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.
Well, Bunny is correct. Regardless of who fought for freedom, their sacrifices are not what bestowed any of us with anything. All they did then, was reverse the course of gov't..... so that 200+ years later, our gov't could invite those very same people right back in to press their will against us once more, apparently.
Here's another take on exactly what is going on in our country.
If a Black man is armed, is he a Criminal?
by Vin Suprynowicz
An "old police tradition of requiring off-duty officers to carry their weapons -- 'always armed, always on duty' -- is being scaled back in police departments nationwide following the shootings of off-duty officers by colleagues who thought they were criminals," The Associated Press reported Nov. 28 in a story datelined Providence, R.I.
Providence's policy is now being re-examined as the city faces a $20 million civil rights lawsuit over the shooting of Sgt. Cornel Young Jr., who was killed in 2000 while he was off duty and trying to break up a fight.
Advertisement
Young's mother says the rookie officer who shot her son was not adequately trained to recognize off-duty or plainclothes officers.
Earlier this year, an Orlando police officer fatally shot a plainclothes colleague who was investigating underage drinking outside the Citrus Bowl. The plainclothes officer had gotten into a scuffle with tailgaters and fired his gun into the air.
In 2001, two uniformed officers shot and killed an undercover detective when he pointed his gun at a suspected car thief in Oakland, Calif.
So now, the 20,000-member International Association of Chiefs of Police has called for off-duty officers who witness a crime to call for assistance rather than pulling a weapon.
You don't need bifocals to read between the lines and see where that's heading: No cop needs to carry a gun when off duty. At which point, how long do you suppose it will be before we're told, "Not even off-duty cops can carry guns anymore; surely an average civilian, without a peace officer's level of training, shouldn't be allowed to blunder around carrying one of these indiscriminate weapons of death."
First let us point out a vital component of this reported trend that The Associated Press seems too politically correct to note: rookie Providence police officer Cornel Young Jr. was a young black man.
Add that fact to the equation, and let us see if we can summarize the logical chain of argument at hand:
1) When police officers see people carrying or drawing guns who they cannot readily identify as fellow police officers, they tend to shoot them and ask questions later, especially if they're black.
2) This is leading to the deaths of off-duty cops by friendly fire.
3) The solution is to discourage or prevent off-duty officers from using or carrying firearms.
Anyone else see a problem, here? How about that first premise?
America is an armed nation. The Second Amendment guarantees each American the right to own and carry firearms. Further, the 14th Amendment further bars any state or local authority from infringing this vital right for U.S. citizens. (And if you read your history books, you know the Congress meant especially "black citizens.")
In its 1997 study "Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms," the National Institute of Justice determined 25 percent of Americans own guns. In 1994, 44 million Americans owned 192 million firearms, of which 65 million were handguns. And John Lott has conclusively demonstrated, in his epochal book "More Guns, Less Crime," that whenever a state or county "allows" more law-abiding citizens to carry handguns, violent crime rates go down.
Instead of disarming off-duty cops so the police can continue to feel free to shoot anyone out of uniform who they see with a gun (especially if he's black), why not alter police training as follows?
"This is an armed nation. Twenty-five percent of your fellow 'civilians' own firearms, and have a God-given right to carry them around. Except for writing traffic tickets for revenue, they have just as much right to chase and apprehend a fleeing felon -- or to present a weapon in defense of themselves or others -- as you do. This includes black folks. Get used to it.
"So, even though it may initially seem to make our jobs harder, let's stop hassling people when we perceive they have guns. If a call comes in reporting a 'man with a gun,' let's ask whether the man is brandishing or threatening anyone, and otherwise advise the caller that being armed is not a crime.
"And, particularly, let's stop shooting people who draw their guns when they're being assaulted. Yes, pausing those extra few seconds may sometimes put your own life in danger. This is still a less-dangerous job than hard-rock mining or fishing in Alaska, and you volunteered for it."
No, the off-duty Florida officer should not have fired his gun into the air to break up a scuffle. That's dumb. But with all due respect to Young's grieving mother, no, the problem is not that Providence cops had trouble recognizing an off-duty fellow officer. The problem is that their first instinct when they saw a black man with a gun who was not obviously a police officer, was to shoot him.
The police chiefs should be urging more citizens to go armed so their men get used to it, not trying to turn us into a police state, which is defined as "a place where only the police carry guns."
Vin Suprynowicz is assistant editorial page editor of the Review-Journal and author of "Send in the Waco Killers" and the new novel "The Black Arrow." His Web sites are www.TheLibertarian.us or www.LibertyBookShop.us.
This is my opinion, No retired COP, BATF, FBI, BLM, or FISHCOP should have any more rights than the average law abiding citizen. On duty agents should not have the right to have a special gun, special ammo, or a shorter barrel, suppressor that you or I cant buy .
I get so mad when I see a commie article in guns &ammo that has ammo, a pistol or a AR15 that says, POLICE or FBI use only.
The agents want to have the same toys the military has so they can slap the unarmed citizens down or make an example out of them without repercussions from people trying to protect their constitutional rights.
My opinion!.
quote:Originally posted by One shot
The Second Amendment was a product of men with an iron will, pen in hand, and an insight to the future from what the experianced in the past. "God" Had vary little to do with it. I have listen to folks use the term "god given right" as though it was an infliction rather than a right. The U.S. Constitution is a product of brave men who were able to stay the course. I am not bashing faith in God in no way shape or form. It is more the sence of the term. Give the true credit to those who fought and struggled to give us the right. Just my not so humble opinion.
You are a bit off. While the second amendment may have been a "a product of men with an iron will, pen in hand, and an insight to the future from what the experianced in the past", GOD had everything to do with it.
We were given those rights by GOD, no human can "give" us rights.
The second amendment does not give us rights-the second amendment says that those rights that were given to us by GOD can not be taken away.
Ya might want to read some John Locke to get a better understanding of rights, and where they come from.
Comments
If a Black man is armed, is he a Criminal?
by Vin Suprynowicz
An "old police tradition of requiring off-duty officers to carry their weapons -- 'always armed, always on duty' -- is being scaled back in police departments nationwide following the shootings of off-duty officers by colleagues who thought they were criminals," The Associated Press reported Nov. 28 in a story datelined Providence, R.I.
Providence's policy is now being re-examined as the city faces a $20 million civil rights lawsuit over the shooting of Sgt. Cornel Young Jr., who was killed in 2000 while he was off duty and trying to break up a fight.
Advertisement
Young's mother says the rookie officer who shot her son was not adequately trained to recognize off-duty or plainclothes officers.
Earlier this year, an Orlando police officer fatally shot a plainclothes colleague who was investigating underage drinking outside the Citrus Bowl. The plainclothes officer had gotten into a scuffle with tailgaters and fired his gun into the air.
In 2001, two uniformed officers shot and killed an undercover detective when he pointed his gun at a suspected car thief in Oakland, Calif.
So now, the 20,000-member International Association of Chiefs of Police has called for off-duty officers who witness a crime to call for assistance rather than pulling a weapon.
You don't need bifocals to read between the lines and see where that's heading: No cop needs to carry a gun when off duty. At which point, how long do you suppose it will be before we're told, "Not even off-duty cops can carry guns anymore; surely an average civilian, without a peace officer's level of training, shouldn't be allowed to blunder around carrying one of these indiscriminate weapons of death."
First let us point out a vital component of this reported trend that The Associated Press seems too politically correct to note: rookie Providence police officer Cornel Young Jr. was a young black man.
Add that fact to the equation, and let us see if we can summarize the logical chain of argument at hand:
1) When police officers see people carrying or drawing guns who they cannot readily identify as fellow police officers, they tend to shoot them and ask questions later, especially if they're black.
2) This is leading to the deaths of off-duty cops by friendly fire.
3) The solution is to discourage or prevent off-duty officers from using or carrying firearms.
Anyone else see a problem, here? How about that first premise?
America is an armed nation. The Second Amendment guarantees each American the right to own and carry firearms. Further, the 14th Amendment further bars any state or local authority from infringing this vital right for U.S. citizens. (And if you read your history books, you know the Congress meant especially "black citizens.")
In its 1997 study "Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms," the National Institute of Justice determined 25 percent of Americans own guns. In 1994, 44 million Americans owned 192 million firearms, of which 65 million were handguns. And John Lott has conclusively demonstrated, in his epochal book "More Guns, Less Crime," that whenever a state or county "allows" more law-abiding citizens to carry handguns, violent crime rates go down.
Instead of disarming off-duty cops so the police can continue to feel free to shoot anyone out of uniform who they see with a gun (especially if he's black), why not alter police training as follows?
"This is an armed nation. Twenty-five percent of your fellow 'civilians' own firearms, and have a God-given right to carry them around. Except for writing traffic tickets for revenue, they have just as much right to chase and apprehend a fleeing felon -- or to present a weapon in defense of themselves or others -- as you do. This includes black folks. Get used to it.
"So, even though it may initially seem to make our jobs harder, let's stop hassling people when we perceive they have guns. If a call comes in reporting a 'man with a gun,' let's ask whether the man is brandishing or threatening anyone, and otherwise advise the caller that being armed is not a crime.
"And, particularly, let's stop shooting people who draw their guns when they're being assaulted. Yes, pausing those extra few seconds may sometimes put your own life in danger. This is still a less-dangerous job than hard-rock mining or fishing in Alaska, and you volunteered for it."
No, the off-duty Florida officer should not have fired his gun into the air to break up a scuffle. That's dumb. But with all due respect to Young's grieving mother, no, the problem is not that Providence cops had trouble recognizing an off-duty fellow officer. The problem is that their first instinct when they saw a black man with a gun who was not obviously a police officer, was to shoot him.
The police chiefs should be urging more citizens to go armed so their men get used to it, not trying to turn us into a police state, which is defined as "a place where only the police carry guns."
Vin Suprynowicz is assistant editorial page editor of the Review-Journal and author of "Send in the Waco Killers" and the new novel "The Black Arrow." His Web sites are www.TheLibertarian.us or www.LibertyBookShop.us.
I get so mad when I see a commie article in guns &ammo that has ammo, a pistol or a AR15 that says, POLICE or FBI use only.
The agents want to have the same toys the military has so they can slap the unarmed citizens down or make an example out of them without repercussions from people trying to protect their constitutional rights.
My opinion!.
The Second Amendment was a product of men with an iron will, pen in hand, and an insight to the future from what the experianced in the past. "God" Had vary little to do with it. I have listen to folks use the term "god given right" as though it was an infliction rather than a right. The U.S. Constitution is a product of brave men who were able to stay the course. I am not bashing faith in God in no way shape or form. It is more the sence of the term. Give the true credit to those who fought and struggled to give us the right. Just my not so humble opinion.
You are a bit off. While the second amendment may have been a "a product of men with an iron will, pen in hand, and an insight to the future from what the experianced in the past", GOD had everything to do with it.
We were given those rights by GOD, no human can "give" us rights.
The second amendment does not give us rights-the second amendment says that those rights that were given to us by GOD can not be taken away.
Ya might want to read some John Locke to get a better understanding of rights, and where they come from.
A little paranoid are we?
Hey, let's ask Randy Weaver that same question.
It isn't paranoia if they really are out to get you....