Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 5/1/2003 12:15:59 AM EDT
This was my answer in a post on the GD board. Many of the people there saying the AW ban was uncontitutional. Some big intenet talkers sayig they would kill us if tried to arrest them on a AW violation. Let me know what you think of my responce. First let me start off by saying I am a LEO and would not arrest on a AW violation alone. I feel it is a unjust law and needs to be overturned. But it is legal heres why. Many people do not the undestand the Bill of Rights is conditional not to be taken word for word. Heres some examples. The 1st ammendment covers freedom of speach, freedom of press, religion, right to assemble, and petion the government with your grievances. But the courts have held that freedom of speeh does not allow you to yell fire in a crowded movie theater, sense it would endanger the lives of others (im not saying a flashhider will endange the lives of others its just an example) Freedom of press will not cover The New York Times if they print a story saying Tom Cruise is gay (although I have my suspisions) this would be slander if they did. Feedom to assemble in most areas requires a permit for public safty. Freedom of religion will not cover you if your chosen religion involves human or animal sacrifice or if it involes having sex with children. The 8th ammendmnt protects you from excessive fines, excessive bail, and cruel and unusual punishment. But who is to say what excessive bail is. $10 million bail to a normal person for murder may be considered high by some, but for someone who makes 50 million a year its not. So do we have set bail for certian crimes allowing everyone to afford it. Which would allow the rich a better chance to jump bail and aviod jail time. No we take each case individually and set it accordingly. Now the 2td ammendment gives us the right to keep and bear arms. But you can not take this word for word eather because it gives everyone the right to bear arms. But the courts have decieded and we can ALL AGREE that convicted felons should not have this right as it would endanger others. But it does not say only law abiding citizens have this right it says everyone has this right. The contitution sets up the govenment in three branchs Legislative and Executive branchs who write the laws and and Judicial branch who determins if the laws they right are contitutional or not, and if they pass a law and it is upheld as constitutional we MUST follow it. We have the right to votein anyone with the same views as ourselves sense these are the ones who write the laws this is the easist way to change them, but if the MAJORITY of people feel the laws are not unconstitonal then we can not do anything, sense we live in a democracy. But the Judicial branch is harder to change sense they are appointed not elected (which I feel is wrong), but they are appointed by the people the MAJORITY elect so they can be changed. Laws can and have be overturned depending who sits on the Supreme Court at the time (take abortion for example). The Constitution even gives us ways to cange these laws by giving us the chance to try and change the minds of the people who write the laws. Or vote in people who agree with our views. And if all else fails even overthrow a government that the MAJORITY of citizens feel can not be voted out or will not release the power after being voted out. But like I said in the begining I would not arrest for a AW violation alone buy have no problem tacking it on as another charge to scumbag. So PLESE dont wish harm on a officer who is doing his job upholding laws even if you disagree with the law. If the law is passed in the manner set up in the Constitution then HE IS UPHOLDING THE CONSTITUTION HE SWORE TO PROTECT.
Link Posted: 5/1/2003 1:00:18 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/1/2003 10:15:17 AM EDT by Gunbert]
Ok you appeasing *******, do you agree with the NFA act of 1934? How about the GCA of '68? Next to them the '94 AWB is no big deal, right? It's all constitutional like you said. Common sense, really. Who needs a cannon, machinegun or suppressor? Who, other than criminals and your friendly local policeman, need high capacity magazines and "assault weapons"? Really, we'll all be safer if we get these weapons off the streets! Soon it will be "who really needs a semi-automatic weapon anyway? Do you know how fast you can shoot kindergarteners with one of those?" We must ban them, for the children! But this is all still constitutional, right, because I can still, technically, own a firearm. Granted I have to have multiple background checks, fingerprinting, a special firearms owners id card, and pay a special tax every year. But that's just regulation and doesn't infringe upon my right to own a blackpowder musket, just like the framers intended, right, scar?. At least not until they pass the "Citizens Safety and Protection Act" of 2035, which, building upon decades worth of incrimental anti-firearms legislation, finally bans any public ownership of firearms, airguns, blowguns, crossbows, bow and arrows, slingshots and any other weapon designed to launch a projectile.
So PLESE dont wish harm on a officer who is doing his job upholding laws even if you disagree with the law. If the law is passed in the manner set up in the Constitution then HE IS UPHOLDING THE CONSTITUTION HE SWORE TO PROTECT.
View Quote
This is a POS cop out and you know it. [b]"I'm just doing my job!"[/b] is such a crock of shit. So let me pose a question to you, mister LEO; where exactly do [i]you[/i] draw the line? Say that the SCOTUS hears the Emerson case and hands down a verdict that the 2nd amendment refers to states, and not individuals, rights. Then the ATF classifes all firearms as destructive devices and your boss tells you you just became part of a task force that will search for and sieze all publicly owned firearms... what will you do? Follow orders? Where will you say that enough is enough? Hmmm? That kind of relativistic thinking is why this country is falling apart. edited to take out the word asswipe.
Link Posted: 5/1/2003 2:34:57 AM EDT
Lighten up Francis. I think he made it fairly clear that he doesn't agree with the AWB. Although we have some discretion in our enforcement, we still have the ultimate responsibilty to uphold the laws of the U.S., State, County, and City in which we work. We may not always agree with it on a personal level, but are obliged none the less. Kind of like when you don't like it that you have to do a clean-up on aisle 4. Tell you what, Nancy...let's try this....go down to your local city office, fill out an application, go through the screening process, and get hired. Manage to make it through rookie school and FTO program. Hit the streets, shag some calls, and deal with the crap we do. Get a look at things from our end of the spectrum. Then maybe you will be priviledged enough to pass judgement on us and determine what is a BS "cop out". Until then, you have no clue. Your just wasting oxygen runnin' your yapper, within your constitutional rights. By the way, your village called......their idiot is missing.
Link Posted: 5/1/2003 4:38:28 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/1/2003 10:05:14 AM EDT by BenDover]
I am very supportive of LEOs in general. I willingly accept any action perpetrated against me and any infringement of the Bill of Rights in the name of the law. I will unconditionally cooperate with any authority because I am a product of our socialist education system and have been trained to go along with any order of any authority. I have surrendered any will of my own to the greater good of all authorities above me and the state. [}:D]
Link Posted: 5/1/2003 5:52:01 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/1/2003 6:50:53 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/1/2003 7:38:50 AM EDT by photoman]
Scar- Here is a question actually a couple for you. If we non-LE individuals do not "need" to have a flash suppresor on our gun why do the police? if we don't "need" a colapsable stock why do police?, if we don't "need" more than 10 rounds in a mag why do the police? If we don't "need" a bayonet lug on our gun, why do police? By LEAGLE definition police officers ARE civilians, and therefore subject to the same laws as those of use who do not work in the field of LE. I've asked those questions of many LEO's at my club and gotten many responces, none of which were anywhere near good. So do you wanna take a shot at answering those questions. Oh and with the emmerson case and a few US supreme court cases have validated that the government can ban the possesion of firearms from individuals and organisations based on narrowly tailored criteria, (felons, domestic abuse situations, dishonerable discharge) but remember the AWB bans based not on individuals(felons etc.), or organisations, but rather cosmetic features of the firearms. So it does not fit within the established criteria set by the courts.
Link Posted: 5/1/2003 7:03:44 AM EDT
Originally Posted By SCAR: Now the 2td ammendment gives us the right to keep and bear arms. But you can not take this word for word eather because it gives everyone the right to bear arms. But the courts have decieded and [red]we can ALL AGREE[/red] that convicted felons should not have this right as it would endanger others. But it does not say only law abiding citizens have this right it says everyone has this right.
View Quote
[BS] There was a thread on this recently, and a large number of people didn't agree with this. If someone can't be trusted with a gun, they shouldn't be back on the street. The fact that it's illegal for them to have a gun sure as hell isn't going to stop them from getting one! And as for whether I would shoot someone trying to confiscate my weapons under the guise of law, have no doubt that I would.
Link Posted: 5/1/2003 9:25:36 AM EDT
I know how frustrating these laws seem to citizens without a badge, I was there two years ago. Now, I'm glad that I can acquire whatever equipment I need to do my job. ATLEAST, the bureaucrats have recognized that guns fall into the wrong hands (regardless of the laws set up to prevent that...right) and cops need to be able to deal with it. The difference between badged and non-badged citizens is that the LEO's are required by the very nature of their job to put their lives in danger. I don't mean to rule out self-defense...that is an unforseeable eventuality. But LEO's perform many other tasks every day that are inherently dangerous and volitile, often involving well-armed and ill-meaning offenders. That's the responsibility that goes with the badge.
Link Posted: 5/1/2003 9:46:33 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/1/2003 10:02:26 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/1/2003 8:33:28 PM EDT by Gunbert]
Manintan, I will pose the same question to you. Where do you draw the line? How bad do things have to get before you stop saying "it's just my job"? Will you be one of the jackbooted thugs kicking in my door to get my guns when some law says that it is ok to do so? When ownership of a firearm in and of itself becomes a crime, on what side of the line will you be? I'm sure you'll have plenty of time to rationalize your answer before that time comes... just be ready for [i]our [/i] answer. The tone of your post arrogantly suggests that since you are LEO and I am not that I have no idea what I'm talking about. Lots of 'us' and 'you' in there. You are a cop, great. What experience have you had that has imbibed you with greater-than-average understanding of an infringement of an individuals rights? Or do you just allow others to dictate what you think and do? Kind of like the SS in Germany in the '30's. Just doing what they were told. Oh, and you're right, my Village [i]is[/i] missing an idiot. So we'd like to extend you an invitation. [;)]
Link Posted: 5/1/2003 10:09:25 AM EDT
For the record, I DON'T agree that ALL felons should be denied firearm ownership after they have paid their debt to society. It depends upon the felony charge. There is a Supreme Court case being kicked around right now about this. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Link Posted: 5/1/2003 10:25:28 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/1/2003 10:33:18 AM EDT
Sorry 'bout that Striker, ignorance gets me all fired up. I edited it. Ben Dover... I like your edit as well.
Link Posted: 5/1/2003 10:51:46 AM EDT
Originally Posted By SCAR: First let me start off by saying I am a LEO and would not arrest on a AW violation aloneI feel it is a unjust law and needs to be overturned..
View Quote
Thanks for stepping up to the plate SCAR. Also wanna thank sherrick, Wave, and johninaustin. I apprieciate you guys.
But it is legal heres why. Many people do not the undestand the Bill of Rights is conditional not to be taken word for word. Heres some examples. The 1st ammendment covers freedom of speach, freedom of press, religion, right to assemble, and petion the government with your grievances. But the courts have held that freedom of speeh does not allow you to yell fire in a crowded movie theater, sense it would endanger the lives of others (im not saying a flashhider will endange the lives of others its just an example)
View Quote
Doesn't seem to me to be a conflict at all. Yelling "fire" in a theatre is a direct infringement on someone elses rights, and causes panic. Features on a rifle which directly affect it's usefulness as a "militia" weapon, and "laws" that "ban" those features, are a direct violation BY the govt of the "infringe" part of the second Amendment on the "people". On the one hand, we have an individual violating the rights of others, on the other, the govt., violating the rights of the "people". Do you see the difference?
Freedom of press will not cover The New York Times if they print a story saying Tom Cruise is gay (although I have my suspisions) this would be slander if they did.
View Quote
Sure it does. Government can make no law saying the press cannot lie. That's up to Cruise in a CIVIL suit.
Freedom to assemble in most areas requires a permit for public safety.
View Quote
Again, a demonstration, may affect the rights of others, clog streets preventing free movement of fire trucks ect.
Freedom of religion will not cover you if your chosen religion involves human or animal sacrifice or if it involes having sex with children.
View Quote
That's right, those are criminal acts, that violate the rights of others.
The 8th ammendmnt protects you from excessive fines, excessive bail, and cruel and unusual punishment. But who is to say what excessive bail is. $10 million bail to a normal person for murder may be considered high by some, but for someone who makes 50 million a year its not. So do we have set bail for certian crimes allowing everyone to afford it. Which would allow the rich a better chance to jump bail and aviod jail time. [red]No we take each case individually and set it accordingly.[/red]
View Quote
Then there's NO 8th Amendment violation.
Now the 2td ammendment gives us the right to keep and bear arms.
View Quote
And not just ANY old arms either. Remember the word militia!
But you can not take this word for word eather because it gives everyone the right to bear arms.
View Quote
No, it doesn't give "everyone" the right. It gives the "people" the right.
But the courts have decieded and we can ALL AGREE that convicted felons should not have this right as it would endanger others.
View Quote
Same analogy as yelling "fire". Yes?
But it does not say only law abiding citizens have this right it says everyone has this right.
View Quote
Again, it says the "people" have the right. When the govt. says a convicted felon may not have a firearm, it does not restrict the right of the "people". There is also a process for felons to get that right restored.
The contitution sets up the govenment in three branchs Legislative and Executive branchs who write the laws and and Judicial branch who determins if the laws they right are contitutional or not, and if they pass a law and it is upheld as constitutional we MUST follow it.
View Quote
No, this is not true if the law violates the original document, or even God's law. Our system is based on Biblical law. Our Constitution is a social "contract", between the people and the govt. When the people violate it, they face the courts. When all 3 branch's of govt. violate it, they automatically violate the contract, making it null. The people are once again free.
We have the right to votein anyone with the same views as ourselves sense these are the ones who write the laws this is the easist way to change them, but if the MAJORITY of people feel the laws are not unconstitonal then we can not do anything, sense we live in a democracy.
View Quote
Glad our founders didn't listen to the "majority", when they declared Independence from Britan!![:D] (BTW, we live in a Representarive "Republic"..[:D])
But the Judicial branch is harder to change sense they are appointed not elected (which I feel is wrong), but they are appointed by the people the MAJORITY elect so they can be changed. Laws can and have be overturned depending who sits on the Supreme Court at the time (take abortion for example). The Constitution even gives us ways to cange these laws by giving us the chance to try and change the minds of the people who write the laws. Or vote in people who agree with our views. And if all else fails even overthrow a government that the MAJORITY of citizens feel can not be voted out or will not release the power after being voted out. But like I said in the begining I would not arrest for a AW violation alone buy have no problem tacking it on as another charge to scumbag. So PLESE dont wish harm on a officer who is doing his job upholding laws even if you disagree with the law. If the law is passed in the manner set up in the Constitution then HE IS UPHOLDING THE CONSTITUTION HE SWORE TO PROTECT.
View Quote
The US Supreme court has held that Unconstitutional laws are null and void on passage...... The people are the ultimate arbiter of "Constitutionality"...because it's the "people" who signed the original contract. Btw, I do not "wish" harm on ANYONE, especially a young idealistic rookie! (So send the old fart in first!![:D])
Link Posted: 5/1/2003 11:37:36 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/1/2003 5:03:14 PM EDT
So just how un-Constitutional does a gun control law have to be before you choose to not enforce it? I guess being just a little un-Constitutional is ok, right? [rolleyes] Constitutionality, in this case, is black and white. You [b]really[/b] think that the police and military should be able to own more effective guns than those of civilians? You [b]honestly[/b] believe this fits in [b]at all[/b] with the principles that our country is based on? Gimme a break.
Link Posted: 5/1/2003 7:21:01 PM EDT
Originally Posted By BenDover: For the record, I DON'T agree that ALL felons should be denied firearm ownership after they have paid their debt to society. It depends upon the felony charge.
View Quote
Thank you!
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
View Quote
Dude, did you come up with that on your own? That should be a law or something! [;D]
Link Posted: 5/1/2003 7:44:03 PM EDT
I am seriously in support of our law enforcement community as a whole. In fact, I work closely with several county sheriff departments and have gotten to be good friends with several deputies and detectives. So much so that these guys are constantly asking me where to download the best MP3s and DVDs off the net, how to get pirated copies of games to play, and a whole host of other 'illegal' things pertaining to the common, modern computer user. They also think most of these kinds of laws (guns AND computer) are stupid as hell. In fact, one in particular told me that he couldn't even get the FBI to come and assist in a murder investigation; so, how could he even begin to think they would care about online music file trading. I know most of these guys are cut from the same political cloth as myself -- except for one little fact. They derive their paycheck through the enforcement of ALL laws, not just the ones they think are relevant. Consequently, you never know what to think about these guys. One minute they are busy trading DVD files, but the next minute, they could be looking up your skirt over some magazine capacity issue or some other bullshit. They admit that it is indeed a case of selective enforcement. Now, if that's the case, how do we know who will be good little citizen soldiers and round up our guns when the order comes down from on high? How will we ever know who will stand with us to defend the very fabric of our Constitutional freedoms, and who will be sucked into the Marxist vortex? Someday, I fear our LEOs will be faced with a serious choice -- a life or death choice pertaining to what side their bread is buttered on.
Link Posted: 5/1/2003 8:38:46 PM EDT
I'm still waiting for Scar or Manintan to reply to my question. I'm not trying to be a jerk, I would really like to know what your average Joe LEO thinks it 'too far'. Any of you other law enforcement types please chime in here.
Link Posted: 5/1/2003 9:59:46 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Gunbert: Manintan, I will pose the same question to you. Where do you draw the line? [blue]God willing, that is a line I will never have to make the decision to draw. I love what I do for a living and have worked hard to get where I am at, but I am also very pro-gun. It would be easy to say I would throw down my badge and walk away, but I don't think it would be that easy to actually do.[/blue] How bad do things have to get before you stop saying "it's just my job"? [blue]I don't recall ever using the phrase "it's just my job", either on the job or on this thread. I do what I do by choice and with discretion.[/blue] Will you be one of the jackbooted thugs kicking in my door to get my guns when some law says that it is ok to do so? [blue]Probably not. BTW, with the exception of motors and mounted patrol, most cops quit wearing jack boots years ago, they're heavy and not very tactical.[/blue] [;)] When ownership of a firearm in and of itself becomes a crime, on what side of the line will you be? I'm sure you'll have plenty of time to rationalize your answer before that time comes... just be ready for [i]our [/i] answer. [blue]As I previously stated, hopefully it will never come down to making that kind of decision.[/blue] The tone of your post arrogantly suggests that since you are LEO and I am not that I have no idea what I'm talking about. Lots of 'us' and 'you' in there. [blue]That is because I didn't care much for your knee jerk reply to the original post. You later stated an apology for the remark and said ignorance gets you fired up. Well, people runnin' their yappers without thinking about it first fires me up a bit. The 'us' refers to we as a law enforcement community and the 'you' was you specifically. I wasn't trying to define a line between LEO/non-LEO, just you in particular. You defined that line pretty clearly in your post. I don't doubt you have a good knowledge of the constitution, gun rights, etc. What I was driving at was that until you have filled our shoes for a while and done what we do....enough said on that.[/blue] You are a cop, great. What experience have you had that has imbibed you with greater-than-average understanding of an infringement of an individuals rights? [blue]What exactly is it you think we do all night, or day as the case may be? Dealing with infringement upon individual rights, on a criminal level, takes up a good portion of my tour of duty.[/blue] Or do you just allow others to dictate what you think and do? [blue]No, but others [b]actions[/b], criminals and mopes to be specific, often dictate what I think and do.[/blue] Kind of like the SS in Germany in the '30's. Just doing what they were told. [blue]You know how often I hear innuendos like that, gimme a break.[/blue] Oh, and you're right, my Village [i]is[/i] missing an idiot. So we'd like to extend you an invitation. [;)]
View Quote
[blue]Golly, you really got me on that one.[/blue] [noclue]
Link Posted: 5/1/2003 10:47:35 PM EDT
Manintan, no offence, but for all you wrote you still did not answer the question. At least you're honest about not knowing what you would do. That I can understand... good job, good pay, perks with banned firearms, and much more, I'm sure. But you really need to think about it.
Link Posted: 5/2/2003 4:41:14 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/2/2003 4:51:23 AM EDT by manintan]
Photoman- I think I will take a crack at answering your questions. Let it be known, I do [b]NOT[/b] agree with the AWB. I believe that general Joe citizens should be allowed to have the features that you inquire about, as long as they do not intend to utilize them for criminal use. I don't need to elaborate, you know what I am talking about. I will give a scenario, I like to be able to visualize. [red]SWAT call-out. Barricaded suspect in a structure of some kind. Has firearms of some sort, the type is irrelivant. Possibly has hostage, status is not known. Suspect has commited a violent felony, probable cause established.[/red]
Originally Posted By photoman: Scar- Here is a question actually a couple for you. If we non-LE individuals do not "need" to have a flash suppresor on our gun why do the police? [blue]If on the perimiter team and delivering fire, the flash suppresor will help elliminate muzzle flash in a dark environment which would create a viable target for the suspect.[/blue] if we don't "need" a colapsable stock why do police? [blue]the colapsable stock will allow transition from a perimiter weapon, with the stock extended for longer range shots, to an entry weapon with the stock collapsed to allow ease of movement in a CQB environment.[/blue] if we don't "need" more than 10 rounds in a mag why do the police? [blue]An extended capacity magazine will cut down on the need to reload in the middle of a dynamic situation, I don't think I need to elaborate.[/blue] If we don't "need" a bayonet lug on our gun, why do police? [blue]I don't see a practical use for a bayonet, I have a Glock to transition to if the need presents itself, so I don't see the lug being an issue, one way or the other. Kind of a moot feature.[/blue] By LEAGLE definition police officers ARE civilians, and therefore subject to the same laws as those of use who do not work in the field of LE. [blue]I am not even going into this. I know who and what I am and what I have to do to preserve the quality of life for the general citizens that I have sworn to protect and serve. I am held to a higher standard in my actions and conduct, and therefore, act in a manner of higher standard.[/blue] I've asked those questions of many LEO's at my club and gotten many responces, none of which were anywhere near good. So do you wanna take a shot at answering those questions. [blue]I cannot interpret what answers you have gotten from my fellow LEO's on these issues. If you have a problem with what responses you have previously recieved, I suggest you take it up with them.[/blue] Oh and with the emmerson case and a few US supreme court cases have validated that the government can ban the possesion of firearms from individuals and organisations based on narrowly tailored criteria, (felons, domestic abuse situations, dishonerable discharge) but remember the AWB bans based not on individuals(felons etc.), or organisations, but rather cosmetic features of the firearms. So it does not fit within the established criteria set by the courts.
View Quote
Link Posted: 5/2/2003 5:51:21 AM EDT
Manintan- thank you for answering. It's the best I've gotten to those. The bayo lug was just thrown in because it's one of the "banned" features. I would like to reply to some of the stuff you said but I'm short on time, if i find some more I'll do so. But again I just wanted to say thanks for the reply, and doing the job you do.
Link Posted: 5/2/2003 3:58:12 PM EDT
Sorry for the delay in my responce worked a double. First Gunbert before you call me a appeasing *******, ask the quetion that follows that statement about if agree with the NFA act, or GCA. You would find I do not agree with them, and thought I made it clear I do not agree with the AWB. So how could I be a appeasing*******, I was puting my point of view out there of if they were passed legaly or not. I did not call you a POS for your thoughts, as they are no way to detemine your charater. Second to answer the question of why should LEO,s have weapons and mags that the average joe can not. I dont think we should, everyone has the same rights in this country. Special pivlages should not be extended to the rich or poor, black or white, male or female, LEO or non LEO. We are all the same. Many of the non-LEO's are making this a us and you issue, if you read my post you will not see a US and YOU mantality, because we are you just like you but with a differnt job title. Most LEO's fell this way and go into the us an you usualy after we fell attacked and on the defensive. And for those that ask what I will do if I am asked to take all simi-autos I would like to say I would tell them to shove it as its only a job. But I do not know untill that time. But until then if I FEEL a law is passed leagaly accoding to the constitution I will enforce it. Last month my Dept. destroyed all of the old unclaimed firearms around 1500 handgns and 1000 longguns, I was told that I would be part of this and I REFUSED to destroy any of them sense I fell they were not used in crime they should be sold. My feelings were honered ad understood. So in summery I DO NOT care what you own. But the minute you use it in crime or to harm someone I will be all over you and use every BS law out there to nail your a$$
Link Posted: 5/2/2003 5:46:00 PM EDT
Just a couple of quick thoughts on the topics here... One: For the non-Leos out there a news flash- the departments own those weapons with all the evil features for the most part... in fact many AR 15 type companies will sell an officer an AR15 with "evil" features provided the WEAPON TRANSFERS BACK TO THE DEPARTMENT when the officer leaves service. That means he/she doesn't get to kept the gun (even though they paid for it) nor do they get to keep the post ban high capacity mags either... YES I GUESS WE"RE REALLY EXEMPT! Two: I see a few of the non LEOS are from the survival/preparedness section... didn't we just have a big olde discussion over us being called "fruitcakes" If I remember correctly no one was too happy about it--soo why the "SS remarks" The SS had an ideology driving them behind not enforcement of laws-just or unjust.. NONE OF US RANK AND FILE LEOS SAT DOWN AND CO AUTHORED THE AW BIll. I really consider the SS thing to be an insult. IF ALL LEOS were "SS" in nature we would not give a fuck when you call because your child didn't come home. Or your wife's purse or your wallet was stolen. Nor would we help you when your car breaks down. Three: Yes there is support for the AW Bill with LEO high law. The great majority of rank and file do not support it. Fourth: Photoman what would you take with you to deal with a barricaded suspect or some bank robbers, etc... You have to fight fire with fire... Many LEOs here will tell all of you NON LEOS how it was back in the old days "RIFLE? you don't need a RIFLE..You've got a SHOTGUN.. With a RIFLE you'd Kill Someone". Anyone remember all the wailing and wearing of sack cloth when LE Agencies across the nation went from Wheel guns to Semi Autos... Christ if you listened to all the Chiefs, civilian boards/watchdogs, Mayors and Council Members from back then cops with semi autos were going to kill themselves and everyone they delat with.. WELL that didn't happen did it! IF you guys want to know why a lot of LE agencies mow have Assault Rifles and the like it's because the general public expects us to have them after 9-11 in order to protect them better.. before that many LE Agencies could not get nor even think about getting "Assault Weapons" because the general public freaked out every time the topic was brought up.....I know the the other LEOS will back me on that statement.. Hell even my old place of employment, where the Chief was very "anti assault weapon" is getting M16s. Lets face it gang... everyone here..NON LEOS and LEOS are making posts all over this site because we like and love guns. Yes the AW bill is pretty fucken' stupid from a common sense point of view (hey it only takes one bullet from any size capacity magazine to kill you right?). But it's a law. Some of US chose Law Enforcement as our profession and livelihood as we have to deal with stupid local, state and federal laws like the AW Bill. Don't even get me started on the Domestic Violence Law here in Ohio.
Link Posted: 5/2/2003 6:15:18 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/2/2003 6:21:38 PM EDT by Gunbert]
First let me apologize for calling you that. It was not the way to open a discussion. I'm glad you think you would walk away from your position if you felt you were being forced to enforce a blatantly unconstitutional law. I hope it doesn't come to that. I guess that what pisses me and a lot of others off is the cops, and alphabet soup agencies that live to enforce these laws without giving a thought to wether they should or not. Like since they can justify it with some law that makes it ok. For us here on this board this frustration is brought on by do-nothing firearm laws. But moronic and unconstitutional laws are enforced everywhere; in Florida if you are carrying a large amount of cash with no documentation as to why you have it you automatically forfeit it to the police under their drug trafficing statutes. All these types of laws were enacted with the best of intentions, utilizing the democratic processes that are set up in the constitution, and are used every day. The fact that some of them (like the Florida example) are blatantly unconstitutional does not deter law enforcement from using them, and how many innocent people get screwed till the community rallies against the abuse? Any freaking law you like can be created and will be followed to the letter until a court finally overturns it. It's legal till overturned; some laws are worse than others... these have a short life-span. But the ones that are marginally bad, or that don't affect the vast majority of people, endure for years, decades even. This is the kind of thing that worries me.
Link Posted: 5/2/2003 6:38:43 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/2/2003 6:40:48 PM EDT by TomJefferson]
Link Posted: 5/3/2003 5:14:09 AM EDT
Originally Posted By MHPDblue: Fourth: Photoman what would you take with you to deal with a barricaded suspect or some bank robbers, etc... You have to fight fire with fire... Many LEOs here will tell all of you NON LEOS how it was back in the old days "RIFLE? you don't need a RIFLE..You've got a SHOTGUN.. With a RIFLE you'd Kill Someone". Anyone remember all the wailing and wearing of sack cloth when LE Agencies across the nation went from Wheel guns to Semi Autos... Christ if you listened to all the Chiefs, civilian boards/watchdogs, Mayors and Council Members from back then cops with semi autos were going to kill themselves and everyone they delat with.. WELL that didn't happen did it! IF you guys want to know why a lot of LE agencies mow have Assault Rifles and the like it's because the general public expects us to have them after 9-11 in order to protect them better.. before that many LE Agencies could not get nor even think about getting "Assault Weapons" because the general public freaked out every time the topic was brought up.....I know the the other LEOS will back me on that statement.. Hell even my old place of employment, where the Chief was very "anti assault weapon" is getting M16s.
View Quote
Ok I totaly understand the whys behind police agencies using semi-auto patrol carbines and even full autos. But as far as you guys having them to protect us better because we want you to, thats BS the only people who want the police to protect them are theose who can't won't and don't want to protect themselves, it's not your job to protect each and everyone of us, it's your job to protect the community as a whole, I'll take care of protecting myself and my family because the police can not be there to do the job 24/7 And really they have more important things to do. As far as what I'd take with me, hell i'd take the same weapons that you guys would, only they wouldn't be exactly the same, since i own no no "pre-ban" AR's I'd have to make due with what i got even if it wasn't the best tool for the job. SCAR- as far as the NON-LEO's seeming to make it an us v. them issue I think it's actually hard not to do that when you look at the laws governing sales(i'm looking at this from a buying guns prespective.) when I see a great deal on a 15round mag for a beretta and than see the LE only taked on the add, and than find out the mag i can get is $30-40 more because it's "pre-ban" it gets me pissed and the first reaction is why the hell are these guys so special that they only pay X for this and i have to pay Y. Another thing, we've been fighting and pushing for a CCW bill in wisconsin, and while we non-leos can't carry concealed active duty LEO's can- I have no problem with that, thats a good thing. But there was a bill introduced to allow fro retired LEO's to beable to carry concealed, that i do have a problem with, because there was at that time no bill for us Non-LEOs, again the tought in my mind was, well their retired so what the hell makes them so special? So it's not so much that WE try to make it an US v.THEM thing it's thats the way things work out, it's not because of something that the LEOs are doing it's more the laws tend to make it look that way to us(well me anyway I can't speak for all of us) and it's hard to shake it sometimes. but I don't like to think us v. them and i try not to think of it in those terms but it is hard. And it is nice to see that what the brady bunch and the rest say about all LEOs being in favor of the bans is not really true. I got to run got to get to work.
Link Posted: 5/3/2003 6:26:35 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/3/2003 6:28:31 AM EDT by cyanide]
Scar, you bring up a interesting point of view, unfortunately it is not a valid point of view, you state I don't belive in AW violations so I would not enforce them, the next guy in blue doesn't belive in gambling violations so he does not enforce that law, the other guy in blue doesn't belive in marijuana laws, so that is one he does not enforce. You guys in LE are fubar. When you do a shit job, you going to shit on your hands.(figure it out)
Link Posted: 5/3/2003 12:08:47 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/3/2003 12:10:50 PM EDT by MHPDblue]
Originally Posted By cyanide: Scar, you bring up a interesting point of view, unfortunately it is not a valid point of view, you state I don't belive in AW violations so I would not enforce them, the next guy in blue doesn't belive in gambling violations so he does not enforce that law, the other guy in blue doesn't belive in marijuana laws, so that is one he does not enforce. You guys in LE are fubar. When you do a shit job, you going to shit on your hands.(figure it out)
View Quote
First things first..a law no matter how assine, is still a law. A lot of you guys are passionate about your rights and I HAVE no problem with that and salute you... but don't you all think for a second that's what the anti gunners wnat... everyone to act stupid? If you ever read Fred's rantings and ravings in Shotgun News the man has a great valid point which is often missed.. fight the "soft war" as he calls it now instead of the "hard war" later. I don't know about you guys but I send money to pro gun groups and do what I can to educate people on their rights etc. Non LEO guys..read my post.. the agency ends up owning those LE high caps and post bans.. THE AW BIll denies us the right to own them outright too!!! Some dealers take advantage of this and do gouge the average gun buying consumer- Dealers who sell to LE are one of two kinds- nice and bad... the nice ones offer you a discount and provide good customer service--BTY they sell other things like duty gear and uniforms at a decent price. Nine times out of ten, they treat the average gun buyer good too. The bad ones may give a cop a good deal on a gun but screw him or her with the other necessary stuff-duty rig and uniforms etc. This is where they make their $$$$$$$. Knock off $50.00 off the gun (ands still make money) but sell a complete duty belt w/ a $200.00 mark up. Photoman, if you knew the price mark ups on some of the stuff we HAVE to buy you would pull your hair out. I suppose we all (gun lovers) should take some of the blame as well.. we paid the dealer's high prices... maybe if we all had not bought stuff right after the ban certain dealers would not have been able to expolit the ban. Photoman: Yes I agree with you that you can probably take care of yourself better in terms of self defense that the police. But remember the rest of the sheeple can't deal with that pattern of thought or a lot of other patterns of thought either. So hence I have job security. Believe me, your post ban will do just as good as job as a preban. Cyanide: Let tell you a little bit how the real world works in terms of law enforcement. The AW bill is a federal law...hence a federal offense.. At my place I have only seen City criminal affidavits and Municipal Court criminal affidavits (state charges). I have yet to find any Federal criminal affidavits nor will I find any. I would wager my badge that many other states do not have "federal affidvaits". In order to charge someone with a violation of the AW I would have to contact the ATF..(and we all know they are fucked up) hence maybe you can see where some of the LEOs here are coming here when they say "I wouldn't arrest for it".One could buck the issue by refering it to the feds..who are pretty busy and don't look into small stuff. They refer that back to the local agencies to take care of.Most agencies do not have the time to file charges into Federal Court either. Now in a sistuation involving a copycat state or local ordinance then everyone has problems. Last non LEO guys, don't think the ATF and FBI cuts us any slack.. they fuck us longer and harder under the guise of "you should have known better"..plus they can really hold prison over our heads (contary to popular belief there isn't not a lot of brother hood between prision guards and line cops/troopers/etc) DID you know that LEOs are the only people in the USA who can be charged with a crime twice and convicted of same? We can be charged by our states and then by the Feds? YOU non LEOS are protected from that by the Bill of Rights.. we're not. That's what I think some of the LEOS are trying to tell or explain to you all.
Link Posted: 5/3/2003 12:17:46 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/3/2003 12:19:53 PM EDT by cyanide]
You are right I was not slamming the LEO's I was slamming the legislators making all the new dumb laws. And in a way you guys who are put in a bind by the dumb laws being put on the books. I got no beef with the men in blue. /// And then in a way it becomes selective law enforcement and we all know that that is wrong.
Link Posted: 5/6/2003 4:54:07 PM EDT
Originally Posted By MHPDblue: First things first..a law no matter how assine, is still a law.
View Quote
Only have to criticize you here, this is EXACTLY the attitude that can turn you in to the gestapo. You don't care if the law is good or bad, helps decent people or screws them, you will just blindly serve for the law. Question authoro-tie! [;)]
Link Posted: 5/6/2003 5:09:52 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/6/2003 5:11:17 PM EDT by Gator]
Thomas Jefferson, The constitution protects arms, for militia use. It is rational to descern from the federalist papers and other writings that 'arms' are small arms that can be carried by an infantryman. Obviously no one can carry a tank or fighter jet. The AWB is BS, and I think most of the LEO's here agree. It isn't time to settle anymore. The anti's will constantly attack no matter how many more laws and restrictions are placed into effect. If the ban is renewed, you're a fool to think they will stop there. In most of the crimes that are committed, it wouldn't matter if the bad guy had a 10 round mag or a 30 round mag. The AWB has done almost nothing to deter crime. If it isn't significantly effecting crime, than it only serves to restrict law-abiding citizen's rights. What's constitutional about that? There are already numerous gun laws and restrictions. I'd say that we citizens have already compromised on more gun laws than necessary. What part of 'shall not be infringed' is unclear?
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 8:17:14 AM EDT
Photoman wrote: (snip)"....Another thing, we've been fighting and pushing for a CCW bill in wisconsin, and while we non-leos can't carry concealed active duty LEO's can- I have no problem with that, thats a good thing. But there was a bill introduced to allow fro retired LEO's to beable to carry concealed, that i do have a problem with, because there was at that time no bill for us Non-LEOs, again the tought in my mind was, well their retired so what the hell makes them so special?... "(snip) What makes retired LEO's so "special"? Well, LEO's come in contact with the criminal element a hell of a lot more often than law abiding non-LEO's do. Non-LEO's don't generally have to worry that some scroat that they put away for a few years is going to bump into them in the Walmart parking lot one day and try and even the score. The scroat won't care whether the LEO is retired or not. P.S. I really feel for those of you who live in states that don't allow its citizens CCW. Even though I'm a cop, I would never live in a non-CCW state.
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 12:00:19 PM EDT
Originally Posted By trippletap: Photoman wrote: (snip)"....Another thing, we've been fighting and pushing for a CCW bill in wisconsin, and while we non-leos can't carry concealed active duty LEO's can- I have no problem with that, thats a good thing. But there was a bill introduced to allow fro retired LEO's to beable to carry concealed, that i do have a problem with, because there was at that time no bill for us Non-LEOs, again the tought in my mind was, well their retired so what the hell makes them so special?... "(snip) What makes retired LEO's so "special"? Well, LEO's come in contact with the criminal element a hell of a lot more often than law abiding non-LEO's do. Non-LEO's don't generally have to worry that some scroat that they put away for a few years is going to bump into them in the Walmart parking lot one day and try and even the score. The scroat won't care whether the LEO is retired or not. P.S. I really feel for those of you who live in states that don't allow its citizens CCW. Even though I'm a cop, I would never live in a non-CCW state.
View Quote
Trippletap This is my thing though, if your going to allow for retired LEO's to carry concealed you might as well do it for everyone. There is no need for a seperate bill(which passed the state assembly in march, i just found that out) We have just as much of a need to protect ouselfs as retired LEOs, Hell i just had a POS coke dealer shove a knife in my face last weekend, why because I have no problem expressing the fact that I think he is a POS coke dealer, I've been in 4 shootout situations in the last year( wrong place wrong time) and a half and not once was I armed because by law I can not be, do you know what it's like to be getting shot at and not be able to defend yourself, how helpless you feel, how useless you feel when that is happening? cuz i sure as hell do.
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 12:10:58 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/7/2003 12:12:36 PM EDT by Motor_City_Tactical]
Originally Posted By trippletap: Photoman wrote: (snip)What makes retired LEO's so "special"? Well, LEO's come in contact with the criminal element a hell of a lot more often than law abiding non-LEO's do. Non-LEO's don't generally have to worry that some scroat that they put away for a few years is going to bump into them in the Walmart parking lot one day and try and even the score. The scroat won't care whether the LEO is retired or not.
View Quote
That's an arguement that is often used in legislative arena when trying to justify CCW for retired (or merely "former") LEOs. It has been used in Michigan to exempt retired officers from the carry restrictions and in some states, even the blood alchol limits are different between non-LEO CCW and Retired LEO CCW. Unfortunately, it's based on mostly anecdotal events and little empirical evidence exists to support the notion that a former LEO is at any greater risk of violent crime than Joe citizen. I'm generally quite supportive of the LEO community but this pretense for special privilege related to occupation is flimsy at best. Should retired LEOs carry? Absolutely. As should anyone who has ever had to fire an angry employee, deny a request for narcotics in an emergency room, dissaprove a loan application, or tell a parent that his child needs to repeat a grade.
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 6:18:22 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/8/2003 6:47:16 AM EDT by CR_OPSO]
Originally Posted By Motor_City_Tactical: Should retired LEOs carry? Absolutely. As should anyone who has ever had to fire an angry employee, deny a request for narcotics in an emergency room, dissaprove a loan application, or tell a parent that his child needs to repeat a grade.
View Quote
First, I agree that everyone should be able to carry concealed. But I don't think your other examples are quite the same - the difference is that most of the people in your example aren't thugs that have a criminal history. If these people were violent criminals, then the need would be the same IMO. I'm a long way from retiring, so I haven't looked into it - but I've heard that my dept. allows retirees to carry ONLY if they pass firearms qualifications once a year. CR
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 7:38:03 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 8:00:02 AM EDT
Originally Posted By CR_OPSO:
Originally Posted By Motor_City_Tactical: Should retired LEOs carry? Absolutely. As should anyone who has ever had to fire an angry employee, deny a request for narcotics in an emergency room, dissaprove a loan application, or tell a parent that his child needs to repeat a grade.
View Quote
First, I agree that everyone should be able to carry concealed. But I don't think your other examples are quite the same - the difference is that most of the people in your example aren't thugs that have a criminal history. If these people were violent criminals, then the need would be the same IMO. I'm a long way from retiring, so I haven't looked into it - but I've heard that my dept. allows retirees to carry ONLY if they pass firearms qualifications once a year. CR
View Quote
My point is that no empirical evidence exists to support the claim that retired LEOs are subject to violence by criminals that they have had prior, duty related contact with (the revenge motive) to any greater degree than average citizens do from violent criminals in general. It has been [i]assumed[/i] that such is the case but it's an argument that has been created to justify the issuance of retired LEO CCW while witholding(or restricting)the same "privilege" from the non LEO community. I'm all for retired LEO CCW. I don't accept the argument that interactions with the criminal underbelly justifies the special provisions found in most states.
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 10:48:12 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/8/2003 10:50:53 AM EDT by trippletap]
Photoman, I have always felt that law abiding citizens should be allowed to CCW and have just as much a right to self protection as any other citizen. I still say that it's obvious that the average police officer (active or retired) is more likely to have a criminal want to kill/injure them than the average citizen would. You said: " We have just as much of a need to protect ourselfs as retired LEOs...."(snip) If you are saying "we" as in other, average/normal/lawabiding, citizens, I have to say that I disagree. Everyone has (or should have) the same RIGHT to protect themself as anyone else. Not everyone has the same NEED as everyone else. You also wrote: "Hell i just had a POS coke dealer shove a knife in my face last weekend, why because I have no problem expressing the fact that I think he is a POS coke dealer, I've been in 4 shootout situations in the last year (wrong place wrong time) and a half..."(snip) Based on this statement, I would definitely say that, when it comes to being in self defense situations, you are NOT the average citizen. It is apparent that your personal NEED for self protection is much greater than most. Stay safe!
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 11:21:34 AM EDT
Trippletap- that POS coke dealer was at one point in my life was someone i considered a friend, not a close friend but a friend. The worst part about that situation was that I was at a good friends house and armed when this ass did this, so whas my friend. But being where i was and knowing this idiot, i just let him play tough guy drug dealer. Beside he's about to go away for a long time, though i'm starting to doubt it. He got busted about 6months ago with 22oz of coke, still tryin ta figger out why he's walking the streets though. I also found i have a knack for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and I'll tell you something else everytime it's happened I'd have this feeling like maybe i shouldn't go. My best friend wanted to go to the bar one night last year, it was two days after my birthday and i was getting sick of the bars and all the BS that was going on so i told him no thanks, he gave me shit for it, that night some dick pepper sprayed him in the bar, than the next week he got jumped while leaving the same bar. We get a lot of the reject gangbangers from chicago in our city. I made not to nice with a few of them in my younger days, got about 12 arrested for strong arm robbery, they robbed me, and unfourtunatly they don't seem to be able to forget that, but oh well.
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 12:07:46 PM EDT
Originally Posted By trippletap: Photoman, (snip) I still say that it's obvious that the average police officer (active or retired) is more likely to have a criminal want to kill/injure them than the average citizen would.
View Quote
Again, there is no evidence to support this assertion. It's an emotional argument that has been construed as fact and used to justify the disparity between CCW privileges.
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 1:34:58 PM EDT
IMO I've always felt that retired LEO's are allowed to CC because as a requisite for their career, they have demonstrated a high degree of responsibility with their firearms. (I should say most have. Those who have or do abuse the authority of their office SHOULD be dealth with...however that's another thread). I think ANYone who can demonstrate responsible behavior with a firearm should be allow to CC, I don't most LEO like myself would agree. However the problem arises, how does the average law-abiding citizen demonstrate responsible gun-control/ownership/use?
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 1:47:39 PM EDT
Several states do not require a training course prior to CCW issuance (Indiana and Pennsylvania come to mind). There is no evidence to suggest that the lack of a training course has resulted in a statistically greater incidence of misuse or accidental shootings than in those states with a training requirement. I think that a successful background check is sufficient to demonstrate a candidate's "suitability" to carry. As a NRA instuctor, I think the training element is beneficial but not if used to place unecessary barriers to CCW.
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 5:27:28 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 6:59:46 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/8/2003 7:01:20 PM EDT by MHPDblue]
I have no problem W/ CCW for the everybody but I I firmly believe there should be somekind of mandated training. Even if there is no shooting training(?) there should be at least 8 hours on the permit dos and don't and the legalities of self defense. PA may not have training requirements but they do have rules and regs such as handing your CCW permit w/ you license on a traffic stop and such. Training would just make CCW more effective and safer. If we don't pass our qualification we get desk duty.. It should be the same for the everyday citizen as well. The former version of the CCW bill in Ohio wanted to base CCW permits off weather someone had a hunting license or not (if they had a hunting license then they would be exempt from the training class). Every year during hunting season a few hunters shoot each other. Hunting and CCW are apples and oranges. I feel the great majority here will agree.. what good is carrying a gun if you don't practice drawing it, practicing malfunction drills and learning proper shot placement. What good would it do to let someone carry a gun, get in situation where they need to use the gun and they get themselves hurt or killed because they could not remember to take the damn safety off? Or they thought that ankle holster was cool to carry but now realize they can't get to it in time. I could go on and on with examples. We teach people to drive, we should teach them about CCW. CCW carries great responsibility so I don't see "mandated" training as something evil enacted by the state to deny people the right to carry CCW. What I have a problem with is the state FOP, Ohio Chief's Assoc. and Buckeye's Sheriff's Assoc. reluctance towards OHIO CCW. All because they (the sheriffs) have to do the background checks and that's work. Tough shit.. it's part of protect and serve in my book. okay I'm off my [soapbox]
Link Posted: 5/9/2003 10:11:35 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/9/2003 10:12:02 AM EDT by Gator]
Thomas Jefferson, It was just in response to your post at the top of the second page about M1 tanks. I didn't really look hard to see if you were responding to someone. Anyway no harm no foul. As far as danger, the poor guy working in a cornerstore or a liquor store in the city may work at a more dangerous job than a policeman. [;)] But the whole need arguement is BS, why does anyone have to prove that their life is more valuable than someone else? I'm not cop bashing here, just saying there should be equal rights. If civvies don't need more than a 10 round mag then neither should a police officer.
Link Posted: 5/9/2003 1:28:16 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Gator: If civvies don't need more than a 10 round mag then neither should a police officer.
View Quote
Maybe for personal protection while off-duty - but while on duty, there's definitely a difference. For example, last week our dept. responded to a street fight involving 150 to 200 thugs. Even if every unit responded, we'd still be seriously outnumbered. "Civvies" aren't REQUIRED to confront this type of situation, but LEOs often are. Personally, I don't have a problem with you owning a high-capacity magazine or carrying concealed (and most people on this board probably feel the same way). CR
Link Posted: 5/12/2003 4:11:31 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/12/2003 5:52:46 AM EDT by Gator]
Originally Posted By CR_OPSO:
Originally Posted By Gator: If civvies don't need more than a 10 round mag then neither should a police officer.
View Quote
Maybe for personal protection while off-duty - but while on duty, there's definitely a difference. For example, last week our dept. responded to a street fight involving 150 to 200 thugs. Even if every unit responded, we'd still be seriously outnumbered. "Civvies" aren't REQUIRED to confront this type of situation, but LEOs often are. Personally, I don't have a problem with you owning a high-capacity magazine or carrying concealed (and most people on this board probably feel the same way). CR
View Quote
Edited my post. I'm glad you feel the same way. There was a good post a few days ago on the GD board of some guy who was the unlucky target of a gang, and got lucky the other guys ran since he would have run out of ammo with his 10 shot mag. Granted it isn't often, but it happens.
Top Top