Should LEOs have Full Auto?

Should LEOs have Full Auto?

  • Heck no. LEOs don't need to be spraying lead.

    Votes: 66 77.6%
  • Of course. LEOs need every weapon they can lay hands on.

    Votes: 19 22.4%

  • Total voters
    85
Status
Not open for further replies.
In the PDRK LEO's and CO's regularly make over $100K per year. THATS RIGHT FOLKS OVER $100K PER YEAR!!

So in one breath you are admitting it's an extremely dangerous job and the next are complaining that they make a good salary? Also let's look at the cost of living in the wonderful state of California. I would wager that 100K a year adds up to maybe half that anywhere else in the country.

Also what does it being a voluntary profession have to do with denying officers the best tools to do their job in the best way to protect the safety of themselves and fellow officers?? I became a police officer by choice so that means I'm not entitled to certain things I would be had I been drafted? Nonsense.

You people want to have your cake and eat it too by saying police are civilians, yet treating us differently then the rest of the public. Don't try to tell me we're not because we are.....plain and simple. I joined this board because I thought "the high road" meant what it said, but with some of the replies in this thread I'm very saddened that I was mistaken.
 
First, as some of you know I'm a LEO, but I'm also a Firearms Instructor which includes Patrol Rifle.

For the regular patrol officers, I do not think full-auto is warranted. I do not see the need.

Now for the high speed, low drag types (SWAT, SRT, etc) then yeah, I can see them having full-auto.

Can I as a LEO get a full-auto? Yep, I can, and I can keep it until I leave the department. Some people voted "only if I can". My full-auto is dept owned, or will be upon my leaving. Its a piece of equipment for my job. You can't own one, then do something about it instead of crying about it behind a computer.

I know several non-LEO's that have full-auto stuff. So whats the big deal??

Yeah, I volunteered for my job and I don't make half of what the LEO's do in California. Big deal. Whats the cost of living out there? Why don't you talk about Ofc Joe Blow in BFE, Georgia or Alabama making 20k a year! And yeah, I put my life on the line everytime I put on my uniform and walk out the door. Don't want to hear about? Too bad. Its the truth.

I love how this turned into, or maybe it even started out as a "us vs them" thread. Typical.
 
Correction....

""So in one breath you are admitting it's an extremely dangerous job and the next are complaining that they make a good salary? Also let's look at the cost of living in the wonderful state of California. I would wager that 100K a year adds up to maybe half that anywhere else in the country.

Also what does it being a voluntary profession have to do with denying officers the best tools to do their job in the best way to protect the safety of themselves and fellow officers?? I became a police officer by choice so that means I'm not entitled to certain things I would be had I been drafted? Nonsense.

You people want to have your cake and eat it too by saying police are civilians, yet treating us differently then the rest of the public. Don't try to tell me we're not because we are.....plain and simple. I joined this board because I thought "the high road" meant what it said, but with some of the replies in this thread I'm very saddened that I was mistaken.""

Please excuse my tone if it seemed offensive. Let me clarify.

#1: I understand wanting the best tools to do the job 100%. But as a private LAW OBEYING citizen, I would like the best tools to protect myself and my family. Fact: The police cannot be everywhere, thats just a fact. And crooks don't seem to commit crimes in front of the police.

#2: Atleast in most FREE states you can have AR's, FALS, etc..NOT in Kali.

#3. Most LE agencies investigate AFTER the crime, so the bad guys who actually commit the crimes are long gone when the PD gets there to INVESTIGATE. BG's have a funny way of IGNORING the AWB in KALI. I atleast would like to be on even ground.

#4. I would rather explain to the officers what happened to the 3 BG's laying on the ground after the incident, with a hot AR barrel, than have the officers express their condolences to me or my FAMILY.

Again, just give ME a fighting chance also. Sorry if I came with such a strong tone....

Don't forget Kali is known for one thing: GANGS (that means more than one BG)

MaceWindu
 
Count me in the, "Cops should be subject to the same gun laws as us private citizens," camp. That said, as long as a cop is willing/able to go through the same legal rigamarole the rest of us do, I have no problem at all with them owning/carrying/using the machinegun of their choice.

I would hope that a police officer who carried a full-auto in the course of his duties would get the appropriate training with it. But that goes for all guns.

- Chris
 
Most law enforcement officers are NOT firearms-oriented. Their skills (to the level of proper maintenance, mechanical understanding, and safety) and their proficiency leave much to be desired. In fairness – and because I have great respect for law enforcement, coming from an FBI family, and being a career naval officer – some LEOs are excellent, proficient marksmen, but these are in the minority.

Further, documented incidents of “spray and pray†tactics, with “hit rates†approximating ten percent and dozen of rounds missing their targets – BUT IMPERILING INNOCENTS – are far too common. Under these circumstances, I cannot support the average LEO’s use of fully automatic weapons. I would, however, endorse especially trained/skill LEOs having access to fully automatic weapons and I certainly support the idea that ordinary citizens should have similar access.
 
Mace,

Glad for your clarification and I can agree with just about everything you say. I never said I was against non LEO's having AR's, FALS, HK91's or even sub-machine guns.....provided they are law abiding.

I also agree as I stated in my first post that routine patrol officers do not need a full auto rifle in their vehicle. I DO however believe a semi-auto AR-15 should be standard issue to every officer instead of shotguns.

Like you said most police officers are investigatory and come after the fact. These officers do not need F/A.....HOWEVER the SWAT and SRT officers who are going up against armed criminals and serve high risk warrants DO need full auto weapons and are trained enough to use them. For those people to say those officers should be deprived of these weapons which could be the difference between life and death is horribly spiteful in my opinion and not what I would expect from gun owners.
 
No. Civilians can't have it without all the hassle neither should cops without having to go through the same hoops. I was active duty Marine infantry and couldn't have gone out and buy a new M-4 and I know i was better trained to handle one than cops.

Along with the fact that I don't trust any law enforcment (yea I know) with the power they have, much less greater firepower.
 
Along with the fact that I don't trust any law enforcment (yea I know) with the power they have, much less greater firepower

I'm totally blown away at the hipocrosy of this thread. Here is a board of gun owners who complain that the gun-grabbers in the government can't trust them with guns and then I read statements like this.

Unbelieveable :banghead:
 
The eleveation of law enforcement officers to the level of "super-citizens" is perhaps the primary vehicle through which our Second Amendment rights have been eroded.

As far back as 1934, while campaigning for his National Firearms Act, F.D.R. claimed that "Federal men are constantly facing machine-gun fire in the pursuit of gangsters." We have the proponents of the Assault Weapons Ban, along with many police organizations, urging renewal of the AWB on the basis of the safety of officers (who will, of course, retain their assault weapons). Just recently in the Senate, we saw Ted Kennedy advocating a ban on all high-power rifle ammunition on the grounds that it will save officers' lives.

I can tell from the tone of many of the reactions here that law enforcement officers accept with great pride (and often arrogance) their status as super-citizen, and in this they are complicit in the deconstruction of my Second Amendment rights.

To this end, it is clear that we will not regain our Second Amendment rights so long as there remains a societal elite of super-citizens whose objections with regard to their own personal safety can trump my God-given, constitutional rights. There are those who tell us that in a democracy liberty and security are opposing forces, and that we must seek a balance. This is a modern construction, commensurate with the rise of the super-citizen. Recall the words of Patrick Henry and tell me of the balance between liberty and safety!

I do feel that machine-guns may be necessary for police use, but I strongly stand by my third option: "only if I can." Many law enforcement officers appear to relish their power (as all men do), and are content in the "disparity of equality" that exists between they and we ordinary folk. As they are, by and large, unsympathetic to the denial of my rights, I see no reason that they should not be similarly restricted.

I believe that our Second Amendment rights will not be restored until their is a reckoning, at the ballot box, of the rights of law enforcement (read Government) and the rights of "ordinary" citizens.
 
Just think of it this way, Kevin. You have to overcome the last however many year of the police building an adversarial relationship with the public, specifically this public. Acting like a martyr isn't going to do it, either.

These are the same police that enforce the unconstitutional laws that have already been thrust on us. If you saw a guy with an AR15 at the range and you knew from looking at it that it was a postban rifle, but he had put a collapsible stock on it, would you look the other way? If the barrel was less than 16", would you forget you saw him. If someone was carrying an unlicensed pistol, would you tell him to hide it better? When they outlaw guns, are you going to turn in your badge, or go round them up?

So for the most part, yes, it is us v. them. You volunteered to be them.
 
Just recently in the Senate, we saw Ted Kennedy advocating a ban on all high-power rifle ammunition on the grounds that it will save officers' lives.

Minor point of semantics - Ted essentially advocated a ban on all centerfire ammunition on the grounds that it will save officer's lives.

Those of us here recognise the difference, however it is our friends who hunt & couldn't care less about the EBRs (evil black rifles) who need to be educated (the "friends" who say that they don't care if guns are banned as they will still hunt with a bow need to be dropped into a deep pool with a few dozen pounds of cement around their ankles :fire: ).
 
Geezuz, no. They unsafe enough with their service piece. Even the so-called elite SWAT types are grossly careless with firearms.
 
If you saw a guy with an AR15 at the range and you knew from looking at it that it was a postban rifle, but he had put a collapsible stock on it, would you look the other way?

You're damn right I would, and have. You are vilifying police officers the same way many people villify gun owners. A great majority of officers that I know understand that a lot of the gun laws are BS.....especially in this state. But all you ever hear about is the news articles of people being arrested for weapons offenses. Just the same way you never hear of self-defense gun uses.

You talk about the "us vs. them" mentality well the door swings both ways. You talk about police officers grouping together with "us" but then you go right ahead without batting an eye and refer to us as "them" even though you claim we are no different. Like I said before you want to have your cake and eat it too.
 
Geezuz, no. They unsafe enough with their service piece. Even the so-called elite SWAT types are grossly careless with firearms.

Please show me the proof and research that you have done before making this statement, because I'm SURE that any good gun-owner wouldn't go spouting off any kind of blanket statement without proper data. :rolleyes:
 
Kevin,

I HONESTLY appreciate your attitude and your beliefs. You, however, are in the minority. The vast majority of LEOs would not hesitate to enforce any gun law, no matter how unconstitutional.

You talk about the "us vs. them" mentality well the door swings both ways. You talk about police officers grouping together with "us" but then you go right ahead without batting an eye and refer to us as "them" even though you claim we are no different. Like I said before you want to have your cake and eat it too.
I really don't understand what you're trying to say here.
 
For the people who STILL insist that police officers are civlians:

Merriam-Webster Dictionary.....
Main Entry: ci·vil·ian
Pronunciation: s&-'vil-y&n also -'vi-y&n
Function: noun
1 : a specialist in Roman or modern civil law
2 a : one not on active duty in a military, police, or fire-fighting

Dictionary.com
ci·vil·ian ( P ) Pronunciation Key (s-vlyn)
n.
A person following the pursuits of civil life, especially one who is not an active member of the military or police.
A specialist in Roman or civil law.

Cambrige Dictionary:
civilian [Show phonetics]
noun [C]
a person who is not a member of the police or the armed forces:

American Heritage Dictionary:
SYLLABICATION: ci·vil·ian
PRONUNCIATION: s-vlyn
NOUN: 1. A person following the pursuits of civil life, especially one who is not an active member of the military or police. 2. A specialist in Roman or civil law.
 
I really don't understand what you're trying to say here.

What I am trying to say is that some people are criticizing certain officers for having an "us vs. them" philosophy when it comes to dealing with the general public. My point was they say that, but then refer to police as "them" as in "not someone I put my trust in to have full auto" which is paraphrased from many quotes on this thread. They wish to say police are no different yet will say police are a bunch of trigger happy, bumbling idiots that can't be trusted with full auto weapons. Basically it's the pot calling the kettle black.

Edit: thank you for your appreciation.....just trying to get across that we're not all a bunch of jack-booted thugs that seems to be what the perception is.
 
I might be wrong, but isn't the fundimental difference between citizens and LEO's is the right to deal with misdeamners? Cops can deal with anything minor infractions (traffic tickets, etc) as well as felonies, citizens can only arrest on felony charges.

I'm not a lawyer, but that was the answer given to me by a law professor when I asked him the difference between LEO's and citizens. Over time they were given rights above and beyond the ability to arrest people on minor infractions. This gave rise to the "Super-Citizen" stereotype.

My personal opinion goes back to the original powers of law enforcement officers. I'm having a hard time imagining the sole reason LEO's need an FA is to deal with speeding tickets. No, usage of full auto on minor infractions should be restricted to using on people that ride your bumper when you're going the speed limit! :neener:

I'm for the third option. "Only if I can".

Yes, I understand specialized organizations in law enforcement need FA while the common LEO's usually don't. Personally, if I was a beat cop, I'd rather have a semi rifle than a shotgun. I do not think said specialized departments should be stripped of their tools just because the common LEO do not require them.

No, my belief is that every law abidding person should be allowed to have them. Here is a thought. If all LEO were subject to the NFA in the same way normal citizens are, would the NFA be repealed? :scrutiny:
 
Dbl0Kevin
Dictionaries are revised to suit the view of the "general public".

Merriam-Webster
Main Entry: assault rifle
Function: noun
: any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles designed for military use with large capacity magazines
 
Fair enough. So you're in the "Only if I can" camp?

No I'm in the "Though I believe everyone should be able to I'm not going to deny someone else something just because I can't have it" camp. I will then work in any way possible to change things so that I and the rest can have F/A, but won't say no one else should out of spite.
 
If LEOs were denied the same rights we were, we'd get a whole lot more support at the polls. Until then, you have all the popo orgs backing gun control laws because "it saves officers' lives." Yeah, I'm really curious how many lives were saved by banning bayonet lugs on semis.
 
A police officer is responsible for every single round of ammunition he/she fires in the line of duty, from the instant he/she pulls the trigger to when the bullet ceases motion. In a CQB (Close Quarters Battle) situation, a three round burst feature on a submachine gun such as an HK MP5 might be beneficial in certain situations like building entries with multiple bad guys, but in my experience, outside of very specialized situations, full auto is unnecessary for police work.

Just my .02,
LeonCarr
 
Sadly those groups do not speak for the majority of the rank and file officers and I cringe whenever I see one of their leaders support some stupid gun control law. :cuss: The so called police leaders of these groups are pure politicians and wouldn't know the first thing about what actually happens out on the streets anymore. I urge you not to judge the whole law enforcement community by looking at these groups. But if you want to see a group of law enforcement officers and citizens that I fully support, check out the Law Enforcement Alliance of America.

LEAA
 
If LEOs were denied the same rights we were, we'd get a whole lot more support at the polls.
That is the same logic that also opposes national CCW for cops, "all or nothing." It's that kind of thinking that is why the anti-gun crowd is winning. They are fighting small battle-to-small battle, while the pro-2A crowd is always all or nothing. They are winning incrementally, while we are losing monumentally.

They win because of silly narrow minded us v. them divisions in the pro-2A crowd.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top