Legislation For The 6,000,000+ Legally Armed Civilians Needs To Be Implemented


PDA






Desertdog
August 4, 2004, 12:12 AM
Legislation For The 6,000,000+ Legally Armed Civilians Needs To Be Implemented Like The "Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act of 2004".
http://legallyarmed.com/national_law_enforcement_carry.htm

The "Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act" has become law. It is now known as Public Law 108-277. This law helps the U.S.A. be better protected from terrorists and terrorist sympathizers in America. This is beneficial for America since it is believed that terrorists are here in the U.S.A.. If this is the case, would America benefit even more if the law abiding legally armed civilian population were allowed access to every state in America?

The recent release of information by Attorney General Ashcroft regarding financial institutions and plans made by terrorists, shows that they have been in the U.S.A., and are probably still here. Their details regarding financial institutions shows that they were concerned about firearms since they pointed out to their associates the armed guards located within these financial institutions and buildings. What if they thought that most of the people working in these locations were armed. Would they consider their intended targets too dangerous because of such a large armed civilian population? Is this what our founding fathers thought about when they addressed firearms? Naturally they could not in vision in their day what is happening in today's world...or could they?

The British, The Islamic Terrorists, What Is The Difference?
During the time when our country was founded, acts of death and destructions due to the war with England were common place. The American Army of the time was comprised mostly of civilians who volunteered to help defend their homeland. The current war in Iraq has a lot of national guard and reserves fighting there. These are civilians who volunteer they time to help defend their homeland.

The only other time that the homeland of America has been threatened as much as it is today, was when our country was founded. The mode of defense for the armed population at that time was small arms. In the war in Iraq, most of the fighting is with small arms. Except for the technological advances in firearms, little has changed regarding war and defending America. Small arms are still the key ingredient when it comes down to close fighting including urban warfare. Why then do laws exist that restrict law enforcement officers and law abiding legally armed citizens, from carrying their firearms? These restrictive laws do not do anything to discourage individuals intent of committing acts of terror. They only make the odds of committing these acts of terror higher because; there is less resistance for them to overcome, or to cause harm to them before they can complete their act of terror.

Lets Make The Terrorists Job Harder To Fulfill!
We have been told that suicide bombers and the majority of terrorists, do not want to be harmed before they can carry out their acts of terror. We have been told that death is not something they fear or worry about. Well no matter what we have been told, death is a concern to every living thing. Animals and humans go out of their way to prevent harm or death to themselves. Terrorists are no different. They fear that they may not complete their act of terror before dying. They do not want to be killed or harmed before their act of terror is complete. Well, if this is their goal, lets throw a monkey wrench into their plans. Have the majority of law abiding citizens carry a handgun until every terrorist in America trying to kill Americans are DEAD before they can carry out their act of terror! No bullet is going to stop a chemical, biological, or nuclear attack but, it might stop the means of delivery before it can occur. The human delivery system...the terrorist. Some believe that small arms or bombs will be used in America as they are currently being used in other regions of the world. If this does occur, won't all Americans be better prepared by carrying small arms in the form of handguns?

We have been told that we need to change the way we are perceived by the rest of the world for us to win this war on terror. Well, let the rest of the world know that Americans will do whatever it takes to defend their way of life and their homeland. Let them perceive Americans as defiant to the will of individuals who want to kill us because of the way we live. America has always been known as the land of liberty. Lets give more liberty to our own people. Remove the restrictions on where law enforcement officers and legally armed civilians can carry their handguns. Increase access to every state in America for legally armed citizens just like the "Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act of 2004", and show the world that Americans are capable of defending their homeland not only with their military, but with the legally armed civilian population.

Let every Islamic Terrorist know that we will gladly assist them in achieving their main goal;.

to meet Allah!

Please e-mail comments on this article to:

comments@legallyarmed.com

If you enjoyed reading about "Legislation For The 6,000,000+ Legally Armed Civilians Needs To Be Implemented" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Zedicus
August 4, 2004, 09:37 AM
It would be good to see a National Civilian CCW passed, then the fascist states like CA & NY will have no exuses.

molonlabe
August 4, 2004, 11:38 AM
Add NJ and MD to that mix.

FedDC
August 4, 2004, 01:04 PM
It would be great to have nationwide CCW for everyone...but I doubt that many LE Orgs will support it after the backlash they got from the Non LE CCW types.

There is a lot of bad blood between those that fought for nationwide LE CCW and the folks that tried to prevent it...and cops have long memories. Perhaps if we had all banded together, there would be more support on the LE Side...

Can'thavenuthingood
August 4, 2004, 01:59 PM
Sounds like a good time for the LE orgs to display their professionalism, even handedness and good will towards the citizens.

Thought I heard or read they said they get theirs first and it would be a foot in the door for the rest of us.

Time to push the door open?

Vick

mrapathy2000
August 4, 2004, 02:55 PM
dont forget Illinois,Nebraska,Wisconsin believe kansas too.

be great to see something like that passed. national ccw.

Black Snowman
August 4, 2004, 04:05 PM
You are correct, no in KS CCW yet. We MIGHT have been able to overturn the veto but the :cuss: didn't even try. :fire:

National CCW without a paper trail that could be used as "gun registration" would be ideal.

Ironbarr
August 4, 2004, 05:39 PM
Let's not put limits on the firearms. I wouldn't want a court visit because a rifle was needed and all I had - due to law - was a handgun.

And - since we are at war as it's been put by CinCUS and all below, it seems to me that a country at war should be prepared and at the ready to repel boarders, so to speak. So why is it that Desertdog's program isn't already a fact????????????????????????????

Answer: War talk is easy when it's happening elsewhere, but how does it set on the stomach when it's on your block?

-link- This is what it's like, no? (http://www.members.cox.net/ironbarr4/rpg.htm)

TheEgg
August 4, 2004, 06:20 PM
I am not sure I want the feds involved in any of this. First on constitutional grounds, and second on practical grounds.

If we push for a ferderal law, are we not then admitting that the Feds have the right to determine what has been up til now a State matter?

Only thing that makes sense to me would be federal law or, better yet, a SC ruling enforcing the "full faith and credit" concept for CCW.

IANAL

WonderNine
August 4, 2004, 06:43 PM
but I doubt that many LE Orgs will support it after the backlash they got from the Non LE CCW types.

Why is it always the victim's fault?

They fully understand why there was backlash and why the powers that be created the law in the first place. To create classes of citizens. To divide and conquer us into a new police state U.S.A.

jnojr
August 4, 2004, 06:54 PM
It would be great to have nationwide CCW for everyone...but I doubt that many LE Orgs will support it after the backlash they got from the Non LE CCW types.

"Most LEO orgs" won't support national CCW, because they already have it. Why would they fight for something they already have?

SAG0282
August 4, 2004, 06:58 PM
I'm already on board and doing my part!

jnojr
August 4, 2004, 06:59 PM
It would be good to see a National Civilian CCW passed, then the fascist states like CA & NY will have no exuses.

I doubt it. A "national CCW", if passed (which is highly unlikely), would be challenged on "states rights" issues. The best that might be accomplished is a set of standards for national CCW that would have to be agreed upon by all (participating) states, and would then be like a big reciprocity pool. But there's no way the Federal government is going to force California to issue me a CCW. Maybe they might force California to accept CCWs from other states (probably only resident permits, so I couldn't sneakily backdoor the system by getting a Utah non-resident permit), but there are enormous issues with that.

That's really the best hope for national CCW... some kind of compact that all states can provide input to, come up with a set of licensing standards that all (or most) can agree on, and use those standards as a basis for permit issuance and hence reciprocity. But don't nobody hold their breath for the 11 anti carry states to jump on board.

mrapathy2000
August 4, 2004, 07:15 PM
Why is it always the victim's fault?

They fully understand why there was backlash and why the powers that be created the law in the first place. To create classes of citizens. To divide and conquer us into a new police state U.S.A.

you mean U.S.S.A.

But there's no way the Federal government is going to force California to issue me a CCW. Maybe they might force California to accept CCWs from other states (

which is why we should hope the federal government would issue the permit and not the state.

doubt it will happen. gotta admit though. the sound of those state toes going crunch as fed put that in would be pretty good after fighting so long to get it and being denied for so many reason. I know in my state citizens in counties where sheriff's deny CHL licenses or put unreasonable restrictions on ones they do give out. people would rejoice.

cordex
August 4, 2004, 07:27 PM
It would be great to have nationwide CCW for everyone...but I doubt that many LE Orgs will support it after the backlash they got from the Non LE CCW types.
*snort*
Because if we'd all banded behind getting police exemption, then the Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Major Cities Chiefs Association, the National Association of Police Organizations, the National Black Police Association, the National Fraternal Order of Police, the National Sheriff's Association, the Police Executive Research Forum and the Police Foundation would all have abandoned their longstanding anti-gun positions and worked to help institute universal national CCW.

Yeah right. I call bull.
There is a lot of bad blood between those that fought for nationwide LE CCW and the folks that tried to prevent it...and cops have long memories. Perhaps if we had all banded together, there would be more support on the LE Side...
Where did that bad blood come from, FedDC?
Try this on for size: If the organized police lobbying organizations hadn't spent the last few decades pushing for stricter gun control and ever-increasing regulation for people who don't wear badges, you might have gotten more support from non-LEO gun owners when there was a bill you really wanted.

dave3006
August 4, 2004, 07:32 PM
Does the freedoms and rights listed in the the Bill of Rights apply to the states? The last time I checked the constitution applied to the states.

If they do, then BEARING arms means CCW should be legal in all 50 states.

- Can you imagine (rightfully so) how fast the Feds would get involved if Georgia made it illegal for Blacks to vote?

c_yeager
August 4, 2004, 07:52 PM
It would be great to have nationwide CCW for everyone...but I doubt that many LE Orgs will support it after the backlash they got from the Non LE CCW types.

FYI that "backlash" was mostly to be found on internet discussion sites like this one as opposed to the REAL world. They won't likely support civilian CCW because the vast majority of "police organizations" (at least in my parts) have endorsed every piece of gun control that has ever appeared on the ballot...

AF_INT1N0
August 4, 2004, 08:14 PM
Quote:

Answer: War talk is easy when it's happening elsewhere, but how does it set on the stomach when it's on your block?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is happening on our block and anyone who thinks that it isn't doesn't pay attention or just ignores the fact for their peice of mind.

How many thousands come across the border? How many are already here? :confused:

For that matter how many are using University Islamic clubs to recruit, thier own little bombadeers? :uhoh:

Too bad you would infringing on their rights if you actually deported them.

:fire: :cuss:

Standing Wolf
August 4, 2004, 08:17 PM
Sounds like a good time for the LE orgs to display their professionalism, even handedness and good will towards the citizens.

I'm not holding my breath while waiting.

Desertdog
August 4, 2004, 08:17 PM
I wonder if a class action lawsuit could accomplish anything since the law created a super-citizen in the LEOs?

There should be enough CCW holders to qualify as a class of citizens.

Rotnguns
August 4, 2004, 10:39 PM
..get more people qualified for CCW! If indeed the 6,000,000 CCW figure is correct, this number represents 6,000,000 law-abiding citizens who form a very powerful voting block! It would be great to see the formation of a national CCW rights group, analagous to the NRA or GOA.

gunsmith
August 4, 2004, 10:42 PM
Most cops I know didn't even know about the new law untill I told them.
So hopefully there isn't that much "bad blood"...
It's sad that we don't have the right to keep and bear arms like my ancestors who fought and won the revolutionary war did.

The Real Mad Max
August 4, 2004, 10:46 PM
You "Tin Hatters" are no different than Ready Teddy and the rest of the clownish left when it comes to bitching about this new law.

Want some chesse served up with that whine?

Justin Moore
August 5, 2004, 05:02 AM
Why should retired LEO's (who are in effect private citizens just like everyone else) be covered on this law? It seems to me like a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. By law they have created a special class of people, that have 'rights' the rest of us do not.

The Real Mad Max
August 5, 2004, 08:32 AM
.

c_yeager
August 5, 2004, 10:46 AM
You "Tin Hatters" are no different than Ready Teddy and the rest of the clownish left when it comes to bitching about this new law.

At least your consistant in your inability to post anything even remotely constructice, let alone insightfull.

insidious_calm
August 5, 2004, 02:59 PM
Black Snowman,


Doug Mays did call for a veto override in the house, it failed. I was present at the initial vote in the house after spending all morning hand wringing and trying to undue stupidity from leftist whacko anti's. We never had a veto-proof majority in the house. We did in the senate. FWIW we need to get Rep. Niles Dilmore from wichita un-elected ASAP. He was a major source of anti-gun sentiment in the debates.


I.C.

WonderNine
August 5, 2004, 04:26 PM
You "Tin Hatters" are no different than Ready Teddy and the rest of the clownish left when it comes to bitching about this new law.

Want some chesse served up with that whine?


What the hell is your problem bud? You sound ridiculous.

The Real Mad Max
August 6, 2004, 12:06 PM
I sound ridiculous? You dudes need a reality check.

At least I don't sound like a cacophony of Kennedy/Schumer/Feinstein/Kerry squawking about a return of the Wild Wild West because some retired cop can continue to carry a sidearm. Puhleeze!

Sheeze...

cordex
August 6, 2004, 12:39 PM
At least I don't sound like a cacophony of Kennedy/Schumer/Feinstein/Kerry squawking about a return of the Wild Wild West because some retired cop can continue to carry a sidearm. Puhleeze!
Huh?
Max, have you ever even read a single topic that you've responded to? I'm beginning to wonder.

I'm decidedly not concerned about some "wild west" scenario stemming from retired or active cops carrying, and that's the silliest straw-man I've seen in a long time. I bet that 98% or more of us want retired officers to be able to continue to carry. Some of us simply don't think that the right way to bring it about is to create a special class of people who are permitted the tools of self-defense based on their previous career choice.

A retired officer's life is not more valuable than mine.

tcsd1236
August 6, 2004, 12:48 PM
It would be good to see a National Civilian CCW passed, then the fascist states like CA & NY will have no exuses.
Make sure you distinguish between CITIES like NYC and LA and STATES in making such gun-related commentary.
While we are at it, if any sort of national CCW is passed, I absolutely want to see some sort of qualification course required , a test of knowledge regarding the lawful use of deadly physical force, and a demonstrated proficiency and knowledge of the weapon carried ( beyond the qual course). Officers have to know all of the above items. And given the vast differences that states have towards granting the state-level CCW, I want some sort of a criminal background check conducted on the applicant, because it sounds as if in some states you simply walk in, plunk down your money and walk out with a permit.

ctdonath
August 6, 2004, 01:12 PM
To those who complain about LE having national CCW but civilians not:

The whole point of "Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act of 2004" is to be a steppingstone for national CCW for all.

The Law Enforcement Alliance of America (http://leaa.org) is the nation's largest non-profit, non-partisan coalition of law enforcement professionals, crime victims, and concerned citizens united for justice. Passage of the "Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act of 2004" is the result of LEAA's 12-year efforts ... which should continue towards universal CCW.

Now that off-duty police can CCW everywhere, there is the standard to support CCW for all who are just as qualified, lacking only a badge.

BeLikeTrey
August 6, 2004, 01:42 PM
Wasn't it a fact that states had to recognize a marriage from another state (regardless of race, sexual assignment). I thought this was the issue raised by the whole recent marriage amendment thing... If so...why wouldn't it apply to firearms? I think this clause should be implemented. federal government as a whole flip flops alot for my taste. Dem's in, Repubs out, and so on and so forth... different views on 2nd amend all together... I'd rather keep the federales out of it thanks.

For instance, GWB is in office and we all register for this (should we get it) the FrankenKerry gets in and uses this registration to confiscate any one's (who registered) gun. No thanks, I'd like a little buffer with my firearms thanks! I do disagree with the Uber-Zitizen as well, however thanks.

Remember just because we think the law is good- there are enough laws already...Remember we say this alot! We should enforce the ones we have. I thought the Full faith and credit clause was one we should address and enforce.
-My.015 $ (right or wrong. if wrong PO-freaking-LITELY tell me and why) note those of you who have already asserted your Uber-Zitizen ideals (and you know who you are, need not apply, as you are on my ignore list)

pax
August 6, 2004, 01:55 PM
Hey guys,

Cool it with the personal attacks, please.

pax

The Real Mad Max
August 6, 2004, 05:18 PM
Some of us simply don't think that the right way to bring it about is to create a special class of people who are permitted the tools of self-defense based on their previous career choice.

I just don't believe it does create a special class of people. What it does do is recognize the retired LEOs for their service to the communities they spent their adult lives serving and protecting.

And I never said your life was any less valuable. It is equally as valuable.

But lets not pick nits here. The cops are the good guys. They are the ones who face the drunk pricks, the crack head zombies, the dealers, the insane, etc...day in and day out. I know many LEOs that receive death threats for their efforts. Yet they continue to function. Day in and day out... They shouldn't have to be regarded as easy targets once that badge comes off.

And if it upsets the Kennedy/Schumer bunch...well thats all the better in my book.

WonderNine
August 6, 2004, 06:41 PM
I just don't believe it does create a special class of people.

Then you are in denial of the facts.

They are the ones who face the drunk pricks, the crack head zombies, the dealers, the insane, etc...day in and day out. I know many LEOs that receive death threats for their efforts. Yet they continue to function. Day in and day out... They shouldn't have to be regarded as easy targets once that badge comes off.

TOP TEN MOST DANGEROUS JOBS IN AMERICA:

1. Timber cutters
2. Fishers
3. Pilots & Navigators
4. Structural Metal Workers
5. Drivers/Sales Workers
6. Roofers
7. Electrical Power Installers
8. Farmers
9. Construction Workers
10. Truck Drivers

And what about night cashiers? They deal with the "scum of the earth" on a daily basis as well and die in greater numbers than cops.

And if it upsets the Kennedy/Schumer bunch...well thats all the better in my book.

Are you sure they voted against it? They went after Kerry for voting against it, but I haven't heard anything about Chucky Cheese and Ted.

cordex
August 6, 2004, 07:17 PM
I just don't believe it does create a special class of people. What it does do is recognize the retired LEOs for their service to the communities they spent their adult lives serving and protecting.
It recognizes them by giving them immunity to state restrictions on carrying firearms. By placing them above the law that other have to live under even after their job no longer requires it. If that ain't a special class of people, I don't know what is.
And I never said your life was any less valuable. It is equally as valuable.
Why thanks. But if you defend a law that allows retired cops to carry handguns without regards to the state laws, but think I'm supposed to do without a defensive weapon when other states do not recognize my permit, you are placing the value of the retired officers' lives above my own.
But lets not pick nits here. The cops are the good guys.
For the most part, you're absolutely right. But am I not, sir?
They are the ones who face the drunk pricks, the crack head zombies, the dealers, the insane, etc...day in and day out. I know many LEOs that receive death threats for their efforts. Yet they continue to function. Day in and day out... They shouldn't have to be regarded as easy targets once that badge comes off.
So why is it I should be forced to be regarded as an easy target just because I don't wear a badge? I say again, this law creates a special class of people by granting them the authority to prepare to defend themselves when I'm forced to leave my weapons at home.

Again, I'm all for retired cops carrying wherever they like. You don't have to convince me of that. I simply don't understand why they should be allowed to carry where I'm prohibited.
And if it upsets the Kennedy/Schumer bunch...well thats all the better in my book.
*snort* It didn't bother them in the least. The bill passed the Senate by Unanimous Consent.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r108:1:./temp/~r1083jjqun::

The Real Mad Max
August 6, 2004, 07:36 PM
So why is it I should be forced to be regarded as an easy target just because I don't wear a badge? I say again, this law creates a special class of people by granting them the authority to prepare to defend themselves when I'm forced to leave my weapons at home.

I say it doesn't create a special class. It extends the same priveledge to them in retirement that they have had before retirement.

Not to mention that they have spent a life going where angels fear to tread...and you didn't.

WonderNine
August 6, 2004, 07:59 PM
I say it doesn't create a special class. It extends the same priveledge to them in retirement that they have had before retirement.

Perhaps it doesn't create a special class, but it reinforces the special class divide and conquer system that politicians are so famous for creating and people are so famous for being dumb enough to go along with. They didn't have the "priveledge" to carry CCW in all states before. Imagine if *gasp* retired police had to go throught the same CCW procedure that all the rest of us serfs have to go through when they retired and became peons like the rest of us.

Not to mention that they have spent a life going where angels fear to tread...and you didn't.

Tell that to a veteran, or anybody else who has worked a much more dangerous job. You might end up out cold on the sidewalk. I know I wouldn't stand for somebody saying that to me.

cordex
August 6, 2004, 08:24 PM
I say it doesn't create a special class. It extends the same priveledge to them in retirement that they have had before retirement.
Max ...
How is a group of people who used to work at an arbitrary job (but don't now) being granted the ability to ignore laws that everyone else must obey not creating a special class?

I'm still not clear as to why they should retain the "priveledge [sic]" they were given as part of their job when they are no longer a member of that profession. That's a rather unique class right there, isn't it?
Not to mention that they have spent a life going where angels fear to tread...and you didn't.
Now you're just making excuses as to why they should be given special treatment as a special class.

(I note that the law does not specify "Spent career going where angels fear to tread", and even cops who never touched a dangerous perp or heard a shot fired in anger in their life are permitted to ignore state gun carry laws, whereas the soldiers in my family who went places more dangerous than many police ever see in their lives are still bound by the same laws as me.)

Ironbarr
August 6, 2004, 08:47 PM
What it does do is recognize the retired LEOs for their service to the communities they spent their adult lives serving and protecting.I'm not knocking their new Privilege - I want to see unrestricted national carry - but if this law is a spring board to national carry (one step at a time), the concept of service "to the communities" certainly equates, or is trumped by, service "to the nation".

If service "to the communities" is a viable arguement for concealed carry by Leo's as a "first step" to unrestricted national concealed carry, then I submit that service "to the nation" is a viable "second step" to accomplish unrestricted national concealed carry by military retirees. As such, I want my national concealed carry capability right now - or ASAP/STAT/FAST, et al.

Of course, following "step two" is "step three" - the military/Leo/federal people who didn't join the retirement list - those with valuable, but lesser service time.

Then there are those "civilians" who hold state concealed carry;
... then those in training for said permits;
....... then those potential trainees of the future,

ad infinatum.

I suppose there are many "steps" to build on, but it seems that unrestricted national concealed carry is, as it should be, the provence of the people - ALL The People - more generally known as... The Militia.

Think of the Leo law as the first step in calling the unorganized militia to join the fray against internal terror and crime - this by providing for the most recently experienced personnel first, thence the next experienced, etc., thus providing additional eyes and ears to the task.

Could this be? More than a gift to service, but a well-thought out plan of action? Could there actually be thinkers of this magnitude? Wow!

I would hope so... we're probably going to need them.


For those "youngsters" among us, check my Sig for militia info - who knows, you may already be... The Militia.

mrapathy2000
August 6, 2004, 08:55 PM
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) [web1913]

Class \Class\, v. i.
To grouped or classed.

The genus or famiky under which it classes. --Tatham.

Class \Class\ (kl[.a]s), n. [F. classe, fr. L. classis class,
collection, fleet; akin to Gr. klh^sis a calling, kalei^n to
call, E. claim, haul.]
1. A group of individuals ranked together as possessing
common characteristics; as, the different classes of
society; the educated class; the lower classes.

3. A comprehensive division of animate or inanimate objects,
grouped together on account of their common
characteristics, in any classification in natural science,
and subdivided into orders, families, tribes, genera, etc.

4. A set; a kind or description, species or variety.

She had lost one class energies. --Macaulay.

5. (Methodist Church) One of the sections into which a church
or congregation is divided, and which is under the
supervision of a class leader.

Class \Class\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Classed; p. pr. & vb. n.
Classing.] [Cf. F. classer. See Class, n.]
1. To arrange in classes; to classify or refer to some class;
as, to class words or passages.

Note: In scientific arrangement, to classify is used instead
of to class. --Dana.

2. To divide into classes, as students; to form into, or
place in, a class or classes.

WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]

class
n 1: people having the same social or economic status; "the
working class"; "an emerging professional class" [syn: social
class, socio-economic class]

4: a collection of things sharing a common attribute; "there
are two classes of detergents" [syn: category, family]
6: a league ranked by quality; "he played baseball in class D
for two years"; "Princeton is in the NCAA Division 1-AA"
[syn: division]
v : arrange or order by classes or categories; "How would you
classify these pottery shards--are they prehistoric?"
[syn: classify, sort, assort, sort out, separate]
----------------------------------------
few off topic definitions removed.
I hate cut n paste post but sometimes its needed.

dont make me post more.

like Privilege or Right

tcsd1236
August 7, 2004, 12:47 AM
TOP TEN MOST DANGEROUS JOBS IN AMERICA:.....
None of the jobs listed other than LEOs has someone trying to kill the job holder strictly on the basis of the persons occupation, though.

S_O_Laban
August 7, 2004, 03:01 AM
None of the jobs listed other than LEOs has someone trying to kill the job holder strictly on the basis of the persons occupation, though.

I'd bet some pizza delivery types might just take issue with that statement.:)

pax
August 7, 2004, 03:17 AM
None of the jobs listed other than LEOs has someone trying to kill the job holder strictly on the basis of the persons occupation, though.
So?

Dead is dead.

pax

Wouldja rather they was pushed outta windows? -- Archie Bunker

FedDC
August 7, 2004, 01:09 PM
No, dead is not dead. Dying by being stomped to death on the side of the road after a traffic stop is a lot different than a construction accident or an electrician that accidentally grabs the wrong wire. A cop in Memphis was kidnapped a few years back and tortured for hours, his eyes were gouged out, he was burned with cigaretts...etc. That doesn't happen to heavy equipment operators.

The difference is that people actively try to kill cops on the job while most of those jobs have deaths through accidents.

The Real Mad Max
August 7, 2004, 01:29 PM
Its no use trying to talk sense into them.

There are none so blind as those that choose not to see.

ctdonath
August 7, 2004, 02:02 PM
No, dead is not dead.

Faced with such logic ( A != A ), a conversation is impossible to continue.

Those who wilfully ignore the plain meaning of words will not be persuaded by more words.

The Real Mad Max
August 7, 2004, 02:12 PM
Sadly, it just sounds more and more like a case of sour grapes...

and you are right, further discussion is futile.

lostone1413
August 7, 2004, 04:14 PM
Funny I guess us Non-LEOs are never victims of crimes. I agree it does creat a special class of people and it is the goverment saying that their life is more important then mine. Wonder how everyone would define the start of a police state. Kerry wants to make this the United States of The United Nations GWB wants a police state. Was a time when the far right talked about Watco or Ruby Ridge I though of them as nuts funny I don't look at it like that anymore

RevDisk
August 7, 2004, 05:10 PM
Not to mention that they have spent a life going where angels fear to tread...and you didn't.

Actually, I did spend a good amount of time doing so. Never as a LEO, I admit.


No, dead is not dead. Dying by being stomped to death on the side of the road after a traffic stop is a lot different than a construction accident or an electrician that accidentally grabs the wrong wire. A cop in Memphis was kidnapped a few years back and tortured for hours, his eyes were gouged out, he was burned with cigaretts...etc. That doesn't happen to heavy equipment operators.

Such things have happened to non-LEO also. There are some real sick puppies out there, and everyone deserves a chance to have tools to defend oneself.


They are the ones who face the drunk pricks, the crack head zombies, the dealers, the insane, etc...day in and day out. I know many LEOs that receive death threats for their efforts. Yet they continue to function. Day in and day out... They shouldn't have to be regarded as easy targets once that badge comes off.

Geesh, if I only had to deal with crackheads, drunks and insane folks, I'd be a happy camper.


Tell ya what, head down to the local VA hospital. Tell an old grunt that survived any war that he is not worthy of a national CCW. Tell a young grunt that is missing a limb or two that he didn't have a job that was important enough to warrant such trust. (Careful, one of my buddies learned that his new titanium alloy leg makes a nice club.) If ya see a 18 year old fresh out of boot, definitely be sure to tell him he's not important enough to be allowed to defend himself.

Better yet, head down to the regular hospital. Tell a guy that was severely beaten during a mugging on vacation that he doesn't deal with enough threats to warrant a national CCW. Or a woman that has been raped and is worrying that she might be HIV positive now.

If you can do so, you have a much stronger will than I do.


Look, I'm not honked at cops for being allowed to carry. I think they should be allowed to national carry. I just think non-LEO civilians should be allowed to do the same if they jump through the hoops. I see all lives as equally important. All I'm trying to point out is that everyone should have a chance for self-defense. Even if a person is NOT at a constant serious risk of life or limb, they should still be allowed to carry if they are not a criminal or mental. Civil liberties are civil liberties, and should be equally applied.

I'll be sending in my application for a Florida CCW soon enough. A police officer I used to serve with is doing my fingerprint cards on his off time as a favor. It's an annoying process to apply for a bunch of non-resident cards, but I intend to do it anyways. I consider my life to be important.


My $0.02

The Real Mad Max
August 7, 2004, 08:49 PM
Tell ya what, head down to the local VA hospital. Tell an old grunt that survived any war that he is not worthy of a national CCW. Tell a young grunt that is missing a limb or two that he didn't have a job that was important enough to warrant such trust. (Careful, one of my buddies learned that his new titanium alloy leg makes a nice club.) If ya see a 18 year old fresh out of boot, definitely be sure to tell him he's not important enough to be allowed to defend himself.

Nah. I'll let YOU do that.

I never ONCE implied or said that they or anyone else didn't deserve to have CCW priveleges. Don't put words into my mouth.

You and YOUR ilk seem to be the ones that want to deny a group CCW, not me. And oh by the way, I "are" one of them vets.

There are none so deaf as those that would not hear...

I notice your signature line conforms perfectly to yourself. Congratulations on a self fulfilling prophecy.

Hawkmoon
August 7, 2004, 11:06 PM
I say it doesn't create a special class. It extends the same priveledge to them in retirement that they have had before retirement.
Errrr ... no, it does not. Prior to the passage of the new law, LEOs could carry outside of their home state only when on duty on an official assignment. At all other times and under all other circumstances (excluding FEDERAL LEOs, of course), LEOs became ordinary citizens the moment they crossed a state border. Sure, many LEOs likely would never cite a brother LEO who was found carrying illegally outside of the jusrisdiction in which he was sworn, but the absence of a citation does not render an illegal act legal.

The Real Mad Max
August 7, 2004, 11:17 PM
Ah well...

Split milk boys. Get over it.

cordex
August 8, 2004, 05:55 PM
I never ONCE implied or said that they or anyone else didn't deserve to have CCW priveleges. Don't put words into my mouth.
Isn't that exactly what were saying with:
Not to mention that they have spent a life going where angels fear to tread...and you didn't.

Max, it's simple. I believe police (active, retired ... whatever) should be allowed to carry wheresoever they choose to go, but not because they're police. Simply because for the most part they're members of a segment of the populace who are - in the colloquial - "good guys".
But then ... so are the vast majority of other folks. Me included.

You've spent this entire thread making excuses for the law's special exemption for a certain class of people while denying that such a special class is being created. You tell us exactly why you think certain people of an arbitrary occupation should receive "CCW priveleges" before others, and then tell us that you haven't said any such thing. To top it all off, you try to make anyone who disagrees out to be the unreasonable ones.

But is this just "sour grapes"? Is this just jealousy and bitterness? Yeah, I suppose it is. In the same way people have always been jealous of any group set aside by law and given special privileges by governments. In the same way I'd be jealous if retired IRS agents didn't have to pay speeding tickets or professional basketball players were exempt from income taxes. In the same way I'd be bitter if members of labor unions were given two votes in any election to my one, or retired firefighters could seize for themselves one property they'd helped save.

But it's awful easy to dismiss the opposition as ignorant jealousy when you've already gotten the special status you sought.

Blackhawk 6
August 8, 2004, 08:06 PM
I am not an LEO but I believe this is a good piece of legislation. The intent of the legislation was not to create a special class of citizens. It is about crime. The politicians saw a way to be tough on crime without having to spend any money. In some small way it probably does reduce crime.

Why single out the police? For one simple reason: The majority of people believe that it police officers are the only people who are capable of dealing with criminals and a firearm is a vital piece of equipment for the officer to perform that function. This is why retired officers were included. This is not to say that there are not non-LEO's who are more proficient with a firearm. Some are, but many are not.

In my experience, the overwhelming majority of law enforcement is worthy of this privelage. Most are good people doing a hard job and would not hesitate to act if they saw a violent crime occurring outside their home state. Providing a means to ensure they have the capability to act makes sense.

I have read with interest the replies posted by members of the law enforcement profession. I believe the justifications they have offered do a poor job of defending the legislation. Here are my objections:

1. We have a dangerous job/ People are trying to kill us.

You most certainly do and they most certainly are. However, I feel safe in making the statement that most police officers are targeted in their own community, not while they are vacationing elsewhere in the country. I would be surprised if there was a pattern of police officers being assassinated while on vacation.

Additionally, you come across as being insensitive to the plight of the non-LEO when you make such a statement. For every violent criminal you have encountered, there is a victim of a violent crime (probably several) who was probably not an LEO. You have dealt with the aftermath of many of these encounters. Many non-LEO's, especially those on this forum, are no different from you in their desire to be able to act in defense of themselves or others.

2. This is a stepping stone to National CCW.

There is no basis to believe such a statement. The majority of law enforcement organizations are anti-gun/anti-ccw. Off-duty CCW for police in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and dozens of other juridictions has never led to other citizens being afforded the same ability. (On a side note, those of you who support citizens' rights to own firearms/carry concealed need to do a better job of policing the organizations that represent your profession.)

3. It does not create a special class of citizen.

Sure it does. It allows you to do something that most people are not permitted to do. Why deny it? This is not the first piece of legislation to do so and it will not be the last. There is a class of people who can drink, buy firearms, prescribe medication, fly a plane, etc. while others can not. It may not be fair, it may not be Constitutional, but it is how things are. Our elected officials found you worthy of being entrusted with this privelage. If people do not like it, they should take it up with their elected official.

Until the public's perception changes and there is a general realization that firearms proficiency is not the exclusive perview of law enforcement and that armed citizens do have an impact on crime we will not see a national CCW. Those of you who take issue with this law need to work to change these perceptions.

lostone1413
August 8, 2004, 08:34 PM
You really think it is about crime?? To me it is the start of a police state not some of are leaders are wanting the UN to monitor are election in Nov. To agree with the bill you have to think that 1- LEOs are more honest then 95% of us Non-LEOs 2- You have to believe that their life and the life of their family is more important then your life and the life of your family Hello can anyone see the forest through all the trees???????????

lostone1413
August 8, 2004, 08:42 PM
Forgot some of the points you made 1- True their job is dangerous but so are allot of jobs. Spent 15 years in the Ironworkers bet not many LEOs have seen as many of the ones they work with get busted up or killed as I have. 2- As far as a stepping stone for a national CCW Go to www.keepandbeararms.com see how many want to keep the AWB and are against the Non_LEO having a CCW 3- We are a Republic are right is in the bill of rights as if that means anything anymore. One reason for the 2nd was to protect you from goverment officials That is what LEOs are

The Real Mad Max
August 8, 2004, 08:45 PM
There you go again putting words into my mouth. Pendantic.

I'll try one more time.

HR 218 is good legislation. PERIOD. It keeps guns in the hands of good guys. PERIOD.

I never said I was against national CCW for ANYONE that qualifies. PERIOD. That is keeping guns in the hands of good guys. PERIOD.

How much clearer can I make that?

Blackhawk 6: Truly a voice of reason. Thank you!


lostone1413: Be careful. With that kind of reasoning, you'll be making Reynolds Wrap happy. Thats the same kind of paranoid illogic that Kenshumstein uses...

cordex
August 9, 2004, 02:27 AM
There you go again putting words into my mouth. Pendantic.
I'm not putting words in your mouth if you said them, am I? ;)
HR 218 is good legislation. PERIOD. It keeps guns in the hands of good guys. PERIOD.
Oh certainly, it does put guns into the hands of a few good guys. Which is all well and good for those particular good guys. But the chances of one of those good guys being around to save me are about as good as ... well ... the chances that a cop will be around to save me. In other words, possible but unlikely. Which is exactly why I carry a weapon in the first place - because I don't expect police (in state, out of state, on duty, retired, whatever) to *poof* into existance wherever I'm having a problem and come save me.

As I said in my first reply to you, I support police being given national CCW. I don't care for the special class of people being created through the law. Period.

I wonder how you'd feel about a law that gave CCW holders (and former CCW holders) national carry but specifically excluded police. In that case, some good guys would still be carrying guns. Somehow, I'd bet that you'd Kerry out and oppose that kind of legislation. And I'd have to join you in your opposition because it'd have exactly the same problems as the current law.

atek3
August 9, 2004, 05:15 AM
This thread needs more "GeneC" to go along with FedDC and The Real Mad Max to tow the government's line.

"Stepping Stone for carry by all". Uh huh, and I got a great piece of waterfront property for sale.

Considering the factoid that cops shoot innocent people at a rate of five times non-police officers (10 percent vs. 2 percent), perhaps we would be safer with national ccw for non-LEO only.

atek3

lostone1413
August 9, 2004, 12:30 PM
Think them white coats are for people who think that a LEO is more law abiding then they other 95% of non-leos out their Let them pass a law making it illegal for non-leos to have guns and see how many of them good leos come in your home to take your guns away. As I said this is a first step to a police state. As I said before true their is danger in their jobs but allot of jobs are a heck of allot more dangerous. I Phoenix about a week ago watching a story about a LEO in Boston who was training and his horse fell on him and he got hurt. Couldn't help but wonder how many of us peons just in the Phoenix area in the last 24hr got hurt way worst but it won't even be in the local paper.

EricOKC
August 9, 2004, 02:03 PM
The Real Mad Max,

you said:

Sadly, it just sounds more and more like a case of sour grapes...

Well yes, it is sour grapes. We are quite irritated that people like you, who are supposed to be public servants, see nothing wrong with the general public being disarmed while you carry anywhere you damn well please, simply by virtue of the fact that you wear, or once wore, a badge.

The Real Mad Max
August 9, 2004, 03:17 PM
We are quite irritated that people like you, who are supposed to be public servants, see nothing wrong with the general public being disarmed while you carry anywhere you damn well please, simply by virtue of the fact that you wear, or once wore, a badge.

Either you CAN'T read or WON'T read. Either way, its shows you to be intellectually challenged. And that is something I can't do anything about.

I suggest you <Art Edit> go back and reread my posts. If you are capable.



:rolleyes:

The Real Mad Max
August 9, 2004, 03:18 PM
As I said in my first reply to you, I support police being given national CCW. I don't care for the special class of people being created through the law.

Whatever.

cordex
August 9, 2004, 03:27 PM
Whatever.
Speaking of pedantic ... ;)

WonderNine
August 9, 2004, 04:34 PM
I can't see how this will help national CCW for us peons as FedDC is already making excuses as to why police organizations won't help with it. "Because a small number of people were against LEO ONLY national CCW, the police organizations won't push for national CCW for all citizens." It's enough to make you hurl.

That's why the government slavemasters always win though. They turn us citizens against each other everytime.

Muzzleflash
August 9, 2004, 04:55 PM
Remember guys- just because CCW legislation isn't "perfect" or doesn't satisfy you by covering everything at once doesn't mean that it shouldn't happen.

It's called incrementalism, and it's how we lost most of our rights- and it's the surest way to retake them.

cordex
August 9, 2004, 05:23 PM
It's called incrementalism, and it's how we lost most of our rights- and it's the surest way to retake them.
I don't know that I can agree here.
Police departments have nearly always been exempt to some extent from just about every gun law. I note that their ability to obtain tax-exempt NFA weapons and post '86 machine guns have done nothing to change those laws for the better. Assuming the AWB sunsets in September, I don't see it's sunset as the result of incrementalism by giving police the ability to obtain post '94 Semi-automatic Assault Weapons. What's more, police lobbying organizations (including many of which lobbied for LEO carry exemption) have long supported anti-gun laws for everyone else.

I hope that it does turn out to be useful, but I don't see it yet.

The Real Mad Max
August 10, 2004, 12:49 AM
Speaking of pedantic ...

Well, I had to put it in terms that you would understand. ;) ;)

mrapathy2000
August 10, 2004, 01:05 AM
http://12.217.194.67/mrapathy/smiley-gifs/horse.gif

The Real Mad Max
August 10, 2004, 01:12 AM
:)

So true!

If you enjoyed reading about "Legislation For The 6,000,000+ Legally Armed Civilians Needs To Be Implemented" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!