In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
I Dislike the Police When They Show Up At A.....
tr fox
Member Posts: 13,856
I have a dislike for the police when the top cops show up at a press conference or a government hearing regarding a proposed new law and they are in their full uniform and probably considered to be "on duty" by their home department.And they then, in their offical capacity, proceed to actually verbally lobby against a new concealed carry law or lobby for more restrictive laws against citizens owning guns. This actually happened as recently (happens all the time across the USA)as Wed. 2-18-04 in Topeka KS where the state government is conducting hearings regarding a concealed carry bill introduced by Leavenworth Democrat (yeah, a Democrat, can you belileve it) to FINALLY give KS citizens the right they should have been given years ago, the right of concealed carry. Lt. Col. R. Keith Faddis of the Overland Park, KS, police dept. was there and provided evidence against the bill. Among other comments were that "more guns on the street would cause more crime and injury". Of course they conviently forgets that there is a tremendous difference betweens criminals carrying guns "on the street" (man I hate that anti-gun phrase) and peaceful, lawful citizens carrying guns.
I disagree with such actions by the police, especially the high ranking officers close to the chief, in that a great many KS citizens WANT concealed carry. And some of those citizens pay that police officer's salary and work to pay the taxes to pay for the operation of his department. So why does this employee of the citizens give himself the right to go to a ahearing and try to stop a bill from being passed that many of his "employers" WANT passed? And while he is betraying those citizens all the time he is weaaring a uniform paid for by the citizens, wearing a gun paid for by the citizens and projecting authority HE WOULD NOT HAVE IF THE CITIZENS HAD NOT GIVEN IT TO HIM! Now I am not saying that police officer could not go to the hearing in plain clothes and stand up and identify himself and state his personal opinion.
But isn't his actions kind of like if my wife and I owned a restaurant and we hired a manager to run it for us and one day I decided I wanted to sell liquor at our restaurant. But some of the neighbors complained about my idea and the city schedules a hearing about whether or not to issue a liquor permit. And at that hearing our restaurant manager shows up with my wife with him, and him in his restaurant manager uniform my wife and I provided for him and he testifys AGAINST my wanting a liquor license? Wouldn't his actions be that of an employee betraying one of his employers? And wouldn't the proper choice of actions of the police Lt.Col. and my restaurant manager be to remain silent and netural and which ever way the law goes, work and continue doing their job under the new law?
Quote "When guns were invented everything changed. For the first time in the history of the world a frail woman had a chance to sucessfully defend herself and home. My dream is that one of the anti-gun nuts will need a gun for defense and be unable to have one because of their own actions."
I disagree with such actions by the police, especially the high ranking officers close to the chief, in that a great many KS citizens WANT concealed carry. And some of those citizens pay that police officer's salary and work to pay the taxes to pay for the operation of his department. So why does this employee of the citizens give himself the right to go to a ahearing and try to stop a bill from being passed that many of his "employers" WANT passed? And while he is betraying those citizens all the time he is weaaring a uniform paid for by the citizens, wearing a gun paid for by the citizens and projecting authority HE WOULD NOT HAVE IF THE CITIZENS HAD NOT GIVEN IT TO HIM! Now I am not saying that police officer could not go to the hearing in plain clothes and stand up and identify himself and state his personal opinion.
But isn't his actions kind of like if my wife and I owned a restaurant and we hired a manager to run it for us and one day I decided I wanted to sell liquor at our restaurant. But some of the neighbors complained about my idea and the city schedules a hearing about whether or not to issue a liquor permit. And at that hearing our restaurant manager shows up with my wife with him, and him in his restaurant manager uniform my wife and I provided for him and he testifys AGAINST my wanting a liquor license? Wouldn't his actions be that of an employee betraying one of his employers? And wouldn't the proper choice of actions of the police Lt.Col. and my restaurant manager be to remain silent and netural and which ever way the law goes, work and continue doing their job under the new law?
Quote "When guns were invented everything changed. For the first time in the history of the world a frail woman had a chance to sucessfully defend herself and home. My dream is that one of the anti-gun nuts will need a gun for defense and be unable to have one because of their own actions."
Comments
I don't think a police officer of any rank is authorized to support a political issue either. His position is not political although he was elected in a political manner.
May be wrong but that's my 2 cents.
Frog
GO NAVY, BEAT ARMY
Quote "When guns were invented everything changed. For the first time in the history of the world a frail woman had a chance to sucessfully defend herself and home. My dream is that one of the anti-gun nuts will need a gun for defense and be unable to have one because of their own actions."
God Bless America and...
NEVER Forget WACO
NEVER, EVER Forget 911
Frog
GO NAVY, BEAT ARMY
May I shed a little light on this subject ? The sh***eads that run the departments are political appointee's,by and large..they do what their political gasbag wants them to do.
The ordinary officers that stand behind the shi***head are there because they are ordered to be there..and will lose their jobs if they refuse.
Not ALL cases..but enough 'street officers' understand the Second Amendment to cause me to believe that they are decent people,doing what they can ,whenever they can...
And hey everyone, I did not just wake up and discover this practice, it has been going on for years. My question is why do we allow our "employees" to lobby on our time and using our equipment to try and derail laws that we, the "employers" want to pass? How and when did the top cops start to think that such harmful behavior towards some of their "employers" was honest and ethical? And how do we stop this behavior?
Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"
Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"
Hey everybody! What I described at the start of this thread is happening EVERYWHERE! You may not see it on a city or county level, but I almost guarantee you it has happend in your state. And it happens on a federal level although perhaps not as high profile.
Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"
I have recorded the phone numbers and will make the calls Monday morning. I will post what replies I get.
I also challenge everyone else to do the same. We are much stronger as a unit than as a single person. Fox, if you have any more detailed info. please post it. Like the Chiefs name....
Any interested person can look at this bill online at http:www.kslegislature.org/cgi-bin/bills/index.cgi
Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"
Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"
Big Daddy my heros have always been cowboys,they still are it seems
When one lobbies another person for a cause, they wine and dine them, and promise them things in return for a vote or favor of some kind.
When one testifies before a committee, they are there to give their opinion on a given subject of which they have some experience.
I DO NOT AGREE WITH ANY POLICE OFFICAL, OR ANY OTHER PERSON, LOBBYING OR TESTIFING AGAINST THE SECOND AMENDMENT.
There are however, many communites here in the Unites States where top police officals are appointed by politicians. BAD, VERY BAD!
In NJ, for the most part, all police officers are civil service employees and cannot be removed by politicians. A much better system!
It is my personal experience and you may believe it or not, but MOST police officers are in favor of the Second Amendment, yes, even NJ police!
Charlie
"It's the stuff dreams are made of Angel"NRA Certified Firearms InstructorMember: GOA, RKBA, NJSPBA, NJ area rep for the 2ndAMPD. njretcop@copmail.com
Kids that fish, hunt and trap have never mugged any old ladies!
To Ride, shoot straight,and speak the truth
This was the Ancient law of Youth
Old times are past, old times are done:
But the Law runs true, O little son!
Now we settle for having our damned employees telling US that THEY don't think we should be allowed to carry weapons, like they even have a right to say such a thing in the first place....Amazing...
Charlie
"It's the stuff dreams are made of Angel"NRA Certified Firearms InstructorMember: GOA, RKBA, NJSPBA, NJ area rep for the 2ndAMPD. njretcop@copmail.com
But again, this haappens all the time. Sometimes it is not so public. Have any of you in states or cities that have a anti-gun, anti-self defense newspaper ever read some of the editorials in which the newspaper is editorializing against guns or gun rights? When ever possible that newspaper writer will mention how different police agencies (city, county, state or federal) have spoken against citizen gun rights? I think even that is a misuse of the position of the police. I think the police should remain neutral, in regards to their official capactity, on proposed laws whether those laws are gun law or even seat belt laws. The citizens did not "hire" the police to lobby or testify against laws they personally don't like. But look around you and I think you will find that it happens a lot.
Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"
Besides if we common, unwashed, "irresponsible" citizens have to rely on the on-duty police for help and protection, why isn't that same protection good enough for the off-duty police officers?
Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"
Anyone else that would like to do the same can find all the info needed at the following link:
http://www.opkansas.org/_Gov/Mayor_&_Council/council_directory.cfm
OK, OK, I got it to send. I just realized you had to remember the e-mail address of Sader and then delete all those numbers and "%" signs and actually type in the correct address. It got sent. One to the mayor and one to councilman Sader.
Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"
SIG pistol armorer/FFL Dealer/Full time Peace Officer, Moderator of General Discussion Board on Gunbroker. Visit www.gunbroker.com the best gun auction site on the Net! Email davidnunn@texoma.net
Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"
Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"
The stats are actually as follows:
1993 - 2002
Profile of known assailants criminal history that feloniously killed LEO's. (Keep in mind these stats only include information where the assailants are known)
785 Officers killed
528 of their known assailants had prior criminal arrest.
373 of their known assailants had prior criminal convictions.
67 of their known assailants had prior juvenile convictions.
287 of their known assailants had received parole or probation on prior criminal convictions.
What about the criminal past of those assailants that have avoided apprehension. Do they have a criminal past? Who knows. Apparently Faddis thinks he does since he has quoted exact percentages. All of those assailants with a criminal past would not have had a CCW anyway.
Another interesting stat from the FBI is that out of 636 LEO's killed by the use of a weapon only 136 known assailants used their own weapons. 346 assailants did not use or attempt to use their own weapons.
Police chiefs and sheriffs, unless they are in real small agencies, ARE NOT COPS!
This,Sir Nunn...is an epiphany.
And a resounding...." OF COURSE.." !! Truth rings like a bell...
Political parisites....
Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"
"Save the Whalers, they need jobs too."
Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"
It ain't Heaven and has it's problems. It's typical small town America. There are still a lot of those around and you don't hear much about them because they take care of themselves, mind their own business, and are full of kind hearted people. When the media does do a story on these type communities they do so in the fashion of a hungry lion with the scent of blood in his nostrils.
"Save the Whalers, they need jobs too."
"Apparently none of them know that an armed citizen, statistically, hits his target more often then an armed police officer."
Idsman, do you have a source for this? I've been dying to see the figures on cop vs. armed citizen "mistakes". And if you would, please---post us the numbers!
Statisticly speaking, I don't have any numbers or percentages of accuracy for cops vs. citizens. I don't think anyone would. But based on many years of competition tactical shooting sports I have formed my own opinion and noted my observations.
A large percentage of LEO's (I'm not implying all)possess a firearm solely because they were issued one at their swearing in. They will shoot that firearm during their mandated training and qualification schedules. Other than that, the weapon spends most of it's life quietly resting in a class III security holster. Those types of LEO's don't possess the love or passion of shooting sports, therefore, their practice time is very limited.
On the other hand, the citizen possesses a firearm solely because he/she enjoys them and the recreational sports that go along with them. The citizen handed over his hard earned money for that weapon. The average citizen probably logs a considerable amount of more practice time than some of the LEO's. Alot of citizens that possess a high level of interest for firearms usually know their guns inside and out and can answer any question about their gun including the caliber, load data, manufacturer, etc. They are dang good with their guns because they love their guns and use them on a regular bases.
So, cop vs. citizen.... based on my personal knowledge I can make the following statement:
If I was being held hostage by an armed thug in my home, and I could select a five member rescue to enter my house and take a shot at the thug, the team would consist of one LEO and four citizens.