Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Not sure if I understand you exactly here. Did you just say that you face danger and might need these weapons, that are forbidden to an average citizen?
Ask yourself again why there's a rift between us!
Closing the Police Loophole. Support list. Refusing LEO sales.
- Thread starter joeschmoe
- Start date
- Status
Ask yourself again why there's a rift between us!
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
If you see anyone posting anti-cop "venom" hit the report post button. We have strict rules against cop-bashing here.
Deanimator
Member
They're literally up to their necks in the "volatile and political scenario" of repressive, unconstitutional gun control.
There are ALWAYS rank and file cops willing to lend themselves to the most dishonest, propagandistic photo ops pushing gun control.
There were always cops willing to stand around Richard M. Daley, just as there are cops willing to be props for Bloomberg, Obama, Biden, Feinstein etc.
Does pointing out this UNDENIABLE truth "incite cop killings"?
If TRUTH "incites cop killings", does that mean we have a duty to LIE???
cluck
Member
LEO's and the Constitution
I'm finding in my personal experience with LEO's that Chiefs, Commissioners, and Sheriffs seem to be the ones coming out publicly against 2nd amendment rights while run of the mill patrol officers (the ones I talk to) are all FOR citizen armament. Anybody else see this?
I'm finding in my personal experience with LEO's that Chiefs, Commissioners, and Sheriffs seem to be the ones coming out publicly against 2nd amendment rights while run of the mill patrol officers (the ones I talk to) are all FOR citizen armament. Anybody else see this?
Deanimator
Member
My observation says it's mixed, and dependent upon where you are.
Rural and small town cops generally seem less inclined to support repressive gun controls.
Big city cops seem much more receptive, both to citizen disarmament, and a privileged position above such laws.
The truth is, anti-gun politicians can ALWAYS find rank and file cops to act as props.
mister_murphy
Member
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2006
- Messages
- 104
I seem to notice that its generally larger city Chiefs and some Sheriffs, perhaps a few state guys being used as a back drop, who also tend to speak out on their views, as if its the view of te entire department/city administration.
What I dont see is a ton of the media rushing out to interview a patrol officer/deputy who does not support gun control. The rank and file guys dont have the clout, or else they more then likely would have been promoted for one reason or another in some departments. Many departments I know of have a policy forbiding the rank and file from using their position for political issues.
I also dont see companies who want LEO to speak out against gun control, who are offering a possible job, when said LEO is fired for violating department policy by using his position to speak politically either.
Unfortunately there is no right answer. Folks want LEO's to speak out now about this topic politcally, but I doubt they want LEO's to speak out politically on other topics. I personally do not want law enforcement in politics at all. LE should be impartial and enforce the laws enacted, by the elected reps, who were voted in to ofice by the public.
I do not think this effort to "close the police loophole" will be effective in the end. I really dont. There is no direction, as in some people I have spoke with, look at it to keep away an AWB, others looking at it to open NFA, some want to remove import restrictions, some want to "Mail order" firearms like LE does...List goes on and on, without any specific direction.
What I dont see is a ton of the media rushing out to interview a patrol officer/deputy who does not support gun control. The rank and file guys dont have the clout, or else they more then likely would have been promoted for one reason or another in some departments. Many departments I know of have a policy forbiding the rank and file from using their position for political issues.
I also dont see companies who want LEO to speak out against gun control, who are offering a possible job, when said LEO is fired for violating department policy by using his position to speak politically either.
Unfortunately there is no right answer. Folks want LEO's to speak out now about this topic politcally, but I doubt they want LEO's to speak out politically on other topics. I personally do not want law enforcement in politics at all. LE should be impartial and enforce the laws enacted, by the elected reps, who were voted in to ofice by the public.
I do not think this effort to "close the police loophole" will be effective in the end. I really dont. There is no direction, as in some people I have spoke with, look at it to keep away an AWB, others looking at it to open NFA, some want to remove import restrictions, some want to "Mail order" firearms like LE does...List goes on and on, without any specific direction.
Last edited:
Deanimator
Member
How about they don't speak out IN FAVOR OF gun control?
That never seems to be an option...
Skylerbone
Member
If a LEO truly respects our Constitutional rights then there are only so many choices that can be made.
1. Refuse to enforce any law that LEOs are not subject to. Note subject implies a master and in this Republic the People are the Government and therefore should never be subjects of any elevated agency or individual.
2. Turn in his badge and speak out for freedom. One cannot be at odds with the law one enforces, we call that hipocracy whether it's "Department Policy" or not.
3. Privately encourage all companies that refuse Agency sales and the NRA as a means of upholding Constitutional Rights for all.
Agreeing to break the "Golden Rule", subjugating Citizens, claiming special needs and denying the truth of what's going on wont earn my respect. The fact powder that you cite your need for special equipment is your own indictment. Whether you claim the opposite or not you don't believe other people should have access to the same.
1. Refuse to enforce any law that LEOs are not subject to. Note subject implies a master and in this Republic the People are the Government and therefore should never be subjects of any elevated agency or individual.
2. Turn in his badge and speak out for freedom. One cannot be at odds with the law one enforces, we call that hipocracy whether it's "Department Policy" or not.
3. Privately encourage all companies that refuse Agency sales and the NRA as a means of upholding Constitutional Rights for all.
Agreeing to break the "Golden Rule", subjugating Citizens, claiming special needs and denying the truth of what's going on wont earn my respect. The fact powder that you cite your need for special equipment is your own indictment. Whether you claim the opposite or not you don't believe other people should have access to the same.
mister_murphy
Member
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2006
- Messages
- 104
Guess I must be on another planet... There are around 750,000 to 1,000,000 LEO's in the USA, I just havent seen anywhere near that many on the news speaking in favor of gun control. All I typically see are the NYC, northeast big cities, Chicago, and California Chiefs/Sheriffs who speak out for it... Again, the ones I see speaking out are the political appointees (large metro areas) or those elected (large metro areas) who are speaking out for gun more gun control. The ones I see speaking out against any new gun control are LE political appointees (rural areas) or those elected (rural areas).
At the end of the day, stay quiet, or speak out (either way), many will disagree totally. There is really no common ground on it.
This would be a bad move as well IMO. Why give all of LE to the anti's? Why not encourage those LEO's who are pro firearm ownership to work within the laws/policy to make many departments more pro firearm ownership, including changing laws/policy, instead of letting the anti's do as they wish? I would rather work on making things better then just giving up to the anti's...But I digress, perhaps I should agree with you that all the departments should employee and be controlled by anti's, even the departments that are very much pro firearm ownership now.
Last edited:
Just my .02 as a former LEO. I salute any company who states they will not sell guns or parts to government entities that a citizen cannot buy. In my life time I have seen the LEO crowd go from Officer Friendly to the Storm Trooper mentality. I know not all LEOs fall into this statement but it is a trend. In my line of work I am side by side with LEO's on calls all day and night. When I was a kid the officers were your neighbors and friends and the way they approached things were more Mayberry for lack of a better term. It seems over the years, even in rural areas the attitude has progressed into a militant storm trooper that is above the average joe. I am not trying to bash a profession but I think we are all in this together and given the fact that you are more likely to be a victim of a crime by a LEO than a CCW permit holder, I think that we should all have the same right to the way we protect ourselves. No one is better or above another because of the job they do.
Skylerbone
Member
Well MM, if there's only a handful of LEOs standing for totalitarianism then when the rank and file walk off the job the idea may finally hit home. Or we can go with your train of thought that fighting 2A attacks is pointless if it involves a multi-faceted approach and hope they magically reverse direction.
Deanimator
Member
There are virtually ALWAYS rank and file cops willing to be props for anti-gun photo ops. Even if they don't say a word, they're speaking out in favor of repressive anti-gun measures.
I wonder what would happen if Wayne La Pierre went to a pro-Christopher Dorner event and just stood behind the main speaker without saying a word...
You just refuse to accept it happened? I posted multiple sources, pics, location, time and date. Look it up yourself. Google "Obama + Minneapolis + gun control". It's even on the official White House website.
:banghead:
I guess this is how you have convinced yourself that LEO are the victims here despite their current and decades of continued support for these anti 2nd Amendment attacks.
coloradokevin
Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2008
- Messages
- 3,285
Whoa there... hold up on the "anti-gun" police for a moment, if you would please.
First, most line officers I know support gun rights (and I'm a police officer, so I know a BUNCH of them). Most police chiefs are against gun rights. Most line officers consider police chiefs to be office-dwelling politicians who have lost touch with police work.
So, to suggest that officers are against 2nd Amendment rights deserves much further scrutiny. Did you happen to notice the 30 county sheriffs who spoke in favor of gun rights during the Colorado debate (the actual top dog, not deputies)? Did you happen to notice the other officers who spoke up on this issue in favor of gun rights? Most of us can't attend hearings in uniform, or identify our department in these debates... we were given that specific order regarding the gun issue. Our brass doesn't want us taking a stance on this issue as representatives of our departments. So, we represent ourselves, and all of you.
Like the rest of our citizens, we need our gun rights. And, unlike most of the rest of our citizens, we routinely volunteer to go into situations where the use of a gun may become necessary, and sometimes does.
I don't want to take your rights away, but I don't think the best way to defend 2nd Amendment rights is by trying to make sure that the police are equally underarmed in the performance of their duties. Shall we disarm the military while we're at it?
Personally, I like the Magpul approach, even if it is a ceremonial statement more than anything:
Require officers in ban states to pledge to defend the constitution, and support gun rights for all citizens.
Doing that sends a message, without just sounding like we're trying to strip more people of their guns.
Just my $0.02
First, most line officers I know support gun rights (and I'm a police officer, so I know a BUNCH of them). Most police chiefs are against gun rights. Most line officers consider police chiefs to be office-dwelling politicians who have lost touch with police work.
So, to suggest that officers are against 2nd Amendment rights deserves much further scrutiny. Did you happen to notice the 30 county sheriffs who spoke in favor of gun rights during the Colorado debate (the actual top dog, not deputies)? Did you happen to notice the other officers who spoke up on this issue in favor of gun rights? Most of us can't attend hearings in uniform, or identify our department in these debates... we were given that specific order regarding the gun issue. Our brass doesn't want us taking a stance on this issue as representatives of our departments. So, we represent ourselves, and all of you.
Like the rest of our citizens, we need our gun rights. And, unlike most of the rest of our citizens, we routinely volunteer to go into situations where the use of a gun may become necessary, and sometimes does.
I don't want to take your rights away, but I don't think the best way to defend 2nd Amendment rights is by trying to make sure that the police are equally underarmed in the performance of their duties. Shall we disarm the military while we're at it?
Personally, I like the Magpul approach, even if it is a ceremonial statement more than anything:
Require officers in ban states to pledge to defend the constitution, and support gun rights for all citizens.
Doing that sends a message, without just sounding like we're trying to strip more people of their guns.
Just my $0.02
Do you, like Powder above, think these things never happened. Scrutinize this;
Obama's Gun Control speech. Minn, Feb 4, 2013
Last edited:
Deanimator
Member
So ONLY citizens should be "underarmed"?
If a citizen in New York only needs seven rounds, why does a cop in New York need more?
Do you believe that the police should be armed as the military are armed, with indirect fire weapons such as mortars, artillery and multiple launch rocket systems? How about M16A1 bounding mines?
Do you consider that the police should carry out their duties in a manner similar to that of the military? Should the police have handled the Christopher Dorner incident the way the 1st Cavalry Division handled the taking of Manila? Would you consider the rules of engagement in play in Aachen to be appropriate for Chicago or Cleveland?
Apparently police think this is fiction? You need to open your eyes. Do your own research since you refuse to believe anything we post no matter how many sources we provide.
For years the anti's have been supported by the Police Associations, Unions and associations of Police Chiefs, Sheriffs organizations, etc.
Individual officers often claim these organizations don't represent them, but of course they do represent them in a literal and figurative sense.
The anti's have been drawing a bright clear line, claiming that LEO's stand with them. We need to put an end to this;
Obama's AWB speech.
Deanimator
Member
Obama's Gun Control speech. Minn, Feb 4, 2013
Are we to believe that the uniformed LEOs in this picture are:
- rogues acting against policy
- actors
- imposters
"Photoshopped"... like the moon landings?
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Kevin, I appreciate your thoughts. I am torn, slightly, on this issue as I know that there are many GOOD cops and sheriffs and deputies who will be inconvenienced (at least!) by these efforts. That is very unfortunate. I wish is was not so. But putting them under the same constraint may be the only way to show some of them what it is like to live under the laws we'd like their help to resist.
So "but I might need those guns" is a horrid thing to say for your own sake when your neighbor is being disarmed.
Surely, if he can make due with 10 round mags, etc. -- then so can you.
Yes, that does seem to be the case. However, when "Law Enforcement" steps up to stand against the rights of the citizen, then the citizen and those who support/supply them certainly have the right to stand up and demand that what's good for one citizen is good for every other. No special classes when it comes to the right to arms.
Yes! And that's beautiful and well appreciated. That's the kind of Law Enforcement we can support.
Right. That's your department declaring what Law Enforcement will say on the matter. Notice how they at the upper levels don't hold themselves above the battle? They don't want your voices clouding the issue. Their voices and opinions are what matter. And they (not just in CO, but all across the country, usually quite against citizens' rights) are not above making political stands.
This is where I run the risk of offending every cop in the world, but I'll speak the truth. The fact that you draw a paycheck based on your willful decision to go into situations where a gun might be necessary makes your inherent right to those weapons NOT ONE BIT MORE VALID than your neighbor for whom the violence may come to him, in his home, based on no willful act of his.
So "but I might need those guns" is a horrid thing to say for your own sake when your neighbor is being disarmed.
None of us truly WANTS the police "underarmed." However, if that is a tool to achieve a higher end, than sometimes such sacrifices are warranted. I am sorry, truly, if you find yourself in a bad way due to such efforts -- but I'm even sorrier for the non-sworn citizen who's arms are limited by his government.
Surely, if he can make due with 10 round mags, etc. -- then so can you.
The military is not a civilian entity. They are not allowed to operate as a military force on US soil (under almost any conditions). That's a red herring.
Last edited:
Skylerbone
Member
I am squarely against abortion and gun control which is why I will never work for Planned Parenthood or the Brady Campaign. I don't traffic in narcotics to support my local churches and I don't see how any officer anywhere can work for an agency enforcing laws contradictory to the Constitution in good faith. No, I'm just the armed messenger here to haul you off to jail to await your hearing doesn't cut it. Men of integrity don't assist the enemy, they would sooner find another line of work.
At least when politicians pose in front of Military personnel we all understand they are following orders and have no choice by to be used as props. So we don't apply any support by the troops to the hack standing in front of them. The public believes, as the anti's claim, that they have the support of "rank and file" LEO's on the street.
Decades of unbroken support by every single LEO organization cannot be confused for anything except the unanimous support of LEO's for attacks on the 2nd Amendment.
Deanimator
Member
But can't those cops be sent to Leavenworth (or the Russian front) if they refuse to be props for gun control???
When you have police leaders claiming the Second Amendment is dangerous...then having his underlings limited by the same laws as other citizens can certainly make him think before he opens his mouth again.
These companies are not discriminating against anyone...they are making sure we are all equal.
Egalitarianism at its best.
coloradokevin
Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2008
- Messages
- 3,285
Sam1911 said:
A couple of quick counterpoints:
1) I'm not trying to disarm my neighbor. I'm trying to ensure that all of the good folks in our society have the right to keep arms for the defense of themselves, their family, and their community.
2) In my fight to ensure that we all have gun rights, I haven't found that the most effectual way to ensure those rights is to make sure that we disarm more people. Is it fair that police can have stuff that citizens can't? No, it isn't... it wasn't fair during the last AWB, either, and I was not an officer for part of that ban period.
3) We need to fight for our rights. I've been working years for that cause, and have dedicated what literally must be over 100 hours of time to this cause since the Sandy Hook incident alone. Why not focus our efforts on stopping these laws, rather than focusing on what appears to be thinly-veiled punitive measures against law enforcement officers?
4) The chiefs don't care. When we asked to carry AR-15's as patrol rifles, they didn't like it. When we asked to carry more suitable weapons for the job(s) we were doing, they didn't like it. They don't care, and they won't change. The only victims in this issue are all of the rest of us (police or not).
5) I already carry a duty weapon with a 10-round magazine. I own my own AR-15, which I carry as a patrol rifle, and lets just say that I'm already well set on magazines. So, this is really just a statement I'm trying to make philosophically in saying that we don't gain gun rights by trying to further restrict gun rights.
Skylerbone said:
I'm not sure I entirely understand what you're talking about, or if your comment is direct towards me or someone else. But, the job I have does not place me at odds with the constitution that I swore to defend. I'm not unjustly arresting people, or unjustly hauling innocent people off to jail. I'm arresting criminals for real crimes, and spending much of my own time advocating for the rights of our citizens when I'm not at work. My job isn't to serve as an assistant to a politician, or a private mercenary squad for the government... my job is to serve the citizens of my jurisdiction by enforcing law and order within the bounds of the US Constitution. The oath I swore required no more of me than that.
I started another thread in this section of the forum last night (seeking to amend the Colorado constitution). So far that thread has received no replies, though I believe it is an idea that is very well in-line with protecting the rights of Coloradans. If you are questioning my stance on this issue, or if you somehow believe that I'm coming for your guns, you might want to review my other posts on this forum.
Deanimator
Member
In the crazy cloudcuckooland of gun control advocacy (and privileged classes) treating everybody the same is "discrimination", and limiting the police to the same arms as everyone else is "underarming" them...
- Status
