy being given to the politically connected.

ravonaf
December 23, 2008, 09:26 PM
But if they have them in the trunk, and they really are out to oppress people, wouldn't they take them out of the trunk?

It's a rather easy distinction to make. Police cruisers full of police officer's doing their job with AR's in the trunk is perfectly ok. Police officer's dressed all in black busting down old ladies doors for selling eggs to their neighbors and shoving the business end of an AR in her grandchildren's faces is completely bad.

JImbothefiveth
December 23, 2008, 09:29 PM
It's a rather easy distinction to make. Police cruisers full of police officer's doing their job with AR's in the trunk is perfectly ok. Police officer's dressed all in black busting down old ladies doors for selling eggs to their neighbors and shoving the business end of an AR in her grandchildren's faces is completely bad.

I'm not saying they should bust down old ladies doors for selling eggs to their neighbors

but A: if they were going to do that, they could just take the rifle out of the trunk and B: Won't these rifles be kept in the car anyway?

And how does changing the color of their uniform from blue to black suddenly change what they are doing? My police department dresses in black, and they've never oppressed me yet. One of the pictures of "acceptable" police clothes you posted was black.

hankdatank1362
December 23, 2008, 09:31 PM
I would have said they should have stood down until SWAT arrived.

it was either let them get away, or engage.

And, the police, by nature, are a para-military organization. Think about it. Rank structure, uniforms, training, etc.

For every person that points to increasing gestappo tactics of LEOs, I like to point out the universal increase in community-oriented policing programs, largely made possible by Federal grants through the DOJ.

ravonaf
December 23, 2008, 09:38 PM
but A: if they were going to do that, they could just take the rifle out of the trunk and B: Won't these rifles be kept in the car anyway?

And how does changing the color of their uniform from blue to black suddenly change what they are doing?

I've stated above. I'm not against the AR's. I'm against how they use them. The weapon is just a tool. It's an inanimate object with no power to hurt anyone on it's own. I'm for criminal and civil prosecution against any officer violating a person's rights no matter if it's an AR or a toothpick. The AR's is just a better tool for the job.

And how does changing the color of their uniform from blue to black suddenly change what they are doing?

Uniforms have power. Just ask the Germans, the Russians, the Chinese, or George Lucas. ;) Part of this kind of civil rights violation is to scare people. Not just the victims but people like you and me. Many of these military style black uniforms don't have any names, rank, or department on them. For all you know they might be the bad guys. Fear is a weapon just as dangerous as any AR.

ravonaf
December 23, 2008, 09:39 PM
it was either let them get away, or engage.

They aren't allowed to follow them? Hell, I even remember they had helicopter footage. There was no way those guys where getting away.

JImbothefiveth
December 23, 2008, 09:46 PM
I'm not against the AR's. I'm against how they use them.
I thought you considered issuing AR's "militarization"?

As for the North Hollywood incident, if they had let them get away, even if they were following them, innocents would have been hurt. They shot innocent people as it was, it could have been worse if they were not contained.

ravonaf
December 23, 2008, 09:52 PM
I thought you considered issuing AR's "militarization"?

I consider it a part of militarizing the police. It's a small part of the storm trooper mentality. We can also include the tanks, military uniforms, military style checkpoints, military style civilian sweeps.

As for the North Hollywood incident, if they had let them get away, even if they were following them, innocents would have been hurt. They shot innocent people as it was, it could have been worse if they were not contained.

If I recall they didn't start killing people until the police showed up. They had robbed several banks previously with no deaths.

JImbothefiveth
December 23, 2008, 09:57 PM
The men were clearly dangerous, and letting them get away would have been a bad thing.
If I recall they didn't start killing people until the police showed up.
If the police started following them, as you suggest, do you think they would have just driven along peacably? I think they would have started shooting.

In addition, if they had just waited for SWAT, that's no gaurantee the men would have stopped shooting at them.

And if you are not against them having them in the car, why are you against David Spade buying them? Won't they stay in the car?

the tanks
Since when do they have tanks?

military style civilian sweeps.
What exactly are you referring to?

RP88
December 23, 2008, 10:02 PM
I think that the 'militarization' is a good thing. If they justify a need, then we can too. They need it to fight a better-armed criminal? Well, then by that sense then so do we.

The only thing that I cannot stand is the double-standard. A snubby six-shot is an inadequate police weapon, but for me it's 'all I need'. That is what really ticks people off to no end here.

ravonaf
December 23, 2008, 10:09 PM
And if you are not against them having them in the car, why are you against David Spade buying them?

I never said that.

Since when do they have tanks?

http://www.peoplesdefender.com/main.asp?SectionID=3&SubSectionID=3&ArticleID=128503&TM=47266.84

http://www.lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w9.html

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/cobb/stories/2008/10/10/police_tank.html

What exactly are you referring to?

http://v.mercola.com/blogs/public_blog/SWAT-Team-Like-Raid-Against-Food-Co-op-73241.aspx

SWAT Team Like Raid Against Food Co-op

Ohio authorities recently stormed a farm house in LaGrange to execute a search warrant, holding the Jacqueline and John Stowers and their son and young grandchildren at gunpoint for nine hours. Over the course of the raid, the Ohio Department of Agriculture and police confiscated over ten thousand dollars worth of food, computers and cell phones.

The Stowers’ only crime? They run a private, members-only food co-op. State authorities were looking for evidence of illegal activities, but the family was not informed what crime they were suspected of, were not read their rights and were not allowed to make a phone call.
The Stowers were apparently believed to be operating without a license. However, the Stowers claim that the food co-op they run does not engage in any activities that would require state licensing.

http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/2003/08/17/drugWarVictims.html

https://secure.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,700234545,00.html

http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070202/A_NEWS/702020322

http://www.freedomradio.us/Joomla/index.php?Itemid=164&id=2879&option=com_content&task=view

JImbothefiveth
December 23, 2008, 10:11 PM
Terrible things(and terrible waste of money, the tank), but how would AR-15s for patrol use have made this worse? Wouldn't it have been just as bad if they had used their issue sidearm?

hankdatank1362
December 23, 2008, 10:25 PM
Of course there is going to be eggregious behavior by an infentismally small portion of law enforcement, just as there is any other profession.

Since some doctors operate negligently, should we demand that all doctors go back to using leeches to bleed out an illness, rusty scalpels to operate, and whiskey as anasthesia?

I'd be willing to bet that there are exponentially fewer civil and constitutional rights violations than there were half a century ago. Modern violations are just better reported.

Sinixstar
December 23, 2008, 10:25 PM
That's funny. I wasn't aware the government had their own money. If that's the case why do they continue to take mine? When did we become a country of people who work for the government rather than government who works for the people? They do indeed have that power, only because the take it with deadly force.

Because once they take yours - it's not longer yours - it's their's. Pretty simple concept.

Just like -if you go to McDonalds and buy a big mac - that doesn't give you the right to tell McDonalds how to run their business. You're not "lending" them $5, you're not investing $5 - you gave them $5 for a big mac, it's now their $5. Taxes work the same way.

You give your money to the government, it now belongs to the government. Technically it belongs to the people - but since the government technically belongs to the people - those two statements are not mutually exclusive. You are giving tax money to the government for them to spend how they see fit. If you don't like how they spend it - call your congressman, vote, write letters - stand on a street corner with a sign like some kinda crazy.

End of the day - that's how it works. Like it or not, but that's the facts. They're not spending YOUR money. It is no longer YOUR Money.

ravonaf
December 23, 2008, 10:29 PM
Of course there is going to be eggregious behavior by an infentismally small portion of law enforcement, just as there is any other profession.

That is absolutely not what's happening. We aren't talking about bad cops. We are talking about police policy which makes it perfectly ok from their point to view to do these things. The majority of these incidents are just LEO's following orders. Saying a couple bad cops got out of line does NOT give any of these actions a pass.

Sinixstar
December 23, 2008, 10:29 PM
. But lets say they need them. Just how many times do I have to say I'm ok with them being in their trunk?


You're okay with them being in the truck - but you seem to be raising an awful big stink over the fact that they're getting them to begin with.

Either you're okay with the cops getting AR's - or you're not. If you're okay with them getting/having AR's - then why the disagreement?

hankdatank1362
December 23, 2008, 10:29 PM
And if you don't think the government works for the people, then you must walk through the woods to work every day.

I drive on OUR roads that OUR government built with OUR money.

hankdatank1362
December 23, 2008, 10:32 PM
That is absolutely not what's happening. We aren't talking about bad cops. We are talking about policy policy which makes it perfectly ok from their point to view to do these things. The majority of these incidents are just LEO's following orders. Saying a couple bad cops got out of line does NOT give any of these actions a pass.

Oh, I agree. The superiors should be terminated (or at the very least, extremely demoted and disciplined) to make a point that the Constitution isn't just some paper that gets in the way of cop work.

Until examples are made of these types of officers, then the problem will continue.

But I doubt that it states anywhere in departmental policy to violate civil rights.

ravonaf
December 23, 2008, 10:37 PM
You're okay with them being in the truck - but you seem to be raising an awful big stink over the fact that they're getting them to begin with.

Please quote me on that. I never raised a stink about David buying them AR's. I raised a stink about the current trend of militarizing police. It amazes me that people can't see the distinction.

Sinixstar
December 23, 2008, 10:56 PM
Please quote me on that. I never raised a stink about David buying them AR's. I raised a stink about the current trend of militarizing police. It amazes me that people can't see the distinction.

So let me get this straight.

ARs = form of militarization
You = against militarization.
You = okay with ARs.

See where i'm going with this? There's some conflicting statements there.
If ARs are a form of militarization - and you're not okay with the militarizing of police - then by simple 1+1=2 - you're not okay with police having ARs.

I never raised a stink about David buying them AR's. I raised a stink about the current trend of militarizing police.

That - is a direct contradiction. Period.

Gaiudo
December 24, 2008, 03:25 AM
ravonaf:

If the "stink" you're raising has nothing to do with "David buying them AR's", then what are you doing raising a stink about anything else, in a thread about David Spade's gift to the Phoenix PD?

If you'd rather have an entire conversation about the "current trend of militarizing police", which, in your words, has nothing to do with David Spade's gift, then start your own thread and quit hijacking someone else's thread; its off topic. And rude. This thread is about David Spade's contribution, regarding which you apparently have nothing to contribute, as per your own statements.

WVMountainBoy
December 24, 2008, 04:55 AM
First off, kudos to Mr. Spade for supporting his hometown cops. I don't care if he was buying rifles or handcuffs, the help and even more so the support is great.

As for the bayonet thing, the army also sent the agency I work for several boxes of them for our AR's, they were never issued and sat at the armoury for years till they were finally thrown away (A co-worker and I salvaged several boxes) The department's philosphy was that the Troops use their rifles for long distance work and their sidearm for close quarters. As for knives, they're issued folders.

The department I work for does not issue AR's instead they allow the officer the choice to carry a semi-automatic rifle in either .223 or .308 The officers usually choose AR type weapons though some deviate. The guys are issued an 870 and a Smith .45

ravonaf
December 24, 2008, 07:24 AM
So let me get this straight.

ARs = form of militarization
You = against militarization.
You = okay with ARs.

See where i'm going with this? There's some conflicting statements there.
If ARs are a form of militarization - and you're not okay with the militarizing of police - then by simple 1+1=2 - you're not okay with police having ARs.

I explained my position very clearly. If you fail to understand there's nothing more I can say.

ravonaf
December 24, 2008, 07:25 AM
If you'd rather have an entire conversation about the "current trend of militarizing police", which, in your words, has nothing to do with David Spade's gift, then start your own thread and quit hijacking someone else's thread; its off topic. And rude.

I've been very polite. It's not off topic. The subject came up in the course of discussing the AR buy and I went with it. If you somehow find yourself offended by my opinions then I apologize. Merry Christmas. :)

Holloman
December 24, 2008, 07:52 AM
Good lord, this post is getting stupid.

David Spade did something good, and half of you accuse him of this stuff. I for one commend him. I don't think any of ya'll have ever done anything better for your community, so you really have no room to talk. Why does everyone always assume there is a secret agenda? Good job, man.

And by the way, at least the cops have to qualify and train with their guns. In MOST states, there is no training requirement/hunter's safety course. Beleive it or not, there are idiots out there with guns as well. Go watch youtube for examples.

Get with the times. The cops are militarized, and they DO have to be. Gangs ARE out there with lots of firepower, and not all of the threat is a hype. (Which was stated earlier)

expvideo
December 24, 2008, 09:47 AM
I actually just noticed this line - and I think perhaps there's something you're not realizing.

The guys you posted pictures of in full tactical get up - are not there to interact with the public. They're not there to help find your lost dog or give you directions. They're posted outside of high-value targets. The picture you posted of the cop standing outside the path station? Within a 1 mile radius of that you have the World Financial Center, Federal Courthouses, City Hall, The Holland Tunnel, Staten Island Ferry, the stock exchange, several high schools, several hotels frequented by various foreign entities (such as the Millennium Hilton directly across the street from where that cop is), the federal reserve, and that's just what I can think of off the top of my head. (I used to work down there, and have probably walked past that exact cop many times walking through that train station).
I understand what "could" happen, and I don't think that this is any excuse to be having what look like SWAT cops patrolling the streets. 8 years ago, these "high-value targets" were there and there were no heavily armed and body armored officers patrolling the streets. Seems to me that there weren't any Mumbai style attacks either. Tell me, if these patrols had been there, how would their presence have changed 9/11?

I know my last post on this was probably a bit sarcastic - but really, I mean - what exactly do you expect them to do? Any one of the places I named would make a pretty big target if someone wanted to come over here and cause some havoc. Should we taken the Indian approach and let someone take control of one of these buildings before calling in any kind of force?
They're not harassing average people. In fact, if you have to talk to them or deal with them for some reason (such as asking directions) they're actually quite friendly.
I don't care how friendly they are. I live in the USA, and I don't want to see soldiers patrolling the streets. There is no SS here, and it needs to stay that way.

I also find it interesting that the picture of the woman in a "regular" police uniform is okay, while the guy in the "tactical" getup is not. It's interesting - because they're both holding AR-15s.
Aside from accessories - can you tell me why one is acceptable and one is not?
Yeah. That's my point. The AR-15 isn't the problem.

flyboy1788
December 24, 2008, 12:26 PM
Apparently he gave the phoenix PD 100,000 dollars to buy AR-15s because the department was to cheap or they couldnt afford them and they were undergunned. Usually celebrities are misguided liberals when it comes to guns. Hats off to spade.

FoMoGo
December 24, 2008, 12:32 PM
This good deed has already been posted... and turned into a rant about the government... police troops... and the stupidity of giving your money away.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=414745
I hope your thread fares better.


Jim

flyboy1788
December 24, 2008, 12:44 PM
it turned into a rant about the government... police troops... and the stupidity of giving your money away.
thats unfortunate. thank you for pointing out it was a dupe though.

Borch
December 24, 2008, 02:01 PM
Wow! I just read that other thread, what a nightmare. I just love how everyone here would supposedly die to defend their 2nd amendment rights but when the police get the tools to defend those same rights it turns into a bunch of bleeding heart anti police propaganda.

flyboy1788
December 24, 2008, 02:15 PM
it turns into a bunch of bleeding heart anti police propaganda
Yea, kind of disturbing if you ask me. there are a lot of good cops on this forum and good cops that I know that I wouldnt hesitate to hope for them to be adequately armed because they are definately stand up people who I respect. I definately cant stand all this police trash talking. People on the other thread were bitching about them "looking" too militant with their tactical gear. Well my friends they "look" militant because they have to be. Some people in out society are ****ed in the head and wouldnt hesitate to do terrible things (they're called terrorists if Im not mistaken). Anybody happen to hear about that mumbai thing over in India?!?!?! I bet some of you people talkin trash about those "miltant cops" would have been praying to God that they were around if god forbid you were one of those poor souls in that hotel in India. A friend of mine stayed in that hotel 2 weeks prior to this incident and sure as **** would have hoped for there being cops armed to the teeth with body armour and ARs taking care of the situation. you can argue that some places dont need these tactical looking cops because nothing happens. Then you can also argue that these cops are the reason why the **** doesnt hit the fan. It is a deterrent. But I guarantee you that if god forbid a mumbai type incident happened here and cops were undergunned and more people died than necessary, all of you cop-bashers would be wondering why the hell we didnt have better prepared and armed cops. That is the end of my rant :)

Mossberg88
December 24, 2008, 02:25 PM
aside from all the politics, good on Spade.

Borch
December 24, 2008, 02:30 PM
I've said it before and I'll say it again. When the crap really hits the fan in my nieghborhood I don't want to see some beat cop with a 30 year old 870 out there, I want to see the "military looking" SWAT boys with the good armor and the big guns getting it done.

paintballdude902
December 24, 2008, 02:33 PM
borch- i totally agree with one thing to add

i want to see regular people ready with their guns to back up said officers incase it really gets bad, and i want to cops to be willing to accept their help

way to go spade

velojym
December 24, 2008, 02:51 PM
As mentioned above... how does Spade do on INDIVIDUAL rights?

Like any other group, there are good cops and bad cops. Blanket worship only ends up supporting the bad ones, as the good cops will stand on their own merits otherwise. Hitler had a LOT of "good" cops, I understand. Doing their jobs, and all.


After all... when guns are banned, it'll be these same well-armed troopers who were once cops who'll be kicking down the doors and disarming the populace. Remember NOLA.

sernv99
December 24, 2008, 03:16 PM
these threads about "The Man" sending the police out to kick down doors and take your guns away is pretty friggin absurd. As I told some right wing nut a few weeks ago, put down The Turner Diaries and get back to reality.

Secondly, the police don't want civilians "backing them up" because having civies back up the police is a recipe for a legal nightmare, in case one of the civies get trigger happy and starts popping off rounds at whoever. The days of the wild west and having regular folks "deputized to help out the sheriff" is over. Get over it!!!! Not going to happen in this day and age.

if you don't like cops being well armed, then you shouldn't support the NRA, since the NRA sponsors courses for LE to help them train on a variety of weapons, including full auto. They also sponsor a life insurance specifically for LE who get killed in the line of duty. You should also probably not buy any guns from companies like Glock, Sig, etc, who give a LE discount, since after all, they are supporting to arm "The Man" with guns at a reduced rate...so for all those that joined the NRA but are anti-police, your logic doesn't make sense at all.

JImbothefiveth
December 24, 2008, 05:41 PM
if you don't like cops being well armed, then you shouldn't support the NRA
Well, the NRA is pretty anti-gun. :rolleyes:

You should also probably not buy any guns from companies like Glock, Sig, etc,
The gun industry has been trying to take away our gun rights for years now. :neener:

rbernie
December 24, 2008, 05:51 PM
David Spade did something good, and half of you accuse him of this stuff. I for one commend him. I don't think any of ya'll have ever done anything better for your community, so you really have no room to talk. Why does everyone always assume there is a secret agenda? Good job, man. Some people are just LOOKIN' for an excuse to get their panties in a wad. The 'militarization of the poo-leece' is a popular way to do so. I figure that it's a low-impact way for folk to vent their frustrations regarding authority figures.

IMO, militarization of the police is all about the culture of the local police force and the tactics that they use to complete a given task. The kit used is largely irrelevant.

I think that the fact that David Spade was willing to throw down and help buy some kit for the police is a fine thing.

Old Guy
December 26, 2008, 08:55 PM
Again, good on ya Mr. Spade.

Most training programs, and gun issuing Police administrators have taken a large step to one side in the common sense department.

The first part to examine in a training program, any, from learning to change a wheel, to shooting an attacking criminal, in your home, or on the street, is to examine the history of these actual happenings in your area of recent operations. Duplicate these on the range.

Now you know what you need to be trained do!

Then you get the training required, and the tools required as well.

Case in point, 20 Police Officers, standing on a concrete path, 7 yds from 20 cardboard silhouettes, then on the blast of a whistle, draw and fire two shots. Hullo!

What the heck is that about!

Let us go the other way, look at the action that creates a need.

Robbery's in fast food places were being perpetrated by shot gun armed criminals (say for instance) several times the Police Officer arrived on scene, when the robbers were still there, average distance away, 50 yards.
Lots of innocent citizens about, the responding Officer has a head and half a shoulder to fire his Semi Auto .40 cal pistol at, over the hood of an SUV? Sure!

M16 given to the PD, with cut out full auto capability, and they buy scopes, 4 power scopes. Cost $300 total! He now has the precision tool for the job! It is not a "Military weapon" it is a cheap tool for that job.

Rifles are way better in hitting small targets than fixed sight pistols.

DesertPunisher425
December 30, 2008, 04:36 PM
I'm posting a reply to Ravon's mention of the 1033 program and the article that misrepresented the extent of the program.

First, I'll give you a little break-down of the way things work. The 1033 program is a federal military surplus redistribution program; there is a large number of items that can be transferred from the military to virtually any other local, state or federal government department. There is a program administrator in every state... this is an active duty position withing that state's National Guard. Usually this position is within the Counterdrug Division; a program itself federally funded and executed by the state to support local, state and federal law enforcement in operations consisting of a narcotic nexus.

The 1033 Program distributes everything from older, military-obsolete night vision devices, binoculars, cots, tents, sleeping bags and uniforms to rifles, vehicles and helicopters. The program DOES NOT distribute battle tanks, assault helicopters, missiles, machine guns (in the military terminology, not the ATF's), explosives are anything that could be deemed more destructive than rifles. The decisively slanted article you referenced failed to mention that the M113A2 Tracked Armored Personnel Carriers which are transferred to LEA's do not come with any armament; they are nothing more than a box made of ballistic aluminum alloy with a drive-train and tracks (which the tracks are almost always replaced with rubber tracks to help ensure the roads are not damaged; not that the rubber track pads on the steel tracks do much damage as it is).

The helicopters they distribute are UH-1 (Huey) and OH-58A (Kiowa); The first is a Utility Helicopter capable of transporting a little under 4000lbs, 14 personnel or up to 6 stretchers when used in medevac role; the come without any weapons or armament. Do not confuse the UH-1 with the AH-1 Cobra gunship (which is only sold to other militaries) The second (OH-58A) is a light observation helicopter with a max take-off weight of 2,300lbs, a crew of two and additional seating for two additional personnel. These ARE NOT the Kiowa Warrior (OH-58D) version (which comes equipped with mini-guns and/or 2.75mm rocket pods). So, perhaps you feel that law enforcement shouldn't have the ability to respond to natural disasters with a helicopter capable of moving casualties, or respond to a prison break or lost child with a helicopter capable of aerial observation for several hours at minimum of cost... but most of the public support these initiatives.

And yes, that is exactly the roles those helicopters are used in; fugitive apprehension, cannabis eradication, area observation for warrants and response to natural disasters or medevac operations. How do I know this? Because I've spent nearly four years working in the Counterdrug Division (just the latest of my military assignments); I've worked with various different departments who are currently using surplus military vehicles and helicopters. Through special exceptions in our congressional mandate which set up the CD program I've worked in a great number of law enforcement activities outside of the narcotic nexus... from taking our LAV's (Light Armored Vehicle; 8-wheeled amphibious) to be some of the first responders for hurricane Katrina to assisting in the search for missing children. In almost all of these operations I worked side by side with LEO's who had military surplus equipment (helicopters, vehicles, night vision, FLIR) that greatly assisted them in serving the community through these roles and through more "typical" LE roles.

If you have a problem with the raid's which LEA's are conducting then you need to look at your District Attorney and your local, state and federal judges. Those Officers are doing their job; which is to execute the law in accordance with the officials appointed and elected over them.

There is a statistically insignificant number of officers who violate the law on their own accord; they are usually dealt with through the courts. However, virtually everything you've complained about are nothing more than LEO's doing their job as instructed by the persons elected to public office. No more can you blame a janitor for not cleaning the hall of a school when he's told by his boss to clean the cafeteria than you can blame an officer for serving a warrant requested by the DA and signed by a judge.

Last but not least... LEO's are much less likely to infringe upon your rights than joe snuffy walking down the street is likely to. The difference is, when your rear is in a pinch and you call for help... the LEO won't walk past and do nothing... most citizens will. LEO's can never conduct policing operations without identification. They may not have their name on their uniform, but there is one thing they will always have... something that identifies them as Law Enforcement (and when I'm assisting in a raid, I too go stearl... I don't need a couple dealers hunting me and my family down in the middle of the night). And of course... to say that LE is becoming militarized for the purpose of enacting a military state is itself ridiculous. To have a militarized state, the military must be involved to some extent. Why? Because the military is the last line of defense for your civil rights; when everything else has broken down and failed, the military is by design intended to reset the country on it's right tracks through martial law ("To defend against all enemies, both foreign and domestic"). The police alone cannot institute a military state. As far as how they are armed... enough examples of reasons why police need firepower have already been made... I don't need to list anymore.

Mohawk
December 30, 2008, 06:50 PM
Well, there's the straight skinny and very well put I might add.
Welcome to the site D/P 425. Hope you post often. A "third eye" perspective is often helpful on a thread when both sides of a discussion is half right most the time.

amd6547
December 30, 2008, 09:05 PM
I would agree with much of that...However..The military is NOT the last line of defense for our civil rights. WE the PEOPLE are the last line of defense for OUR civil rights.

General Geoff
December 30, 2008, 09:18 PM
Last but not least... LEO's are much less likely to infringe upon your rights than joe snuffy walking down the street is likely to.

Your post was very informative, except for this bit, about which you are blatantly wrong. On a percentage basis, law enforcement officers are far more likely to infringe on your rights than joe schmoe. In fact, about half of all of my encounters with law enforcement resulted in the temporary infringement of one or more of my rights without legal justification. Can't say that anywhere near half of my encounters with non-officers has resulted in the temporary infringement of any of my rights.

DesertPunisher425
December 31, 2008, 02:01 AM
Well, I don't know what happened but I'd replied then suddenly my computer did something, changed pages and I lost it! That has to be the most aggravating thing that can happen when on a forum!!! Any-who...

I've not yet figured out how to quote; There's a button on every other forum I'm on, but I've not yet found it here. So I'll do this the old fashioned way!



Geoff-
Did you file a complaint? I don't know the particulars of your situations, and I simply don't want to pass judgement, so I'll say some things about this topic, but not specific to you. Just some things to take into consideration.

Most of the population have no idea what the extent of the laws governing them and those sworn to uphold those laws actually are. With so many people totally oblivious to these legalities, you end up with a LOT more perceived violations of rights than actual violations of rights. This isn't to say it doesn't exist; humans are by nature flawed. But for the number of claims of a violation of a person's rights, I'd venture to guess less than 5% are founded on fact.

Understand, I AM NOT law enforcement; I am military. But, I've been on countless traffic stops, searches, raids and surveillance missions in a law enforcement role. This doesn't mean I'm as knowledgeable as the officers I've worked with, and it definitely doesn't mean I know the law to the letter. But it's given me a great deal more knowledge in the area than most every citizen. Most people think getting a conviction in court is fairly easy to do once you find the guy who did the crime. This is where most people would be wrong. Making charges, and to a lesser extent, civil infractions stick isn't as easy as you'd think. If any of the dozens of persons involved in a case make a mistake, it discredits the entire case. If an officer making a traffic stop violates a persons rights, even briefly... the citation can be thrown out. If he'd LEGALLY done a search, but handled the suspect incorrectly, anything resulting from the search could possibly be thrown out as evidence. Any violation of standing policy or procedure, or law are grounds to have charges dropped; this includes impeding upon some one's individual rights. We (the officer and I) are particularly careful to follow the law concerning what we are doing; if you stray just a little, a guilty suspect could very easily end up walking while the officer ends up on the hot seat. I cannot stress enough how much attention is paid to ensuring that everything is done within the confines of the law. And I've not just worked with one agency; this is universal where ever I've gone. In everything LE related that I've done, I have never once seen a true violation of some one's rights... I have heard unfounded complaints of violations many times though...

If you are ever in the situation where you feel your rights have been violated, file a complaint immediately; be detailed. Trust me on this... 99% of the time if you file a complaint and there is some legitimate basis to the complaint, they will take it serious. Why? Because if you filed a complaint, you would be willing to file a law suit or contact the attorney generals office if you feel the investigation to be erroneous. Covering up an officer abusing you isn't worth the attention and punishment. Anyway, if they find your complaint unfounded, politely ask for an explination so you can better understand where the officer's actions fall within the legal limitations.



amd-
I should have clarified... the military is the last government line of defense for your rights. But, if it gets to the point where even that has failed; we as a society are in serious trouble. Anyway, the individual is the one who must decide if they are willing to live in tyranny and oppression or attempt to change their environment.

Old Guy
December 31, 2008, 07:56 AM
I've not yet figured out how to quote; There's a button on every other forum I'm on, but I've not yet found it here. So I'll do this the old fashioned way!

DP425,

Hi lite the area you wish to quote, copy same, the line of motifs? that start with B I U above, go to the end of the line, the wee yellow page to the left of the # sign, click on it, Wrap, paste your copied material in that wrap! Bingo.

expvideo
December 31, 2008, 10:19 AM
LEO's are much less likely to infringe upon your rights than joe snuffy walking down the street is likely to.
ROFL!!!

I can tell you from personal experience that this is not true. LEOs for the most part are good people who care a lot about not violating your rights. But there are a lot of them out there, more than just a few bad apples, that do not respect your rights and think that asserting their authority takes priority over your rights. I've had plenty of encounters with police, mostly because I used to speed a lot. I have great experiences about 80% of the time. Not 99% of the time. Not 90% of the time. About 80% of the time. The other 20% either didn't understand how to do their jobs, or didn't care about my rights.

I'm not usually one to make a fuss during the encounter, but I am definitely one to complain after the fact. I can also tell you from personal experience that unless you have a lawyer and are filing a lawsuit, the department will always stand behind their officer's decisions and tell you that they were justified. Always. They will not admit any wrongdoing by the officer. Ever. You will not ever get an appology unless you have won a lawsuit or you have a ton of media support. They will expect your lawyer to prove that their officer did something wrong, and until then YOU are the dirtbag, not their guy.

ETA: I'm not saying that the department is wrong in standing behind their officer, and if your complaint is serious enough (i.e. criminal), their internal affairs department will do an investigation, because they DO care about whether or not they have a bad apple, but don't expect an appology any time soon. Admitting that their officer was in the wrong is just inviting you to walk all over them with a lawsuit.

SaxonPig
December 31, 2008, 11:30 AM
1. Obviously the police need to be armed.

2. Sometimes they deal with situations requiring more firepower than provided by a handgun or a shotgun.

3. I see nothing wrong with a private citizen supporting the police with a donation. To criticize his intelligence for donating to "the government" is not only unfair but says more about the speaker than it does the person making the donation.

4. I believe that seale goes over the top in his anti-government rhetoric and his comments are abrasive. He certainly has the right to his opinion but he doesn't have the right to insult those who disagree. I have found that while most people who lean towards a Conservative point of view favor limited government (with less intrusion into our lives and lower taxes), there are some radicals who advocate NO government and they quickly become irate and contentious when confronted with dissenting opinion.

expvideo
December 31, 2008, 11:39 AM
1. yep
2. yep
3. yep
4. mmm-hmm

DesertPunisher425
December 31, 2008, 12:27 PM
ROFL!!!

I can tell you from personal experience that this is not true. LEOs for the most part are good people who care a lot about not violating your rights. But there are a lot of them out there, more than just a few bad apples, that do not respect your rights and think that asserting their authority takes priority over your rights. I've had plenty of encounters with police, mostly because I used to speed a lot. I have great experiences about 80% of the time. Not 99% of the time. Not 90% of the time. About 80% of the time. The other 20% either didn't understand how to do their jobs, or didn't care about my rights.

I'm not usually one to make a fuss during the encounter, but I am definitely one to complain after the fact. I can also tell you from personal experience that unless you have a lawyer and are filing a lawsuit, the department will always stand behind their officer's decisions and tell you that they were justified. Always. They will not admit any wrongdoing by the officer. Ever. You will not ever get an apology unless you have won a lawsuit or you have a ton of media support. They will expect your lawyer to prove that their officer did something wrong, and until then YOU are the dirt-bag, not their guy.

ETA: I'm not saying that the department is wrong in standing behind their officer, and if your complaint is serious enough (i.e. criminal), their internal affairs department will do an investigation, because they DO care about whether or not they have a bad apple, but don't expect an apology any time soon. Admitting that their officer was in the wrong is just inviting you to walk all over them with a lawsuit.

Hmmm... looks like I got this quote thing working. It's a bit different here; in my experience there's usually a button on the individual posting... you click that, it quotes the whole post with the name of the person you are quoting, time a date they made the post. Anyway, irrelevant really...

Onto the reply to expvideo:
I guess you've had a far different experience with law enforcement than I've seen coming from both being the guy getting the ticket (almost always just just traffic tickets back in my teens) to working with law enforcement. I can't say I've always had positive encounters; there have without a doubt been a few times where I would say the officer writing my ticket was a real a**hole. But just because he was a little rude and wasn't 100% professional doesn't mean his behavior violated my rights.

I will stick to my assertion that the vast majority of the time when someone claims a rights violation (and they may sincerely believe it too), in reality everything was 100% within the confines of the law. Like it or not, officers do have considerable leeway to ensure compliance with the law; more so than most people really understand. And people also don't realize that an officer being abrasive and even a bit disrespectful isn't a violation of your rights or illegal; it is certainly unprofessional and almost always against department policy... but not necessarily impeding on your rights

Again, if anyone feels they have a legitimate complaint, file a complaint with the department; I'm not saying they'll come running to you with a written apology and beg for your forgiveness, but I personally know of several instances where an officer was given a reprimand and some mild punishment for rather minor infractions. If you aren't happy with the response, file a complaint with the attorney general, or whatever department/office in your state handles complaints of this nature. If that fails to get the results you feel you deserve, file a law suit... if you actually do have a legitimate excuse, you'll win and should have your legal fees wrapped up into whatever you're awarded. What I'm saying here is unless you've exhausted all of the methods available to you in order to correct a problem, you're not doing yourself, or anyone else a favor. If you file a complaint to the department, they find no wrong-doing and you drop it at that... either you feel your complaint wasn't truly justified, or you're allowing a problem-not only with the officer, but now more importantly... with the department to continue. Many people would argue that it's your job as a citizen to help keep the government and law enforcement in check.

expvideo
December 31, 2008, 12:59 PM
I guess you've had a far different experience with law enforcement than I've seen coming from both being the guy getting the ticket (almost always just just traffic tickets back in my teens) to working with law enforcement. I can't say I've always had positive encounters; there have without a doubt been a few times where I would say the officer writing my ticket was a real a**hole. But just because he was a little rude and wasn't 100% professional doesn't mean his behavior violated my rights.
Yeah, being a jerk is not violating my rights. I'm not talking about that.

I will stick to my assertion that the vast majority of the time when someone claims a rights violation (and they may sincerely believe it too), in reality everything was 100% within the confines of the law. Like it or not, officers do have considerable leeway to ensure compliance with the law; more so than most people really understand. And people also don't realize that an officer being abrasive and even a bit disrespectful isn't a violation of your rights or illegal; it is certainly unprofessional and almost always against department policy... but not necessarily impeding on your rights
I know the law and my rights better than most attorneys. I am not talking about things that were borderline infringing on my rights, I am talking about clear violations of my rights and flat-out illegal conduct. Not my interpretation of things, but clear violations of my rights or of the law.

Again, if anyone feels they have a legitimate complaint, file a complaint with the department; I'm not saying they'll come running to you with a written apology and beg for your forgiveness, but I personally know of several instances where an officer was given a reprimand and some mild punishment for rather minor infractions. If you aren't happy with the response, file a complaint with the attorney general, or whatever department/office in your state handles complaints of this nature. If that fails to get the results you feel you deserve, file a law suit... if you actually do have a legitimate excuse, you'll win and should have your legal fees wrapped up into whatever you're awarded. What I'm saying here is unless you've exhausted all of the methods available to you in order to correct a problem, you're not doing yourself, or anyone else a favor. If you file a complaint to the department, they find no wrong-doing and you drop it at that... either you feel your complaint wasn't truly justified, or you're allowing a problem-not only with the officer, but now more importantly... with the department to continue.
That is a good method of getting things done, and some departments do have a good internal affairs devision that will take a complaint seriously. Unfortunately this is not a universal truth, and for the most part the writing a complaint part is just the first step in a long line of steps to actually getting anything accomplished. Most of the time the department will side with the officer, regardless of who was in the right, simply because it would make a lawsuit much easier to win if the department admitted wrong-doing.

Many people would argue that it's your job as a citizen to help keep the government and law enforcement in check.
It's an expensive duty and I'm poor. If you know an attorney that likes to take on cases free of charge, I'd be happy to sue the pants off a half dozen cops I've met.


Since you seem to insist that I am mistaken about what is or is not appropriate conduct, let me give you an example of a situation that I was involved in that was a clear-cut violation of my rights.

My friend was driving down the street and we came to a red light. This was in my hometown which is not particularly large. While sitting at the red light, the three of us in the car (in our late teens at the time, none of us on drugs or drinking or anything like that, not dressed like thugs) all saw a sheriff's department cruiser at the next light down. When our light turned green we ended up in front of the cop car. We were very careful to be doing the speed limit and when the speed limit changed from a 40 to a 30, we were going 30 by the time we reached the sign. We knew there was a cop behind us and we didn't want to be pulled over. If I can make it any more clear, we were not speeding, even slightly, from the moment that we started moving after the red light.

The officer pulled us over. He claimed that we were going 40 in a 30 and 50 in a 40 before that. We all knew that this was not true, but we didn't argue with him. Within a couple of minutes there were two more deputies at the scene (again, small town with nothing to do, the cops were bored). The officer said that he wanted to search the vehicle. My friend, as non-confrontationally as possible, asked him if he had a warrant. Of course he said that he did not. She asked him if he had probable cause. He said, "No I don't, I just think that you have drugs." My friend asked why the officer thought that we had drugs and he got frustrated with our lack of cooperation and said "look, do you want the ticket?"

Not wanting the ticket, we were coerced into a search. We did not consent to the search. Of course, as I said before we weren't drug users and we weren't drinking, so the search turned up nothing. The officers then searched us. This also turned up nothing.

The whole time, we were professional and non-confrontational with the officers. There was absolutely nothing suspicious about us. Nothing at all. I am not holding out part of the story.

Now... does that sound like a legitimate complaint to you, or was that me misunderstanding my rights?

DesertPunisher425
December 31, 2008, 06:03 PM
It's an expensive duty and I'm poor. If you know an attorney that likes to take on cases free of charge, I'd be happy to sue the pants off a half dozen cops I've met.


I hate to say it, because I really dislike them... but the ACLU loves to sue the government... and if it's law enforcement, even better. That aside, if you have a good case, some lawyers will work for a percentage of what the verdict awards you.




Since you seem to insist that I am mistaken about what is or is not appropriate conduct, let me give you an example of a situation that I was involved in that was a clear-cut violation of my rights.


I think you misunderstand me... I'm not trying to judge you either way, but I don't believe it to be the norm. Maybe you've just had a disproportionate amount of bad luck with LE



Now... does that sound like a legitimate complaint to you, or was that me misunderstanding my rights?

Well, as far as the search goes; if an officer implies you are more likely to not get a ticket if you allow him to search, nothing illegal is happening. It is the officer's discretion on if he wants to cite you. Coercing someone into permitting a search isn't illegal so long as the basis is founded in legal fact. In other words, there's nothing wrong with the situation you described if you were speeding. If he said "allow me to search or I'll arrest you for disorderly conduct"... that's illegal.

As far as the basis to pull you over goes... it does indeed sound questionable. Despite what you may have heard, there is no record kept for the radar and laser guns so speeding really amounts to you against him. There were three of you in the vehicle and I assume the officer who pulled you over was alone? If there isn't a record of habitual speeding, there is a good chance that ticket could be thrown out, and the basis of the stop also thrown out; making the search illegal. Three against one with clean records will usually win. Anyhow, given your situation as you described it... I'd have pursued action against the department.

Not that the driver did anything legally wrong, but usually in interactions with law enforcement it's best to limit the amount you speak. She'd have been better off not answering the officer's question with a question of her own and instead simply reply "No, Sir" when he asked permission to search. Answering a question with a question can be viewed as passive-aggressive and argumentative (which can eventually, if allowed to get out of hand can lead to probable cause)... and most lawyers will tell you that the less you say the better. I can't tell you how many times I've gained probable cause through conversation; if you talk to someone for 5 minutes or so, you can almost always get them to say something incriminating to some degree. Of course, very very few times has anyone denied a request to search; you'd think those would be the innocent ones too... nope. Surprising how many guilty people let you search thinking they'll get away. Universally, most people say "sure, go ahead". Had a trucker deny a request once... he had a custom 70's vintage rig and didn't want anyone getting it dirty. Anyhow, I'm getting a bit off topic here!


By the way, you could have refused them searching your person; the driver authorizing them to search the car doesn't not mean your right to deny a search of your person is forfeited.

Hostile Amish
December 31, 2008, 06:06 PM
I didn't know an AR-15 cost $2000.

DesertPunisher425
December 31, 2008, 06:11 PM
I'm guessing that's with accessories. Figure about $900 for the rifle, add an ACOG or EOTECH, some extra mags, a vehicle mount/lock, spare parts for the armorer... maybe some cases, perhaps some simunition kits...

General Geoff
December 31, 2008, 06:56 PM
If you are ever in the situation where you feel your rights have been violated, file a complaint immediately; be detailed. Trust me on this... 99% of the time if you file a complaint and there is some legitimate basis to the complaint, they will take it serious. Why? Because if you filed a complaint, you would be willing to file a law suit or contact the attorney generals office if you feel the investigation to be erroneous. Covering up an officer abusing you isn't worth the attention and punishment. Anyway, if they find your complaint unfounded, politely ask for an explination so you can better understand where the officer's actions fall within the legal limitations.

Not worth my time and effort to file a civil suit for fifteen minutes of my time lost. Every time it's happened to me, it's because I was openly carrying a handgun. In Pennsylvania, the State Supreme Court has ruled specifically that open carrying a firearm does not constitute reasonable articulable suspicion to initiate a stop or detainment. It's happened to me twice already though. They ask me for my license to carry (which is NOT required to carry openly in this state, outside of Philadelphia), I ask why, they tell me to shut up and show it to them. Then they give me a stern talking to, tell me to leave it in the car while I'm in "their town," that it's not the wild west, that they don't like responding to man with a gun calls, etc. etc.

All this when they never had a legitimate reason to bother me at all. Next time it happens I'll simply ask, "Am I being detained?" And if they answer with yes, I'll just shut my mouth and wait for them to stop lecturing me, then ask if I'm free to go.

For the record, there are multiple other lawsuits that have been filed in Pennsylvania for the exact same thing that's happened to me. I just don't feel that it's worth my time and expense in hiring a lawyer, yet. I might if it happens again. I did send the chief of police a letter complaining about the one incident, though.

Cyborg
December 31, 2008, 09:35 PM
I don't like David Spade m'self. Would rather spend 8 hours with a room full of siamese cats sharpening their claws on a blackboard and singin' at the top of their lungs than watch anything with Spade in it (wouldn't watch the series he was in a few years back even though it had the beautious Laura SanGicaomo in it). But what he did for his home town police dept was a good thing.

the police don't want civilians "backing them up" because having civies back up the police is a recipe for a legal nightmareI don't know where you live but post 9/11 Texas instituted a system to do just that. After 9/11 they took CHL licensing away from whatever agency had it and put it under the Department of Public Safety (Highway Patrol, Texas Rangers and a couple other things). They also changed the former Texas Commission of Private Security (the agency that regulated all private security including security companies, alarm installation/monitoring companies and Security Officer licensing) to the Private Security Board under DPS. Now all CHL licenses and Commissioned (armed) Security Officer licenses are issued by DPS and in case of a local emergency the county Sheriff can get a list of CHL/CSO licenseholders who can be drafted to be armed backup for the police.

As for the whole "militarization of the police" thing, that point is long past moot. "Posse Commitatis" has been pretty much gutted and members of the U.S. Armed Forces are either already serving or preparing to serve as domestic security troops. Add to that the movement towards a national security force under HSD and the point is moot.

Hopefully Barama and the left will not have the stones to actually USE the power they have (getting congress critters to do what they already want to do requires very little political capitol) and gut the 2A. But if they choose to do so then they will and the structure to do it will be in place. PLUS we private citizens will have little chance of stopping them since we will be facing the best trained, most experienced troops on the planet when it comes to urban warfare.

All you guys who so certain that nothing is really happening - and everyone else for that matter -should pop over to Mike VanderB's blog and read this entry http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2008/12/we-rationalized-every-new-outrage.html

Brrrr.

Cyborg
My new watchword is "security by obscurity".

DesertPunisher425
December 31, 2008, 09:37 PM
Not worth my time and effort to file a civil suit for fifteen minutes of my time lost. Every time it's happened to me, it's because I was openly carrying a handgun. In Pennsylvania, the State Supreme Court has ruled specifically that open carrying a firearm does not constitute reasonable articulable suspicion to initiate a stop or detainment. It's happened to me twice already though. They ask me for my license to carry (which is NOT required to carry openly in this state, outside of Philadelphia), I ask why, they tell me to shut up and show it to them. Then they give me a stern talking to, tell me to leave it in the car while I'm in "their town," that it's not the wild west, that they don't like responding to man with a gun calls, etc. etc.

All this when they never had a legitimate reason to bother me at all. Next time it happens I'll simply ask, "Am I being detained?" And if they answer with yes, I'll just shut my mouth and wait for them to stop lecturing me, then ask if I'm free to go.

For the record, there are multiple other lawsuits that have been filed in Pennsylvania for the exact same thing that's happened to me. I just don't feel that it's worth my time and expense in hiring a lawyer, yet. I might if it happens again. I did send the chief of police a letter complaining about the one incident, though.

Although it is my opinion that open carry in populated area's is inviting trouble, or in the very least... attention, no one should be harassed for doing so when it is legal. This is one instance where I understand what your talking about; My state makes no laws regulating the open carry of firearms, and because we have a preemption law regarding firearms, no city is authorized to have a law against open carry. However, this preemption law has not been around that long (5-10yrs) and to say it's rare for someone to open carry in anything resembling a populated area would be the understatement of the century. So, many people (sometimes to include law enforcement) don't realize the laws that cities and townships at one point had are no longer valid. This has lead to a huge amount of legal issues both for the cities, townships and counties, but for individuals as well. I spoke with one of the assistant attorney generals for the state and he specifically said although not illegal, it's generally going to cause more headache than it's worth and bring you unwanted attention from nearly everyone you meet. Apparently his office deals with the legal issues resulting from open carry on a regular basis- from the local governments, law enforcement and citizens.

My personal views are, when in populated areas, keep it concealed; it's easier and causes less headache.

It is best to just let them say what they want the continue about your business; getting into an argument or disagreement with an officer and having a gun strapped to your side is usually not going to go favorably!

expvideo
December 31, 2008, 09:39 PM
Not worth my time and effort to file a civil suit for fifteen minutes of my time lost. Every time it's happened to me, it's because I was openly carrying a handgun. In Pennsylvania, the State Supreme Court has ruled specifically that open carrying a firearm does not constitute reasonable articulable suspicion to initiate a stop or detainment. It's happened to me twice already though. They ask me for my license to carry (which is NOT required to carry openly in this state, outside of Philadelphia), I ask why, they tell me to shut up and show it to them. Then they give me a stern talking to, tell me to leave it in the car while I'm in "their town," that it's not the wild west, that they don't like responding to man with a gun calls, etc. etc.

All this when they never had a legitimate reason to bother me at all. Next time it happens I'll simply ask, "Am I being detained?" And if they answer with yes, I'll just shut my mouth and wait for them to stop lecturing me, then ask if I'm free to go.

For the record, there are multiple other lawsuits that have been filed in Pennsylvania for the exact same thing that's happened to me. I just don't feel that it's worth my time and expense in hiring a lawyer, yet. I might if it happens again. I did send the chief of police a letter complaining about the one incident, though.

I had an open carry incident as well. I did file a complaint about the officers detaining, threatening and physically man-handling me. Their police reports lied and said that I said and did some things that I did not that would have justified those actions, and the department wrote me a letter about how the officers had done nothing wrong. I did nothing to provoke the kind of illegal and inappropriate treatment that I got from the officers, but they managed to collaborate a neat little story about how I was acting agressive and hostile toward them, so it was all ok. As long as you write the report the right way, apparently that's all that the internal affairs department looks at. Nevermind that I had witnesses.

DesertPunisher425
December 31, 2008, 09:51 PM
As for the whole "militarization of the police" thing, that point is long past moot. "Posse Comitatus" has been pretty much gutted and members of the U.S. Armed Forces are either already serving or preparing to serve as domestic security troops. Add to that the movement towards a national security force under HSD and the point is moot.


I must correct you on the above misunderstanding...

Posse Comitatus is very much alive and well. For the last 20 years the only domestic operations title 10 federal active duty troops have conducted are with the various JFT's (Joint Task Force)... which is drug smuggling operations and that is almost entirely limited to open waters and border areas. There is a clause within PC which makes an exception to Federal troops conducting law enforcement within the US for the war on drugs. This exception is rather narrow and would never allow federal troops to conduct the types of narcotics activities usually handled by local and state police. Long story short, they are limited to operations involving international smuggling/production. The only exception to this has been natural disaster response (Hurricane Katrina). So for the last 20+ years nothing has changed concerning Posse Comitatus.

With concern to the south west border operations, and to a much smaller extent, the north border, Title 32 State Active Duty National Guard troops are being used; this is precisely one of the roles the National Guard was intended to fill when it's mandate from congress was issued in 1903. These are not Federal troops; they are controlled by the Governor of the state they originate from. Posse Comitatus ONLY applies to Title 10, Federal Active Duty.

General Geoff
December 31, 2008, 09:57 PM
It is best to just let them say what they want the continue about your business; getting into an argument or disagreement with an officer and having a gun strapped to your side is usually not going to go favorably!

The problem is that the police are either ignorant of the law, OR they choose to ignore the law and substitute their own opinions on the matter. By covering up, I'm just acquiescing to the notion that guns are somehow taboo, and should be kept out of sight. By carrying openly, I am demonstrating to anyone who notices, that guns not only exist but they are prevalent, and are perfectly safe to carry every day without issue.

DesertPunisher425
December 31, 2008, 10:07 PM
I had an open carry incident as well. I did file a complaint about the officers detaining, threatening and physically man-handling me. Their police reports lied and said that I said and did some things that I did not that would have justified those actions, and the department wrote me a letter about how the officers had done nothing wrong. I did nothing to provoke the kind of illegal and inappropriate treatment that I got from the officers, but they managed to collaborate a neat little story about how I was acting aggressive and hostile toward them, so it was all ok. As long as you write the report the right way, apparently that's all that the internal affairs department looks at. Never-mind that I had witnesses.

If it were local PD, did you go to your state law enforcement? Attorney General? Governor's office? Seek legal counsel?

There's a trend I'm getting at here... if you feel you have a reasonable complaint and you don't exhaust all methods available to get resolution... you shouldn't be complaining that a system failed you which wasn't fully used.

Let me put it like this...

Your first line supervisor, the guy directly above you, we'll say "Joe"... he sees you in the bathroom at work one day, just you, him and your buddy "Jim"... says a bunch of nasty stuff and sucker punches you in the stomach. So you go to his boss- "John" and make a complaint. Well "Joe" and "John" hang out a lot on the weekends, drink beer after work... yada yada... John talks to Joe, comes back and says be doesn't believe you and John. Now, there are several departments that your team fall under which have bosses higher in the food chain... there's even a rep at corporate HQ and a union rep you could talk to. But guess what? If you fail to take it any further... it's your choice to accept what happened as "okay" and move on. It's kind of like the old saying "don't bring me a problem without a solution"... Don't complain unless you've exhausted all avenues to fix the problem. Yes, the problem should have been there in the first place... Yes, the first stop you made failed to resolve the issue; both of these are not your fault. But instead of whining about it, how about taking step two, or step three. Only the weak stop and complain when faced with adversity; the strong push harder until they reach their goal.

DesertPunisher425
December 31, 2008, 10:31 PM
The problem is that the police are either ignorant of the law, OR they choose to ignore the law and substitute their own opinions on the matter. By covering up, I'm just acquiescing to the notion that guns are somehow taboo, and should be kept out of sight. By carrying openly, I am demonstrating to anyone who notices, that guns not only exist but they are prevalent, and are perfectly safe to carry every day without issue.

Don't think I'm arguing, but more along the lines of debating...

Carrying a gun in the open in public is taboo. That's why you get the reactions you get. Is it right that it's taboo or that people aren't comfortable? No, but the fact is... they are. And when such a TINY percentage of the population carries guns concealed, and an even smaller percentage of those occasionally carry open... is it really any surprise that it's viewed unfavorably?

I would argue that guns are not prevalent in public, and most people I think would agree. I'd guess 90-95% of gun owners do not carry a firearm in public, openly or concealed. Want a test of this? Watch a cop walk into a store where there a children... usually they look at his gun. Why? Because they don't regularly see people walking around with guns. Children pay little attention to things that are "prevalent" or a normal occurrence. But they focus right in on things obscure and abnormal.

Now I'll be the devil's advocate... To people who don't carry guns... which is the vast majority of the population... Seeing someone who is not law enforcement openly carrying a gun in a populated location screams "gun nut", "looking for attention", "dangerous" and any various other negative thoughts. That's why people call the police for "man with a gun"; the last thing they are thinking is: "oh, he's carrying a gun... guns must be safe... he must be safe... he must know how to safely handle that gun... Well gee, that must mean that carrying is quite common!"

People inherently don't trust others with things capable of easily taking some one's life... which is why I'm always careful who's handling firearms around me, why I prefer to drive when I'm in a car... Why is that the case? Because people by nature are also inherently irresponsible, don't generally think things through, act on impulse... the list goes on. Would you really, honestly support the idea the everyone should be armed with no training and no screening as to mental capacity? I don't... I've dealt with far too many idiots in my life. And most people don't know what is required to be able to carry (automatically elevating the concern for safety); and in some instances, to carry you only have to be able to legally own a gun. Does that make sense? Some would say yes... I say no; I know far too many gun owners who are incompetent and don't handle firearms in a safe manor. I have to go to a hunter's safety class to hunt, I have to go to a concealed carry class to carry concealed. But somehow to openly carry all I have to do is be legal to own a pistol? What, all of the safety and legal concerns of the other two actions are non-existent for open carry?

General Geoff
December 31, 2008, 10:55 PM
Why is that the case? Because people by nature are also inherently irresponsible, don't generally think things through, act on impulse...

Liberty is not guaranteed safe.

Would you really, honestly support the idea the everyone should be armed with no training and no screening as to mental capacity? I don't...

Yes. Absolutely. Though it's not a requirement, it's a right; in other words, exercisable at one's own discretion.

I say no; I know far too many gun owners who are incompetent and don't handle firearms in a safe manor.

Either avoid them or teach them proper gun handling skills. It should not be a matter of law, any more than mandatory carpentry class be required before purchasing a circular saw. More government regulation is never, ever the answer. More/better education almost always is.

DesertPunisher425
January 1, 2009, 04:40 AM
Either avoid them or teach them proper gun handling skills. It should not be a matter of law, any more than mandatory carpentry class be required before purchasing a circular saw. More government regulation is never, ever the answer. More/better education almost always is.

So you believe safety education is important... just not important enough to make it manditory.

Difference here is that in almost 100% of circular saw accidents, the operator is the one who is injured; unfortunately this isn't the same for firearms accidents. The problem here is, there are thousands of gun owners who don't know safe handling practices... and given the age of many of them, no one has told them in the 30+ years they've owned guns. So obviously you can't rely on other citizens to police up the practices of each other with great effect. More on this below...



Liberty is not guaranteed safe.

No, it isn't; but there are reasonable precautions taken for liberties of higher risk... more on this below...




Yes. Absolutely. Though it's not a requirement, it's a right; in other words, exercisable at one's own discretion.

Within the confines of the law and with the minimum of risk to someone else's rights and liberties (one of which would be a reasonable expectation of safety).



I'm getting the feeling that you're of the belief that zero gun control of any type is the ideal situation.

Would you want anyone able to see over a steering wheel allowed to drive without required education and licensing? Because the argument on zero oversight in firearms is a pretty good correlation.

-Most states require a hunters safety class, then licensing to hunt. The hunters safety class is exactly what it says it is; to inform prospective and new hunters of the legal parameters in which they are required to conduct their business as well as identify common-sense safety measures in an effort to reduce harmful or fatal accidents. Licensing usually serves several purposes to include population control, funding for administration of the department handling hunting and fishing, and it also usually serves as identification that you are qualified to hunt.

-Concealed Carry classes, which most states require in order to get your license to carry cover legal concerns that most citizens are unaware of prior to taking the class, ensure familiarity with firearms and common sense safety measures. The license, although serving many purposes, some of which may or may not be less noble depending on who's opinion you're getting... identifies that you have the requisite training to carry.

-Automobile licenses and driver's training... The drivers training is required for virtually all young drivers, and many new drivers (depending on the state); this training teaches you the rules of the road and the laws governing our streets and highways. It also ensures that you are reasonably competent behind the wheel of a vehicle and not an unnecessary danger to others.

-To fly an airplane, you must go through training and be licensed by the FAA; the training serves the purpose to familiarize you with the aircraft, what laws of physics apply and how to fly that aircraft. It also teaches you the rules of the air and the laws governing maned flight. One of the most pressing purposes for this training is to minimize the risk of you crashing your plane into Mr and Mrs Smith and family's house, killing two adults and four children.


I could go on and on with examples of why common sense regulations are necessary. You may very well feel that the government should have zero control over the activities of its citizens but most people are a little less anti-government than that. Don't get me wrong, I'm not about big government, restricting how much horsepower my car can have, telling me I can't own guns that hold any more than one (1) round of ammunition at a time or only allowing employees of the federal government to fly aircraft. However... I do feel that it makes sense to have required safety and introductory classes, and sometimes licensing for certain things that hold a higher risk to others than most things. These include, driving a car, flying an airplane, being a commercial truck driver, captaining a boat for hire (or any boat for that matter), Hunting, Carrying a weapon concealed... and some extras... owning firearms and Carrying a weapon in the open. It is common sense that when you obtain a device that is an elevated risk of being potentially destructive to others that you be required safety training; virtually everything else in the US which has a high probability of injuring others requires some sort of safety class. People don't complain about that, but make mention of required safety classes for firearms and common sense regulations baring felons and the mentally deficient and all hell breaks loose... Required safety classes are suddenly "the first step in taking away my rights!" when in reality, nothing is being taken away as is the case with various other gun control measures already in place. You're just ensuring new gun owner spends a Saturday afternoon becoming familiar with guns and safe handling. Doesn't the NRA advocate firearms safety classes to all new owners and shooters?


Just a brief summery of my feelings on open carry...
-It's inviting trouble, right or wrong... justified or not... no one with any reasonable sense would say open carry in a populated location is not going to draw un-do attention. It's a fact of life in society today.
-A required gun safety class for owners of firearms would be a reasonable step toward education and reduction of firearms related accidents.
-Combine an concealed carry and open carry class into one; make one license cover both and most importantly, cover the law concerning both types of carry (Mr. no training, carrying open may not know that you can be convicted of assault with a deadly weapon without even touching your visibly-holstered pistol).
-Ensure independent instructors screen their students for safety, common sense and responsibility (most instructors I know do this already)
-Write in an exception to licensing for open carry when hunting.
-Maintain current laws barring Felons and Mentally deficient from owning firearms.

General Geoff
January 1, 2009, 05:55 AM
Would you want anyone able to see over a steering wheel allowed to drive without required education and licensing? Because the argument on zero oversight in firearms is a pretty good correlation.
Sure. Do you honestly believe that the joke we call the current licensing procedure prevents anyone who wants a license from getting one? I'm absolutely certain that if you were to abolish drivers' licenses completely, you'd have NO statistical increase in traffic accidents.

I could go on and on with examples of why common sense regulations are necessary.

Do you work Obama or something? You probably want to see .50BMGs reclassified as NFA weapons, and magazines restricted to 10 rounds as well. After all, it's only common sense. Hell, while we're at it, why not pass a law that requires gun owners to report lost or stolen firearms within 24 hours of them being stolen? After all, what upstanding citizen wouldn't want to report stolen goods anyway? Unless of course they didn't realize one of their guns was stolen until well after the fact, and then when the police recover their stolen firearm, they come arrest them for failing to report it stolen through no fault of their own. Or how about a law requiring registration of all guns? After all, with all these licensing procedures you want in place, what's to stop someone from lending a gun to someone who's unlicensed?

The bottom line is that privileges are licensed, not rights.

Borch
January 1, 2009, 07:37 AM
I'm absolutely certain that if you were to abolish drivers' licenses completely, you'd have NO statistical increase in traffic accidents.

First, WHAT!? REALLY!? WOW!

Unless of course they didn't realize one of their guns was stolen until well after the fact, and then when the police recover their stolen firearm, they come arrest them for failing to report it stolen through no fault of their own.

Second, WHAT!? REALLY!? Do you really think there is any responsible gun owner that wouldn't realize one of his/her guns is missing in a timely manner? Anyone who doesn't report a gun stolen has a reason for not doing so, and anyone who claims ignorance to the theft of a firearm of all things is probably a liar. I know of no gun owner that isn't in and out of his/her collection at least once every couple of days for whatever reason, range time, cleaning/maintenance, photos for a website, etc, etc, etc. So for you to actually believe that a responsible gun owner would not notice a missing firearm in his/her collection is simply asynine.

Now I realize the key word here is responsible and that there are gun owners who bought a gun for "protetcion" fired a few times cleaned it and stuffed under their mattress never to look at it again. But even in that situation the missing weapon is probably going to be noticed in a reasonable amount of time simply through the changing of sheets.

Those of you who think the cops are out there searching for ways to infringe on your rights when it comes to anything and everything need to wake up to the state of the world because that is not what's going on. Ever expanding populations, patrol areas, and responsibilities combined with ever shrinking budgets, police forces and the current "do more with less" state of thinking have turned police officers into glorified first responders. Long gone are the days of putting a cop in a certain area of town on a semi permanent basis and telling him to learn the neighborhood and it's people and places. Long gone are the practices of effective neighborhood/community policing. Police are out on the street doing nothing more than repsonding to calls for assistance from the public 99% of the time. And working in corrections at the county level I see what those calls are and a good many of them are BS but the cops are duty bound to check them all out.

So with all that being said whose really trampling your rights? JOhn Q. Public that's who. A cop driving a squad car sees a well dressed guy/girl carrying a high dollar dollar weapon in a quality holster and the first thing that comes to his mind is not criminal with an illegal weapon. The first thought is lawful carrier exercising their right. John Q. Public sees the same guy/girl with the same clothes and the same gun and holster and their first thought is not lawful carrier exercising their right it's, holy crap, that guys got a gun, I better call the cops. So the responding officer who sees the situation for what it is when he arrives (in response to a call from John Q. Public) is now duty bound to stop you, question you and even possibly disarm you until proper credentials have been verified. Not that the officer wants to do this but John Q. Public with the cell phone that made the original complaint is probably hiding somewhere waiting to watch/videotape you getting arrested so he can go home and put it on Youtube.

And to those of you who know the laws and how the laws relate to your rights better than cops or lawyers I simply say, you are more than likely wrong and you probably have an opinion of yourself that is far too high. Cops and lawyers definately don't know all the laws but they know how to read and interpret them, which believe me is not easy, and they are kept current on new supreme court interpretations of the laws. So unless you've read and memorized all the local, state and federal laws, regulations and ordinances and kept up on all supreme court decisions 9not just the big ones), both state and federal, and how they effect those laws, regulations and ordinances you should probably sit back and relax and leave the LAWE and attorney work to someone who really knows whats going on.

rbernie
January 1, 2009, 11:15 AM
So you believe safety education is important... just not important enough to make it manditory. Mandatory training for firearms ownership requires instructor time. Either you force instructors to provide it for free, or increase taxes across the board to help the .gov defray the individual cost they have imposed upon this Constitutional right, or you have just instituted a policy that discriminates against poor people and denies those who are 'economically disadvantaged' the ability to exercise their constitutional right.

Mandatory training is just another 'common sense' approach that fails the light of critical analysis.

And you guys do realize you have completely hijacked this thread, no?

Mohawk
January 1, 2009, 01:44 PM
I live in a fairly small town of 11,000. Whenever I hike out in the desert I take a walking stick and a Ruger P90 with 2 snake loads and the rest hollowpoint. I open carry the Ruger. Whenever we do cattle round ups and travel the desert on horseback we all carry sidearms, open carry. Sometimes we park our horses out front and go to Ruby's for lunch and we all walk in with our sidearms. Never been a problem. Ruby knows the score. But by the same token whenever I go into town at Safeway or high population areas, I always CCW. I make allowances forpeople's sensibilities. A mother with her kids in a resturant most likely will feel very uncomfortable with your six shooter staring back at her. She, along with the 68% of the general population who dissaprove of guns in general will not like it. The LEO who has to respond to the call "Man with a gun" is gonna have a pucker factor even before he gets to the scene. Are you gonna argue chapter and verse to convince her of your right? I don't think so.

I don't think this thread has been hijacked either. Sooner or later every thread ever posted on every gun site on the internet reverts to the two factions in the gun owning community. Those who carry guns responsibly and use common sense and those who feel they must exercise every aspect concerning gun rights all the time claiming that it's everybody else's problem rather than their's.

DesertPunisher425
January 1, 2009, 01:53 PM
Sure. Do you honestly believe that the joke we call the current licensing procedure prevents anyone who wants a license from getting one? I'm absolutely certain that if you were to abolish drivers' licenses completely, you'd have NO statistical increase in traffic accidents.


Um... yes. And data would confirm the drivers training that most drivers go through do increase safety on the public roadways. Also, many states do not allow persons who aren't citizens or here on a visa to obtain licenses. You also have to take a basic test in most states to obtain a license.



Do you work Obama or something? You probably want to see .50BMGs reclassified as NFA weapons, and magazines restricted to 10 rounds as well. After all, it's only common sense. Hell, while we're at it, why not pass a law that requires gun owners to report lost or stolen firearms within 24 hours of them being stolen? After all, what upstanding citizen wouldn't want to report stolen goods anyway? Unless of course they didn't realize one of their guns was stolen until well after the fact, and then when the police recover their stolen firearm, they come arrest them for failing to report it stolen through no fault of their own. Or how about a law requiring registration of all guns? After all, with all these licensing procedures you want in place, what's to stop someone from lending a gun to someone who's unlicensed?

No, I don't work for obama... no I don't .50's outlawed, no I don't want a 10rd restriction (you must have missed this point in my previous post). None of this is common sense. All if it is limiting what personal use firearms you can own (this doesn't mean I feel you should be able to go buy a functional M777 155mm howitzer...). Pass a law that requires gun owners to report lost or stolen firearms within 24 hours of realization they are missing? Sure... why not? THAT IS COMMON SENSE... something is stolen, you report it. Something that once stolen is VERY likely to cause harm to others... even more important you report it.

I didn't say license someone to own a gun. I said require mandatory safety training when someone gets their first gun. Loaning? How often have you loaned a gun to someone who doesn't have one at all? If and when that happens, don't you usually tell them everything you've learned about safe handling and how to use it? Or do you just hand it to them and say "have fun"... and let them figure it out... Much like a gun store does? The owner is the one that needs to be informed of safe handling and usage; someone can't pass on information they don't have when loaning something out.

Again, I didn't see you raise any objections to the mandatory training and often times licensing for....
-Hunting
-Concealed Carry
-Captaining a boat for hire
-Driving a Commercial truck/vehicle
-Piloting an aircraft

You may very well feel that the roads would be every bit as safe today as they would be if no licensing and training were required for automobile and commercial truck operation... but accident percentage statistics from when training and licensing were MUCH MUCH more loose compared to today would entirely contradict you. In virtually every instance that requirements for safety training have been instituted, injuries and fatal accidents have decreased. I'm not sure you fully understand that your arguments against training and licensing are promoting recklessness and a heightened risk of safety to others in just about everything we do on a daily basis.

DesertPunisher425
January 1, 2009, 02:11 PM
Mandatory training for firearms ownership requires instructor time. Either you force instructors to provide it for free, or increase taxes across the board to help the .gov defray the individual cost they have imposed upon this Constitutional right, or you have just instituted a policy that discriminates against poor people and denies those who are 'economically disadvantaged' the ability to exercise their constitutional right.

Mandatory training is just another 'common sense' approach that fails the light of critical analysis.

And you guys do realize you have completely hijacked this thread, no?

So you're saying that some sort of cost for a mandatory safety training program is denying people their right to own a firearm? Much like required safety training for hunt is denying people the ability to hunt? That's ridiculous. In my state, a two day CPL class runs around $100-$130; wrapped up in that is the required attorney's fees. Take the attorney out and it's down to $60-$90/person. Make it a total training time of 5-6 hours (to include range time) instead of 16-20 hours of training and you should easily be able to get the per-person cost down to a reasonable range of $30 +/- $10. Run it the same way many states run hunter's safety... Issue a certificate or card verifying completion of the class.

I can't even comprehend that people are actually arguing against training for safe firearm handling. Am I the only one that sees people who have used guns for years in gun stores, pointing guns at people with their finger on the trigger and not even realizing what they are doing is grossly unsafe?





Below are two very good examples of my point on open carry...
I live in a fairly small town of 11,000. Whenever I hike out in the desert I take a walking stick and a Ruger P90 with 2 snake loads and the rest hollow-point. I open carry the Ruger. Whenever we do cattle round ups and travel the desert on horseback we all carry sidearms, open carry. Sometimes we park our horses out front and go to Ruby's for lunch and we all walk in with our sidearms. Never been a problem. Ruby knows the score. But by the same token whenever I go into town at Safeway or high population areas, I always CCW. I make allowances for people's sensibilities. A mother with her kids in a restaurant most likely will feel very uncomfortable with your six shooter staring back at her. She, along with the 68% of the general population who disapprove of guns in general will not like it. Are you gonna argue chapter and verse to convince her of your right? I don't think so.

John Q. Public that's who. A cop driving a squad car sees a well dressed guy/girl carrying a high dollar dollar weapon in a quality holster and the first thing that comes to his mind is not criminal with an illegal weapon. The first thought is lawful carrier exercising their right. John Q. Public sees the same guy/girl with the same clothes and the same gun and holster and their first thought is not lawful carrier exercising their right it's, holy crap, that guys got a gun, I better call the cops.

General Geoff
January 1, 2009, 03:10 PM
So you're saying that some sort of cost for a mandatory safety training program is denying people their right to own a firearm?

That's exactly what he's saying.

Again, I didn't see you raise any objections to the mandatory training and often times licensing for....

None of those are enumerated rights in the constitution, with the possible exception of carrying a concealed firearm. And I'm all for abolishing CCW licenses and permits, and having all 50 states establish Vermont style carry law.

None of this is common sense. All if it is limiting what personal use firearms you can own (this doesn't mean I feel you should be able to go buy a functional M777 155mm howitzer...).

For your information, owning a 155mm howitzer in fully working order would be perfectly legal, with a $200 NFA tax stamp, as-is. I don't see maniacs with field pieces shelling cities from their rural back yards, do you?

but accident percentage statistics from when training and licensing were MUCH MUCH more loose compared to today would entirely contradict you.

I have to call you on this. How is it possible to have looser requirements than what they are now? All they do is put you in a car, have you parallel park, and then drive around the block and back. If you don't hit anything, you get your license.

A mother with her kids in a restaurant most likely will feel very uncomfortable with your six shooter staring back at her. She, along with the 68% of the general population who disapprove of guns in general will not like it.

Too bad, I'm not an entertainer or a politician. People don't have the right to feel comfortable in public. I do have the right to not only carry a gun, but also to not hide it. It's not an obscene object or an obscene act to carry it. If a soccer mom thinks otherwise, it's her problem for not reading the constitution (both State and Federal).


For the record, I'm not against education and training. I'm against government mandated and instituted education and training. The government simply cannot be trusted with such an endeavor, as can be noted by looking at our public schools currently. I value education just a bit more than that.




edit; as for the "common sense" stolen firearms reporting law you tout, what's so common sense about it? What does it accomplish, other than punishing victims of theft?

DesertPunisher425
January 1, 2009, 10:20 PM
To change things up, I'll go from the bottom up...

edit; as for the "common sense" stolen firearms reporting law you tout, what's so common sense about it? What does it accomplish, other than punishing victims of theft?

How is this punishing victims of theft? What it is doing is, #1 allowing the police the earliest opportunity to investigate the theft and hopefully apprehend the perpetrator BEFORE your gun is used in a violent crime. #2, making an official record of your firearm being missing... so WHEN (not if) it's used in a violent crime, the authorities are aware that it was not in your possession. Again, this is common sense... and anyone who either fails to report, or purposefully does not report a stolen firearm is an irresponsible idiot.



For the record, I'm not against education and training. I'm against government mandated and instituted education and training. The government simply cannot be trusted with such an endeavor, as can be noted by looking at our public schools currently. I value education just a bit more than that.

You're arguing that all education should be free from government over-site, left in the hands of the community and family members; at least that's what I'm getting out of your replies. Do you also feel that women shouldn't be allowed to attend school? Kids who's parents own a farm drop out in 4th or 5th grade and work on the farm? Our public schools took a decisive step forward when the government set requirements for educational goals and mandatory ages for attending school. To remove government over-site would be a major step backwards. That's not to say there is no room for improvement, but if you think that's possible without laws being enacted, you have a very good imagination.





Too bad, I'm not an entertainer or a politician. People don't have the right to feel comfortable in public. I do have the right to not only carry a gun, but also to not hide it. It's not an obscene object or an obscene act to carry it. If a soccer mom thinks otherwise, it's her problem for not reading the constitution (both State and Federal).

I'm not really sure what being an entertainer or politician has to do with open carry... but that irrelevant statement aside, you must keep in mind that whole "life liberty and pursuit of happiness" thing. When someone does something that is very much out of the ordinary, which frightens people... you're impeding upon their pursuit of happiness. Open carry is far from common place in populated cities and people doing so puts fear into a pretty sizable number of those who they come into contact with. Is it right that somehow two rights have now become contradictory to each other? No it's not... but it is a fact of life. It could be argued that it is a person's right to have relations with person's of the same gender... do you feel it's okay that two guys exercise that right 5 feet from you by putting their tongues down each other's throat and having their hands down each others pants? It's their right as outlined in the constitution... But it makes most people uncomfortable (same gender or not)... and there for, it's been mandated that such acts must be conducted in private. Hate to break it to you, but you carrying a pistol in the open is offensive to most of the population. The second amendment doesn't state that your right is to openly carry; basically it only says it's your right to carry (to "bear arms" means to "bring arms"... meaning carry; doesn't say openly or concealed).




I have to call you on this. How is it possible to have looser requirements than what they are now? All they do is put you in a car, have you parallel park, and then drive around the block and back. If you don't hit anything, you get your license.

How old are you? 16? (sarcasm) There was a point in time where no licensing, training or testing was required to drive.
In most states, to get your license below the age of 18, you must attend a course in driver's training (some states require it no matter the age); in almost all states you must pass a written test, vision test and road test. Most states also require you to be a legal resident. Do you honestly believe everyone who tries to get a license gets one? I spent some time in Germany... about 60% of the autobahn does not technically have a speed limit (although going above 120km/hr usually voids your insurance in case of an accident). Interestingly enough accidents and deaths on the roads of Germany are measurably less per-capita of drivers than here in the US (and Germany has no open container laws...). Why? Because unlike here in the states where driver's training isn't a requirement for everyone; it is in Germany. Having drove in Europe for over two years, they are MUCH better drivers... because their GOVERNMENT sets higher standards. If the Government doesn't set higher standards, who does?




For your information, owning a 155mm howitzer in fully working order would be perfectly legal, with a $200 NFA tax stamp, as-is. I don't see maniacs with field pieces shelling cities from their rural back yards, do you?

I assume you're under the impression that getting an NFA tax stamp is as easy as going to the post office and buying a postage stamp? Again... you're showing examples of governmental regulations that DO NOT prohibit law abiding citizens from owning these devices, but help filter out the undesirables.



None of those are enumerated rights in the constitution, with the possible exception of carrying a concealed firearm. And I'm all for abolishing CCW licenses and permits, and having all 50 states establish Vermont style carry law.
So since none of these are rights... you'd be more than happy to have the government ban you from participating in all of them? Rights are not without restriction and regulation; never have, never will be. It's the fact of life in the United States. And furthermore, as the recent supreme court decision stated:
-"Like most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."
-"...should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
-Justice Antonin Gregory Scalia
District of Columbia v. Heller
June 26th 2008

I think the key aspect you need to think about here is "laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms". In other words, so long as a law is not unreasonably restricting your right to arms, it is not illegal. Having to register, license or attend safety training, as per the supreme court... is not limiting your rights as outlined via the 2nd amendment. You can still own the gun...




All of that said and done, the supreme court's ruling defined the rights granted through the 2nd amendment as well as the limitations to those rights. Everything I've debated here as so far as regulations and requirements are well within the confines of the 2nd amendment as defined by the supreme court. To be blunt... your opinion is irrelevant.

This has been an enjoyable debate, but I'll have to bow out from this particular aspect of this thread as I believe nothing new of any significance will come into play and it is there for not worth continuing. If you feel the need for the last word, be my guest. I'll read it but won't respond, and if anyone else posts something interesting more in-line with the thread topic, I may chime back in. Until then, Happy New Year!

XavierBreath
January 1, 2009, 11:01 PM
if anyone else posts something interesting more in-line with the thread topic, I may chime back in. Until then, Happy New Year!How about we just close this train wreck about a moment before it hits the bottom of the crevasse it has careened off into?

Happy New Year.

If you enjoyed reading about "David Spade Donates $100K to Phoenix PD for AR-15s" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!