Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 10/11/2002 9:39:13 PM EDT
My reason is they are not military,they are Civvies just like the rest of us.They should have to obey the Law that the rest of us have to. Dont give me that Excuse that their Job is more dangerous,as AL Pacchino said,and i qoute:"You can get killed walkin your doggy". I believe there are risks that you take,and law enforcement is no diffrent,You should know the risk of doing your job.
Link Posted: 10/11/2002 9:45:43 PM EDT
Your right no one needs automatic weapons. All of them should be turned in. It should be easy to verify compliance since all auto weapons are registered with the ATF, tax stamp and such. While we're at it let's get rid of all SBR's and suppresors. Are you getting my point? In most states MG's are legal to own. There's some hoops to go through and the gun must be pre-86. Sure the Govt. can get new guns.
Link Posted: 10/11/2002 9:49:04 PM EDT
No what i am saying is that why should the Police get to have these weapons and we cant.
Link Posted: 10/11/2002 9:53:25 PM EDT
Ummm if I had the funds I could go out and get a spressed, SBR, that's full auto. Why shouldn't police officer, who are civilians, have access to the same weapons non police officer civilians have access to?? Or why does our military need better equipment than the militatries of other countries? Next time we go to war we should have the exact same type and number of tanks/planes/ships as our enemy.
Link Posted: 10/11/2002 9:53:42 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/11/2002 9:55:23 PM EDT by ProfGAB101]
Yep - take all existing gun laws and yank all exceptions for law enforcement. Boy did some police unions scream when lottenburg forced some of the boys in blue into desk jockey positions because they had prior Domestic issues and could not legally be in possession of a service weapon. Squeeze please! (edit - #200 - in two months... I need a job...)
Link Posted: 10/11/2002 9:54:28 PM EDT
Originally Posted By usmc0311: My reason is they are not military,they are Civvies just like the rest of us.They should have to obey the Law that the rest of us have to. Dont give me that Excuse that their Job is more dangerous,as AL Pacchino said,and i qoute:"You can get killed walkin your doggy". I believe there are risks that you take,and law enforcement is no diffrent,You should know the risk of doing your job.
View Quote
If the police say they need them then ordinary citizens need them too. Nothing the police have must outgun the citizenry, because the crooks will always have access to the most firepower. If they claim that we don't need it then they don't need them either.
Link Posted: 10/11/2002 10:21:00 PM EDT
Thats what i am saying Kroagnon.
Link Posted: 10/11/2002 10:39:36 PM EDT
Fucking a man. I don't think police should be allowed to own automatic weapons. I also think there should be NO exemptions for LEOs at all. They should have to use 10 round mags like the rest of us (enless they want to spend their own personal money on prebans).
Link Posted: 10/11/2002 10:50:48 PM EDT
Sure they should have access to whatever they need, so should we. The second amendment assures us of our right to defend our country, with our life, at our own expense. Hell, the gov't should subsidize our efforts to defend our country, the cheap bast*rds. The Mexican Army has already crossed the border and killed border agents.
Link Posted: 10/11/2002 11:05:33 PM EDT
I think cops should be prevented from carrying Semi-Automatic Pistols as duty guns. They should go back to using Revolvers (Although Double Action Revolvers in 45 Colt). Before anyone SCREAMS at me..hear out my reasoning.. There are a lot of Female LEO's out there. They tend to have smaller hands and less forearm and hand strength than men. A lot of Double Action Semi-Auto Duty guns require a fairly high amount of pressure in order to fire. When the trigger breaks the muzzle of the gun will move a little during the "lock" time. All handguns do this. But for a Double Action Revolver, if the police officer cocks the hammer and puts it into single action mode, then it has a very light trigger pull, resulting in less muzzle movement. In other words: it is easier to be accurate with a revolver than it is with a Semi-Automatic Pistol (yeah..I know..there are exceptions out there). The second reason for going back to revolvers, is that it you can use more powerful loads (subject to department approval) than you can with a pistol. A 3rd reason: Revolvers tend to have greater reliability (though with the high quality pistols out on the market these days, it isn't as much of an issue as it used to be) BUT...with revolvers you don't have to worry about cycling problems due to limp wristing. A 4th Reason: Revolvers are simpler to use safely. So you will have fewer accidental discharges. The main draw back to revolvers is that pistols can hold more rounds and they can be reloaded faster. As for suppressed firearms and fully automatic weaponry..I fail to see a need in Law Enforcement for such weapons. LEO's are supposed to use the minimum amount of force necessary to apprehend or neutralize a suspect. This is necessary in order to prevent accidental shootings of innocent bystanders due to stray rounds. LEO's need greater precision and knockdown power in their weapons. Hence the need for Revolvers, Semi-Automatic Rifles, Bolt Action Rifles. If there primary role was NOT making arrests but killing people than it would be a different story. Officers should be prevented from wearing Balaclava hoods. Why? Because we live in an open society. If they want to protect their faces then they can wear helmets with plexiglass face sheilds.
Link Posted: 10/12/2002 3:35:55 AM EDT
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery: Ummm if I had the funds I could go out and get a spressed, SBR, that's full auto. Why shouldn't police officer, who are civilians, have access to the same weapons non police officer civilians have access to?? Or why does our military need better equipment than the militatries of other countries? Next time we go to war we should have the exact same type and number of tanks/planes/ships as our enemy.
View Quote
You mean something like this? [img]http://members.shaw.ca/stan420/Pictures/FN-P90.jpg[/img] Oops...that's right you can't own one of these. Only the police and military can. Get the point?
Link Posted: 10/12/2002 3:56:51 AM EDT
BOSSTONTERRIOR the reason the LEO's don't want to carry six or seven shot revolvers is because any bust they made, would be against eight men with 20 round autos! They switched to 9mm for firepower,not knock down power! Bob [:d]
Link Posted: 10/12/2002 4:09:27 AM EDT
Also there is no need for FA AR/15's! The marines proved this as they found the 3 round burst didn't allways work if you released trigger pull before the third round was fired! So they convenced the Gov to make them a full auto M/16,then they found the .223 to be to hot a round in this rifle to be fired as such,cook offs,barrel probs.ect. So all in all at that Cal. it just didn't work,so they decided that 9mm or .45acp worked just fine in that usage! So the Mp4 or such worked good! So no unless they(LEO'S) get different cal.than .223! LEO and military usage is one and the same,war on crime is still war! Bob [:D]
Link Posted: 10/12/2002 4:22:31 PM EDT
Small-statured females would do better with a large-frame double-action revolver in .45 Colt? Give me a break. Many of them have trouble pointing a Glock 19 at a target for any length of time. And do you really want a poorly-trained, gun-shy officer pointing a cocked revolver with a REALLY light trigger at anyone in a stressful situation? And yeah, let's chuck some of Cor-bon's hot hunting loads in the .45 Colt that female officer is going to use. Watch her fire once and drop the damn thing. That has to be one of the silliest suggestions I've ever heard.
Link Posted: 10/12/2002 4:49:08 PM EDT
Originally Posted By bobbyjack: LEO and military usage is one and the same,war on crime is still war! Bob [:D]
View Quote
I hope you are fucking kidding.
Link Posted: 10/12/2002 4:54:33 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/12/2002 5:01:03 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Philadelphia_GunMan:
Originally Posted By bobbyjack: LEO and military usage is one and the same,war on crime is still war! Bob [:D]
View Quote
I hope you are fucking kidding.
View Quote
PGM, Will there ever be a post you make that doesn't include the F word at least once? I know it makes you cool and all but.....
Link Posted: 10/12/2002 5:03:34 PM EDT
Sure, they can have them just as long as they play by the same rules us peasants do. No new FA weapons, just the same OLD weapons us serfs can get and they have to get the tax stamp and pay fair market value as well. If the law changes so I can go buy a new G36 or M16, then fine they can have them too. But right now its not an even playing field.
Link Posted: 10/12/2002 5:06:53 PM EDT
I have no idea why I reply to posts like these because there is nothing anyone could say to you all to make you reconsider your position. Your closed minds are likely made and set already. That being said I will make several points. First let me ask you, why do we (Yes I was a gun owner/hobbyist/nut/whatever before my career in LE and I intend to remain one after I retire so I will say we.) own AR-15s or whatever type of military based arm you may like and in many cases have a little stash of ammo and gear "just in case"? Well we have it so that we are better prepared than Joe Shitbag. If we did not care about that we would own .22 target rifles or nothing at all. So you feel it is OK for you to arm yourself effectively but because POLITICIANS ELECTED BY MAJORITIES pass fucked up bullshit laws and you are denied what you may want or even what you may need you feel that as an LEO I should handicap myself and be less prepared than I legally can be. That reeks of raw jealousy. Let me tell you all, my ONE VOTE is counted just like yours, no more, no less. I assure you MOST LEOs vote and think just like you but you ask us to not use the VERY BEST equipment we can because you can not own it. Were it up to me we could own whatever we wanted (although I do support background check). Would you go into a rifle fight with a pistol? No but you ask me to. That is BS. AND I AM SORRY BUT THERE IS A MUCH GREATER LIKELIHOOD OF ME NEEDING MY WEAPONS THAN YOU. That is my job and I accept the risks but I am gonna stack all the odds in my favor. Why would you ask me to do any less? I accept the risks of driving but I buy safer vehicles and wear my seatbelt. UCMC, if you were in the Corps and you were sent into battle against irregulars with Lee Enfields, would you turn in your M-16 for a 1903? Come on, sure you would, you know the risks of being a Marine, right?? That is just dumb and I bet you know it. Is a Marine in the 'Stan in more danger that one "walking his doggie" in his neighborhood? Come on, Man! Terrier said I am supposed to use the minimum amount of force necessary to make an arrest and he is right but I respond ONE OR TWO STEPS ABOVE the level of force used against me if possible. That is perfectly legal and proper. If you wanna swing on me you may get sprayed or meet my baton. Pull a 2x4 on me and you may meet my .40. If you want to pull a Shotgun on me I will use my AR if possible... is that unreasonable? If you use a semi auto rifle why shouldn't I use a FA if I have one (I am not issued one, my AR does me fine). I want the tools I need to respond to what ever may present itself... is that unreasonable? As far as FA in particular goes I agree that there are limited numbers of circumstances in which they can and should be used but when they present themselves I'll be glad it is there. Why not? Regarding suppressed weapons goes we only have a couple of suppressed MP-5's and we use them for meth lab entries (flammable gasses ya know?) and have used them to take out dogs and a street light. Anyway that's my two cents. Slam me if you will but ask yourself IF YOU COULD (and it is NOT your local street cop's fault that you can not) own the very best, wouldn't you? Why should I cheat myself especially when we are in harm's way daily and head toward situations most are running away from? Never mind...
Link Posted: 10/12/2002 5:16:15 PM EDT
LEO's should be subject to the same rules as everyone else. LEO's should have access to the same weapons, mag capacity, and off-duty carry rules as civilians, and civilians should not have to pay 10x the cost for the same equipment. I also think they should have to lose the face masks. I think that the general public has tired of seeing local law enforcement that is supposed to be there to help, dressing like a terrorist or bank robber.
Link Posted: 10/12/2002 5:16:49 PM EDT
Originally Posted By FiveO: I have no idea why I reply to posts like these because there is nothing anyone could say to you all to make you reconsider your position. Your closed minds are likely made and set already. That being said I will make several points. First let me ask you, why do we (Yes I was a gun owner/hobbyist/nut/whatever before my career in LE and I intend to remain one after I retire so I will say we.) own AR-15s or whatever type of military based arm you may like and in many cases have a little stash of ammo and gear "just in case"? Well we have it so that we are better prepared than Joe Shitbag. If we did not care about that we would own .22 target rifles or nothing at all. So you feel it is OK for you to arm yourself effectively but because POLITICIANS ELECTED BY MAJORITIES pass fucked up bullshit laws and you are denied what you may want or even what you may need you feel that as an LEO I should handicap myself and be less prepared than I legally can be. That reeks of raw jealousy. Let me tell you all, my ONE VOTE is counted just like yours, no more, no less. I assure you MOST LEOs vote and think just like you but you ask us to not use the VERY BEST equipment we can because you can not own it. Were it up to me we could own whatever we wanted (although I do support background check). Would you go into a rifle fight with a pistol? No but you ask me to. That is BS. AND I AM SORRY BUT THERE IS A MUCH GREATER LIKELIHOOD OF ME NEEDING MY WEAPONS THAN YOU. That is my job and I accept the risks but I am gonna stack all the odds in my favor. Why would you ask me to do any less? I accept the risks of driving but I buy safer vehicles and wear my seatbelt. UCMC, if you were in the Corps and you were sent into battle against irregulars with Lee Enfields, would you turn in your M-16 for a 1903? Come on, sure you would, you know the risks of being a Marine, right?? That is just dumb and I bet you know it. Is a Marine in the 'Stan in more danger that one "walking his doggie" in his neighborhood? Come on, Man! Terrier said I am supposed to use the minimum amount of force necessary to make an arrest and he is right but I respond ONE OR TWO STEPS ABOVE the level of force used against me if possible. That is perfectly legal and proper. If you wanna swing on me you may get sprayed or meet my baton. Pull a 2x4 on me and you may meet my .40. If you want to pull a Shotgun on me I will use my AR if possible... is that unreasonable? If you use a semi auto rifle why shouldn't I use a FA if I have one (I am not issued one, my AR does me fine). I want the tools I need to respond to what ever may present itself... is that unreasonable? As far as FA in particular goes I agree that there are limited numbers of circumstances in which they can and should be used but when they present themselves I'll be glad it is there. Why not? Regarding suppressed weapons goes we only have a couple of suppressed MP-5's and we use them for meth lab entries (flammable gasses ya know?) and have used them to take out dogs and a street light. Anyway that's my two cents. Slam me if you will but ask yourself IF YOU COULD (and it is NOT your local street cop's fault that you can not) own the very best, wouldn't you? Why should I cheat myself especially when we are in harm's way daily and head toward situations most are running away from? Never mind...
View Quote
Most every, if not all police unions and associations back the gun grabbers and support the AWB and any gun law they put out there. Your reply may be....well the average cop does'nt feel that way, right ?? Well, these groups you pay your dues to and support are lobbying to keep me from "owning the very best" so untill the "rank and file" leo's stand up to their liberal ass kissing unions, I think they should have to play by OUR rules.
Link Posted: 10/12/2002 5:22:58 PM EDT
Semi Auto: Yes Full Auto: No Jay [img]http://members.cox.net/azcop/images/iroc-cop.gif[/img]
Link Posted: 10/12/2002 5:23:04 PM EDT
Document that Specter. I agree there are a few dumbassed Police Executives and orgs that stand up at the press confrences but to say most if not all... document it. It boils down to pettiness doesn't it?
Link Posted: 10/12/2002 5:25:51 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/12/2002 5:29:30 PM EDT
Originally Posted By usmc0311: No what i am saying is that why should the Police get to have these weapons and we cant.
View Quote
look at the north hollywood shootout, those two bad guys had fully automatic weapon's! and Kali its illegal to own full-auto barely simi-auto. and the cops only had pistol and shotguns. see where i'am going with this.
Link Posted: 10/12/2002 5:31:15 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/12/2002 5:32:15 PM EDT
Originally Posted By LE6920:
Originally Posted By Philadelphia_GunMan:
Originally Posted By bobbyjack: LEO and military usage is one and the same,war on crime is still war! Bob [:D]
View Quote
I hope you are fucking kidding.
View Quote
PGM, Will there ever be a post you make that doesn't include the F word at least once? I know it makes you cool and all but.....
View Quote
I use the F word in my posts because that is how I talk in real life. The things I say on this board are exactly the same things and same way that I say them in real life. I'm not trying to be cool. That is just how I talk. Maybe it is just the city but most people I know use the F word rather frequently.
Link Posted: 10/12/2002 5:43:59 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/12/2002 5:55:47 PM EDT by cretescreeder]
My 2 cents, LEO's should have anything and everything they need to protect my ass, from from the rest of you dumb asses. (edited to ad two words and a comma)
Link Posted: 10/12/2002 6:25:36 PM EDT
Figure it out guys, they are slowly disarming us and rapidly building up there arsenal with superior weapons so when the time come for them to take our guns for good we will be primative compared to them.
Link Posted: 10/12/2002 6:34:55 PM EDT
Originally Posted By shotar: Yes, the police should have whatever tools are needed for the job. That California has outlawed automatic weapons is really your problem, you all voted in those politicians, its up to you to vote them out. [red]Here, anyone with a clean record and a tax stamp can get one.[/red]
View Quote
And $5000 to $10,000 or much more depending on what you want and then you are limited to pre 86 weapons only. How much do those LEO FA's cost again ?? [rolleyes]
Link Posted: 10/12/2002 6:45:25 PM EDT
The Constitution makes no provision for any elite or privileged class. The rights enumerated in it apply to all and to all equally. The Constitution has been raped and defiled by politicians for mere political and/or financial gain. With whom do you stand? Which side will you take when the revolution comes?
Link Posted: 10/12/2002 8:10:30 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/12/2002 8:26:50 PM EDT by ProfGAB101]
In response to Five-O: My point in removing LE exemptions is that you won't have another press conference at the passage of some new gun ban like when Clinton had that line of puppets in blue (all disarmed by the way) pretending to support the ban. (Assault Weapons) FOP and such are not going to support a law that steals there bone. Laws which allow retired (inactive) police to continue to carry concealed when the general population has no option for such is total B$. If you support that line of reasoning then you would also, by extension have to support the concept of veterans being allowed to posses, own, and carry the same weapons they qualified/issued during there service. Next flame that chaps my backside. - LE pricing. - I should probably post this as a separate thread... but I'm already started. I have cops asking me for discounts all the time. At times they have been rather rude about it and I have responded in kind. My LE prices are 25% higher than retail to the public now, for a number of reasons, mainly paperwork, paperwork and paperwork. If its off duty plinking ammo you want pay retail like everyone else. - If its duty ammo you need then get it through your dept. - Its then "Discounted" as there will be no sales tax or Federal FET. LE prices on guns. - In states where there are a host of B$ gun regs there is little retail market, so law enforcement is your primary customer. Due to the reduced volume, the markup on each item must be higher. Also states which have B$ liability laws place the dealer at a much higher risk of the weapon sold being involved in a homicide (even though most likely justified.) - Again, want a LE discount on guns order through your dept. - There is almost always one FFL holder for the Dept. [/soapbox] (edit to add) - While I am not a Vet. I feel that those who have taken the oath to defend the Constitution, and been ready or have gone out to defend this country should be granted that right as a basic veterans benefit. I do have LE customers and I do give discounts, but its not because anyone flashed a badge. When ever I setup group purchases I inform all my regulars and offer them the chance to get in "at cost".
Link Posted: 10/12/2002 10:06:48 PM EDT
Why does everyone have to get all goddam philosophical about this?? The 2nd amendment was intended to mean that civilians (I don't see anything about backgroung checks or felons) has the right and should have access to EVERYTHING to which the government has access. Didn't the Minutemen have access to cannon? Their firearms were equal to or better than the British equipment. In today's terms, we, the people should be able to buy ANY piece of military hardware on the market. TS [}:D] Example from PBS website: Militia existed in the colonies long before the American Revolution. With the exception of Pennsylvania, colonies required most able-bodied men to own weapons, to be willing to be called for periodic training, and to defend their communities from attack, primarily by Indians. This was the colonial militia.
Link Posted: 10/12/2002 10:18:32 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/12/2002 10:37:14 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/12/2002 10:51:49 PM EDT by PanzerBoy]
There are some excellent points being made here, by several different people: 1) We, the people, are being slowly disarmed, dumbed down so that when the time comes to completely disarm us, we will already be at disadvantage. I feel this way but this is the first time I have ever seen anyone else come right out and say it. 2) Having PERFORMED many of the functions of a LEO (such as foot patrol and high-risk arrest/warrant service), but without the LEO "privilege", let me tell you that we are ALREADY living in a Police State, wherein we have a privileged class of personnel, assigned to watch over us, who are exempt from the rules and the law. The concept of "Qui Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?" Comes into play here. If you don't speak Latin, I HIGHLY recommend you look this phrase up. 3) I cannot say with certainty that Five0 has deliberately misinterpreted this thread in order to preserve the "victim" status as the "injured party" from this suggestion, so I will give him the benefit of the doubt and attempt to clarify what I see as the basic thread: The concept is NOT to DISARM LEO's, but to properly ARM the rest of the citizenry. Period. LEO's who are afraid of an armed citizenry should not be LEO's in my honest opinion. Most of the cops I knew and worked with knew that, in Florida, with all the concealed carry permit holders, that their chances of getting caught without backup went DOWN when licensed, armed citizens were on the streets. I've been there, playing the "armed citizen" role, and the cop I backed up was GRATEFUL, not SCORNFUL. Not so in Los Angeles, where a LEO is more likely to be SCARED of an armed citizen than gracious. Because Los Angeles, by its legal system and political machine, have created a severely adversarial relationship between LEO's and the people they police. The answer is NOT to "dumb cops down" per se, but it does behoove us to consider that they will seek to REMOVE their endorsement of deadly laws that don't apply to them, if they start feeling the reality that the "rest of us" have felt for the last 30 years. Reality is suspended for this privileged class. I suspect that once they get a taste of what we deal with, perhaps those who enforce the rules will sing a different tune. Is it Jealousy? Could be. But any privileged class will always scream Jealousy and Pettiness in order to retain their privilege. Duh! "We hold these truths to be self-evident." So, Five0, as a LEO, what objection would you have, if, and let me phrase it differently, the "Law Enforcement Only" restrictions were REMOVED from all weapons? Not just "Assault Weapons" but real NFA firearms. If the doors were opened again for new civilian transferables? So that you KNEW that every call you went on, there might be someone out there who would legally have EXACTLY the same gear you have? Does that make you nervous? Why? Just because the privileged few "share our pain" doesn't make them any less privileged, and, jealousy or no, the truth is that I am DENIED my rights by the same kind of pettiness that fuels my resentment toward that priveliged class. But I don't call it petty. I call it self-determination of destiny; Not being subject to the nanny state; Not being dependent upon someone else for my life in a crisis. Be that as it may. PRIVILEGE for ALL, JUSTICE for ALL, or Privilege for NONE. "You know the score, pal! When you're not cop, you're little people!" -- Captain Bryant, [u]Blade Runner[/u] Period. Panz [bounce] {edited for clarity as the unedited version might imply that I had at any time in the past been a Law Enforcement Officer, which I have not} {edited again to add the Blade Runner quote, which I felt in retrospect to be highly appropriate}
Link Posted: 10/12/2002 10:58:47 PM EDT
I'm not a police officer now and hope to never be one. However, if I was a cop I would want the best, newest, fastest, strongest, ass-kicking weapons I could get my hands on including hand grenades. I would also get the best training available and practice, practice, practice so when I fire the FA M-16 and throw the grenade I hit only the scumbag and blow up only the meth lab. I say cops need the tools and training to do their job right the first time. Let law enforcement experts figure out what each department needs. For example, Janet Reno decided the INS needs MP5's to rescue kids from fishermen. So be it. Wait a minute. If liberal fascists are running things, the citizens will be way out-gunned. That's not good. Okay then I changed my mind. From now on, citizens can have whatever they individually feel they need to have, and cops can profile criminals (like they used to) and lock their asses up before they become arrogant, aggressive killers. Oh yeah, replace "Three Strikes You're Out" with "Two Strikes = 50,000 Volts". Did I cover everything?
Link Posted: 10/13/2002 1:32:40 AM EDT
Well stated PanzerBoy! I was a little hot from another event locally and should have waited to post. Thanks for your post, it is also how I feel. I work with many current & retired LE and 90% are great people. I guess what I wanted to say is to be able to remove LE from the political arena, or at least remove any incentive they might have to go on record of supporting future ban legislation.
Link Posted: 10/13/2002 6:20:17 AM EDT
Originally Posted By SPECTRE:
Originally Posted By shotar: Yes, the police should have whatever tools are needed for the job. That California has outlawed automatic weapons is really your problem, you all voted in those politicians, its up to you to vote them out. [red]Here, anyone with a clean record and a tax stamp can get one.[/red]
View Quote
And $5000 to $10,000 or much more depending on what you want and then you are limited to pre 86 weapons only. How much do those LEO FA's cost again ?? [rolleyes]
View Quote
I work for a 400 person dept. We have 30+ year old shotguns, WIN-870's, we have been consistently denied money to upgrade to new AR-15's, or simply replace the old shotguns with new ones. It gives me great confidence to know that if I am in a situation and the shooting may start, I have a 30+ year old shotgun with a bead front sight, and slugs to protect myself or others. If they were giving away AR-15's or M-16's they would claim that price was 10% more than they were willing to pay. FYI I have been in several situations where the nearest practical cover to the BG is appx 100 yards from them, and they have actual rifles............ Profgab101, if all NFA restrictions, or maybe just the pre-86, and State-laws regualting NFA weapons were removed, maintaining the registration at the Federal level. I would be Ok with that. Of course then I would have to go get me somrthing in say a real M-4. But it probably wouldn't mean anything to me at work. I'd still have Mr. 870. As far as being nervous about full auto weapons...... Sure if the price came down more "yahoo's" would have them. But I believe Col. Cooper said something about a skilled shooter is more dangerous with slow deliberate fire, than a person armed with an automatic weapon, who is going to be throwing rounds around, praying for a hit. Sorry, there are skilled people with weapons that are a far more siginifigant a threat than auto assault rifles.
Link Posted: 10/13/2002 7:26:32 AM EDT
Semi auto: YES Full auto: HELL YES! Interestingly enough, since the NFA of 1934, out of all the properly registered machineguns in private hands, there's only been one serious crime committed with one by its owner, and that was a cop in 1980 who gave his wife a full auto divorce with his own registered MG. Given that the licensing system for MG's has resulted in legal MG owners being by FAR the safest and most law abiding faction of all gun owners, I actually wouldn't squawk much about the May '86 ban being rescinded even if no other action was taken, though I would like to see the LEO signoff requirement removed because it places veto power in the hands of someone who shouldn't have it. Generally, I'd be against ALL firearms restrictions and especially against registration, but it's hard to argue with the track record of REGISTERED machinegun ownership. If the prices were reasonable and my local LEO would sign off, I would voluntarily submit to the licensing requirements in order to on an MG. I wouldn't have anything negative to say about us going back to a pre-1934 environment as far as gun sales are concerned, either. Ready availability of EVERYTHING isn't necessarily a bad thing. We have more than enough laws on the books now that cover criminal acts with firearms. I think it would be sufficient to merely enforce them aggressively, and let the people own what they want. CJ
Link Posted: 10/13/2002 7:49:41 AM EDT
The most dangerous job in America: Shop and rob clerk working the graveyard shift. These people are denied any protection by their employers. Why are the cops any better than them? Col. Cooper said "When the time comes, pray that your enemies are on full-auto"
Link Posted: 10/13/2002 8:00:29 AM EDT
Actually, according to the U.S. Labor Department (and the internet, which is NEVER wrong...), the most dangerous jobs, in order, are: 1. Truck driver 2. Farm worker 3. Sales supervisor/proprietor 4. Construction worker 5. Police detective 6. Airplane pilot 7. Security guard 8. Taxicab driver 9. Timber cutter 10. Cashier 11. Fisherman 12. Metal worker 13. Roofer 14. Firefighter
Link Posted: 10/13/2002 8:04:12 AM EDT
Originally Posted By DScott: Actually, according to the U.S. Labor Department (and the internet, which is NEVER wrong...), the most dangerous jobs, in order, are: 1. Truck driver 2. Farm worker 3. Sales supervisor/proprietor 4. Construction worker 5. Police detective 6. Airplane pilot 7. Security guard 8. Taxicab driver 9. Timber cutter 10. Cashier 11. Fisherman 12. Metal worker 13. Roofer 14. Firefighter
View Quote
I was referring to those who are killed by bad guys, while doing their job.
Link Posted: 10/13/2002 8:04:36 AM EDT
There are some responsibilities and risks that come with pinning on that badge FiveO. You mission is to Protect and Serve the public. Unlike the military who in a combat situation, may elect to just spray down the house with full auto fire, Law Enforcement's mission is to take out the bad guy, while protecting the lives of American citizens in the surrounding area. It is for this reason that full auto weapons are not needed or desirable in the public Law Enforcement role. Lets say for example, that you FiveO are called to the scene of a Bank robbery and as you pursue the armed suspect down the street the suspect darts in front of a crowd of women and children then wheels on you to fire. Do you shoot at the bad guy despite the fact that he is standing directly in front of a woman carrying a baby? There is word for the kind of officer who values his own life, more than the lives of the public he is sworn to protect. I believe that word is coward. Who ever told you FiveO, That Law Enforcement was a nice safe profession, where you would never run into a situation where you could get killed or that you might have to make a choice between your life or the lives of the public, was blowing sunshine up you ass. That's why even if the bad guy does have a full auto weapon, you as a Law Enforcement officer still have to aim and make your shots count, Spraying down the general civilian area with full auto fire in an effort to save your own hide, is not an option and if you think it is, then you FiveO, need to turn in your badge and find another line of work.
Link Posted: 10/13/2002 8:40:02 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/13/2002 8:50:19 AM EDT by DScott]
NIOSH data:
... For workplace homicides, the [u]taxicab[/u] industry has the highest risk at 41.4/100,000, nearly 60 times the national average rate (0.70/100,000). The taxicab industry is followed by [u]liquor stores[/u] (7.5) detective/protective services (7.0), gas service stations (4.8) and jewelry stores (4.7). The [u]occupations[/u] with the highest homicide rates are taxicab drivers/chauffeurs (22.7), [u]sheriffs/bailiffs[/u] (10.7), [u]police and detectives public service[/u] (6.1), gas station/garage workers (5.9), and security guards (5.5). The majority of nonfatal assaults occurred in the service (64%) and retail trade (21%) industries. Specifically, 27% occurred in nursing homes, 13% in social services, 11% in hospitals, 6% in grocery stores, and another 5% occurred in eating and drinking places.
View Quote
(emphasis added...) Edited to add: while retail is dangerous, it is not more dangerous than LE, if you use these numbers for occupations. Everybody should be able to protect themselves, but it seems foolish to deny that LE is, by it's very nature, a dangerous job.
Link Posted: 10/13/2002 8:59:16 AM EDT
how fast will "they" start picking up our guns if they are found not to need thiers.. Great Britan here we come.... I dont think the point is should they have FA.. but to infrom "them" that we not only need them also... but that it is our god given right as americans... and that 20 year old M16 that costs 5500 bucks doesnt count.. So what if I cant hunt ducks with? What the hell does that have to do with me protecting myself from crime or the .gov as far as the guy with the dept that is not alloweed cash to upgrade weapons.. doesnt the military have a program < northstar I believe > that basicly gives away M16/M14 just for the asking.. not upgradeing and having to use 30 y/o equip is just bad managment..
Link Posted: 10/13/2002 9:48:55 AM EDT
I think everyone should be allowed anything they want. How else do you "check" the government. I've always been under the impression that all the government officials were just common citizens just like you and I. If they are "citizens" why should they be exempt from some laws? It's obvious that we are being disarmed. I'm not so sure that it is our government that is doing it though.... In fact, I think it is ourselves. The government wouldn't be able to do it at all if popular opinion held that we should be armed. The problem is with a few people who seize control of the media, fool the soccer-moms, change public opinion and get laws passed. When will we stop reacting in fear? If you just watch T.V.today, everything plays on the fear of American people. Almost every commercial makes you fear something, then sells you a product to remedy it. Do you have pimples? Are people going to laugh at you? Are your investments safe? Is that Acid Reflux Disease that you are suffering from? I'm sick of it....... I won't be afraid any more. That includes being afraid of other people. Why have we turned into such a dependent culture. Why do we need all the services we pay for? Why do we need the cops to protect our homes? WHY ARE WE SLOWLY SELLING OURSELVES OUT?????? It seems that the only real way to win is to change the minds of the soccer moms. If you can't do that, work on their kids..... If you want something done right, do it yourself.
Link Posted: 10/13/2002 10:11:17 AM EDT
NO FA unless we can have the same without all of the "class 3" crap!!! [pissed]
Link Posted: 10/13/2002 1:01:33 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/13/2002 1:04:14 PM EDT by CantHitShit]
My position on this is simple. I don't believe a separate set of laws should exist for LEO's. A lot of laws on the books would disappear if cops had to enforce them on themselves. Ever hear a cop complain about a speeding ticket? The speed limit doesn't seem to apply to them. Every time congress talks about infringing on a constitutionally guaranteed right they are quick to point out that members of certain favored classes will be exempt. Scary looking rifles are outlawed. But wait, cops and [b][i]retired cops[/i][/b] can keep theirs? Why would a retired cop need access to more firepower than a retired proctologist? Lawmakers and law enforcers have always made sure that they get special consideration if not outright exemption. Every time they do it you hear some pap about how their job is so dangerous. Tell that to the shop keepers in Cleveland who saw their stores destroyed by mobs of looters during the race riots. Seems like they're exposed to a pretty significant risk. Why don't they qualify for exemption? I say one law for everyone, including cops. Even retired ones.
Link Posted: 10/13/2002 1:22:05 PM EDT
The police don't have anything special. They have automatic weapons, we can own automatic weapons. The departments don't have to jump thru all the hoops we do. The police officers do have the hoops in their way if they want an automatic weapon. They have special ammo, we can purchase the same ammo if you look around. I think the police should have access to the same weapons and equipment all of us have access to. That's the reason the police went to 9mm's and other automatic weapons from the old .38 special revolvers. The "real bad guys" were out gunning the cops. I believe it's about time the cops actually have an advantage in firepower over the "real bad guys. I would rather go up against the sniper with a cannon and not a p-shooter.
Link Posted: 10/13/2002 1:57:59 PM EDT
The Drug War upped the ante on firepower. Regardless of what I could legally own I wouldn't send an LEO out there except under equal terms with the Bad Guys. It's not a productive argument to pit your rights against the realities of LEO's. While a lot of chiefs and elected sheriffs might want to restrict your guns, rank and file LEO's don't reflect that attitude IMO>
Link Posted: 10/13/2002 2:04:33 PM EDT
Originally Posted By nightstalker: The Drug War upped the ante on firepower. Regardless of what I could legally own I wouldn't send an LEO out there except under equal terms with the Bad Guys. It's not a productive argument to pit your rights against the realities of LEO's. [red]While a lot of chiefs and elected sheriffs might want to restrict your guns, rank and file LEO's don't reflect that attitude IMO>[/red]
View Quote
While I agree with the highlighted statement, I still wonder why these same "rank and file" leo's still support their unions with their dues when the unions stand with the demoRATs and the antis.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top