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.
Options
Ban Assault Rifles For Cops????
tr fox
Member Posts: 13,856
Sometimes you can take your opponent's position and stretch it a little bit until the whole idea is revealed for the ridiculous concept it was from the beggining. WITH THIS IN MIND, please consider and give me your opinion on this:
The so-called assault weapons bans offered at the federal and state levels are supposed to have one purpose; to keep semi-automatic guns out of the hands of lawful gun owners but especially out of the hands of the violent criminals. Now, if we can believe that this law actually works like it is supposed to, then we can naturally expect to not find any lawful gun owners possessing semi-automatic guns and not even any such guns in the hands of the violent criminals.
So, if this is true WHY DO THE POLICE NEED THEIR ASSAULT GUNS? Why shouldn't everyone in society (except the military of course) give up their "assault guns"? And why can't we tack that requirement onto any future proposed assault weapons ban? Thereby making the sponser of such a law choke on it?
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 so-called assault weapons bans offered at the federal and state levels are supposed to have one purpose; to keep semi-automatic guns out of the hands of lawful gun owners but especially out of the hands of the violent criminals. Now, if we can believe that this law actually works like it is supposed to, then we can naturally expect to not find any lawful gun owners possessing semi-automatic guns and not even any such guns in the hands of the violent criminals.
So, if this is true WHY DO THE POLICE NEED THEIR ASSAULT GUNS? Why shouldn't everyone in society (except the military of course) give up their "assault guns"? And why can't we tack that requirement onto any future proposed assault weapons ban? Thereby making the sponser of such a law choke on it?
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"
Comments
My thoughts as to why it is wrong to keep arms from the cops as well as from the law abiding: "Laws should be made fearful of crimes, not as a measure to prevent crime. Thus, the people should be well-armed AT ALL TIMES to combat crime."
But don't think the gun kontrol mongrels will stop at disarming the people. As soon as they believe they've won the war on guns, they will be making a point of trying to get the police to give up their guns, too. "Now that we have successfully rid the streets of guns, you won't be needing this, officer."
Something the cops should think about...
Death to Tyrants!!!
Lev 26:14-39
Remember how many seats were lost after AWB passage? Vae victis!
Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.
Luke 22:36.
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"
They ALWAYS answer that the bad guys don't pay any attention to the law(s) and the police NEED their guns.
I always answer, my point exactly!!! [}:)]
John
A friend will post your bail. A good friend will be sitting next to you in the cell saying, "man that was fun!"
They are citizens paid by citizens to enforce laws.
They are not entitled to carry any firearm that the citizens are not entitled to carry.
Each State's National Guard is commanded by the State Governor and is charged with protecting the State's citizens...not the police.
I have never heard of anyone taking this to court and charging police with unlawful use of force and unlawful discharge and possession of weapons....of which Police Forces are not entitled to possess.
This aught to stir up some chet.
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 local DA said the same thing.
So I asked them who was it that was to protect me. They had no answer and told me to call my Rep. or Sen. and get the law changed or call a Lawler . Have you ever tried to get a Rep. or a Sen. Lawler to do anything if you weren't standing around with a black bag of money.
______________________________________________________-
A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.
Make yourselves sheep, and the wolves will eat you.
NRA write your Rep. will save a stamp
http://www.capwiz.com/nra/home/
GOA
http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm
No one said anything about actually disarming the police so that we could protect the world with "bullets flying". That came from your own limited imagination. Your lack of comprehension "scares" me when I think about how you must have made it through an English class in some school.
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"
Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.
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"
P.S. I'm sure Kathleen just loves hearing from you
Let me explain the reason for the volatile tone of my topic post. Sometimes to get people to read or listen to your position you sometimes need to find a way to get their attention. Kinda like a teacher slamming a book down on a desk top when first entering the room to get attention and quiet. This method is especially true if you also want people to actually consider an unusual viewpoint.
In regards to my personal feelings about police, it is probably more friendly than you, and that other LEO who was somewhat hateful, think. I support, respect and appreciate the GOOD cops. Depending where they work at, in many cases they have a difficult, dangerous and often thankless job. But I think the great majority of Ammericans are glad they are there on the job.
And I don't want the police to be outgunned by the criminals. But my posting was actually directed at the naive, left-wing Socialist, hypocritical politicians who continue to pass more and more gun laws that usually only effect the lawful citizens who 99% of the time would not cause any problems even if there were NO gun laws. And by hypocritical I mean politicians like Ted Kennedy who wants to ban as many guns and ammo types as he can (he would like to ban them all) but still reserves the right to have several fully armed bodyguards accompany him almost everywhere and they are or were armed with those guns that he hates so much when in the hands of the lowly citizen. And people and situations like the top guy of the UN who runs around N.Y. city with bodyguards (some of whom probably couldn't even pass a NICS check) with their fully automatic guns.
The point I was trying to make was that if all those gun laws are working, then America should by now be a much safer place for the police to work than it was in the past. And it wasn't but a few decades ago that every cop in Ammerica carried a .38 special revolver with low stopping power ammo. So if those gun laws have made the working enviorment safer for the police, then why do they need those big, bad scary "assault weapons"? And of course the answer is not that the police should give up their assault weapons but that people like Ted Kennedy should stop making more and more gun laws that restrict the honest, lawful citizen and all the while claming that he is making society safer.
Now I will add that I do have a problem with some cops. Even though my comment about "staying in the kitchen" merely meant they should focus on doing what they were hired to do. It has been my observation that a minority of the police begin to think they ARE the law, or they own the law, or that they have more control over the citizens than they do. I don't like to see this. I also don't like seeing one of the "top cops" from a department lobbying the legislators about making or keeping restrictive gun laws while if not on duty , in full uniform. I feel like he/she is misusing their position. If they want to appear before the leglislators and voice their opinion, just like any other citizen, that is fine. But when they try to drag their job into the situation I have a problem with that. I think they should remember that uniform, gun and badge they are wearing was supplied for them by the taxes the working citzens paid. And you can be sure that many of those citizens who supplied his/her equipment do not agree with the message that top cop is delivering to try and influence the legislators. Regardless of which message it might be.
As far as you not being there to protect me if you stay in the kitchen, in a good natured way I have to mention that as long as citizens are allowed to own self protection in many cases they will do a better job than the police of providing their own protection. And the reason for that is the victim can actually be considered the "first responder" becasue he/she is ON THE SCENE the instant the crime starts. We all know that physical limitations prevent the police from PREVENTING most violent attacks simply becasue the criminals wait until there are no police nearby. If my observation is not true then I would ask you why there is any violent crime? Is it because the police don't car to prevent all violent crime or is it because they CAN NEVER prevent all violent crime. As you well know a whole lot of injury can be caused in only 1-2 minutes and what is the average time it takes for an LEO (actually two LEO's because I have personally observed one LEO stop near a crime in progress call to wait for his/her backup before proceeding to the scene) to arrive on the crime scene.
I firmly believe that in the case of violent criminal attack, a gun in the hand is worth more to me than a cop on the phone.
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"
Me too, Fox.
Death to Tyrants!!!
Lev 26:14-39
Remember how many seats were lost after AWB passage? Vae victis!
Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.
Luke 22:36.
Plus, my response time would be a heckuva lot quicker than a 911 call.
Pretty good chance, in my area, that by the time they show up all that will be needed is a body bag or 2.
Thats' cool I think were on the same page
And ikf IncarcerationFacilitator is one of the good cops, that goes for him/her 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"
"What about citizens using guns to defend themselves?"
Bound to solicit two non-neutral answers.
1. "You can't go taking the law into your own hands."
Translation: I don't believe in your right to self-preservation, and I am not your servant. I don't interpret the law, I write the law as I go. I am the law.
2. "You better. We can't be there for you all the time."
Translation: I want what is best for you, and I am acting in your best interests. I am one of the good guys.
Disagree with the first one all you want, but true citizens see the truth. That is why we are citizens, and not subjects.
Death to Tyrants!!!
Lev 26:14-39
Remember how many seats were lost after AWB passage? Vae victis!
Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.
Luke 22:36.
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"
Be careful what you ask for, you just may get it. If they take on your logic and ban the police from having any so-called assault weapons then your fight is over. You can dang well believe that if the police can't have it, then John Q. Public doesn't ever stand a chance. I'm sure they would never intend to start such a ban with the police, but that would be a devestating (sp) blow to everyone else.
There is not a chance in He!! the police will ever have their gun rights restricted. And so far, in most cases that does not bother me.
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"