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

[kilo729]

Way to go David!

 

[JImbothefiveth]

Put simply, a fool, who is free to be foolish with his money, has just handed $100,000 over to government, an entity which taxes us to death, and the fool is getting nothing in return.

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.

 

[ravonaf]

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?

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.

Should he be allowed to take it to work?

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?

 

[ravonaf]

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.

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.

 

[hankdatank1362]

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.

 

[JImbothefiveth]

Law Enforcement buying AR's to possibly victimize the public

How do you know someone buying a gun in a gunstore isn't buying it to possibly commit a crime?

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.

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.

It depends on how they plan on using that weapon

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

Should school bus drivers demand that the tax payer buy them military weapons and equipment?

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

 

[ravonaf]

Actually, the government has the power to spend their? money however they want, within the law.

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.

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

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

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

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.

 

[hankdatank1362]

Police officers where being shot at long before they became militarized.

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?

 

[JImbothefiveth]

That's funny. I wasn't aware the government had their own money.

Soryy, I could have phrased that better. They have the power to spend money they tax however they want, within the law.

They do indeed have that power, only because the take it with deadly force.

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

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

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

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

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.

 

[ravonaf]

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.

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?

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

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

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

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

 

[JImbothefiveth]

But lets say they need them. Just how many times do I have to say I'm ok with them being in their trunk?

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?

 

[telomerase]

Voluntarily giving money to government is about as dumb as it gets.

Yeah, but giving it involuntarily doesn't make us geniuses either... especially when it's the whole economy being given to the politically connected.

 

[ravonaf]

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?

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.

 

[JImbothefiveth]

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.

I'm not saying they should

bust down old ladies doors for selling eggs to their neighbors

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.

 

[hankdatank1362]

I would have said they should have stood down until SWAT arrived.

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.

 

[ravonaf]

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?

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.

And how does changing the color of their uniform from blue to black suddenly change what they are doing?

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.

 

[ravonaf]

it was either let them get away, or engage.

They aren't allowed to follow them? Hell, I even remember they had helicopter footage. There was no way those guys where getting away.

 

[JImbothefiveth]

I'm not against the AR's. I'm against how they use them.

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.

 

[ravonaf]

I thought you considered issuing AR's "militarization"?

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.

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.

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

 

[JImbothefiveth]

The men were clearly dangerous, and letting them get away would have been a bad thing.

If I recall they didn't start killing people until the police showed up.

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?

the tanks

Since when do they have tanks?

military style civilian sweeps.

What exactly are you referring to?

 

[RP88]

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.

 

[ravonaf]

And if you are not against them having them in the car, why are you against David Spade buying them?

I never said that.

Since when do they have tanks?

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

What exactly are you referring to?

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

SWAT Team Like Raid Against Food Co-op

Ohio authorities recently stormed a farm house in LaGrange to execute a search warrant, holding the Jacqueline and John Stowers and their son and young grandchildren at gunpoint for nine hours. Over the course of the raid, the Ohio Department of Agriculture and police confiscated over ten thousand dollars worth of food, computers and cell phones.

The Stowers’ only crime? They run a private, members-only food co-op. State authorities were looking for evidence of illegal activities, but the family was not informed what crime they were suspected of, were not read their rights and were not allowed to make a phone call.
The Stowers were apparently believed to be operating without a license. However, the Stowers claim that the food co-op they run does not engage in any activities that would require state licensing.

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

 

[JImbothefiveth]

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?

 

[hankdatank1362]

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.

 

[Sinixstar]

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.

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.