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

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by CWL, Dec 22, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. rondog

    rondog Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Messages:
    6,838
    Location:
    Commurado
    Wait a damn minute!!! I did NOT say that!!!! I was referring to the CRIMINALS and GANGBANGERS in our society that the cops NEED these type rifles to be on more equal terms with!

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

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

    KBintheSLC Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2007
    Messages:
    3,207
    Location:
    Stalingrad, USA
    I think that era of a respectable Hollywood presence is long gone.

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

    That is insane thinking... and it would be insane to do any such thing. I doubt that LE and Gov officials want to wage a war against gun owners. That would be suicide.
     
    Last edited: Dec 23, 2008
  3. Sinixstar

    Sinixstar member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2008
    Messages:
    897
    Was there ever one to begin with?
     
  4. Kind of Blued

    Kind of Blued Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2007
    Messages:
    3,676
    Location:
    Rocky Mountains
    It is touchy subjects like these that bring out the antis that we have in our midst.

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

    Sinixstar member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2008
    Messages:
    897
    I actually just noticed this line - and I think perhaps there's something you're not realizing.

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

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

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

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
  6. ravonaf

    ravonaf Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2008
    Messages:
    195
    First of all. I have no real problem with cops having AR's. It's a tool to do a job. It's how they do the job that I have a problem with.

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

    Sinixstar member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2008
    Messages:
    897
    I don't think you can separate one issue from the other.
    The argument is that "cops don't need more guns". "These guns are too dangerous to be in the hands of police", "we're militarizing our police".
    If we start making these arguments to regulate one group of people, how do you NOT apply the same statements to another group?
    How do you avoid the double standard that - average people can buy these guns, but police can't?

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

    ravonaf Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2008
    Messages:
    195
    I think there's should be a limit to Law Enforcements role in dealing with the public. I think the REASONS they want military hardware are what's wrong.

    The worst case scenario at this point is there will be a total economic collapse/great depression and this military hardware is used to round people up to be put into FEMA camps for thier own good.
     
  9. sharpshooterz98

    sharpshooterz98 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2008
    Messages:
    20
    God damn, there's a lot of whackjobs here. I guess its just not enough that a guy tries to do a nice and donate cash to his local PD so they can buy better guns.


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

    :cool:
     
  10. ravonaf

    ravonaf Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2008
    Messages:
    195
    Let's put it this way. An average person buying AR's with the purpose to commit a crime is bad. Law Enforcement buying AR's to possibly victimize the public is just as bad. I'm concerned with the reason the politicians think the police need to be militarized. Not with the fact that they have weapons.

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

    goon Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2003
    Messages:
    7,249
    How many of us on here have load bearing gear to go with our rifles?
    Got a vest or old ALICE set-up to accessorize your AR in the event you'd need it?
    Is that really an unreasonable thing to do?
    Anymore, I'm thinking that having a decent rifle and a few loaded magazines ready to roll RIGHT NOW isn't a half bad idea.

    If it's OK for us to be so armed, why not also the police?
     
  12. Frog48

    Frog48 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2006
    Messages:
    2,201
    Location:
    Somewhere down in Texas
    I used to think that way too. But I've come to realize that there are some circumstances where an AR15 is perfectly appropriate for patrol use.

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

    Sinixstar member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2008
    Messages:
    897
    But again, you're talking about "they don't NEED that to do their jobs". Well - nobody NEEDS an AR to defend themselves. Nobody NEEDS an AR to go to the range, NOBODY NEEDS and AR period (aside from active duty military).

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

    ravonaf Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2008
    Messages:
    195
    I guess with the name calling you aren't taking the high road?

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

    Sinixstar member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2008
    Messages:
    897
    And in any situation you mentioned - is it any more or less outrageous if this happens with or without an AR-15?

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

    ravonaf Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2008
    Messages:
    195
    Police should be disarmed only to the point of needing the equipment to do their job and nothing more. It's not a gun rights issue. It's a public servant doing their job issue. If it isn't their job to wage war then they don't need the tools to do so.

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

    taprackbang member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2008
    Messages:
    411
    Good point....Agreed
     
  18. Sinixstar

    Sinixstar member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2008
    Messages:
    897
    But again - you have no more right to decide "need" then the Brady Bunch has to decide your need.

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

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

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

    ravonaf Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2008
    Messages:
    195
    I would just prefer they stop doing those things altogether.

    I recognize a need for SWAT. There are real bad guys out there. But the entire police force doesn't need to be armed as such. Just my opinion.
     
  20. sharpshooterz98

    sharpshooterz98 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2008
    Messages:
    20
    I apologize for the name calling, it was juvenile. Just kinda calling it as I see 'em but could have said it differently.

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

    ravonaf Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2008
    Messages:
    195
    Yes I do. The Police work for the tax payer. I don't work for the Brady Bunch.

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

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

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

    Sinixstar member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2008
    Messages:
    897
    I'm done with this. Seriously - i cannot for a second even begin to imagine how you rationalize this thought process.

    I give up.
     
  23. ravonaf

    ravonaf Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2008
    Messages:
    195
    It's all good.

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

    bpsig Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Messages:
    132
    Location:
    tn
    Actually A lot of the officers already have them. But the leadership have stated it is forbidden to use personal weapons. Must be issued . But they ppd won't let them or spend the $ to buy new ones nor even call USARmy and get free ones from them m16A1 . So It's like the old easier to do than ask for permission.
     
  25. JImbothefiveth

    JImbothefiveth Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2008
    Messages:
    2,710
    Location:
    Oklahio
    The war on drugs is a fight against "real bad guys".

    And besides, if Joe-sixpack can own these weapons, why shouldn't officers be allowed? What if an officer wanted to buy one to hunt varmints, could he buy one then? Should he be allowed to take it to work?
     
    Last edited: Dec 23, 2008
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice