Printable View
The LEO's do not make the laws. Aside from the very accurate apples and oranges comment - believe it or not, cops are just guys doing their middle class job. If the legislative branch of government takes something away from me, I wouldn't insist that they take something away from my friend too.
If by that you mean that there should be fire-power parity between the police and the rest of us, let me ask you a simple question? Who in their right mind would take that job under such circumstances?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost1958
OK. Everybody gets to have all the guns, ammo, and high cap mags they desire except the law abiding citizens who are gun owners. Makes sense to me. What's next? I know, let's change the name of this country to " The United States of The Oppressed". Our flag can have a sheep on it and a guy with a crown. Pardon me, I have to go take my meds now.
That argument is fantasy world bull corn. Its popular but it isn't right.Quote:
Originally Posted by oldnfat
IMO...on duty LEOs should have access to "evil guns." However, as soon as the shift ends, ordinary laws should apply. If NY insists on keeping the moronic 7 round law, then the "high-cap" mags should be stored at the station and they should have access at home to the same mags that regular citizens do. Same should go for the politicians who carve out exemptions in the law for themselves, retirees etc. It needs to be a level playing field. Maybe if the law applied unilaterally to all citizens then we wouldn't have so many outrageous ban proposals being thrown around.
What are you talking about? They work under those circumstances now. The criminals are armed to the teeth. Every time a cop gets out of his car at a traffic stop, he has to be ready for anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hopyard
You live in Texas, right? Those mules and narcotráficos have got real assault weapons. If they make it past Border Patrol, then they're our problem. 'Our' meaning LEO and us.
Remember the LA bank robbers? They were better armed, and armored, than the police.
What should an officer care if I carry the same pistol as him? Or the same AR15 in my trunk as him? The crackpots that do him harm already have these things in their possession.
Here in AZ we do not have to inform if we're carrying. We don't have to have a permit to carry. None of the LEOs in our state have anything to worry about from law abiding citizens. It's the criminals they have to watch out for, and they could have any hardware on them at any time, despite the law.
I'm going to assume you carry based on you being a member here. Going by your logic concerning the man in Utah who carried his rifle into JC Penney, perhaps you should no longer carry a firearm. After all, we can't be totally sure that you aren't a nut, and I don't want our LEOs to have to deal with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hopyard
You must live in a different America than I do. When do municipal road/traffic patrols just go looking for criminals? If they do, it is with a warrant and back up. In a traffic stop if they do find a person with an outstanding warrant they do nothing and call for back up before attempting an arrest. In my town all traffic stops are with a back up. If, as you state, go looking for criminals they know who they are looking for based on a warrant. On the street civilians are more at risk than a LEO, not often is LEO mugged.Quote:
Originally Posted by RonM0710
I admit cops have a dangerous job, but should be prepared for the unexpected, but common sense says if they need high capacity magazines why does not the lawful gun owner, we are protecting ourselves against the same criminals as are the police.
I have negotiated many police contracts for my town and never has a union rep used any such term "looking for criminals" during the negotiations for better equipment or pay, and the unions use some good ones. Like the shoe allowance.......
I said I was out but since you asked me directly Ill reply Hop. Lets be realistic instead of living in some perfect world for a moment.
Violent Criminals as often as not out gun individual LEO daily. Because criminals do not obey regulations, possessing full auto weapons etc if they want to and regs be darned.
You and I, presumably not criminals are not the LEOs problem. Violent criminals that will arm themselves with whatever they wish are.
We are not the problem for LEO, but may have to deal with the same problem alone without the benefit of an army of back up.
Parity of firepower between police and citizens is not the problem for leo. Parity of firepower between bad guys and police has nothing to with regulation because BGs wont pay any attention to regs. The rock solid downfall of all firearm regulations end of story.
As to security for Government officals I dont begrudge elected officials their security details armed with whatever they need as they have to deal with directed attacks by possibly foreign agents armed to the teeth.
Individually however if say Diane Frankinstien wants to limit me to 5 rounds of bbs in a blow gun then that is all she should be able to carry as an individual. She does after all have the heavily armed security detail to protect her while I have the bbs and soda straw.
I conceal carry. I'm not getting up in folks faces the way that man in Penny's did. Sure, they say he actually calledQuote:
Originally Posted by RT
the police before going there so they would know he was OK. Uh, and be off their guard? That's what a smart psycho
or ordinary criminal would do. No respect and no dignity.
Whether you or anyone on here wants to believe it, the fact is most folks do not carry, don't want to carry, and are terribly
put off or frightened by people who appear as that man did. His actions don't benefit anything but his ego.
The hypocritical-ness that cracks me up the most:
"No one but the police and military need a gun designed to kill a lot of people in a short amount of time"
Huh? The job of police isn't to kill a lot of people. It's not even to kill any people. Their job is to investigate crimes, and to a lesser extent, preserve life by taking it if necessary. A cop doesn't need to 'kill a lot of people fast'... the likelihood that they will ever be involved with a firefight of just 2 people itself are very remote.
IMHO, This entire gun control charade is designed to take the guns out of the hands of anyone who is a potential political enemy of the present administration. There won't be any concerted effort to take guns/ high capacity magazines from law enforcement or the bureaucrats armed bodyguards. NY will simply amend the just passed law to exempt all law enforcement from the ban. The gangs will continue to be as well armed as ever. This is all about disarming the masses who are presently a threat to the present administrations agenda of "Change".
I am working on getting into law enforcement, and I have zero issues with a fire-power parity existing between the police and the general public. Why is that? If restrictions are placed on what and how much the general public can carry, the only people those restrictions will affect are the same people the police do not generally have to worry about..... law abiding citizens. Criminals, the people the police DO have to worry about, are not affected by those restrictions, and because they do not respect or abide by the law, they always will be on par with the police in terms of firepower if they so choose, regardless of any laws enacted. Nothing is changed by enacting new gun control laws except for making it harder on those that obey the law.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hopyard
I've tried for so long to convince myself otherwise...but I can't argue logically with your point. Those who fail history are doomed to repeat it. Simply put, bans of any type do not work. Prohibition, drugs, prostitution, et al. It only drives the market underground. I find it hard to believe that so many college educated politicians can't see the trend. The street gangs laugh at these laws. They will continue to get their guns...same way they get their drugs. They will find a way, just like Al Capone and prohibition gangsters did.Quote:
IMHO, This entire gun control charade is designed to take the guns out of the hands of anyone who is a potential political enemy of the present administration. There won't be any concerted effort to take guns/ high capacity magazines from law enforcement or the bureaucrats armed bodyguards. NY will simply amend the just passed law to exempt all law enforcement from the ban. The gangs will continue to be as well armed as ever. This is all about disarming the masses who are presently a threat to the present administrations agenda of "Change".
1) I could agree to what you wrote in the first part of your post regarding on and off duty weaponry, but it isn't that simple.Quote:
Originally Posted by Domr
Some take the job home with them, or have had direct threats from BGs and their accomplices. In some places they
don't really distinguish between on and off duty; and the car goes home at the end of the shift too.
2) With regard to that politicians shouldn't be any different from anyone
else; maybe some judges could have handled cases which would indicate need, but except for the highest officials there
is no need for them to get special treatment. Here, our concealed carry law was implemented in part due to an incident in
which a state legislator was threatened and he then discovered he could not carry (maybe when he was arrested, I don't recall the details). People focus on the horrid restaurant incident, but it was the legislator's troubles that brought things to a head.