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. kilo729

    kilo729 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2008
    Messages:
    213
    Way to go David!
     
  2. JImbothefiveth

    JImbothefiveth Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2008
    Messages:
    2,710
    Location:
    Oklahio
    The government wasn't getting rifles for the officers, so Mr. Spade did. He did not give it to the government, the people who request earmarks on capitol hill, but to police officers.
     
  3. ravonaf

    ravonaf Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2008
    Messages:
    195
    Of course he can. It's his right under the 2nd amendment to own those weapons. It's not their right for the taxpayer to issue them to them however.

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


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

    ravonaf Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2008
    Messages:
    195
    So those rifles are now privately owned by the police officers? I'm thinking he bought the AR's for the department to issue to the officers. Not for their private ownership. In which case the government owns them.
     
  5. hankdatank1362

    hankdatank1362 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2006
    Messages:
    2,377
    Location:
    Myrtle Beach
    The question isn't even about gun rights in specific.

    It's about rights in general.

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

    Why should the police be any different?

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

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

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

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

    JImbothefiveth Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2008
    Messages:
    2,710
    Location:
    Oklahio
    How do you know someone buying a gun in a gunstore isn't buying it to possibly commit a crime?

    Actually, the government has the power to spend their money however they want, within the law. This has ended up creating some negative consequences, such as earmarks.

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

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

    ravonaf Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2008
    Messages:
    195
    That's funny. I wasn't aware the government had their own money. If that's the case why do they continue to take mine? When did we become a country of people who work for the government rather than government who works for the people? They do indeed have that power, only because the take it with deadly force.

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

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

    And, as I've stated over and over again. I have no problem with David's AR's in the trunk of police cars. It's complete militarization with the intent to create a police state that I'm against.
     
  8. hankdatank1362

    hankdatank1362 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2006
    Messages:
    2,377
    Location:
    Myrtle Beach
    Yup. Remember all the gangsters in the 20's and 30's using Tommy Guns?

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

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

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

    Match (or overcome) their firepower.

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

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

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

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

    JImbothefiveth Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2008
    Messages:
    2,710
    Location:
    Oklahio
    Soryy, I could have phrased that better. They have the power to spend money they tax however they want, within the law.

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

    Out of the thousands of police officers in this country, how many have violated people's civil rights?

    Please see: North Hollywood shootout.

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

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

    ravonaf Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2008
    Messages:
    195
    I would have said they should have stood down until SWAT arrived. However, that's one example in literally hundreds of thousands of police encounters where they didn't need those weapons. I would say the odds are hundreds of times more likely they violate a citizens rights with those weapons than they need them for a North Hollywood style encounter. But lets say they need them. Just how many times do I have to say I'm ok with them being in their trunk?

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

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

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

    JImbothefiveth Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2008
    Messages:
    2,710
    Location:
    Oklahio
    But if they have them in the trunk, and they really are out to oppress people, wouldn't they take them out of the trunk?
     
  12. telomerase

    telomerase Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2003
    Messages:
    6,345
    Location:
    The bear-infested hills of Grafton NH
    Yeah, but giving it involuntarily doesn't make us geniuses either... especially when it's the whole :cuss: economy being given to the politically connected.
     
  13. ravonaf

    ravonaf Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2008
    Messages:
    195
    It's a rather easy distinction to make. Police cruisers full of police officer's doing their job with AR's in the trunk is perfectly ok. Police officer's dressed all in black busting down old ladies doors for selling eggs to their neighbors and shoving the business end of an AR in her grandchildren's faces is completely bad.
     
  14. JImbothefiveth

    JImbothefiveth Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2008
    Messages:
    2,710
    Location:
    Oklahio
    I'm not saying they should
    but A: if they were going to do that, they could just take the rifle out of the trunk and B: Won't these rifles be kept in the car anyway?

    And how does changing the color of their uniform from blue to black suddenly change what they are doing? My police department dresses in black, and they've never oppressed me yet. One of the pictures of "acceptable" police clothes you posted was black.
     
  15. hankdatank1362

    hankdatank1362 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2006
    Messages:
    2,377
    Location:
    Myrtle Beach
    it was either let them get away, or engage.

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

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

    ravonaf Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2008
    Messages:
    195
    I've stated above. I'm not against the AR's. I'm against how they use them. The weapon is just a tool. It's an inanimate object with no power to hurt anyone on it's own. I'm for criminal and civil prosecution against any officer violating a person's rights no matter if it's an AR or a toothpick. The AR's is just a better tool for the job.

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

    ravonaf Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2008
    Messages:
    195
    They aren't allowed to follow them? Hell, I even remember they had helicopter footage. There was no way those guys where getting away.
     
  18. JImbothefiveth

    JImbothefiveth Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2008
    Messages:
    2,710
    Location:
    Oklahio
    I thought you considered issuing AR's "militarization"?

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

    ravonaf Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2008
    Messages:
    195
    I consider it a part of militarizing the police. It's a small part of the storm trooper mentality. We can also include the tanks, military uniforms, military style checkpoints, military style civilian sweeps.

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

    JImbothefiveth Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2008
    Messages:
    2,710
    Location:
    Oklahio
    The men were clearly dangerous, and letting them get away would have been a bad thing.
    If the police started following them, as you suggest, do you think they would have just driven along peacably? I think they would have started shooting.

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

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

    Since when do they have tanks?

    What exactly are you referring to?
     
  21. RP88

    RP88 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,706
    I think that the 'militarization' is a good thing. If they justify a need, then we can too. They need it to fight a better-armed criminal? Well, then by that sense then so do we.

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

    ravonaf Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2008
    Messages:
    195
    I never said that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    JImbothefiveth Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2008
    Messages:
    2,710
    Location:
    Oklahio
    Terrible things(and terrible waste of money, the tank), but how would AR-15s for patrol use have made this worse? Wouldn't it have been just as bad if they had used their issue sidearm?
     
  24. hankdatank1362

    hankdatank1362 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2006
    Messages:
    2,377
    Location:
    Myrtle Beach
    Of course there is going to be eggregious behavior by an infentismally small portion of law enforcement, just as there is any other profession.

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

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

    Sinixstar member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2008
    Messages:
    897
    Because once they take yours - it's not longer yours - it's their's. Pretty simple concept.

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

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

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