Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 10/24/2003 8:22:31 AM EDT
The LEO lower thread has brought up a good question. Is it fair for LEO's to be "exempt" from the AWB and other firearms laws that us "common" citizens have to follow or should the laws apply to all, equally? I'd be interested in finding out your view on this.
Link Posted: 10/24/2003 8:27:51 AM EDT
Any time you want to stay up all night, go into the worse part of town to deal with dirt bags, and generaly head into situations that most sane people run away from. Is it right? No. Is it a possibly winning edge on the s bags out there? Yes.
Link Posted: 10/24/2003 8:32:16 AM EDT
LOL, sounds like a security job I had in Phoenix once and I had to work it unarmed. I'm not able to post a proper "poll", I keep getting an error message, most likely because I'm not a "Team AR-15.com" member. If someone could put the poll in this thread I'd appreciate it. Thanks. TN.Frank
Link Posted: 10/24/2003 9:07:31 AM EDT
No. If the police need it because streets are [i]THAT[/i] dangerous, then there's no reason why Joe Dickhead wouldn't either. Either disarm the police and suffer the consequences, or remove this bullshit legislation.
Link Posted: 10/24/2003 9:19:19 AM EDT
I do NOT FAVOR forcing LEO's to conform to civilian laws. I DO FAVOR changing the laws to allow private citizens to have the same firearms rights as LEO's. (I exclude machineguns, etc.) 5sub
Link Posted: 10/24/2003 9:38:38 AM EDT
And why would you want to exclued machineguns? In all the years since the NFA of '34 only one "registered" machinegun was used in the commision of criminal murder and it was owned and used by an LEO. Most LEO's that I have known over the years are less then compedent with firearms and view their sidearms as "part of their gear" and nothing more. When I worked for Wells & Fargo Armored we had to qualify using the same shooting course as the LEO's in the area. You had to get a score of 70% or better(same as the LEO's). I shot in the low 90's(first time shooting my revolver in DA mode.) and only one other guy shot as well. Now if I could shoot in the 90's without any formal training shouldn't we expect LEO's to do at least as well?
Link Posted: 10/24/2003 9:55:07 AM EDT
I tend to think that your law-abiding citizen should have the same rights to firearms as your LEO (for one because I know what the phrase "shall not be infringed" means). But I've often wondered how much violent crime is prevented (and I don't mean domestics) by LE rather than responded to after the fact. Anyone have a statistic?
Link Posted: 10/24/2003 10:09:15 AM EDT
Well, I think the real problem is, the rest of us should be prohibited from owning what we want.
Link Posted: 10/24/2003 10:23:06 AM EDT
Gun restrictions on police OR civilians are equally ridiculous. Limiting police is not going to bring civilian rights back. I'm glad the poison of gun control hasn't made it to cops yet. In some jurisdictions the political correctness factor might as well be considered gun control when it limits cop's choices.
Link Posted: 10/24/2003 10:27:36 AM EDT
I think that LE was exempted so that Clinton would have supposed LE support. I'm pretty sure Federal agencies with all their toys would have been quite upset had they been forced to give up those toys. I am a full-time licensed officer in Minnesota and could have a restricted rifle but chose to get a post-ban Bushmaster M4 because I had somewhat of a dilemma over feelings similar to yours. I also didn't want to restrict my ability to sell the rifle if the opportunity or need arose.
Link Posted: 10/24/2003 10:46:23 AM EDT
I have a big problem with the terminolgy being used in this thread. The police are civilians. They are not forced to serve, they are not forced to serve in foreign lands, they will not be shot for not carrying out their jobs. They can quit their jobs any time they want, just like any other civilian. The tools they have should be no differant than any other civilian. If the streets are so dangerous who do you think should be armed better the police (who just work there) or the people who live there? If we have officers that feel they are at such a disadvantage and their lives are constantly at risk, they need to exercise their rights as civilians, and QUIT.
Link Posted: 10/24/2003 10:59:12 AM EDT
How does a flash hider and bayo lug or even the col. stock give anybody a winning edge?
Link Posted: 10/24/2003 11:26:36 AM EDT
Originally Posted By 1ar4me: How does a flash hider and bayo lug or even the col. stock give anybody a winning edge?
View Quote
Ever fire 5.56mm black rifles with the following side-by-side? 1) Preban with Flash-hider 2) Postban with muzzle break 3) Postban with plain barrel I have, and can tell you that the flash is much larger without a FH and that muzzle breaks increase the concussion of muzzle report (usually can feel it in your sinuses). Also, a preban with FH allows the use of a sound suppressor, which is a very nice feature both tactically and practically speaking. And if you've ever fired a bare muzzle AR at an indoor shooting range and compared it to an AR with a FH (especially a Vortex) you will notice how much more comfortable (less flash and less muzzle concussion) the FH makes the rifle when firing indoors. A collapsible stock as currently seen in one of the 4, 5 or 6 position variety is great for tailoring your rifle to your clothing and shooting position. You are right about the bayonet lug....it serves no purpose for me or any other average citizen. It does look cool and if your rifle is a preban and you have all the other useful features available, while not helping, a vestigal bayo lug isn't doing any harm either. Granted, these are subtle differences, but they are not without merit. While I would feel more than adequately protected with a postban, the preban rifles do have their advantages and if give the choice I would always choose a preban over a postban in a defensive situation. Josh
Link Posted: 10/24/2003 11:36:05 AM EDT
I bet he doesn't want silencers eitther or SBR's. Right back down the slippery slope of "reasonable" gun laws.
Link Posted: 10/24/2003 11:38:09 AM EDT
IMO, No, unless they are on duty. If they are on duty, or required to be armed off duty, there are expected provisions. I also do not advocate special priviledges when their employment has ended/they have retired.
Link Posted: 10/24/2003 11:39:07 AM EDT
I am a full-time Post Certified Sheriff's Deputy in Louisiana. I have 2 Restricted L.E.O. Rifles used in commission of my Law Enforcement Duties. I can as easily perform these duties w/o a Collapsible Stock, Bayonet Lug and Flash Hider. I am Also for the most part a Civilian. Any responsible Citizen of this Country should have the same rights as Law Enforcement Personnel. Michael J
Link Posted: 10/24/2003 11:45:03 AM EDT
Yeah, but you can still get modern machine guns and you can get them for reasonable prices, not sky high prices that are due to high demand and minimal supply.
Link Posted: 10/24/2003 11:46:30 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/24/2003 11:49:17 AM EDT by TNFrank]
JoshNC, all the resons that you just stated as "advantages" of having a FH and a colapible stock apply to law biding citizens as much as they do LEO's. My grandkids can't shoot my AR because with it's A2 stock it's too long. If it has an M4 adjustable stock I could taylor it for their length of pull while still being able to adjust it for my length of pull as well. A citizen confronting a tresspasser in the dead of night could be blinded with an AR without a flash hider if he had to discharge his rifle but with a flash hider he could defend him/her self and have a chance. That is why I hope the AWB is allowed to sunset without any more BS gun laws being voted in to replace it.
Link Posted: 10/24/2003 11:47:58 AM EDT
Originally Posted By TNFrank: And why would you want to exclued machineguns? In all the years since the NFA of '34 only one "registered" machinegun was used in the commision of criminal murder and it was owned and used by an LEO. Most LEO's that I have known over the years are less then compedent with firearms and view their sidearms as "part of their gear" and nothing more. When I worked for Wells & Fargo Armored we had to qualify using the same shooting course as the LEO's in the area. You had to get a score of 70% or better(same as the LEO's). I shot in the low 90's(first time shooting my revolver in DA mode.) and only one other guy shot as well. Now if I could shoot in the 90's without any formal training shouldn't we expect LEO's to do at least as well?
View Quote
Because as a practical matter, machine guns aren't affected by the AWB and getting current laws governing machine guns changed is something short of unlikely. In a perfect world, civilians 'would' be able to own machine guns. I fully understand the enemy the framers of the constitution feared most was our own Federal Government. Ideally, citizens would be as well armed as the military. However, practically we can't all own our very own nuclear sub, F-16, etc.
Link Posted: 10/24/2003 11:50:36 AM EDT
I'm probably way off here but.... If the military is not supposed to be used against the people and the government doesn't want the people to have military looking weapons. Then the Police should not be able to use military tactics and weapons against the people. It burns me everytime I see a SWAT team with all the same go fast gear that the military uses but if I own it I'm some freak, suspect to rampage. To me giving the police better weapons than the people is like giving a slave or an inmate a gun to keep the others in line. Now that being said it should be noted that I'm only prohibited from buying a brand new (insert cool gun here) and in the great state of Florida I can own anything I'm willing to pay for. In closing I support law enforcement and understand it's role in society but don't like a Cop asking me "what I need this for" when he has the same gear. Glockdog Airborne!!
Link Posted: 10/24/2003 12:10:06 PM EDT
Hell no!
Link Posted: 10/24/2003 12:12:48 PM EDT
TNFrank, I am a former LEO, when I was active, I was not exempt from the AWB except for my duty weapon(s). Any hicap magazine or rifle I needed had to be purchased on department letterhead. When I left service they stayed with the department. My personal weapons were and are limited by the AWB. I was subject to the same magazine restrictions and Brady laws as non-Leo. I don't agree with the AWB and hope we can force it into non-existance, but I see no reason to limit LEO or the military for that matter to conform to shitty legislation.
Link Posted: 10/24/2003 12:54:12 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/24/2003 1:24:08 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/24/2003 1:25:29 PM EDT by TNFrank]
Amen Troy. If LE agencies had to live with the same laws then I be willing to bet that the AWB of '94 would have never been passed. The main problem that I see is that with LEO's being exempt it creates a different class of citizen that's priviledged to own what most citizens can not based on the their job. I understand that what is used has to be used for "duty" use only but come on, do you really believe that LEO's leave their hi-cap "LEO only" mags at work when they clock out? I don't think that they do. The LEO exemption also helps to fuel the "us" and "them" mentality that we're seeing so much in law enforcement. In the old days the cop on the beat knew people on a first name basis and was friends with the people that he served and protected now it seems like we're all "perps" and law enforcement has lost respect for the "common citizen". In fact they go so far as to call us "subjects" and not citizens which in my eyes is a very derogitory term. I am not a "subject" with a King, I am a free citizen of the United States of America with Rights guarenteed under the Constitution.
Link Posted: 10/24/2003 1:38:29 PM EDT
I used to be in LE and well I never felt the need for LEO only weapons during that time and the only time I could buy a LE only weapon was on LE letterhead and it had to pertain to the duty at hand. Should LEO's have special rights to ban guns. If it makes their job safer then yes. Easier no. Machine guns IMO are a waste for civilian use. I still like to choose my targets not spray them. Not to mention innocents are spared.
Link Posted: 10/24/2003 1:58:53 PM EDT
Originally Posted By TNFrank: I understand that what is used has to be used for "duty" use only but come on, do you really believe that LEO's leave their hi-cap "LEO only" mags at work when they clock out? I don't think that they do.
View Quote
Our issued duty sidearms were Glock 17's. We were not issued backup/offduty weapons, however we were given freedom to choose our offduty weapons. I chose a Glock 23, I paid for it out of my pocket along with preban 13 round mags. I paid $75.00 each for the mags and had to go thru a local three day waiting period and background investigation as well for the firearm. Remember, those chiefs you see standing there are political appointees, they are not the first choice of most officers nor do they speak for the rank and file. I don't nor did I give a shit about what my fellow citizens are able to own or purchase. Hell, if you want a tank you should be able to buy one. John Q Citizen with a CCW or AR15 did not worry me, it was the yahoos who don't conform to social norms (criminals).
Link Posted: 10/24/2003 2:00:53 PM EDT
Originally Posted By CAR97M4: I used to be in LE and well I never felt the need for LEO only weapons during that time and the only time I could buy a LE only weapon was on LE letterhead and it had to pertain to the duty at hand. Should LEO's have special rights to ban guns. If it makes their job safer then yes. Easier no. Machine guns IMO are a waste for civilian use. I still like to choose my targets not spray them. Not to mention innocents are spared.
View Quote
First off a telescoping stock and FH in no way make the job safer for an LEO. I know many cops and have some in the family, most of the non-family member cops I know who are not ex-military are the little fat kids that got beaten up in school. Do LEO's not swear an oath to uphold the Constitution? Then why at every turn do Police Chiefs lie through their teeth to appease the Mayor and keep their jobs? Sickening. Police for the most part are administrators and drunk drivier chasers, they show up to write reports and if and when they begin shooting at a bad guy and I'm around, you bet I will hit the deck. Cops need to learn to shoot, that may make everyone safer. My Mother lives in happy go meadow suburbuia USA and at the Memorial Day parade this year the local coppers (overweight 20 year old kids) proudly walked in the parade with M4's and Eotechs. They need this? My tax money has to go to this? The night before it took them 5 hours to catch a burglar running through back yards in a tiny sub division. How dod the FH make that any easier? I have a Cousin in Iraq right now with a standard issue A2 and open irons. If the Army issues that, why do the local parking ticket writers need such an elaborate set up? Cops are arrogant and think they are above the average Joe, not all but a lot. They can have their flashiders and collapsable stocks, they still have no freaking clue what they are doing half the time. I disagree about the bayonet lug though, bayonets are very handy for opening fried dough wrappers. Get real, Cops should have no rights that we don't have and those that think they do obviously missed U.S History class because they were out in the playground getting their ass kicked!!!
Link Posted: 10/24/2003 3:18:43 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/24/2003 3:20:52 PM EDT by DOA]
Originally Posted By CAR97M4: Machine guns IMO are a waste for civilian use. I still like to choose my targets not spray them. Not to mention innocents are spared.
View Quote
Spoken like a true anti, or at least a sell-out. You might try going to some of the subgun competitions if you actually believe that nonsense you wrote. Subguns are accurate and not pray and spray. I agree that we should be able to own any small arms that the military/LEO has.
Link Posted: 10/24/2003 3:31:38 PM EDT
I heard that 9mm carbines are only effective if you shoot them in short bursts. It doesn't hurt to have that full auto capability in your AR to give them the 30 rounds of 5.56mm quick when your life is in the line. Also. an M16 is a select-fire rifle, you don't have to shoot it full auto. But it will be there when you need it.
Link Posted: 10/24/2003 6:07:28 PM EDT
As a law enforcement officer, I think all citizens who pay their taxes and live a lawful life should be able to buy hi-capacity magazines and preban weapons. The misconception that some citizens have is that as cops, we have carte blanche in what we purchase. In my department, It wasn't until after September 11 that we could buy M-4's for duty use. I have to justify any purchase to the sheriff of my county before he signs any letterhead. Its much easier to scour the gun auctions and gun shows like the civilians than get a letterhead from an administrator. To be quite honest, having an m-4 or a glock with a fifteen round magazine in Idaho means nothing. There are hunters here with high powered rifles and optics that would put some department marksman units to shame.
Link Posted: 10/24/2003 10:48:17 PM EDT
I'd like to second tactical_223's statement. Some people here seem resentful that LEO's can purchase Class III weapons, but that is not the case. I'm a federal LEO, and I'm no closer to being able to purchase an automatic weapon than any other citizen. This is also true of carbines with 14.5" or shorter barrels. LE agencies can purchase these weapons, not individual officers. My agency happens to not purchase or use automatic weapons at all. So, the only thing LEO status gets you is the ability to purchase a rifle with pre-ban features (min. 16" barrel), and high cap magazines. And this is ONLY with agency approval. For myself, I will not receive approval to purchase more than one LEO-restricted AR. If I've mistated anything here, I'll graciously accept any informed corrections.
Link Posted: 10/24/2003 11:48:00 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/24/2003 11:54:39 PM EDT by MarineSniper8541]
To all of you out there flaming Law Enforcement about owning LEO weapons, first of all...I highly doubt your tax money is going to that equipment. 85% of all LEO agencies in the US require their officers to buy their own "patrol rifles" AND the accessories that you see on them. Not every PD has deep pockets like LAPD and NYPD. Those officers who choose to purchase an LEO model, are accepting the fact that their money may be spent on a rifle that they can not continue to own if they leave the department and the AWB does not sunset. But they know how important those features are, so they spend the money on it. They dont use the things for recreation like you seem to think they do. The weapons are purchased using department authorization and the firearms policies of those departments strictly regulate the off duty useage of those weapons. Secondly. I see a lot of you confusing luxury with necessity. In my eyes, if your life and the life of your partner depends on it, it's a necessity. If it just makes it easier for you or looks cool, it's a luxury. Most of you people just want to look cool. HELL...just look at all of the "pictures of my ARs" threads on this site. The last time I checked, Billy Bob and his 12 year old son who he is teaching to shoot, or Earl who likes to go plinking with his AR at a local range have no NEED for a flash suppressor, short barrel or 30 round magazine. Hell, if you cant hit that wild pig running across the field by your 10th shot, you should not be hunting in the first place. And you need a silencer just so you dont upset your neighbors when you shoot at that line of beer cans, right? Those features are just cool looking and more fun to shoot with, you dont NEED them. Any of you who actually know what the hell you are talking about instead of just making conjecture, will know how much of a NECESSITY these features are for an entry team that has to...for example make entry into a building where everything is a tight fit and a 20 inch barrel with a fixed stock will get you killed. Believe me, I know. The Marine Corps even teaches us "short-stocking" a rifle for MOUT training and it reduces the effectiveness of your weapon considerably and is one reason the M4 gained a foothold in the logistical system. I do NOT support the AWB but I DO think it is proper for LEOs to have an exception to the law because their very LIVES can depend on a totality of subtle advantages in their gear. Anyone who does not understand how important it is to have better gear than the bad guys needs his head checked. And if the bad guys can shop at the same gun show as LEOs and get all the same gear...then what would be the point? Are you so hard headed and jealous that you would have a cop whos DUTY it is to make entry into a building with a barricaded, armed subject, make that entry with a full length AR with a 20 inch barrel, full stock, 10 round magazine and crowned muzzle? Then ask him to risk his life by having to fire that first shot which will blind him and the other officers in the stack? Meanwhile the barricaded subject is in a corner with his pre-ban locked and loaded with a C-mag ready to take advantage of the fact that he KNOWS the officers have lesser firepower? I think not. Police should always be able to outgun ANY civilian because when the police end up having to go up against a civilian with a weapon, it isnt always just grandpa with his double barrel goose gun. How would you have liked to have been one of the LAPD officers at the North Hollywood bank robbery-firefight? Would you be talking this smack if you were one of the civilians trapped in that bank? Would you have cried "NO FAIR!" if the first few cops on the scene had taken the two suspects out with an AR in the first few minutes? That was a perfect example as to why police need BETTER weapons with BETTER features than the general public. And for those of you flaming the marksmanship abilities of LEOs. Well I dont know what podunk towns you are from but dont show up around my town spewing that crap. The department in my town has several IPSC shooters in it, has monthly pistol and rifle matches and as a result..has NEVER lost an officer in the line of duty. And there are over 150,000 people in my town. Im sorry if the departments in your home towns dont get enough of a budget from YOU to allow them to spend the time and money on firearms training skills that YOU say they lack.
Link Posted: 10/24/2003 11:57:55 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/25/2003 12:10:53 AM EDT by armax]
Originally Posted By MarineSniper8541: Are you so hard headed and jealous that you would have a cop whos DUTY it is to make entry into a building with a barricaded, armed subject, make that entry with a full length AR with a 20 inch barrel, full stock, 10 round magazine and crowned muzzle? Then ask him to risk his life by having to fire that first shot which will blind him and the other officers in the stack? Meanwhile the barricaded subject is in a corner with his pre-ban locked and loaded with a C-mag ready to take advantage of the fact that he KNOWS the officers have lesser firepower? I think not. Police should always be able to outgun ANY civilian because when the police end up having to go up against a civilian with a weapon, it isnt always just grandpa with his double barrel goose gun. How would you have liked to have been one of the LAPD officers at the North Hollywood bank robbery-firefight? Would you be talking this smack if you were one of the civilians trapped in that bank? Would you have cried "NO FAIR!" if the first few cops on the scene had taken the two suspects out with an AR in the first few minutes? That was a perfect example as to why police need BETTER weapons with BETTER features than the general public. And for those of you flaming the marksmanship abilities of LEOs. Well I dont know what podunk towns you are from but dont show up around my town spewing that crap. The department in my town has several IPSC shooters in it, has monthly pistol and rifle matches and as a result..has NEVER lost an officer in the line of duty. And there are over 150,000 people in my town. Im sorry if the departments in your home towns dont get enough of a budget from YOU to allow them to spend the time and money on firearms training skills that YOU say they lack.
View Quote
So your law-abiding citizen who lives in those very same high-risk areas deserve less? As for your statement reguarding LEOs that should outgun any civilian...did it ever occur to you that those same bad guys that you are up against may not be abiding by any weapon-restrictive law? The only result of restricting the features of weapon to the general law-abiding public is that the law-abiding actually follow it.....your criminals do not. Again, having law-abiding citizens with access to the same weaponry as LEOs would not be a detriment to how effective LEOs would be. It's the criminals who have a complete disreguard for the law (hence, the definition of criminal) that LEOS should be worried about...law or no law.
Link Posted: 10/25/2003 12:14:09 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/25/2003 12:27:14 AM EDT by MarineSniper8541]
Armax, You sir, have just unknowningly proven my point. The arguement in this thread it that LEOs should be held to the same restrictions that civilians are. Now, by your comments, you state that it is the criminal who does not abide by those restrictions and not the average citizen. If that is the case, which it is...then WHY WOULD YOU have the police be restricted to carrying a LESSER weapon than the CRIMINAL...just so he would be politically correct in having the same restrictions on his weapon as the guy down the street whos never even had a speeding ticket? And yes, the law abiding citizen that lives in a high risk area does deserve less. He deserves less because he does not go out and risk his life every single day to protect people that he has never met. His worst case scenario is that maybe he will be the 1 person out of 20 million who has to defend himself with a firearm at some point in his life. Any cop would LOVE to have that good of odds during his shift. Here is an idea. Walk up to the next police officer you see and tell him that it is your wish that the next time he has to face an armed felon, that the weapon he uses to defend himself with is no better than any weapon that you have in your house. Tell him that even if the felon that he has to attempt to apprehend is using a pre-ban assault weapon with a 100 round drum magazine, silencer and folding stock, that he should still be just fine and not to worry. Tell him that his 10-round politically correct magazine in his post-ban patrol rifle should do him just fine. Tell him that he should never lose confidence in the fact that when he goes to a call, that the odds of there being a weapon in a house that is better than his...are very good. Go ahead...tell him...I dare ya.
Link Posted: 10/25/2003 12:25:23 AM EDT
Well I do agree with you that LEOs should not be restricted....but neither should the general citizentry. The citizens deserve less? Isn't the motto of the police to "protect and serve"? Are you more concerned with police safety or the protection of the citizens that you are sworn to protect? It would seem as though an officer who truly believes in his motto would want law-abiding citizens protected regardless of whether or not it's by the officer's hand or the citizen himself. I'm willing to bet those same citizens who live there 24/7 wouldn't take those odds you mentioned quite so lightly. I'm pretty sure no one wants to gamble the lives of themselves and their families. We all have an idea of the proportion of crimes committed in relation to LE crime intervention. If someone invades my home, I have much more faith in defending myself rather than depending on LE to come to my rescue....I'm sure the majority of citizens feel likewise.
Link Posted: 10/25/2003 12:37:14 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/25/2003 12:38:56 AM EDT by MarineSniper8541]
Dont miscontrue my words. You dont have to have a pre-ban AR to defend your home. The best weapon for home defense is a shotgun, not an AR. Anyone who would fire an AR in thier home should be shot. Sure you might kill the bad guy, but how many of those shots are going to travel through the drywall into your neighbor's apartment? 90% of most people who own ARs can probably walk over to thier AR and pull a mag out of it that has full metal jacket ammo in it that they buy for $14.00 per 100 at a local gun show. Ill guarantee you that you wont find TAP ammo in their magazines. Once again. Dont confuse features of necessity with features of function. Flash suppressors....anyone can get them. Even on post-bans. Collapsible stocks...you dont need them for home defense. Bayonet lugs...not even cops use bayonets. Suppressors...no civilian has any reasonable need for one. A combination of all or several of the above? Only military and law enforcement have a reasonable and prudent need for them. Do I agree that restricting them is right? No. But under no circumstances should law enforcement not be allowed to have those features on weapons...just to be "fair". Our lives can depend on them because the TOTALITY of their benefits serve us to an exponentially greater extent than they serve any civilian.
Link Posted: 10/25/2003 12:40:37 AM EDT
Marinesniper, you suggest we walk up to the nearest cop, and tell them that they shouldn't have weaponry any better than a civilian can get a hold of? Why not, they tell us quite often that we don't need anything to protect ourselves... that we don't need to have a class 3 full auto weapon... that we don't need anything more than a 10 round mag... that we don't need a supressor... not all Leo's tell us that, but some do... I'm thankful that someone's there willing to risk it all for my safety should I need it, or the safety of my community... I've made the same decision, but it was for my country, and they were shooting at us a few times... I don't place myself in positions where I may get shot on a regular basis now, but I feel if I'm bound by laws, then Leo's should be bound by the same laws... they uphold them, they're not above them... If their dept. wants to have the weapons for their use, fine... If I can't buy them though, then neither should they...
Link Posted: 10/25/2003 12:55:19 AM EDT
Originally Posted By MarineSniper8541: Dont miscontrue my words. You dont have to have a pre-ban AR to defend your home. The best weapon for home defense is a shotgun, not an AR. Anyone who would fire an AR in thier home should be shot. Sure you might kill the bad guy, but how many of those shots are going to travel through the drywall into your neighbor's apartment? 90% of most people who own ARs can probably walk over to thier AR and pull a mag out of it that has full metal jacket ammo in it that they buy for $14.00 per 100 at a local gun show. Ill guarantee you that you wont find TAP ammo in their magazines. Once again. Dont confuse features of necessity with features of function. Flash suppressors....anyone can get them. Even on post-bans. Collapsible stocks...you dont need them for home defense. Bayonet lugs...not even cops use bayonets. Suppressors...no civilian has any reasonable need for one. A combination of all or several of the above? Only military and law enforcement have a reasonable and prudent need for them. Do I agree that restricting them is right? No. But under no circumstances should law enforcement not be allowed to have those features on weapons...just to be "fair". Our lives can depend on them because the TOTALITY of their benefits serve us to an exponentially greater extent than they serve any civilian.
View Quote
Again, I am not saying that LEOs should be restricted....but neither should the the general law-abiding populace. As for an AR for home defense...how about those who live in remote areas that may see conflict in and outside the home? or how about civil unrest (the LA riots come to mind...the presence of lE in the area was less than impressive...ask the asian gentleman defending his store with an "assault" weapon whether or not it was effective)? Any of those features you mentioned can be utilized by a citizen defending him homestead or property just as reasonably as LE.
Link Posted: 10/25/2003 5:12:03 AM EDT
Since when does the 2nd amendment only apply to guns that you [s]LEO[/s] JBT's say we need? I guess i don't really "need" a gun at all. I don't need to hunt, I don't need to shoot targets. I don't need a gun for self -defense because I have a 1 in 20 million chance of using it to defend myself. [%|] [BS2] Nice job pulling stats out of you ass.
Link Posted: 10/25/2003 5:15:28 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/25/2003 5:20:27 AM EDT by TNFrank]
Marinesniper, if citizens shouldn't use AR's for home defence then why do you think it's ok for LEO's to use them in a hostage situation in a home. Wouldn't the same laws of phsics apply to both. You say that cops need flash hiders so they won't be blinded if they fire in the dark in a house but that citizens don't need flash hiders because anyone who'd fire their AR in their home deserves to be shot. Sounds like you've got a double standard when it comes to LEO vs civillian. I'm not trying to put this off on the beat cop or an LEO in a small dept. where he's got to buy his own sidearm. I've heard that many LEO's in small dept. have to contend with 10rnd. mags just like citizens do and they're plenty ticked off about it same as we are. The LEO's that I'm pointing to are ones in "special" units like S.W.A.T., FBI-HRT, ATF who run around in helmets and body armour with MP-5's thinking that they're "billy badass" because of their special equiptment. They kick in doors, shoot first and ask questions later and just over all don't give a hoot about the rights of the citizens that their suppose to protect and serve. I think they'd have a different attitude if they only had a six shot revolver in their hand when they went thru a door. And why do they have to ware a mask? Isn't it the "bad guys" that ware masks? Since LEO's are really citizens with a job in "law enforcement" I think they should have to follow the same laws imposed on citizens. If they don't want to follow those laws then they should work along with the citizens to help stop those laws from passing or help to overturn laws that are restrictive on the citizens of this country. If they were under the same laws then it would bring all of us together instead of making an "us" and "them" attitude that we now have.
Link Posted: 10/25/2003 5:24:35 AM EDT
Not one person, organization, position or anything else is above the law of the land. The law is the Constitution, that includes the 2nd. Gotta problem with usage out of control?, subject the violators to penalties. Obstructing the rights of everyone else who has done no wrong is morally and ethically WRONG. to sum it up... Cops/leo/jbt/feds = "people" with a job in that field. I also dissagree with stiffer penalties for people who do unto leo's. The penalty should be the same regardless of who it was against. There is no one person better than anyone else in this country. I could go on for a while about this subject.
....that all men are created equal...
View Quote
Link Posted: 10/25/2003 5:26:35 AM EDT
Spoken like a true "I have super powers that you don't have because I'm an ANTI-GUN Cop" You are right that an AR15 is the absolute wrong weapon for home defense but if you think a 12 gauge will not penetrate drywall you are very in-experienced. Nope citizens don't NEED pre-ban features to defend themselves but either do police. As a matter of fact where I live the only LEO'S that sport AR's are the absurdly over-funded deprtments that would have no clue what to do with them given the very rare chance they would ever have to use it. Sometimes cops remind me of the rich little boys you knew in grade school that had the toys that no one else had because they were "privleged" if you really believe pre-ban options make your job safer, you are ignorant. No offense but do you realize that D-Day was conducted with Garands that have no flash hiders and no collapsible stocks? Oh those were Rangers that did that job, not Marines. Ridiculous, thanks for helping to infringe the rights of law abiding Americans, you are wrong for the job bud.
Link Posted: 10/25/2003 5:35:52 AM EDT
I think the best "weapon" that LEO's have is resting between their ears. If they'd just stop and think a situation thru instead of simply applying brut force they'd be miles ahead of the game. If the FBI agents would have simply went up to Randy Weaver's door and talked to him like a human being instead of trying to use force things could have worked out very differently. Same deal with the Waco raid. They could have had the local Sherrif pick up David Koresh in town days before the raid. But the ATF wanted to use their toys on TV and show everyone how "Cool" they were. Well, they got their buts kicked, didn't they. Force is not always the answer, respect and deplomacy go along way when dealing with people. After that fails then use force but don't start with force and then wonder why no one agrees with your tatics.
Link Posted: 10/25/2003 6:50:09 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/25/2003 6:53:41 AM EDT by BBossman]
Why is it that every thread that has the letters "LEO" in the title turns into cop bashing. They always bring out the "big bwad powice man was mean to mwe an wote mwe a ticket" types. Why do you blame the police for this shitty legislation and their exemption? Do you really believe that the 100,000 plus cops beat out the 200,000,000 plus citizens in this country to carry the elections for Clinton and his crew? I have voted in every national, state and local election since turning 18. I am a single issue voter, gun control. If your for it, I'm against you. If you want the playing field leveled, quit spending your time typing this drival here, and write your elected officials, and excersise your right to vote.
Link Posted: 10/25/2003 7:18:31 AM EDT
I am not anti LEO, but I have seen throughout the years that their attitudes towards the populance has changed. They used to walk the streets and knew everyone. Now, if you wave to them in a kind gesture, that they will pull you over and search your car for drugs. I am right with Red_5 in that the playing field should be even for all. Afterall, everyone CHOOSES their field of work. And I also dont think LEO dogs should be treated the same as LEO people, and their killing is judged harsher than a civy death. And for you Marine Sniper, silencers are needed for civilians as well as LEO. It protects our hearing while we shoot as well as doesnt bother our neighbors when we shoot. And if you are indeed, a true US Marine, I consider you a disgrace to the title, as I am a true Marine.
Link Posted: 10/25/2003 7:27:36 AM EDT
Originally Posted By DOA: ......silencers are needed for civilians as well as LEO. It protects our hearing while we shoot as well as doesnt bother our neighbors when we shoot.
View Quote
Oddly enough, this is a concept embraced by Europeans.
Link Posted: 10/25/2003 8:23:22 AM EDT
Well, given that if I did get a letter from the sheriff for an LEO rifle which would not be a big deal, I would have all those useless advantages I guess I'm for it. Now since I would have to give that rifle that I paid for to my department if I ever left, I'm against it. I therefore own a regular post ban carbine that I own and I use for Police duty.
Link Posted: 10/25/2003 9:20:30 AM EDT
Originally Posted By BBossman: Remember, those chiefs you see standing there are political appointees, they are not the first choice of most officers nor do they speak for the rank and file.
View Quote
[red].....and his name was [b][size=4]BINGO![/size=4][/b][/red] Chiefs are at-will employees working on a contract. They do a lot of baby-kissing and handshaking to ensure their contract is renewed. Many have aspirations of political offices.
Link Posted: 10/25/2003 9:55:46 AM EDT
Some states have "Saturday Night Special" laws that forbid small, cheap firearms... they SAY because they are useless, dangerous, poorly made junk... they are illegal for civvies, but apparently the people that wrote this BS do not care about the lives of LEO's, because LEO's are exempt from the law. One state just passed a "smart gun" bill, that once any mfg offers them for sale, it will no longer be legal to sell guns without this technology... but again, LEO's are exempt. If anyone needed a personalized firearm, it is a cop, but apparently the writers of the law again, do not care about the safety and well being of LEO's. Really, what happened, the cops threw a hissy, because they don't want to trust their lives to these guns. Nor do the politicians want their bodyguards to carry them. For ANY gun laws, we should scream loud and long over LEO exemptions. We should also work to remove the "not suitable for sporting purposes" language from our laws. To say we have the "right to hunt" or the "right to shoot skeet", but not the right to own firearms made primarily for self defense is absolutely crazy.
Link Posted: 10/25/2003 3:00:15 PM EDT
I don't like the laws but I am glad were exempt. I would not like having to go to a gun can with a 10 round mag in my AR15 minus a flash hider. We may have to use our guns. For most people AR15's are just nice toys. Pat
Link Posted: 10/25/2003 3:10:26 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/25/2003 3:21:35 PM EDT by Glockfan]
have a big problem with the terminolgy being used in this thread. The police are civilians. They are not forced to serve, they are not forced to serve in foreign lands, they will not be shot for not carrying out their jobs. They can quit their jobs any time they want, just like any other civilian. The tools they have should be no differant than any other civilian. If the streets are so dangerous who do you think should be armed better the police (who just work there) or the people who live there? If we have officers that feel they are at such a disadvantage and their lives are constantly at risk, they need to exercise their rights as civilians, and QUIT. END Calling BS. While were not in the military we are not in the same boat as non police civilians. In fact the typical LAPD officer is in more danger day to day than most soldiers serving right now. We can be shot for not carring out our jobs. Not by the military but by the bad guys. Also whens the last time the military had a firing squad for a soldier not doing his job. Please. Whens the last time you put your but on the line for in the line of duty. Cops do it every shift. Its no less noble or risky to serve your country by being a police officer vs being a soldier. SNIP First off a telescoping stock and FH in no way make the job safer for an LEO. I know many cops and have some in the family, most of the non-family member cops I know who are not ex-military are the little fat kids that got beaten up in school. Do LEO's not swear an oath to uphold the Constitution? END Telescoping stocks make the weapon easier to use with entry armor. Being ignorant of what it takes to be a cop I don't expect you to know things like that however. I have known plenty of military people that had issues as well. I grew up in a military town and it was all we could do to keep 19 year old GI's away from the junior high girls. Others were often caught importing drugs into our community. The military is a place for people who could not get a good paying job in the civilian sector. Did my remarks inflame you. Of course because they are hurtfull and full of generalizations that are only true of a few bad apples. Your remarks about cops are the same. Its obvious your much like the fat kid in school that got picked on. Except you were probably stopped by leo's and or arrested for illegal activity and now resent all leo's for that reason. Much like the fat kid resenting people because he got picked on. I am glad most military people are not like you. I know many cops that are former Marines, Army, Navy and Airforce. They are some good people. I also know some good cops that are not former military but chose collage instead. I know some bad cops from both groups as well. Enough ranting. Your bias against police officers only shows how ignorant you are. Pat
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top