Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Here's one TAXPAYERS opinion. VERY few cops need select fire weapons. VERY few, indeed. Get out there and go on a ride along with one.  Go to Atlanta and go with someone in zone 5.  Once you see what they deal with then you say that.   Get a little bit over 19, and an education, and you'll see why ipschoser1 thinks the way he does. Very true. With the pathetic LACK of training in most LEO circles, I would prefer Andy Griffith's method of arming deputies. I teach, and the profession of educators leaves me wondering about society in general.  If there are as many screw ups WITH college degrees that cannot even manage a classroom full of kids, then I am curious why we think we need even more heavily armed LEOs. I have an 80/20 rule.  80% of the people in each chosen profession are unfit/unqualified/unable to do thier job.  The other 20% spend their time trying to keep the profession on track. I see the same thing in the LEO trade.  80% should be summarily fired, so the other 20% can be effective. TRG

Does that mean that 80% of those on this forum should have their acct's locked, so that the other 20% can get down to business?

So whats the prize this time?

Quoted: This is wrong on so many levels. Just counting the years, waiting, preparing for next civil war, quivering, erect, at the thought of my bloody and quick, yet glorious death...

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Here's one TAXPAYERS opinion. VERY few cops need select fire weapons. VERY few, indeed. Well to return the thought... From a cop's standpoint.... NO non-cops need them at all. Sounds a lot different when the sentiment is reversed, don't you think? You must be one of those gun control freaks.   The 2nd Amendment doesn't allow cops to determine our rights! God bless America. Do I really sound like a gun control freak? If you think so, you need to read my posts more.

No, you sound like one of those people who wants to control what guns other people have access to. I for one personally like the fact that a civilian can't walk into a gun shop and buy a full auto anything. I agree with how they are currently handled: i.e. only grandfathered FA's can be privately owned. All new FA's should be only avail to govt/mil.

As for every day patrol use. I agree that there is not a need for FA rifles. As for SWAT and or specially trained officers, they are the only ones who need FA weapons, and even then, I think that 3 round burst is more than enough.

But I really really hate when people use the term TAXPAYER to try to elevate themself from police officers under the belief that their view is the correct one. From my long experience as a police officer, the vast majority of TAXPAYERS are not very well versed to know what equipment a police department needs or uses. Do you tell your mechanic what kind of tools to use?

Quoted: No, you sound like one of those people who wants to control what guns other people have access to. I for one personally like the fact that a civilian can't walk into a gun shop and buy a full auto anything. I agree with how they are currently handled: i.e. only grandfathered FA's can be privately owned. All new FA's should be only avail to govt/mil.

Sounds to me like you're more the gun control freak.

As for every day patrol use. I agree that there is not a need for FA rifles. As for SWAT and or specially trained officers, they are the only ones who need FA weapons, and even then, I think that 3 round burst is more than enough.

We agree here.

But I really really hate when people use the term TAXPAYER to try to elevate themself from police officers under the belief that their view is the correct one. From my long experience as a police officer, the vast majority of TAXPAYERS are not very well versed to know what equipment a police department needs or uses. Do you tell your mechanic what kind of tools to use?

I'm actually very pro LE. I have some good friends that are cops. I apprieciate what you guys do for society.  I resent the crap out of being called a civilian in a derogatory way by cops (who also happen to be civilians). I also hate double standards.

Quoted: I'm actually very pro LE. I have some good friends that are cops. I apprieciate what you guys do for society.  I resent the crap out of being called a civilian in a derogatory way by cops (who also happen to be civilians). I also hate double standards.

Likewise cops hate having someone scream "I am a Taxpayer!" at them when thet too are taxpayers...

Quoted: Likewise cops hate having someone scream "I am a Taxpayer!" at them when thet too are taxpayers...

That's cool. We could all be more respectful of our fellow Americans. Lord knows we have enough enemies out there without looking to each other. Good point.

Maybe a common sense cop such as yourself can continue to influence your profession in a positive way to interact better with the public you serve. It'd be a favor to us all.

Quoted: Quoted: This is wrong on so many levels. Just counting the years, waiting, preparing for next civil war, quivering, erect, at the thought of my bloody and quick, yet glorious death...

Death at whose hands? An LEO's? Which side will you be on? Which Republic will you defend?

I can roll my eyes too.

Perhaps you missed my clarification further down on page 1. Here it is again for your benefit.
===============
Let me clarify, I don't want to interject the attitude that "well, we can't have them why should they".. two wrongs don't make a right... and limiting the rights or privileges of LEOs doesn't necessarily help non-LEOs. Indeed, it was my opinion that national CCW for LEOs was fine.. I saw  it as "glass is half full" issue... i.e. since they have them, well we can have it too. But clearly, that is not the intent of the Statist powers engaged in the attempt to strip us down to servants.

The fact that private citizens have slowed the gun grabbing momentum can be categorized as legal, momentary political victories. However, culturally the issue is different. I am losing faith in our ability to turn the cultural momentum around.

I want to see LEOs openly advocating and supporting the NRA and private folks in far greater numbers. I want to see LEOs speaking out againt their polical leadership (i.e. chiefs of police) when the chiefs stand with the gun grabbers. I want to see police departments sponsoring safe weapons training courses to the public, etc, etc.

I thought cops got paid by sales tax etc collected by the city or county? In which case any kid who buys a toy is tachincally a taxpayer in that respect.

Quoted: Does that mean that 80% of those on this forum should have their acct's locked, so that the other 20% can get down to business?

You got that right.  Bunch of pimply-faced armchair commandos that learned most of their firearms knowledge talking to the former SEAL operator who now runs the local pawn shop.  

Quoted: No, you sound like one of those people who wants to control what guns other people have access to. I for one personally like the fact that a civilian can't walk into a gun shop and buy a full auto anything. I agree with how they are currently handled: i.e. only grandfathered FA's can be privately owned. All new FA's should be only avail to govt/mil.

Wow. I had no idea Arfcom was popular with elitist authoritarian antigunners. I guess you learn something new and disgusting every day.

As for every day patrol use. I agree that there is not a need for FA rifles. As for SWAT and or specially trained officers, they are the only ones who need FA weapons, and even then, I think that 3 round burst is more than enough. But I really really hate when people use the term TAXPAYER to try to elevate themself from police officers under the belief that their view is the correct one. From my long experience as a police officer, the vast majority of TAXPAYERS are not very well versed to know what equipment a police department needs or uses. Do you tell your mechanic what kind of tools to use?

The point is that law enforcements officers operate in the same environment in which we lesser folks (you know, the ones who shouldn't have access to new FA weapons, or to any at all without approval from LEOs) live. Limp-dick fantasies of paunchy glory to the contrary notwithstanding, there are no police beats comparable to war zones; every place the police patrol, ordinary mortals live. There is no reason for the police to be armed better than or differently from the public. The very authority to be armed at all while motoring around on the public nickel flows exclusively from the untermenschen you'd disarm.  Your attitude is twisted and disgusting.

Quoted: Quoted: No, you sound like one of those people who wants to control what guns other people have access to. I for one personally like the fact that a civilian can't walk into a gun shop and buy a full auto anything. I agree with how they are currently handled: i.e. only grandfathered FA's can be privately owned. All new FA's should be only avail to govt/mil. Sounds to me like you're more the gun control freak.

Um.. hardly. I'm quite in favor of letting as many non felons or mentally ill people own and carry as many weapons as they want. Hell I don't even care if they're concealed. Just don't do anything stupid with them or half the people around you will help you celebrate your last day on Earth.

I favor enforcement of current laws rather than making new ones every time one person does something stupid/illegal. Mandatory 10 year prison terms for any convicted felon possessing a firearm? Riiigght when's the last time that happened? AWB? It was BS.

Do you think that all citizens should be able to go into a store and buy a fully auto firearm, maybe a couple hand grenades, rocket launcher, etc?

I'm stuck in a state that doesn't allow ANY private ownership of FA's, SBR's, Silencers, AOW's, hell you can't even concealed carry ANY gun.

Your argument first stated that most cops don't need full auto weapons. Ok, using that as your basis, is there any reason you feel that civilians need them at all? Or was I reading into it the wrong way? Of course, outside of the "I like to go to the range and just blast away.. it's fun" excuse. Because that's not a "need" it's a "want"

Quoted: Quoted: Here's one TAXPAYERS opinion. VERY few cops need select fire weapons. VERY few, indeed. Well to return the thought... From a cop's standpoint.... NO non-cops need them at all. Sounds a lot different when the sentiment is reversed, don't you think? You must be one of those gun control freaks.

Just to point out a flaw in the obviously sarcastic post here......

A civilian has a weapon, full auto or not, but the expectation is that it will not be employed on the street (does not mean it WILL not, just that it is very unlikely).  A LEO has a weapon, full auto or not, with the expectation that it WILL be employed on the street.  The "hail of bullets" scenario we ALL want to avoid, is more likely when employed in the LEO's hands.

npd.....is that Northbrook?  Want to shoot sometime?  Drop me an IM.  

Quoted: Quoted: No, you sound like one of those people who wants to control what guns other people have access to. I for one personally like the fact that a civilian can't walk into a gun shop and buy a full auto anything. I agree with how they are currently handled: i.e. only grandfathered FA's can be privately owned. All new FA's should be only avail to govt/mil. Wow. I had no idea Arfcom was popular with elitist authoritarian antigunners. I guess you learn something new and disgusting every day. As for every day patrol use. I agree that there is not a need for FA rifles. As for SWAT and or specially trained officers, they are the only ones who need FA weapons, and even then, I think that 3 round burst is more than enough. But I really really hate when people use the term TAXPAYER to try to elevate themself from police officers under the belief that their view is the correct one. From my long experience as a police officer, the vast majority of TAXPAYERS are not very well versed to know what equipment a police department needs or uses. Do you tell your mechanic what kind of tools to use? The point is that law enforcements officers operate in the same environment in which we lesser folks (you know, the ones who shouldn't have access to new FA weapons, or to any at all without approval from LEOs) live. Limp-dick fantasies of paunchy glory to the contrary notwithstanding, there are no police beats comparable to war zones; every place the police patrol, ordinary mortals live. There is no reason for the police to be armed better than or differently from the public. The very authority to be armed at all while motoring around on the public nickel flows exclusively from the untermenschen you'd disarm.  Your attitude is twisted and disgusting.

FLAL1A... don't read me wrong. I was countering ipschoser1's post for argument. You likely won't find many cops more "pro-gun" than me. Don't try to be cute by putting words in my mouth. I never said that citizens are lesser folks. You seem to fall into the paranoid group who thinks cops are robots sent by the government to fuck with you and yours and take away your rights. FYI, your rights and the laws are developed by the people that you citizens vote into office. Yes, guess what, even NON TAXPAYERS get to vote. Your argument that there's no reason for police to be better armed is grossly immature. Please go on and explain that if a bad guy decides to pull out his G17 and start capping off 9mm's at me, that I can only return fire with a 9mm? You bet your ass I'll use a rifle or shotgun or whatever other superior weapon I might have. I'd do the same thing at home, off duty.

ipschoser1 was addressing "need" not "want" The problem with some laws are they often address "wants" not "needs." Speaking of the AWB, it was a law that addressed the "wants" of a certain group of people, and not "needs." I tried answering and addressing "needs"

Answer these questions to yourself, regarding full auto guns:

Do citizens "need" them or "want" them?

Do police departments "need" them or "want" them?

Does military "need" them or "want" them?

I personally don't think there's any genuine "need" so much as there's a "want" for citizens to own them. Yes they're neat, fun, etc. And if I could own one and afford it, I'd probably buy it for the fun/cool factor too!

Police, like I said, don't "need" them for every day patrol use, but could very well need to have them available for SHTF situations that citizen's don't handle. I could get into a thousand different scenarios of why or why not. Hell that's the joy of scenarios. You say the police shouldn't be better armed, or armed differently from the public. FYI, most of the high powered rifles in this country ARE privately owned, and I would also guess the majority of FA weapons in existance in this country are also privately owned, not counting military for obvious purposes. So your argument doesn't hold water. Departments that buy full auto weapons usually only issue them to extensively trained SWAT type officers. The rank and file get the semi-auto, and by your own argument, are similarly or lesser armed than YOU.

The problem here, is, that IF and or WHEN some idiot decides to take his arsenal and go out and start using it illegally, WHO is responsible for dealing with it? You can bet your ass it's the police, because you taxpayers demand we do. If you expect someone to step into that role, you better damned well have provided him any equipment he may need to do that job for you.

Military need them? That question doesn't even come into play. But, for arguments sake, given one of the above posts, someone stated that follow up shots are more accurate in semi rather than FA. Using that argument, why would militaries use full auto weapons? Because they have a demonstrated and proven need to.

Your attitude is the disgusting one. Turning a debate into a personal attack against me based on nothing. I lost some respect for you for that post.

As a LEO I can agree there is little / no need for FA weapons on the patrol level.  In fact there are some street officers I work with I wouldn't trust a potato gun to.  The only full auto weapons our department owns are on our SWAT unit which is where they belong.  We qualify with all the weapons the team owns quarterly and shoot bi-weekly.  I don't really want some of our street guys who never see the range except for the once a year we bring them in to qualify having FA at their fingertips.
Last year  I wrote a patrol rifle proposal which was shot down since the admin at our department doesn't want to shell out the overtime to train all our street officers with rifles.  Instead they decided they wanted all Supervisor's to have access to patrol rifle's which I will be retrofitting to semi-auto before I issue them.  Why a supervisor who sits in an office needs a rifle I'll never know, but what they want they get...

To say that there is NO need for any LEO's to have FA though is an assnine statement.  Patrol level fine but not ALL LEO's.

NFA = illegal law....

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Lightning links?  That seems like an odd choice.  I'm assuming that these aren't transferable LLs, or else your agency could make a killing if they traded them to a dealer for post samples. The city is ultra cheap. The rifles belong to the Individual Officer. Only command staff have the links. No, they are not transferable. If they were we have Department owned selecatble M-4s. Yikes, I'd be worried about using a LL for anything other than plinking! There is a government program where they will sell a dept. M16A1s for next to nothing. I'm sure that this is a much better way to go than using LL.

We are currently looking into that. The links run 100%.

Quoted: Does that mean that 80% of those on this forum should have their acct's locked, so that the other 20% can get down to business?

Quoted: As a LEO I can agree there is little / no need for FA weapons on the patrol level.  In fact there are some street officers I work with I wouldn't trust a potato gun to.  The only full auto weapons our department owns are on our SWAT unit which is where they belong.  We qualify with all the weapons the team owns quarterly and shoot bi-weekly.  I don't really want some of our street guys who never see the range except for the once a year we bring them in to qualify having FA at their fingertips. Last year  I wrote a patrol rifle proposal which was shot down since the admin at our department doesn't want to shell out the overtime to train all our street officers with rifles.  Instead they decided they wanted all Supervisor's to have access to patrol rifle's which I will be retrofitting to semi-auto before I issue them.  Why a supervisor who sits in an office needs a rifle I'll never know, but what they want they get... To say that there is NO need for any LEO's to have FA though is an assnine statement.  Patrol level fine but not ALL LEO's.

Fair enough.  While situations such as this are rare, they do happen.  I'm ok with SWAT teams having full auto provided the training budget is there.  But in all reality, semi auto AR's would work just as well for 99.9% of what even SWAT sees.

A couple years ago, a friend of my GF got a call from her husband in Gurnee IL.  Some dude from WI showed up on their cul de sac with some sort of magazine fed semi auto rifle and opened up on the neighborhood.  Her husband took their 4 year old child and hunkered down in the bathtub until it was over.  It took 15 minutes to get LEO's on site, and another 15 before they mobilized and went after him (this may be inaccurate, after all it is hearsay).  Of course, the dude committed suicide by cop.  Anyway, even in the first 15 minutes, this guy shot up a whole lotta houses.  One woman was hit standing in her kitchen window IIRC.  I asked my GF "where are all the deer hunters in her neighborhood?"  She just gave me this blank stare.  I told her "if that ever happens here, the guy will last 3 minutes tops".  And guess what.........I'll get him with my bolt rifle.

When the Tangos show up at Mall of America, I think we would all be better off if a visitor on site had a for-real M4A3 and could employ it skillfully before the LEO's get there.  That will NEVER happen.  With that in mind, I think even SWAT teams having a semi AR vs. full or burst is a small issue in terms of the big picture......in both effectiveness, and "right vs. wrong".  

Quoted: FLAL1A... don't read me wrong. I was countering ipschoser1's post for argument. You likely won't find many cops more "pro-gun" than me. Don't try to be cute by putting words in my mouth. I never said that citizens are lesser folks. You seem to fall into the paranoid group who thinks cops are robots sent by the government to fuck with you and yours and take away your rights. FYI, your rights and the laws are developed by the people that you citizens vote into office. Yes, guess what, even NON TAXPAYERS get to vote. Your argument that there's no reason for police to be better armed is grossly immature. Please go on and explain that if a bad guy decides to pull out his G17 and start capping off 9mm's at me, that I can only return fire with a 9mm? You bet your ass I'll use a rifle or shotgun or whatever other superior weapon I might have. I'd do the same thing at home, off duty.

I for one personally like the fact that a civilian can't walk into a gun shop and buy a full auto anything. I agree with how they are currently handled: i.e. only grandfathered FA's can be privately owned. All new FA's should be only avail to govt/mil.

That is you talking there, isn't it? Saying that you think that "civilians" should be able to get FAs only at grossly and artificially inflated prices, under government supervision, with LEO approval - i.e., under the current system? Did I put those words in your mouth, or did you spew them out? When you say that because of your special status you should have rights others do not, you speak as an elitist.

Anyone is subject to having a gun wrongfully pulled on him - in fact I'd bet it happens much more often to "civilians" than to uniformed police officers. Yet you suggest that certain means of responding to unlawful violence should be available only to  police officers. That's wrong, twisted, disgusting, elitist, and it's what you said.

Answer these questions to yourself, regarding full auto guns: Do citizens "need" them or "want" them? Do police departments "need" them or "want" them? Does military "need" them or "want" them? I personally don't think there's any genuine "need" so much as there's a "want" for citizens to own them. Yes they're neat, fun, etc. And if I could own one and afford it, I'd probably buy it for the fun/cool factor too! Police, like I said, don't "need" them for every day patrol use, but could very well need to have them available for SHTF situations that citizen's don't handle. I could get into a thousand different scenarios of why or why not. Hell that's the joy of scenarios. You say the police shouldn't be better armed, or armed differently from the public. FYI, most of the high powered rifles in this country ARE privately owned, and I would also guess the majority of FA weapons in existance in this country are also privately owned, not counting military for obvious purposes. So your argument doesn't hold water. Departments that buy full auto weapons usually only issue them to extensively trained SWAT type officers. The rank and file get the semi-auto, and by your own argument, are similarly or lesser armed than YOU.

To the extent that most of the time  "need" exists only potentially for both the "mere citizen" and the "differently endowed," the need for the weapons is identical for both of the classes you define. When you actually need a machine gun, that's exactly what you need; when you don't actually need a machine gun, you don't need one at all. There aren't any degrees of need. I doubt that police officers have any greater frequency of need for FAs than any other citizen does. There doesn't seem to be a great deal of LE full-auto fire even by SWAT teams (outside certain parts of Texas). The military certainly has a greater frequency of need for FAs: they can reasonably expect that whenever they are in conflict, it will be with people carrying FAs. Not so for police officers or other civilians. Given that the weapons are fun to shoot, I expect all three groups want them.

There is no basis for the position that a person who can lawfully own any gun should be limited in his choice of weapons, except to maintain a power differential between the favored group and the disfavored group. Take a gander at the Constitution (assuming it's available in Illinois - not that that's your fault): it was specifically intended by the Framers that the primary force of arms in this country be placed in the general citizenry. Not in the military, and not in any other band of government employees.

The problem here, is, that IF and or WHEN some idiot decides to take his arsenal and go out and start using it illegally, WHO is responsible for dealing with it? You can bet your ass it's the police, because you taxpayers demand we do. If you expect someone to step into that role, you better damned well have provided him any equipment he may need to do that job for you.

Nobody "demands" you do anything, and nobody has any recourse against you or your agency if you decide not to do what is asked of you. We don't draft policemen. Last I looked, they still give welding certificates to anybody who can pass the test. You picked a job. That choice does not entitle you to be better armed than I am. I understand that you are writing from a "civilization" where the public is generally disarmed. When I pass a patrolman on foot, I am at least well armed as he; if I pass him in my car, I am probably as well armed as he is in his. That's the way it should be. I am a good guy too. Before you get those last three toes in your mouth, can you choke out the occupation of the only person known to have criminally misused a lawfully owned FA weapion since the passage of the NFA? Can you?

Your attitude is the disgusting one. Turning a debate into a personal attack against me based on nothing. I lost some respect for you for that post.

I'm sorry to hear that, but I repeat: I for one personally like the fact that a civilian can't walk into a gun shop and buy a full auto anything. I agree with how they are currently handled: i.e. only grandfathered FA's can be privately owned. All new FA's should be only avail to govt/mil. That vile elitist spew is yours, isn't it? Those aren't words I put in your mouth, are they? I'll gladly correct myself if they are.

FLAL1A... you still don't get my argument.

It started when someone said cops don't need full auto's.

I countered by saying that civilian's shouldn't. And look what happened. Tables got turned because it's ok for a civilian to bitch about cops having them but not for cops to say that civilians can't. You literally proved my point.

My statement was an argument from the other end of the double edged sword. It was also prefaced by a statement  "well to return the thought..." in response to ipschoser1's not wanting cops to have FA's, further explained by his complaint that he can't "play army" because he can't get FA's... and then implying that putting FA's into the hands of cops causes "Barney's" to let loose rounds all over the neighborhood. Tell me one department that puts a rifle like that into untrained hands for patrol?

If the agency decides to buy a FA and issue it to an officer for a specific task, then so be it. The FA's are kept locked up with the rest of the swat team stuff, and the only time they take them out is for training and for call outs. As for entering a house with an armed subject barricaded inside, and if it gets to the point that you have to go inside to get him or rescue someone, you only get ONE time to do it right. At those particular times, a FA weapon is a definite need. The need exists because you have to absolutely guarantee that if the officer has to shoot to stop the threat, that it gets stopped right f'ng now. A triple tap from an MP5 or Colt tends to do that very effectively, even if the BG's armored.

What I guarantee, is that the gun laws in this country will never change to the point that satisfies the members of this forum. There are too many people who think that banning things solves problems. There are laws already on the books to deal with crimes. Criminals will never cease using guns to commit their crimes. We can only hope that harsh prosecution and punishment of those who DO use firearms to commit crimes serves to deter others from doing the same thing.

The problem with gun laws is compounded because of the many different states' laws. Those folks in states with more oppressive gun control laws have to lobby both state and national level legislatures. As example in IL, even as a cop, I can't own a mg, sbr, etc. So pardon me if I like the fact you can't buy one. I can't either. I wish we all could, but the fact is, we can't. I don't think that anyone here thinks that at any time in the near future, State and Federal laws, much as we might "want" them to, will ever allow OTC private sales of MG's. Do I wish it would happen? Sure. I'd love to "play army" at the range just as much as the next guy. It's not a situation that's going to be easily resolved, and definitely not to everyone's satisfaction.

Quoted: Quoted: No Hoax or prize give away. In other words, "This time I'm not lying, I swear."

B-O-O H-O-O

You never know.I was thinking about giving my CNC A1 BUIS away as a prize in the future.

You excluded of course.

Quoted: Quoted: Here's one TAXPAYERS opinion. VERY few cops need select fire weapons. VERY few, indeed. Get out there and go on a ride along with one.  Go to Atlanta and go with someone in zone 5.  Once you see what they deal with then you say that.

+1 No shit to that.  Also take a ride in the chopper and when you get over Turner Field at 0100 switch on the spotlight.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: No Hoax or prize give away. In other words, "This time I'm not lying, I swear." B-O-O H-O-O You never know.I was thinking about giving my CNC A1 BUIS away as a prize in the future. You excluded of course.

Count me out too.

Quoted: LEO's are civilians and should not have any priviledges that we lesser civilians don't have.  LEO's should not have access to FA weapons.  The reason so many LEO's are unsupportive of our gun rights is that they get to operate under a different set of rules.

OK. YOU go chase the fucking crazy-ass meth cooks.


ETA: Posted before I finished the thread, it keeps getting more laughable the farther we go. I'm bowing out of this one.

My uncle keeps getting the cops called on him whenever he shoots his semi-auto .22 carbine. Cops come out, say "Oh, it's you again. Look, some idiot thinks you're going full-auto again." "No problem, I'm almost finished." "K. Have fun."

Somebody on the other side of the hill from us let loose with what sounded like a heavy machine gun during peak hunting hours while we were in our blinds a few years ago. Went through two or three belts before stopping.



I remember a comment from my dad one time. We were taking a break from building the cabin and heard intermittent gunfire from the next mountain over. He looked at me said, "It's funny. Out here, if you hear somebody shooting a gun, nobody cares. If you heard it in the suburbs or city, you'd be panicing and dialing 911."

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Here's one TAXPAYERS opinion. VERY few cops need select fire weapons. VERY few, indeed. +1 I know of a few Tyler, TX officers who benefitted from their ARs.

I know of a Mr. Wilson who would have benefitted a lot more.

First, thanks for sharing this story.  My comments below do not reflect upon you, but reflect upon the national LEOs; especially, the department policy of harassing folks with firearms ranges, or club ranges.

LEO receives calls from ignorant folks who don't know the law of the land, don't know that this is a firing range in proximity of their house, and don't know that it is LEGAL to discharge firearms on private property.  Department policy is that LEO is required to investigate.  Why this is the department’s policy, I don’t have a clue.

Firearms ranges are well known places.  When I was a state police officer, I knew almost all the ranges around an entire state.  I was always on the lookout for a new range that was closer to my home.  May I suggest that instead of sending a deputy sheriff out to harass folks shooting in the manner you describe, why don't they confirm that the firing is occurring at a known firearm range?  It would seem that a call to the local firearm range (either the phone at the firing range or a range officer) would take care of the problem, rather than sending out an officer to “CHECK PERMITS."

Why are these folks that call in these "illegal use of firearms" reports NOT charged with filing a false police report?  Or at least creating a public nuisance?   If Class III firearms are legal in your state, then why are fully automatic firearms and the noise they generate more dangerous than semi-automatic?  This is especially true, if the firearm noise is coming from a range that has established “class III” ranges.

As a range safety officer at my local range, I would really be pissed off if the local LEO came a calling to do a “PERMIT CHECK” especially because some wonderful individual with a political agenda has decided to use the local LEO department as a tool to harass law abiding citizens.  

Quoted: Quoted: Here's one TAXPAYERS opinion. VERY few cops need select fire weapons. VERY few, indeed. my issue isn't so much the agencies having full auto, it's the fact that the full auto guns can go home and be used by officers on their personal time and property

+1

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Here's one TAXPAYERS opinion. VERY few cops need select fire weapons. VERY few, indeed. Well to return the thought... From a cop's standpoint.... NO non-cops need them at all. Sounds a lot different when the sentiment is reversed, don't you think? You must be one of those gun control freaks.   The 2nd Amendment doesn't allow cops to determine our rights! God bless America. Do I really sound like a gun control freak? If you think so, you need to read my posts more. No, you sound like one of those people who wants to control what guns other people have access to. I for one personally like the fact that a civilian can't walk into a gun shop and buy a full auto anything. I agree with how they are currently handled: i.e. only grandfathered FA's can be privately owned. All new FA's should be only avail to govt/mil. As for every day patrol use. I agree that there is not a need for FA rifles. As for SWAT and or specially trained officers, they are the only ones who need FA weapons, and even then, I think that 3 round burst is more than enough. But I really really hate when people use the term TAXPAYER to try to elevate themself from police officers under the belief that their view is the correct one. From my long experience as a police officer, the vast majority of TAXPAYERS are not very well versed to know what equipment a police department needs or uses. Do you tell your mechanic what kind of tools to use?

No i dont tell my mechanic what tools to use, but if i was footing the bill for his Snapon box and all the goodies i would certainly be concerned if he was pissing my cash away.

Example: our police put patrol cars in the medians and leave them there with a dummy in the seat. WTF!!! you bought the car and the dummy, when you should just pay the officers to run radar there. DO YOUR JOB, dont pretend to.  And these are not some old model shitboxes theses are brand new 04/05 crown vics. It may have fool a few ppl the first time other then that its a waste of my money. I would rather see a motorcycle cop with a radar gun doing his job then a decoy.

Quoted: Quoted: Here's one TAXPAYERS opinion. VERY few cops need select fire weapons. VERY few, indeed. Get out there and go on a ride along with one.  Go to Atlanta and go with someone in zone 5.  Once you see what they deal with then you say that.

Are you offering a ride a long

Quoted: With the pathetic LACK of training in most LEO circles, I would prefer Andy Griffith's method of arming deputies. I teach, and the profession of educators leaves me wondering about society in general.  If there are as many screw ups WITH college degrees that cannot even manage a classroom full of kids, then I am curious why we think we need even more heavily armed LEOs. I have an 80/20 rule.  80% of the people in each chosen profession are unfit/unqualified/unable to do thier job.  The other 20% spend their time trying to keep the profession on track. I see the same thing in the LEO trade.  80% should be summarily fired, so the other 20% can be effective. TRG

Exactly how much training and in what areas would satisfy you? If you are actually going to claim that 80% of officers are incompetent, thats a serious claim to make.

* post contains personal opinion only*

Quoted: LEO's are civilians and should not have any priviledges that we lesser civilians don't have.  LEO's should not have access to FA weapons.  The reason so many LEO's are unsupportive of our gun rights is that they get to operate under a different set of rules.

Individual officers are not owning these NFA weapons. They are owned by the department, officer's are assigned them. Weather it be Select, or SBR.

BTW there are plenty of 'regular' people with NFA weapons, they don't bother me a bit.

SO I can't clear the crack house with a SBR, I have to use a 16" because it makes you feel better?

Quoted: Quoted: Does that mean that 80% of those on this forum should have their acct's locked, so that the other 20% can get down to business? You got that right.  Bunch of pimply-faced armchair commandos that learned most of their firearms knowledge talking to the former SEAL operator who now runs the local pawn shop.

Hey man, I'm no armchair commando, I'm a full-fledged couch sniper.  And I learned from the former SAS operator who works the midnight shift at Walmart.  

Quoted: Here's one TAXPAYERS opinion. VERY few cops need select fire weapons. VERY few, indeed.

+1!

Quoted: All new FA's should be only avail to govt/mil.

What a fucked up thing to hear from a member of a gun board. Simply disgusting.

Quoted: Tell me one department that puts a rifle like that into untrained hands for patrol?

There's many in my area (BHM).

Quoted: BTW my dog survived the incident.

Need to start an entire new thread on this statement. Im going to title it Dogs and Guns. It really got me thinking about something.

Had a class in the Police Academy with the Local ATF guy. All he taught us was how to identify Full auto weapons and that they were illegal. Never said some are legal to own. Most in the class had never even handled a firearm or been hunting.

Quoted: Quoted: Had a class in the Police Academy with the Local ATF guy. All he taught us was how to identify Full auto weapons and that they were illegal. Never said some are legal to own. Most in the class had never even handled a firearm or been hunting. Sad, but true... I would be willing to bet, if you passed out a survey as "Can a US Citizen own a fully automatic weapon?" You would have a 99% response of NO. Every LEO that I met in East Texas, gunshop owners, shooters, neighbors, faculty, students, etc. are always shocked when I tell them that silencers, FA and even beltfed Semis are legal to own. TRG

TRG, you know what is most disturbing about that, is that is it were more common knowledge, I would bet there would be a strong movement to ban them. If the average soccer mom knew that I could go buy an UZI and take it out nad shoot it whenever I feel like it, she would not be able to handle it. Very must a catch 22.
CH

Quoted: Quoted: Tell me one department that puts a rifle like that into untrained hands for patrol? There's many in my area (BHM).

Maybe 30 years ago there were agencies that did not engage in regular  firearms training, but the court decisions are too numerous  against that practice now for agencies to still be doing it. The NTOA , IALEFI and similar organizations reconmendations for pre-issue patrol rifle training is generally 40 hours; most agencies find it pretty difficult to match that due to expense, but I haven't seen any that opt for "no training" as you claim.
* post contains personal opinion only*

Quoted: Maybe 30 years ago there were agencies that did not engage in regular  firearms training, but the court decisions are too numerous  against that practice now for agencies to still be doing it. The NTOA , IALEFI and similar organizations reconmendations for pre-issue patrol rifle training is generally 40 hours; most agencies find it pretty difficult to match that due to expense, but I haven't seen any that opt for "no training" as you claim.

I'm talking about regular patrol cops (not SWAT) being issued select fire weapons. Several of the agencies don't advertise the fact but do issue the weapons. Jefferson County, for one example, has plenty of AC556 Rugers riding around in trunks. Seriously, many of the cops I've seen are LOUSY gun handlers (and I've been exposed to them). Many of my LE friends would agree with that statement. Do they really need full auto capability. No they do not, IMHO.

Quoted: I'm talking about regular patrol cops (not SWAT) being issued select fire weapons. Several of the agencies don't advertise the fact but do issue the weapons. Jefferson County, for one example, has plenty of AC556 Rugers riding around in trunks. Seriously, many of the cops I've seen are LOUSY gun handlers (and I've been exposed to them). Many of my LE friends would agree with that statement. Do they really need full auto capability. No they do not, IMHO.

The comment was posted that I was responding to was  that they are "untrained".I do not see any agency issuing a long gun, let alone a select fire weapon, with zero training.Once again, that admin would be liability foolish to do so.Advertising the fact that the agency has selct fire weapons is another issue totally .Since you brought up the issue,do you know how much training they get? If so, how much training do you think they SHOULD get? Are you willing to PAY for that level of training?Are the same officers isused the select fire Rugers the same ones displaying the handling skills you mentioned?You did not esttablish that.

I don't think they should get any training for select fire weapons because they (patrol cops) shouldn't get them in the first place, IMO.

Why do I keep seeing "NEED" listed as a reason for having any type of rfirearm?  "NEED" is a communist idea, you "NEED" shelter, you "NEED" food, you do not "NEED" a BMW

But this is North America, Y'all (for the most part) are in the USof freaking A!  You don't need anything, you "WANT" stuff, it is capitalist, it is what keep sth eeconomy going

I did not "NEED" another handgun, hell my country says I do not "NEED" one at all, but I sure as hell "WANTED" one, so I bought one, then another, and another......

I despise the term "NEED".  This is the free world, we are not Communist, or Socialist, so accept the fact theat people want things, if you do not agree that they should be able to have them, have a nice cup of SHUT THE FUCK UP and ignore them buying things  they like.
They probably do not give a rat's ass at what you buy, oh look, John bought an inflatable doll to fuck, who gives a Shit?  Oh look, SGTAR15 bought a Quad 50 to terrorize the groundhogs on his land, once again, who gives a fuck? Buy whit, enjoy it, and quit tryign to force people to live by your personal fucked up beleifs about what the purchasing and property cycles of the USofA should be


~the preceding rant was aimed at anyone who ever bitches at soemthign soemone buys, be it guns, SUVs, condoms, Women, or anythign else that you can buy rent or sell for money or anythign else~


Fuck, I should not even have to say such simple shit, fuckign whiners whining about need this and need that, I need fuckign earmuffs so I don't have to listen to liberal gungrabbign pieces of shit screming after their loved ones were raped to death because they were too fuckign stupid to defeind themselves fucking gungrabbing LEO pieces of shit withtheir us vs. them mentality along with Brady bitch a swinestein............ now I am all pissed off        

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: No Hoax or prize give away. In other words, "This time I'm not lying, I swear." B-O-O H-O-O You never know.I was thinking about giving my CNC A1 BUIS away as a prize in the future. You excluded of course. Count me out too.

So be it.