Why do cops get "military" rifles?


PDA






The Grand Inquisitor
August 1, 2004, 08:54 PM
In a thread on the rifle forum someone mentioned he saw a FN P90 at a gun show that was marked "LEO only". Why is it that all of the legislation on guns has reduced the amount of firearms that civilians are allowed to own, yet has expanded and extended the lethality of weapons of the police.


As someone who has numerous police in his family, I am of the opinion that the police are the LAST ones who should be allowed to own/operate deadly weapons; besides the fact most cops have about 8 hours of weapons training per YEAR, police rarely need powerful weaponry, and in fact, the police should not be allowed to use such powerful and deadly weapons (what exactly does a cop need a full auto rifle for except to accidently kill civilians).

The militirization of American "police" forces has been well documented (best so by Gore Vidal in "Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace") and I question the rationale of why it is OK for the police force to increase their potential for owning weapons, while citizens are being increasingly denied their potential to own any firearm.

If you enjoyed reading about "Why do cops get "military" rifles?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
liliysdad
August 1, 2004, 09:06 PM
Wow..this is sure unusual of this board...jealousy by the have-nots..:rolleyes:

DorGunR
August 1, 2004, 09:07 PM
Just a guess........but it may have something to do with the Hollywood shoot out a few years ago where the bank robbers had AK's and the police had handguns............until they borrowed some rifles from a gun store.

The Grand Inquisitor
August 1, 2004, 09:12 PM
I would not qualify my feelings as jealousy, I am most interested in C&R rifles, but what I am concerned with is a growing tyrannical "security" structure.

Azrael256
August 1, 2004, 09:16 PM
The idea is that police are facing better armed criminals who wear body armor. I think they are, and I think they should be trained and equipped to deal with that sort of criminal. Look at the tape of that bank robbery in California a few years ago, and you'll see why. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the police having the best equipment, training, and weapons available so that they can do their jobs. They should never be prohibited from carrying whatever weapon they see fit. They are citizens first.

I also agree that the police are becoming too militaristic. Effective policing does not necessarily require assault rifles and riot gear on a daily basis. Although I should reiterate that they do need them sometimes, and police should have them when appropriate situations arise. There is a trend toward using all of the force they have instead of using the minimum amount necessary. I think this trend is one of mindset more than weapons. That bothers me, too.

I don't think I need to say anything about prohibiting the people from owning the same weapons.

Chris Rhines
August 1, 2004, 09:17 PM
Wow..this is sure unusual of this board...jealousy by the have-nots.. And comments like this are sure going to help matters. You're providing plenty of reasons to agree with the inital post.

- Chris

liliysdad
August 1, 2004, 09:22 PM
Deleted due to complaints to the powers that be, and out fo respect to the owner, and the owner alone.

Pilgrim
August 1, 2004, 09:31 PM
I think the "Cops Only" was a marketing decision made by Fabrique Nationale.

Pilgrim

ConserVet
August 1, 2004, 09:38 PM
Gotta agree with Azrael on this one; The police are becoming far too military in nature and structure, with "Tac Teams" and other special units becoming so popular. Cops do need heavy weapons from time to time though, and I want them to be close at hand when necessary.

I wonder about situations where criminals wear body armor, though. I'm not a street cop, so I don't have an intimate knowledge, but I thought that turds wearing body armor was extremely rare. Wasn't the LA shootout a once-in-a-lifetime kind of thing, or am I wrong?

liliysdad
August 1, 2004, 09:51 PM
Yes, it is extremely rare...that is the problem. You never know if this is to be the shift it happens agian.

Spot77
August 1, 2004, 10:00 PM
I agree that most police forces need to back away from the military look and tactics, but I don't mind every police cruiser having an AR-15 or similar in the trunk. There's surely exceptions, and I CERTAINLY don't think full auto weapons are appropriate for 95% of the police population. There's no doubt in my mind that most departments can't afford to train properly with full auto, and there certainly doesn't appear to be enough situations to justify having fully auto weapons in every car or even every department.

LawDog
August 1, 2004, 10:01 PM
but I thought that turds wearing body armor was extremely rare. Wasn't the LA shootout a once-in-a-lifetime kind of thing, or am I wrong?

Body armour on bad guys was, indeed, a rare thing. Unfortunately, this is changing.

Also, the serious bad guys have starting picking up some decent training.

Going to get interesting, the next decade or so.

LawDog

R.H. Lee
August 1, 2004, 10:11 PM
Even in my small town of 22k, we've got a SWAT/ParaMilitary team in the local PD. EBR's and who knows what else. I see a couple of them in the donut shop from time to time. They're local guys and I'm not worried at all. Pity the poor slob who starts somethin' in this 'hick' town. :D

Nightfall
August 1, 2004, 10:25 PM
Why do cops get "military" rifles?
I suppose because military rifles are practical and useful tools for dealing with a multitude of violent situations. Apparently body armor is becoming more prevalent amongst criminals in some cases, and handguns just don't cut it when somebody has a vest strapped on. Personally, I'd feel safer if patrol cars had an M4 wannabe in the trunk, and a well trained and well practiced officer behind the wheel.

Of course, that's in a society that respects the RKBA. It's the increasing gap between "regular" citizen and law enforcement (and military) armament that is the cause for concern, as you said. This nation was founded on the principal of power in the people, in particular the general populace not being outgunned by the cops/military/gov't. The gulf between Joe Blow and those given power in the name of his governance is growing ever wider with no end in sight, which can mean some terrifying things... :uhoh:

DorGunR
August 1, 2004, 10:31 PM
You never know when the cops may need those military rifles for their war on hibiscus.;)

Aikibiker
August 1, 2004, 10:36 PM
Personally if I was equipping a police force I would want to outfit them with either bolt action or lever action rifles with nice bluing and fine grained walnut stocks. Something an officer could be proud to show off in public. Not some ugly black plastic thing. I guess I am in the minority though.

Body armour on bad guys was, indeed, a rare thing. Unfortunately, this is changing.

Also, the serious bad guys have starting picking up some decent training.

Going to get interesting, the next decade or so.

LawDog


What kind of training and where from? Do you have any sources I can research? I don't get much info on criminal trends in my job as a corrections officer and I would value any intelligence you can share

LawDog
August 1, 2004, 11:04 PM
Aikibiker, contact Calibre Press and see when they're going to have a Street Survival Seminar somewhere near you.

Take the money you were going to spend on your next gun, and go to the seminar. Your money will not be wasted.

What kind of training and where from?

The short answer is from the collapsed Soviet Union. Their military hasn't been getting enough to eat for some years now. Some Vietnamese. Thai and Chinese military refugees out on the West Coast and South Texas, too.

LawDog

madcowburger
August 1, 2004, 11:12 PM
Yeah, we better hurry up and pass a federal ban on civilian possession or use of body armor. Some bandits wore some *home-made* body armor in a bank heist in the PRK seven and a half years ago, so it's now officially an epidemic of body armor-wearing.

We can't have civilians wearing bullet-resistant armor. Good heavens, what if *this* guy had been wearing a Kevlar vest?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10A12FC3F590C768EDDAE0894DC404482

Why, he might not have been quite as intimidated by all the guns being pointed at him for no good reason. Of course, they had the muzzles pressed right to his head, so a vest wouldn't have done him much good if one of them slipped or got bee-stung or something.

MCB

Ian
August 1, 2004, 11:12 PM
As we all know, more expensive guns don't make better shooters. If an officer can't shoot straight to begin with, giving him a gizmo'd-up M4 won't help anything. In my vision of Utopia, any peace officer would be required to carry something like an NEF Handi-Rifle until they passed a rigorous practical qualification course. After that, they could carry any firearm of their choosing.

liliysdad - If heavily armed and armored bad guys are a threat, then the people with first access to the neat-o military small arms should be the bank tellers, liquor store owners, jewelers, and couriers. They're going to be the ones who encounter those bad guys first, not the police.

R.H. Lee
August 1, 2004, 11:17 PM
If heavily armed and armored bad guys are a threat, then the people with first access to the neat-o military small arms should be the bank tellers, liquor store owners, jewelers, and couriers. They're going to be the ones who encounter those bad guys first, not the police.


No, that would make aforementioned businesspeople subject to immediate execution. The BG's want to remain covert as long as possible, and carry the heavy armament in case they're not successful.

sendec
August 1, 2004, 11:17 PM
Typical police weapons are no different that the millions owned or ownable by civilians. If there is no good reason for the police to have them, why should anybody? The odds of a cop actually needing to use a firearm are infinitely higher than that of the average citizen. Are you proposing that no one needs miltary pattern weapons?

The idea that the police are becoming increasingly militarized gets bandied about pretty freely, but no one seems to be able to define or quantify it. There are definitions in the police management field, but typically here the complaint is "they got BDUs and machine guns."

Incidently, the BATFE was responsible for the markings on the P90, as it has no sporting analog.

DorGunR
August 1, 2004, 11:24 PM
sendec I think the police should have military rifles, if (I repeat, IF) they have the proper training.

LawDog
August 1, 2004, 11:25 PM
Yeah, we better hurry up and pass a federal ban on civilian possession or use of body armor

Don't think for a moment that they aren't trying.

so it's now officially an epidemic of body armor-wearing.

Epidemic? Not that I know of. Check back with me in a decade or so, I might have changed my mind on the 'epidemic' part. Or not.

Only Federal Law that needs to be passed regarding body armour is the one that says if you take a shot at LawDog while wearing body armour, and survive the experience, neither LawDog nor his county have to pay any medical bills incurred from having a LawDog-sized boot removed from your fourth point of contact.

LawDog

sendec
August 1, 2004, 11:40 PM
In my experience the majority of agencies that issue or allow rifles require pre-issue training and ongoing qualification with them. The norm is that an officer must demonstrate a level of competence with each weapon they draw or carry. If the standard cannot be met, that officer does'nt get the gun.

The body of case law regarding the training of LEOs, preservice and inservice, is massive. If the explosion of civil litigation experienced in the U.S. over the past 3 decades has an upside, it is that just about everything a cop does is covered by a training model. I daresay that for the majority of officers working today there is documented training on each and every devise they use, from a laptop computer to a precision rifle. You cannot be a cop in the state I live in unless there is documentation that you performed about a dozen different activities related to driving a car. For defensive tactics there are IIRC 44 standards that must be met.

I can remember a time before mandated training, but those days are fading fast if not gone from everywhere.

Dbl0Kevin
August 1, 2004, 11:57 PM
but I thought that turds wearing body armor was extremely rare. Wasn't the LA shootout a once-in-a-lifetime kind of thing, or am I wrong?

Am I the only who who finds it kind of ironic that on a board full of gun people who tote around a concealed weapon on the very slim chance that they might get robbed or assaulted, they all of a sudden have a problem with police having advanced weaponry to face increasing threats that they are PAID to protect the public against? Seems a tad hypocritical if you ask me. :rolleyes:

Third_Rail
August 2, 2004, 12:02 AM
LEOs get "military" rifles for the same reason we love them: reliability, ease of use/maintenance, and of course the ammunition is widely available and inexpensive.

Why they get FA is beyond me, but I can understand why they want "military" rifles.

When the AWB expires, we'll all be able to get them once again.

FeebMaster
August 2, 2004, 12:13 AM
Am I the only who who finds it kind of ironic that on a board full of gun people who tote around a concealed weapon on the very slim chance that they might get robbed or assaulted, they all of a sudden have a problem with police having advanced weaponry to face increasing threats that they are PAID to protect the public against? Seems a tad hypocritical if you ask me.

Police aren't paid to protect the public. They're paid to enforce the law. Personally, I don't think they should be allowed to carry weapons.

Dbl0Kevin
August 2, 2004, 12:16 AM
Police aren't paid to protect the public. They're paid to enforce the law. Personally, I don't think they should be allowed to carry weapons.

Oh really? And what police academy did you go through to learn that? :rolleyes:

liliysdad
August 2, 2004, 12:18 AM
Some of us are paid to enforce the laws that protect the public, some of us do it for free.....

I like the idea of no weapons for us..if you can guarantee that NO ONE we encounter has them either, that would make things pretty fun, IMO.

Third_Rail
August 2, 2004, 12:28 AM
Yep, it would... until a tiny 5' 100 lb girl is attacked by a 6'10" 250lb guy and killed.




Firearms equalize things.

FeebMaster
August 2, 2004, 12:29 AM
Dbl0Kevin: Oh really? And what police academy did you go through to learn that?

I didn't realize going through a police academy was necessary to learn that. I think you overpaid.



liliysdad: Some of us are paid to enforce the laws that protect the public, some of us do it for free.....

I like the idea of no weapons for us..if you can guarantee that NO ONE we encounter has them either, that would make things pretty fun, IMO.

Obviously I can't make that guarantee, nor would I want to. Everyone else should be able to carry weapons whenever they want to. I suppose I'd be willing to compromise and allow the police to carry off duty.

liliysdad
August 2, 2004, 12:44 AM
Wow, 13 posts, and youve fallen right in here with the rest of them...what a tool.

Third_Rail
August 2, 2004, 12:47 AM
Geeze, keep it civil.

Seriously, I've read a lot of your posts and immediately been insulted even though they weren't directed at me. Calm down.

Dbl0Kevin
August 2, 2004, 12:47 AM
Police aren't paid to protect the public. They're paid to enforce the law. Personally, I don't think they should be allowed to carry weapons.

I'm not even going to argue anymore. The pure and utter hypocrisy and elitism will get me too mad. :barf:

KenW.
August 2, 2004, 12:47 AM
The Supreme Court has even stated that law enforcement exists to protect society as a whole; not individual members of the public. To protect individuals we'd have to be stationed on every street corner. I don't want to pay taxes on that, do you?

FeebMaster
August 2, 2004, 12:48 AM
liliysdad: Wow, 13 posts, and youve fallen right in here with the rest of them...what a tool.

Fallen right in where with the rest of who? How does advocating that the police be disarmed make a person a tool?

FeebMaster
August 2, 2004, 12:52 AM
Dbl0Kevin: I'm not even going to argue anymore. The pure and utter hypocrisy and elitism will get me too mad.

What hypocrisy? What elitism?

Dbl0Kevin
August 2, 2004, 12:57 AM
FeebMaster: Police aren't paid to protect the public. They're paid to enforce the law. Personally, I don't think they should be allowed to carry weapons.

FeebMaster: Everyone else should be able to carry weapons whenever they want to.

THAT hypocrisy and elitism. :rolleyes:

FeebMaster
August 2, 2004, 01:06 AM
THAT hypocrisy and elitism.

Well, I don't really see where the hypocrisy is or the elitism for that matter. Besides, that's not fair. I said I'd be willing to let the police carry off duty like everyone else.

DMF
August 2, 2004, 01:08 AM
Goodie, another one of those threads . . . :rolleyes:

R.H. Lee
August 2, 2004, 01:12 AM
DNFTFT
http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?s=&postid=985806

Warbow
August 2, 2004, 01:18 AM
FeebMaster wrote:

Personally, I don't think they should be allowed to carry weapons.

What are your good reasons to disarm on duty police officers?

They are much more likely to need weapons than people who aren't cops.

DMF
August 2, 2004, 01:22 AM
Good call Riley! Love the sign BTW.

FeebMaster
August 2, 2004, 01:33 AM
Warbow: What are your good reasons to disarm on duty police officers?

They are much more likely to need weapons than people who aren't cops.

I think the police would be less inclined to raid people's houses over victimless crimes if they were unarmed. Also, it will cut down on the shooting of unarmed people and pets.

liliysdad
August 2, 2004, 01:42 AM
Yeah, we go do raids on the wrong unarmed poodles who smoke hibiscus every day....:rolleyes:

I can think of a LOT of circumstances where an unarmed person, or a pet, would have to be dealt with using deadly force. A lot.

Warbow
August 2, 2004, 01:43 AM
FeebMaster wrote:

I think the police would be less inclined to raid people's houses over victimless crimes if they were unarmed. Also, it will cut down on the shooting of unarmed people and pets.

Ah. That's some Grade A logic. Good luck with that.

I think I'll take RileyMc's advice and NFTT.

joab
August 2, 2004, 01:43 AM
Police are paid to protect the public, they are not paid to protect the individual
In protecting the public they cannot violate the ever increasing rights of the individual, there for they can only act after a crime has been commited.
If they can only do their job after a crime has been committed then it stands to reason that they will be dealing with criminals as a major part of their business day.
If I had to deal unincarcerated criminals on a daily basis I would want every advantage I could get. That certainly includes superior weaponry and training

If they misuse those weapons , forget their training or violate the rights of individuals then they should be spanked not before.

And due to the training I have recieved on this forum, one more will be added to the dumba- uh ignore list

FeebMaster
August 2, 2004, 01:51 AM
liliysdad: Yeah, we go do raids on the wrong unarmed poodles who smoke hibiscus every day....

It happens often enough that I consider it a problem.

liliysdad: I can think of a LOT of circumstances where an unarmed person, or a pet, would have to be dealt with using deadly force. A lot.

I can think of even more circumstances where an unarmed person or pet wouldn't have to be dealt with using deadly force.




Warbow: Ah. That's some Grade A logic. Good luck with that.

I think I'll take RileyMc's advice and NFTT.

Well it's just my opinion and it's obviously never going to happen. But if crying about trolls makes you feel better, by all means, do so.

Daemon688
August 2, 2004, 03:54 AM
I have no problems with disarming civilians from full auto weapons. In all reality what do you need it for other than fun? Semi auto is just fine for plinking and any self defense issues.

However I wonder why do LEO's need full auto weapons? It's not like they are facing hordes of crazed killers. Being able to purchase M60's, SAWs, etc is complete over kill.

Then again I doubt many police departments have full auto weapons to begin with, considering budget constraints.

<------ Just another troll voicing their opinion (we all have to start somewhere don't we?)

Nightfall
August 2, 2004, 08:16 AM
I have no problems with disarming civilians from full auto weapons. In all reality what do you need it for other than fun? Semi auto is just fine for plinking and any self defense issues.
Hooooo-buddy, did you just open a can of worms!

*hears the whistle of incoming artillery, and runs off for cover*

:neener:

Ransom
August 2, 2004, 08:22 AM
Firearms equalize things.

God didnt make men equal, Sam Colt did.


I love that line.

MagKnightX
August 2, 2004, 08:59 AM
As the starter of the P90 thread (it wasn't about LEO markings, it was actually about the size of the midget gun), let me step in to say a few things.

I am fully for the police having access to things like FN-P90s and M60s and M2s and whatnot. There are situations in which each could be a necessity, especially in big cities like New York or Los Angeles. If they can sink an incoming boat that's carrying a WMD before it can set it off, wouldn't you be happy? At the same time, I don't think that most of them are patrol weapons. For patrol cars, all officers should have effective pistols, and there should be a long arm of some sort kept cruiser ready.

I also think that the citizens should be allowed to have whatever police have (although I do think that a NICS check on low quantities of high explosives is a good idea, and purchasing licenses, no-tax, shall-issue, for high quantities), with little to no restrictions. I want to walk into a gunstore and come out with a M4 with M203 and 50 various 40mm rounds, an FN-P90, and a couple belts of .50 cal. If, of course, I can afford it. I honestly think that there would be far less crime if criminals thought they could easily get 50 rounds of 5.7mm dumped into their chest if they broke into a random house, or that mugging people gets a MAC-10 drawn on them.

Granted, I don't think that citizens should have access to WMDs, but then, a police department has no need for a nuke or for sarin shells. Let the Dep't of Energy control The Bomb like it always has.

You may now return to your regularly scheduled pointless bickering.

wingman
August 2, 2004, 09:30 AM
The police are becoming far too military in nature and structure

There it is and it should be of concern for all including police.

Fed168
August 2, 2004, 09:36 AM
Remember that the P90 came out well after 1986, so just about the only folks who can get one are military and LE or a dealer with the proper letter. It's not like we can just go out and get one, much less the ammo for it.

Beren
August 2, 2004, 10:41 AM
If they can sink an incoming boat that's carrying a WMD before it can set it off

This isn't the job of the NYPD. Sounds like a job for the military to me. How exactly would you sink a boat with an M-60, anyway?

Personally, I'm not concerned so much with police having "military weapons" as I am with some police having "military attitudes." That said, anything the police can purchase, I should be able to purchase.

WYO
August 2, 2004, 11:34 AM
Why do cops get military rifles?

Handguns are feeble as stoppers, whether the threat is armored or not. Remember the expression about a handgun being something you use to fight your way to a long gun? Handguns also make you have to close the distance to the threat, which is a problem if the adversary has a firearm with more range. Handguns are harder to shoot. Forget about police officers, does the average PERSON shoot a rifle or a handgun better? How about when the distance goes beyond 25 yards, 50 yards, 100 yards? In your community, what kind of distances could one encounter in a school hallway, mall, parking lot, etc.?

Bank of America, Columbine, etc., were just wake up calls to agencies that thought that the beat cop was just supposed to handle run of the mill calls for service. They reminded police that the average beat cop on the street needs to be able to handle anything that comes along, because it takes time to put together a team of people with “special weapons and tactics.” As far as I can tell, the public wants the police to shut down problems as quickly as possible. The public is being warned every day that more bad things are coming to America. Well, if the police are going to be expected handle that, they need to have the tools necessary to do it. To me, that isn’t militarizing the police. I can argue that putting rifles in the hands of the average patrol officer de-militarizes the police because it takes away the aura of the specialized highly trained magic ninja unit that swoops in and solves problems that beat cops can’t solve. And shame on any of us who argues that the police are “militarized” because they carry guns that look like “army guns” instead of .30-30s—that’s the same argument used to support the AW ban.

BTW, from where I sit, I see cops and agencies buying the exact same neutered post-ban semi-automatic rifles as everyone else. Full auto generally is a big no-no except for the entry weapon subguns that are in pistol calibers and which, to me, are less effective than the rifles available to the general public.

Finally, ask yourself this question: if you were knowingly driving to a gunfight or a probable gunfight, what would you grab? From what I see on these forums, the average person would take a whole lot more guns and ammo than the average cop.

Tamara
August 2, 2004, 12:01 PM
Cops probably get military-style rifles for the same reason I do: There are just some emergencies that these implements were pretty much designed to handle.

The question shouldn't be why police departments can get them; the question should be why their employers can't.

itgoesboom
August 2, 2004, 01:11 PM
Asking why police need to get military style rifles is like asking why civilians need to own military style rifles. If you start to say that the police don't need them, than surely we lowly peons don't need them either.

I honestly don't have a problem with the police having military style rifles, including full auto.

On January 3 this year, here in Portland, OR, a man was holding a knife to his girlfriends throat at the greyhound terminal. This man was going to kill his girlfriend, and the SWAT team wasn't going to have time to respond and properly set up sharpshooters and such.

Fortunatly, one of the officers who responded was issued a AR-15, and from a fairly short distance, fired one round, striking the man in the head, killing him and saving his girlfriends life.

While it was, technically, an "easy shot" (how easy is a shot when there is a hostage involved, and you have to shoot someone???), it would have been a much more difficult shot had the responding officers only had their sidearms and shotguns.

Their are times when only a rifle will do, and there is no point in limiting the capability of that rifle.

If a badguy starts shooting up a mall with his rifle or shotgun, I would prefer a responding officer to be able to make the shot rather than waiting half hour for the SWAT officers to show up and put a plan into action. How may people can a person kill in one half hour?

I.G.B.

LeonCarr
August 2, 2004, 01:21 PM
Most full auto/suppressed weapons, here in Texas anyway, used by law enforcement have to be purchased by the department on police purchase order or department letterhead, and issued to the individual officer by the department. The individual officer himself/herself, with department letterhead, can purchase semi-auto only firearms and law enforcement high capacity magazines. The individual officer does not OWN the full-auto/supressed weapon, it is issued to them.

Try www.gtdist.com for a better explanation on the ins/outs of police having restricted firearms.

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

Firethorn
August 2, 2004, 01:34 PM
Why military style rifles?

Durability-They're often tougher than 'hunting' rifles.
Parts Availability-Parts are easy to get, and you are not locked into a single vender
Ease of Use - Many people already have training on them.
Cost - Buying in bulk, for their capabilities, these rifles are a good deal.

The Real Mad Max
August 2, 2004, 01:39 PM
Stupid question.:rolleyes:

cordex
August 2, 2004, 02:11 PM
The question shouldn't be why police departments can get them; the question should be why their employers can't.
Don't make the mistake of assuming that a taxpayer is an employer of the police department. I used to misunderstand the situation as well, but I've been corrected often enough to have gotten the point. Police don't work for taxpayers. They work for the people who write their cheques. Like in retail - you don't work for the customer, you work for the store.

'Course, when it comes to stores, you can walk away from a store with bad employees whereas you don't have the same option when it comes to police.

Cops should have the most effective tools and training that they can afford. Like Beren, I'm not concerned with military weapons in the hands of police, but military attitudes in the minds of police.

liliysdad,
Wow..this is sure unusual of this board...jealousy by the have-nots..
May I refer to a post of yours on another thread?
a cop is a cop, whether they work in a department of 4 or 4000. For this very reason, I wont support this one.
So ... is "jealousy by the have-nots" okay when it's you talking? ;)

liliysdad
August 2, 2004, 02:16 PM
That wasnt jealousy, that was common sense...small difference, but important.

MagKnightX
August 2, 2004, 03:06 PM
This isn't the job of the NYPD. Sounds like a job for the military to me.

How exactly would you sink a boat with an M-60, anyway?

The military may take too long to mobilize, whereas the police can be ready in a few minutes. Would you rather wait for the Coast Guard to take a 20-minute journey to stop a terrorist speedboat, or an NYPD boat to engage it?

A Ma Deuce certainly helps with the sinking part, as do RPGs or other explosives.

cordex
August 2, 2004, 03:18 PM
That wasnt jealousy, that was common sense...small difference, but important.
*snort*
When it's you complaining, it's "common sense". When it's someone else, it's "jealousy".

Back with you.

ojibweindian
August 2, 2004, 03:28 PM
That wasnt jealousy, that was common sense...small difference, but important.

Only difference I see is in the pomposity of your position; Civvies don't need EBRs, but us cops do to keep you serfs down. No wonder people think of LEOs in terms of JBT with attitudes like yours.

Treylis
August 2, 2004, 03:47 PM
Am I the only who who finds it kind of ironic that on a board full of gun people who tote around a concealed weapon on the very slim chance that they might get robbed or assaulted, they all of a sudden have a problem with police having advanced weaponry to face increasing threats that they are PAID to protect the public against? Seems a tad hypocritical if you ask me.

I'm not against police having advanced weaponry... I just want it in my own non-LEO, non-military citizen hands as well.

Dbl0Kevin
August 2, 2004, 04:05 PM
Only difference I see is in the pomposity of your position; Civvies don't need EBRs, but us cops do to keep you serfs down. No wonder people think of LEOs in terms of JBT with attitudes like yours.

I'm quite sure he can fight his own battles, but where did he ever say citizens should not be allowed to own EBR's? Seems to me that you are the one with the attitude problem thinking that every cop is out to get you.

ojibweindian
August 2, 2004, 04:17 PM
Seems to me that you are the one with the attitude problem thinking that every cop is out to get you.

I'm not the only one, then, with an attitude problem as many here, on this board, and in the public perceive the police as becomming more hostile towards their employers.

Could it be possibly that you guys do have a crappy rep? Could it be that this crappy rep is somewhat deserved, given the actions of some of your fellow officers? Could it be that the "circle the wagons" approach to defending the miscreants within your ranks has only exacerbated the problem?

Hmmmm.....

Dbl0Kevin
August 2, 2004, 04:21 PM
Could it be possibly that you guys do have a crappy rep? Could it be that this crappy rep is somewhat deserved, given the actions of some of your fellow officers?

Think about that statement and then replace fellow "officers" with fellow "gun owners". As I said before the level of hypocrisy on this forum amazes me sometimes. :rolleyes:

You will actually cut off your nose to spite your face. Obviously if a police officer is on this forum he's got an interest in firearms and I would wager to say support the ownership, use and carrying of them by everyday citizens. But some people here are too worried about bashing every police officer in the country to realize that. Seems an awful lot like the anti-gunners if you ask me.

cordex
August 2, 2004, 04:32 PM
Think about that statement and then replace fellow "officers" with fellow "gun owners". As I said before the level of hypocrisy on this forum amazes me sometimes.
Extremely true.

As I said - cops should have the best tools and training regardless of barrel length, number of projectiles thrown per pull of the trigger, action type, and so forth that they can afford. And so should I.

ojibweindian
August 2, 2004, 04:32 PM
Think about that statement and then replace fellow "officers" with fellow "gun owners". As I said before the level of hypocrisy on this forum amazes me sometimes.

That is, quite simply, a crock. In essence, that statement says "you can't criticize me because I'm a cop AND a gun owner." If you'd take the time to research this site, there are plenty of criticisms laid upon those who practice unsafe handling and ownership, as well as the tin-foil kooks.

ojibweindian
August 2, 2004, 04:34 PM
As I said - cops should have the best tools and training regardless of barrel length, number of projectiles thrown per pull of the trigger, action type, and so forth that they can afford. And so should I.

But many of them, for reasons of "officer safety", don't want you or me to have them. I suppose our safety is trumped by their safety.

Dbl0Kevin
August 2, 2004, 04:40 PM
But many of them, for reasons of "officer safety", don't want you or me to have them. I suppose our safety is trumped by their safety.

Funny how I have yet to see ONE police officer on this board who advocates that. Yet you continue to attack and attempt to put down every officer that posts here. You obviously have some deep seated, irrational hatred of the police so much so that you won't even accept that the vast majority of police officers are on YOUR side. You would rather take the few political chiefs and a number of individuals who go against you and say "see look!! they're all a bunch of gun haters!!". Get real will you.....as a group the police are FAR more pro-gun then the general public. You need an attitude adjustment, but I can see that no matter what I say I'll be wrong and you'll be right in your mind so from now on I'll just put you on my ignore list.

Thank you and good night.

Third_Rail
August 2, 2004, 04:42 PM
Think all cops are horrible people with jobs that involve nothing but personally being out for you?

Go read this (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=94573) , and please think before posting again.

ojibweindian
August 2, 2004, 04:51 PM
Think all cops are horrible people with jobs that involve nothing but personally being out for you?

Not till I started to read this board.

I will tell you this, after all the recent threads where some of you LEOs go apoplectic, I seriously mistrust cops more than I ever did before.

You guys are really great at PR.

thefitzvh
August 2, 2004, 05:10 PM
liliysdad: Some of us are paid to enforce the laws that protect the public, some of us do it for free.....

That's not what the hell he said. Paid to protect the public, and paid to enforce the laws that protect the public are two VERY different animals.



In addition, I was told by an officer on this board that "Protect and Serve" is NOT the job of law enforcement.

As for the story, it's wonderful. I wish all police officers were like that. They aren't

EDITED TO ADD: Back on topic: hell yeah they should have "military rifles" and whatever other toys they want. And so should we

James

liliysdad
August 2, 2004, 06:14 PM
That's not what the hell he said. Paid to protect the public, and paid to enforce the laws that protect the public are two VERY different animals.

I realize thats not what he said, I added words to make it a correct statement...they are not different, IMO, they are one and the same.

RevDisk
August 2, 2004, 06:29 PM
Like many other folks, I believe LEO's should be allowed whatever toys they want. Due to their job, I believe they should be tested to be allowed to carry any weapon. As far as I know, they do this anyways.

I also agree that non-LEO civilians should be allowed to own new production NFA toys without artificial price controls.

madkiwi
August 2, 2004, 07:04 PM
Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American. . . . The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people - Tench Coxe-The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

I have no objection to letting cops have any weapon they need to do their job.

HOWEVER, the same arguments that are used to justify prohibitions on civilian ownership should be applied to police use. No crew-served or WMD, because of the high probability of collateral damage. Fully automatic weapons have no place in a city, I'm sorry.

The day the government agrees I should have a FN Five-seveN (with a normal capacity 20 round mag) I'll drop my objections though.

madkiwi

thefitzvh
August 2, 2004, 07:09 PM
I realize thats not what he said, I added words to make it a correct statement...they are not different, IMO, they are one and the same.


*buzzer* Wrong buddy. Example:

Man has house broken into. He calls the cops, they are on their way. Cops show up, but homeowner has already shot and killed perp. Cops check him out, make sure homeowner is ok. They ask if the homeowner needs an officer to stick around for a bit. All is well. That's "Protect and Serve"


Scenario 2: same house, same man. Cops haul him away in cuffs for discharging a firearm within city limits.


TOTALLY different. "Enforce the laws that protect us" is statist horse****

Shadowman
August 2, 2004, 09:10 PM
Perhaps a better question : "Why the militarization of the police?"

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2026&u=/latimests/20040718/ts_latimes/enemycontactkillemkillem&printer=1)

LAK
August 3, 2004, 04:31 AM
I have been of the opinion that every police cruiser ought to have at least one rifle in the trunk. Aside from my own preferences it really doesn't matter whether it is a scoped bolt-action or an M4. It is not a matter of how many badguys are wearing body armor - or may start wearing it - it is the simple fact that a handgun is a poor choice for any gunfight. If the circumstances allow the effective use of a rifle, that is what needs to be available "right now".

And not that special teams do not need some of the gadgets etc, but this obsession with black suits and masks etc is a bad idea in practice, and their increasing use by agencies as street attire is not a good image for public morale. Particularly with the use of the camo style subdued acroutements, name tags and departmental patches.

The gradual militarization of the police is not good at all. Of course the war-on-a-noun has set the stage for the increasing amalgamation between the military itself and civil police agencies in operations in the CONUS. Not to mention the creation of "more"; I noticed that the feds are making their Federal Protection Service uniformed "police" an increasingly visible feature, a sort of "U.S. Police" force.

sendec
August 3, 2004, 05:14 AM
Again, if the main complaint is the dress code, plenty of cops still dress like bus drivers, to wit Columbus and Cincinnati Ohio, to cite 2. I bet that nothing increases the heart rate like doing a nocturnal building search wearing a white shirt and hat, but hey, good guys wear white, right?. And there is always Chicago PD, in their stylish checkered hat bands, specifically intended to make them more visible to the public. Look at the agencies in suntans/khakis - they had them long before desert cammies were ever issued in the U.S.

For all the good they do Federal Protective Service Police Officers are a unit of the General Services Administration (the agency responsible for getting paperclips and floormats to those who need them) whose main responsibility is the security of federal buildings. I believe their jurisdiction is limited to same. Hardly the leading force for a federal takeover of domestic law enforcement, unless you watch too much "X-Files. Their increased visibility is a post 9-11 development.

MagKnightX
August 3, 2004, 10:32 AM
Again, if the main complaint is the dress code, plenty of cops still dress like bus drivers, to wit Columbus and Cincinnati Ohio, to cite 2. I bet that nothing increases the heart rate like doing a nocturnal building search wearing a white shirt and hat, but hey, good guys wear white, right?. And there is always Chicago PD, in their stylish checkered hat bands, specifically intended to make them more visible to the public. Look at the agencies in suntans/khakis - they had them long before desert cammies were ever issued in the U.S.

I think it's a good idea for beat police to be more visible. It helps identify them to the public, and it makes it easier to find one in a crisis, if you can find one. The only real time a LEO should be wearing something to make them less visible is during a stealth raid - something that should only happen when a crime is being actively committed (hostage situation). At any surprise raids, no-knock-warrants, arrests, etc., officers of the law should be required to identify themselves IMMEDIATELY, to prevent negligent deaths caused by either side.

As for khakis, it is a sensible all-weather color that, along with brown, has always been in vogue for modern sheriffs and deputies, and for a few police departments (for example, the Fairfax Police Department's summer uniform shirt is khaki, and I'm sure it's much cooler than the equivalent navy blue).

One manner of dress that I think LEOs should definitely not do, is clothes designed to intimidate. Stealth is one thing. All-black suits with gas-masks and smoked plexiglas semi-bubble visors is another. Save the gas masks for actual gas attacks. The Fairfax (hey, I live there, I know their uniforms) SWAT team uniform looks like it came straight out of Star Wars. The job of a police officer is not to intimidate, even in a SWAT operation. The only reason for intimidating uniforms is to attempt to cause a fear of LEOs in the people, rather than the trust that should be there.

But I still think citizens should be able to own new machine guns.

DMF
August 3, 2004, 01:25 PM
sendec is comletely correct about the mission and jurisdiction of FPS. They can work outside of federal buildings, but the investigation must be directly related to federal property. However, FPS is no longer under GSA, they are now part of ICE.

With regard to this comment, "At any surprise raids, no-knock-warrants, arrests, etc., officers of the law should be required to identify themselves IMMEDIATELY, to prevent negligent deaths caused by either side." As I and others have stated many times before, no-knocks are extremely rare, and most warrants will be knock and announce. In all cases the police should identify themselves.

sendec
August 3, 2004, 04:24 PM
DMF,

Thanks for the correction. I had a hard enough time keeping fed agencies straight before they started playing musical letterhead after 9/11.

As for "intimidating uniforms", we really need to think this through. I would far rather intimidate someone into submission than have to use physical force. SWAT operations really are'nt a trust building exercise anyway.

I do acknowledge that sometimes this can be taken too far. I recommend against cammo BDUs in enforcement except for rural surveillance. I know of one urban agency that goes the woodland cammo route, for what precise reason I do not know. More importantly though is the issue of cammo being so common in the public. Going through the door the last thing I want to be mistakem for is a rival hood....

Y'all try to remember that the overwhelming majority of warrants and SWAT ops actually involve real live bad guys and girls. Statistically the mistakes cited are few and far between and not really a sound basis for policy. I can recall SWAT officers in a western state / rural area being directed to wear reflective trafic vests while serving warrants to avoid these mistakes. Why not just attach magnets to them so the bullets cannot possibly not hit them?

Combat-wombat
August 3, 2004, 04:36 PM
I'll join in...
Just a guess........but it may have something to do with the Hollywood shoot out a few years ago where the bank robbers had AK's and the police had handguns............until they borrowed some rifles from a gun store.

Well, that's North Hollywood. I live in a smallish town of 25,000 people, and every police officer has an AR15 in his car. Now that's not fully automatic, but seriously- what the hell does a police officer in Redneckville, CA need an AR-15 for? The state legislature has determined that I don't need that kind of evil killng machine made for mowing down large crowds of civilians- So, that obviously means the police don't either.

LAK
August 4, 2004, 04:19 AM
For all the good they do Federal Protective Service Police Officers are a unit of the General Services Administration (the agency responsible for getting paperclips and floormats to those who need them) whose main responsibility is the security of federal buildings. I believe their jurisdiction is limited to same. Hardly the leading force for a federal takeover of domestic law enforcement, unless you watch too much "X-Files. Their increased visibility is a post 9-11 development.

.... Sendec is correct - in theory. FPS "police" are limited by jurisdiction to federal property. However, they were on the streets of Boston during the DNC, and they will indeed become "more visible". The war-on-a-noun certainly is going to be the excuse for many number of things in this country as it progresses.

liliysdad
August 4, 2004, 07:46 AM
Well, that's North Hollywood. I live in a smallish town of 25,000 people, and every police officer has an AR15 in his car. Now that's not fully automatic, but seriously- what the hell does a police officer in Redneckville, CA need an AR-15 for? The state legislature has determined that I don't need that kind of evil killng machine made for mowing down large crowds of civilians- So, that obviously means the police don't either.

You would really love my Departemnt. I work in a town of less than 6000, and we are authorized to carry ARs or Mini-14s. We never know when we might need them...and I damn sure dont want to NOT have one if I do. They work pretty well for dispatching injured animals , as well.


As for the SWAT types....The object of the black gear, etc...IS to intimidate, which is exactly what you want in a situation where they are called out. By the time SWAT is called into play, public relatios is a lost cause on that individual, and the best bet for survival of the team is for the perp to be scared...

NIGHTWATCH
August 4, 2004, 09:24 AM
Civilians......allowed?.....permission?....when every govt agency is better armed than us? What about the 2A and the big picture? Retaining power and freedom? ARMS? A shootout in Hollywood, Columbine and anywhere else, past, present and future, justifies genocide? It is no wonder that we are losing our guns. We are losing our minds.

LE should have what they need. The American people had better have what they need. http://www.websmileys.com/sm/evil/210.gif

Innocents Betrayed (http://www.jpfo.org/)

ojibweindian
August 4, 2004, 09:40 AM
NIGHTWATCH

You nailed it.

Harve Curry
August 4, 2004, 11:08 AM
I don't have a problem with LEO's having semi or full auto. Historically we all had anything we could afford until the 1934 NFA. However LEO's do have a problem with us the citizen having our 2 Amendment rights uninfringed. I think quite a few become LEO's just so they can have more gun privledges. It's a cop-out (for lack of a better phrase) when LEO's can't handle the criticism they go right at the "well you should not be jealous and we'll help you get your rights back too." That ain't going to happen because the police lobbying groups are against it, the police chiefs are against it, and the jury's out as to the opinions of rank and file officers whether they believe citizens have a 2 Amendment.

Besides lets call it what it is a priviledge, not a right anymore.

When you have to give up your rights to privacy, pay a fee, have an expiriation date, photograhped and finger printed you are done using rights. Your getting a priviledge, cops are to.
__________________________________________________________

In criticizing the monopolization of arms bearing in the hands of one class that was being advocated by his colleague Hippodamos, Aristotle commented:
Hippodamos planned a city with a population of ten thousand, divided into three parts, one of skilled workers, one of agriculturists, and a third to bear arms and secure defense. (But the legal restriction of arms bearing to a given class would mean that) the farmers have no arms, the workers have neither land nor arms; this makes them virtually the servants of those who do possess arms. In these circumstances, the equal sharing of offices and honours becomes an impossibility. (And since) those who possess arms must be superior in power to both the other sections ( the constitution proposed by Hippodamos would breed inequality and discontent.) "

from The Second Amendment Primer by Les Adams
____________________________________________________________

sendec
August 4, 2004, 11:56 AM
...and rural cops arguably should be first in line for the heavier weapons. The lack of support and backup frequently means that they are at a significant disadvantage compared to their big-city counterparts. I live in an impoverished rural area near several small towns. The number of police involved shootings in areas like this is higher than most people expect. While they may be more frequent in big cities, given our lower number of cops they may actually have a greater probability of being involved in a shooting than in the big city.

You'll see cops from all over deployed during the RNC also, I would'nt read too much into it, unless you want to.

StopTheGrays
August 4, 2004, 06:03 PM
I am still waitng for someone to tell me why a LEO is unable to use a shotgun loaded with slugs as their go to weapon? When I had my training and inservices we were able to group shots at 25 and 50 yds no problem during our speed drills.

Using a rifle is fine by LEOs if they are unable to handle a shotgun (I was able to and I was at the time by no means buffed up) but not a select fire model. Because the street LEO is more likely to use it in a public area there is greater risk to the general public that errant rounds might cause them harm. I can see where SWAT/TAC/ERT team members who are better trained and more likely to use the select fire weapons should be allowed to have them, street officers no.

The Last Confederate
August 4, 2004, 08:53 PM
95%+ of what a police would need a long gun for, could be accomplished just as well, if not better, with a bolt or lever action rifle. Semi auto, high cap, and especially full auto are NOT needed in the trunk or front seat of every cruiser. There is a militarization of the police, and it is being done by design.


Posse Commentates prevents the military from engaging civilians, so militarize the police instead.

What is the difference between a cop with an assault rifle + body armor and a solider with the same (and often times not even armor) nothing!

Many police also have access to helicopters and APCs; they dress up in all black like cobra commanders. They use military terminology when dealing with citizens (such as calling people civilians). They now have an "Us vs. them mentality.

Everyone should watch the "Police State" series of movies done by Alex Jones. It really helps illustrate this growing concern.

AF_INT1N0
August 4, 2004, 09:37 PM
I don't think the question is /should be "why do the police have F/A? The question should be why doesn't everyone? Has anyone seen the footage of our boys securing houses in Iraq? Everyone in Iraq has an AK. You see them on TV knocking on the door. Grandma answers with an AK-47(probably a MAADI). I've got buddies that tell me you get one with 2 full mags for like $60 in the market. Soldiers clear the AK do their check and then give same back to Grandma. No problem.

How long do you think the LA shootout would've lasted had everyone had a descent battle rifle??? :scrutiny:

Cops and Law abiding citizens have enough enemies without turning on each other. Fighting over this crap is just dumb. :mad: This why antis have gotten as far as they can. This why you can't have a cross in the Los Angelas seal anymore. It's why everytime police have to get a little rough with some crack head, he walks. And National CCW is way off.


Most cops I have seen are pro 2A. However your representatives need to jump off a Freakin cliff. I would go as far to say that you can't fly a desk and run the FOP or any other Cop Org. If being a Cop is anything like being in the Military; than by the time you make you way to the top of the ladder you have very little Idea as to what happens in the trenches anyway. If your union is not properly representing your opinion than it is time to change leadership. Saying that you Support 2A but your union doesn't is like saying I support 2A, but I'm gonna vote for Kerry anyway. :banghead:
You wonder why people think cops are not one their side. Guilt by association. Thats how you can both hate cops as a whole but like individual cops.
And odds are the more armed citizens you have around you the less likely you'll end up in the line of fire. Just a thought.

And the better armed the cops and citizens are the less likely you are to be out classed by the goons..

Sorry for the rant..


;)

manwithoutahome
August 4, 2004, 10:59 PM
I think that AF_INT1N0 may be on to something.

LEO's believe it's "Them vs US"

the People believe it's "US vs Them"

All because the People are under the impression that all LEO's need to prove themselves trustworthy before they depend/trust them.

All LEO's are under the impression that all the People need to prove themselves trustworthy before they trust them.

So therefore the LEO's believe that all People are guilty until proven innocent.

While all People believe that the LEO's are out to Shoot/murder/rape etc.. them until they are proven to be good and not corrupt LEO's.

Should LEO's have great fire power. Sure they should. They are CIVILIANS the same as us so they should be able to get the same fire power that we SHOULD be able to have. They are nothing more than a civilian in a uniform with a very difficult and sometimes dangerous job. Nothing more than a pizza delivery person but their company allows them to protect themselves.

A job is a job and if we had retained the articles in the Constitution and the BoR then everyone would be armed equally. So what if the BG's get ahold of a weapon and tries to use it against the People, the People will just use theirs againts the BG. Problem solved.

What the main problem seems to be is the lack of trust. The lack of trust from the Presidents office straight down to the People. The People don't trust their government(s) and the LEO's who have government authority and the government(s) and the LEO's don't trust the people.

So instead of us, the People, and them, the governments and LEO's, trying to gain each others trust, they (the governments and the LEO's) do what is blantatly wrong, disarm the People and make them (though any force necessary) to comply with what ever demands they wish.

Since most solutions come from the grassroots level and not government level, why don't we start here? It's the perfect forum for it. The LEO's on the board and the People on the board can try to figure out, without intense emotion or feelings of "just because", what it is that has destroyed this trust. You can read about many abuses done by LEO's all over this country. As well as you can read about the many abuses done by the People (criminals) all over this country.

Contrary to belief that some may have, I have nothing against LEO's. My concerns come from the frustrations of reading and seeing the abuses caused by SOME LEO's and living in doubt that the next time I need help or the next contact with an LEO will result in some horror story like the ones plastered on the newspapers front page.

Of all the LEO's that I've had the pleasure of meeting on this board and others, only a few cause me discomfort. Steve in PA and Lilysdad are just a few. Some, if I was acting the fool, I would shake their hands afterward they gave me a good butt kicking, LawDog comes to mind.

Quite frankly, some of the postings that I've read here, and other places, have caused me to start to go "anti-cop". I wasn't before, more of a fence sitter if you ask me, not really caring one way or the other.

I want everyone to be able to go home at night. From the pizza guy/gal all the way up to the people who don't trust us in the government(s). I wish no harm for anyone. I do believe that if justice is needed and you have the means to carry it out while your life, freedoms, or liberty is in danger then so be it. I won't cry or be in despair if a criminal, a corrupt LEO, State official, or Federal official doesn't make it home if the crime they commit warrents lethal force.

Without trust you have nothing. Without an equal sense of rights or being you have nothing. Without freedom, you have nothing.

I know that full well that many here will not read and comprehend this post. They will, as most of the elite do, pick and chose what they will, and will not respond to. That is fine, for we the People know that this will happen and will only further the "US vs Them", "Them vs US" attitude which is not going to be good for anyone and will still continue.

Wayne

liliysdad
August 5, 2004, 12:21 AM
Warning...slightly off topic..veering towards "where in the hell did that come from"


I fully realize some of you have issues with me, and a couple of others, and to be honest, reading some of my posts, I fully understand why. I am new to Law Enforcement, acting as a reserve now, hopefully making the jump to a full time officer soon..very soon.

Believe it or not, I want to do this to help, not hinder. I have come across as an A$$, and I am sorry...95% of it has been in rebuttal to the few vehement anti-LEO members here..sort of of a sophomoric tit-for-tat, and that was wrong. I do apolgize.

I have no desire to kick your door in, confiscate your hibiscus, or lick your kids lollipop. I would much rather make cat in the tree calls all day than go to domestics, or arrest DUIs, but thats not gona happen anytime soon.

I grew up around the old-school Peace Oficers, and that is what I yearn to be. The kind of guys who will stop and shoot the breeze with you at the coffee shop..the kind of guys you see at the range shooting..for the fun of it. I will admit I catch myself getting caught up in the tactical gear-whiz side of things, and I must make myself realize that the gear is the very, very least of my chosen profession..the people that , in fact, I do work for are the reason. My wife and beautiful daughter, are the reason...the town I grew up in, and never want to leave are the reason.

I will attempt to offer only constructive criticism and responses to LEO comments on this board......simply rememebr that we are a brotherhood, and we do tend to stick up for one another, even if we are wrong. Its not right, and we all know it, but its the way it is, and its the way it has to be. We depend on one another in some facet or another to go home to the ones who are most important to us, our families.

I am sure I have pissed some folks off, both LEO, and non-LEO, and Im sorry....but thats the way I see it. Any problems, just let me know.

Art Eatman
August 5, 2004, 01:01 AM
Just got phone service restored after over a week, so I'm behind the curve on these longer threads...

It seems to me that a lot of the griping about cops should actually be directed toward the elected officials who pass laws at the state or national level, or who appoint police chiefs in the cities. These are the ones who create and then implement the various policies regarding armaments, gear and other equipment for such as SWAT, etc. And don't forget that it's the elected guys who set up budgets and allocate the money from which come training funds; it's police chiefs who create whatever atmosphere exists within a department.

So you're 22 to 27 years old, and you're eager to Do Good For Society. Great! But you have folks telling you this and that about what and how to do, and you accept the wisdom from their experience or authority that what you do is legal, lawful, constitutional and moral.

Sometimes it ain't, but the orders come from On High--and if you're typical Homo Sapiens Americanus, you tend to believe in them.

Don't believe me? Just watch the group behavior at a Rotary luncheon or a Shriners' convention...

:), Art

cordex
August 5, 2004, 01:16 AM
Liliysdad, you have a PM.

liliysdad
August 5, 2004, 01:20 AM
Got it, and replied, my friend

manwithoutahome
August 5, 2004, 11:23 AM
liliysdad,

I'm willing to do the same. We can start the healing and I do believe you when you say that you want to become an LEO for helping and for the good of the people.

And I will not stereotype all LEO's into the same boat, as in more likely corrupt then not corrupt.

What's the old saying "Don't punish all for the actions of a few".

I do realize that their has been many things said, from both sides, and I think that most were said and done in the heat of the moment.

So, to go back to on topic:

Yes, the LEO's should have the same weapons that we are allowed to have. If, for some reason, we are banned from owning them, then so should they. We, the People, are the ones being punished while the few that the laws need to punish are still getting what they want and continueing to use the weapons for crime. If the People were "allowed" to own the same weapons, I do believe that crime would be lower if we would just follow the BoR's (the first 10 anyway and a few of the others after, not including the 16th :D ).

Wayne

82DABN
August 5, 2004, 12:22 PM
Wow, really surprised at some of the comments on this thread. I thought this forum was predominately pro-police types...

I would offer this to you folks who don't believe that LEO's should be allowed to use assault type weapons and wear "intimidating" garb..

Would you rather have us "scare" an armed, motivated, perp into surrender
or just go marching in with white uniforms on like some of you mention and execute him ? The fact that many small PDs are outfiiting themselves with SWAT/SRT units is an off shoot of many,many,many episodes of extreme violence being levied against their personnel by extremely well armed civilians, trained in the use of weaponry through mililtary and/or private channels. The need is there...the need is going to get more extreme...read your newspapers...watch your boob tubes...

I read all of your profiles to see what you did for a pay check. Funny, I didn't see any of you having a job set that requires a granite wall in Washington DC to list your dead...

Remember the next time that you watch TV in your safe little home (protected by none other than Mr. or Mrs. overarmed, outwardly corrupt, extremely "intimidating" LEO) to call the fire department or gas company when the worst of the worst happens. Sounds like you may even attempt to defend yourself...with the opinions you possess regarding law enforcement officers...feel free to keep it a solo project.

Unfortunately, depersonalization of the LE community is an accepted and bred in phenomenon. I come home at night tired, frustrated with the world, and eager to make change, just like everyone else on this thread. In 16 years of law enforcement, I have had the privilege to meet and work with the best of the best and unfortunatley, AS WITH ALL PROFESSIONS, the worst of the worst. That is the way it is. We are not genetically predisposed to be cops. This is a tough,thankless job (made ever so obvious by some of you...) being done 24/7 by the true heros of society. You should be thankful.

Black clothes and automatic weapons are tools...only tools. Descretion, professionalism, integrity, bravery, and honor are the things that make up the person who performs the job and uses the tools to effect positive change and assistance when society hits a "speed bump" and things get crazy.

It may sound "romantic" and over the top for some, but next time you go to work, think for a second that you may have just sat down in front of a computer monitor or picked up a pen while 3/4's of a million of us strap on bulletproof garments and firearms, and "run at, what everyone else runs from" for 8,16, or 24 hours a day to make ends meet. Are there "bad cops" out there ? I submit to you that they are there without question. But I will further submit that the VAST majority are good, honest, professional people who are being issued equipment and training to accomplish a very dangerous, ever more hazardous job...

With respect,

82-AIR

The Real Mad Max
August 6, 2004, 12:08 PM
Wow, really surprised at some of the comments on this thread. I thought this forum was predominately pro-police types...

One would have thought.

Instead, it seems inhabited by militia type wanna-bes, cop haters, leftists or maoists.

Strange indeed for a Second Amendment forum. Strange and disappointing. :(

82DABN
August 6, 2004, 12:14 PM
Thanks for your input "Max".

cordex
August 6, 2004, 12:30 PM
Instead, it seems inhabited by militia type wanna-bes, cop haters, leftists or maoists.
You're new here, so rather than address this in the sarcastic manner I had typed up, please let me just say that if you're willing to label the many for your myopic view of a few, you should remember what turnabout makes you.

tcsd1236
August 6, 2004, 01:00 PM
I am still waitng for someone to tell me why a LEO is unable to use a shotgun loaded with slugs as their go to weapon? When I had my training and inservices we were able to group shots at 25 and 50 yds no problem during our speed drills.

The shotgun really IS an outdated weapon for most LE long gun needs. Slow to load/ reload, depending on the officer, the model used, etc, can be very punishing, limited ammo capacity, lots of liability with those 8 ( Remington LE load) or 9 ( almost everyone else ) 00 buck loads.....the rifle really is the way to go, or should I say, return to, since the shotgun really gained supremacy in LE as the preferred long gun about 100 years ago when the first parctical pump was first developed and cities were increasingly urbanized.

Instead, it seems inhabited by militia type wanna-bes, cop haters, leftists or maoists.

This site is rather tame in terms of ranting by the paranoid types. I could list a dozen other boards that are much worse......although that contingents voice is often heard.....

Fed168
August 6, 2004, 04:13 PM
And some agencies do not issue slugs, just a shotgun with OO Buck and bead sights.

The Real Mad Max
August 6, 2004, 05:20 PM
This site is rather tame in terms of ranting by the paranoid types. I could list a dozen other boards that are much worse......although that contingents voice is often heard.....

That is probably true. But it is still disheartening to see it going on here nevertheless....

The Real Mad Max
August 6, 2004, 05:23 PM
You're new here, so rather than address this in the sarcastic manner I had typed up, please let me just say that if you're willing to label the many for your myopic view of a few, you should remember what turnabout makes you.

True... long time lurker and short time poster. But I finally felt it time to speak up.

Myopic? I should probably have added to that list: nihlistic, anarchists as well. So what does turnabout make me? I'm curious. I've got thick skin so fire away. Or, feel free to PM me. I'd be glad to discuss it offline with you.

FedDC
August 6, 2004, 05:42 PM
Fed 168-

Those sound like the rules I heard about for those DS Guys, they had some seriously restrictive carry rules back in the day;)

If you enjoyed reading about "Why do cops get "military" rifles?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!