[Vigilant]

Originally Posted by Southswede

How about enforcing the laws already on the books?/!

I do not trust ANYTHING this president has to say. If people are saying they think these things are reasonable, I am immediately suspicious.......

This president refuses to follow his sworn mandate.

Absolutely.

[Vigilant]

“Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws.”

~Plato

[MeefZah]

Originally Posted by hotpig

This whole gun grab scheme that is going on has drove me 360 degrees from my old beliefs.

That would put you right back "at your old beliefs".

360 is a circle. You start and finish at the same point.

[hotpig]

Originally Posted by MeefZah

That would put you right back "at your old beliefs".

360 is a circle. You start and finish at the same point.

Sorry, I got dizzy.

[MeefZah]

Originally Posted by RussP

Here is what he proposing.

 GIVE LAW ENFORCEMENT ADDITIONAL TOOLS TO PREVENT AND PROSECUTE GUN CRIME: We owe law enforcement the tools they need to keep us safe. The President will:

o Call for Congress to pass the Administration’s $4 billion proposal to help communities keep 15,000 cops on the street.

o Call for Congress to pass new gun trafficking laws, which will impose serious penalties on those who help get guns into the hands of criminals.

o Take executive action to enhance gun tracing data by requiring federal law enforcement to trace all recovered guns.

o Propose regulations that will enable law enforcement to run complete background checks before returning seized firearms

o Nominate, and call for Congress to confirm, a director for the ATF.

o Call for Congress to remove restrictions that require ATF to authorize importation of dangerous weapons simply because of their age.

o Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.

o Direct the Department of Justice to analyze information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.

o Provide effective training for state and local law enforcement, first responders, and school officials on how to handle active shooter situations.

What does all that mean?

The above quote seems perfectly reasonable to me, and seems about as pro-police / pro- law and order as you can get. What I continuously fail to understand about a lot of GT cop members is this hatred towards Obama... I mean in this instance, for example, the guy is presenting a coherent and logical series of steps that he wants to see government take to protect it's citizens and try to curb gun violence, while at the same time providing greater protections for us, the police.

And yet, somehow, he's a lying mother****er, his ideas are garbage, etc., etc. I would reckon that if the exact same quote above was attributed to a Republican president, some of you guys would be tripping over yourselves to proclaim his awesomeness.

It's that constant inability to look at the big picture that baffles me. I mean, as cops, a big chunk of what we do involves stepping back from a situation and considering all points of view; yet here (and in 1000 other threads since 2008) is a clear example of personal prejudices influencing a persons ability to look at things from an unbiased perspective.

[hotpig]

o Nominate, and call for Congress to confirm, a director for the ATF.
Should not be a anti gun anti Constitution nut.


Call for Congress to remove restrictions that require ATF to authorize importation of dangerous weapons simply because of their age.
So long as it does not interfear with our natural right to get C&R Military Bolt and semi auto weapons.

[lawman800]

Originally Posted by MeefZah

The above quote seems perfectly reasonable to me, and seems about as pro-police / pro- law and order as you can get. What I continuously fail to understand about a lot of GT cop members is this hatred towards Obama... I mean in this instance, for example, the guy is presenting a coherent and logical series of steps that he wants to see government take to protect it's citizens and try to curb gun violence, while at the same time providing greater protections for us, the police.

And yet, somehow, he's a lying mother****er, his ideas are garbage, etc., etc. I would reckon that if the exact same quote above was attributed to a Republican president, some of you guys would be tripping over yourselves to proclaim his awesomeness.

It's that constant inability to look at the big picture that baffles me. I mean, as cops, a big chunk of what we do involves stepping back from a situation and considering all points of view; yet here (and in 1000 other threads since 2008) is a clear example of personal prejudices influencing a persons ability to look at things from an unbiased perspective.

A lot of that stuff is hot air and fluff that is supposed to be done already and for the things that weren't done, it's the fault of the federal behemoth that keeps getting in the way of everyone else trying to do their jobs.

As for the additional funding and resources... sounds great, but c'mon, what has always happened with federal funds coming to the state? They get us all addicted to the money and we have to use it in specific ways and then it goes away and we are holding the bag.

Why not just take less from the states in the first place and let the states use their own money instead of having it go up to the feds and funneling it back down all the while losing money along the way to administrative costs which only end up giving back cents on the dollar instead of just leaving our money alone?

[The Fist Of Goodness]

<br />
<br />
I can't because it's strictly theater of the absurd for the stupid. He would have had my interest and potential support if he had said, "Hey! Here's a novel idea! How about we enforce the laws already in effect. How about we get some lazy federal prosecutors willing to step up on gun crimes. How about we clean our house first before we tell everyone to clean theirs."<br />
<br />
He parades children behind him yet how many people and children has been killed in Mexico because of guns people in his administration allowed to go out?

I don't agree with some of the decisions made by the federal prosecutors I work with, but would be hard pressed to call them lazy. The AUSA I work most of my cases with has an active inventory of almost 80 cases that range from adopted gun cases to complex financial crimes.

His office is currently understaffed by 40%. That seems to be the average in most judicial districts.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

[Ohio Copper]

Originally Posted by hotpig

o Nominate, and call for Congress to confirm, a director for the ATF.
Should not be a anti gun anti Constitution nut.


Call for Congress to remove restrictions that require ATF to authorize importation of dangerous weapons simply because of their age.
So long as it does not interfear with our natural right to get C&R Military Bolt and semi auto weapons.

Natural right?


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

[Ohio Copper]

Originally Posted by hotpig

This whole gun grab scheme that is going on has drove me 360 degrees from my old beliefs.

Owning a fire arm or many fire arms are the birth right of a American. It is not a privilege that the Government allows. It is a inherent right. That righ shall not be infringed.

A back ground check is a infringement. A waiting period is a infringement. competent adult that wants a gun is guaranteed by the law of the land that they could have one. That law can not be changed by Congress, A President, or the People. A Constitutional Amendment is the only way to change it.

That's all well and good in theory. In practice, not so much.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

[Trigger Finger]

Who was it that said:
" When Tyranny becomes Law, Rebellion becomes Duty!" ?

It seems to me that's what the law abiding citizen is being forced into.

Target the Criminals!!!!

Enforce all laws relating a guns completely!!

No new gun laws. We don't need them!!

Prosecute all corrupt politicians!!!

Provide federal funding to add additional police officers on the streets. It should be up to the individual departments to utilize the officers as they see fit, as long as crime drops. If not, funding will be stopped and perhaps federal assistance provided to those departments. Oakland CA. is a prime example!

Background checks for everyone purchasing a handgun!

Just my opinion.

[Ohio Copper]

Originally Posted by Trigger Finger

Who was it that said:
" When Tyranny becomes Law, Rebellion becomes Duty!" ?

It seems to me that's what the law abiding citizen is being forced into.

Target the Criminals!!!!

Enforce all laws relating a guns completely!!

No new gun laws. We don't need them!!

Prosecute all corrupt politicians!!!

Provide federal funding to add additional police officers on the streets. It should be up to the individual departments to utilize the officers as they see fit, as long as crime drops. If not, funding will be stopped and perhaps federal assistance provided to those departments. Oakland CA. is a prime example!

Background checks for everyone purchasing a handgun!

Just my opinion.

If we enforced all of our laws accordingly, we wouldn't have nearly as many problems as we do.

I blame the courts. I really do. They drag their feet constantly.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

[Southswede]

Originally Posted by MeefZah

The above quote seems perfectly reasonable to me, and seems about as pro-police / pro- law and order as you can get. What I continuously fail to understand about a lot of GT cop members is this hatred towards Obama... I mean in this instance, for example, the guy is presenting a coherent and logical series of steps that he wants to see government take to protect it's citizens and try to curb gun violence, while at the same time providing greater protections for us, the police.

And yet, somehow, he's a lying mother****er, his ideas are garbage, etc., etc. I would reckon that if the exact same quote above was attributed to a Republican president, some of you guys would be tripping over yourselves to proclaim his awesomeness.

It's that constant inability to look at the big picture that baffles me. I mean, as cops, a big chunk of what we do involves stepping back from a situation and considering all points of view; yet here (and in 1000 other threads since 2008) is a clear example of personal prejudices influencing a persons ability to look at things from an unbiased perspective.

So you are not understanding cops not buying the load of BS? WOW!!! Usually cops get called JBT's for not taking the stance you don't understand.

Seems times are a changin' boys and girls.

[Vigilant]

Originally Posted by Ohio Copper

I blame the courts. I really do. They drag their feet constantly.

I agree that the courts are part of the problem. The whole justice system needs an overhaul IMO. Once done, I say it will be long past time to start bringing corrupt politicians to justice.

If it can be done, I would strongly support a referendum for term limits. That would at least be a step in the right direction.

[MeefZah]

Originally Posted by Southswede

!!! Usually cops get called JBT's for not taking the stance you don't understand..

I don't understand your comment, but then, English is my native language, so maybe there is a barrier there?

[RussP]

Originally Posted by Barrack Hussein Obama

 GIVE LAW ENFORCEMENT ADDITIONAL TOOLS TO PREVENT AND PROSECUTE GUN CRIME: We owe law enforcement the tools they need to keep us safe. The President will:

o Call for Congress to pass the Administration’s $4 billion proposal to help communities keep 15,000 cops on the street.

Okay, "keep" is the key word here. Not add new bodies, keep the existing levels the same. Is your current level of staffing the optimum level?

Have any of you taken pay reductions to 'help the budget process'? Can that money be used to reinstate those reductions? Would they be used that way?

Has administrative support been cut causing you to spend more time in-house doing tasks support staff use to? Would using some of the funding rehiring staff increase your time on the street?

Who came up with the 15,000 number?

I just went back to Give Law Enforcement additional tools to prevent and prosecute crime and, yes, the number is 15,000.

15000/900000=1.66667%, 1.67% of law enforcement. Wait, not all are on the street. Is 500,000 a fair number? Then 15,000/500,000=3%. Yeah, that's much better []. Retain 3% when turnover averages between 12% and 15%, some lower, some higher. Well, hell, maybe only 3% are worth keeping, the real cops.

So, what to do with that money to retain? Buy out some early retirements. Replace 15 to 20 year solid performing veterans with less experienced rookies or lateral hires. Yeah, that makes sense [].

He did say keep cops on the streets. That would mean only patrol officers benefit from the money? Cool...

The money, yeah, what about the money. Who do you believe came up with the $4 billion number? 4,000,000,000/15,000=$266,666.67 per retained cop. That is the average per cop, some get more, some less.

Wait, you aren't getting that all in one year, boys and girls. Divide that by 3 - $88,888.89. Still too high? By 5 = $53,333.33. That's a better average. Spread the money over 5 years to retain 3% of the cops on the street at an average salary of $53,333.33.

Will that prevent gun violence? Will it prevent violence, gun or otherwise, in schools?

Are agency bean counters capable of the rational thought needed to allocate monies into the proper line items without political influence or bias, either community or internal?

I know I've been rather sarcastic here, but, really, do I have the wrong perspective? Are my numbers even close? Are they wrong?

I wish everyone listening to these speeches, reading these 'promises' would sit down and do the math. Then they should go talk with their local law enforcement. Ask them what they really need.

Oh, crap, I forgot. 'NEVER TALK TO THE POPO!!!'

People, wake up!! YOU pay their salaries! Demand they give you answers!!!

And, no, "Officer, my little boy (17 in the 10th grade - again) won't do his homework. Will you make him do it?" is not the right question.

"Officer, my little boy (17 in the 10th grade - again) is a gang banger. He's got dope and a gun in his bedroom. Can you send him to prison for me?" THAT is the right question!!

[Morris]

I don't hate the president so you can shove that thought away. However, I do not buy his bilge water, nor that of his cronies. I do hate a lie and his entire administration is that.

Obama set the stage very early in his presidency with his attitude towards cops in general (a certain professor comes to mind). Or how about taking a night to attend ceremonies literally a couple of miles away from the People's House during the Memorial. Some could reasonably articulate that it was prior to his presidency during his period as a legislator and while campaigning for his first term (portable toilets on a memorial plaza come to mind).

That being said, what he proposes is hollow: his own programs, via the DOJ, have killed cops both in the US and in Mexico. His DOJ is more active than ever in asserting their federal muscle into local agencies via lawsuits and civil rights investigations (all the while violating civil rights on their own). He professes to make things better when a simple thing to do would have been to simply enforce what was already in the books.

I look at the total picture (as exampled in paragraph 2 of this post). What I see is dog and pony that does nothing to address real problems. As I have said before, if his own house was clean, then he may have had traction. But in the big picture, it all rings hollow and of a farce. That is why I write what I do and say what I say.

[dp509]

Originally Posted by morris

i can't because it's strictly theater of the absurd for the stupid. He would have had my interest and potential support if he had said, "hey! Here's a novel idea! How about we enforce the laws already in effect. How about we get some lazy federal prosecutors willing to step up on gun crimes. How about we clean our house first before we tell everyone to clean theirs."

he parades children behind him yet how many people and children has been killed in mexico because of guns people in his administration allowed to go out?

this !!!

[Kingarthurhk]

Originally Posted by cowboywannabe

ya hear that? he owes us.....i hope he starts with fast and furious.

Nah, that would mean they would have to stop murdering Border Patrol Agents. And clearly, they are okay with that.

[hotpig]

Originally Posted by dp509

this !!!

VP Crazy Joe Biden says that they can not enforce all of the gun laws that we already have. Sounds like he thinks banning the guns will solve all of the problems.

[TBO]

The President's policies have provided us with more "tools" than the system can handle.

Thanks a lot pal.

[RussP]

Originally Posted by TBO

The President's policies have provided us with more "tools" than the system can handle.

Thanks a lot pal.

"tools"

[Napalm561]

I'm concerned about the term "Mental Health". As it is right now, there is nothing specifically listed that defines what mental health issues that would diqualify someone from purchasing or owning a firearm. The use of the term allows for broad scrutiny regarding disqualification for ownership or purchases. Is a person that has been diagnosed with mild anxiety, or tourrets disqualified? Mental Health disqualifications need to be specified.

[PinkoCommie]

He owes me the tools I need to keep my community safe? A'ight -- I'll be waiting for a new Noveske SBR, a plate carrier with rifle plates and a more sensible state personnel system. That would be a good start.

Do I get a tracking number for those, so I can check on the progress?

[Bren]

Looks like it doesn't mean much. The majority of that is just "enforce existing laws" which is what the NRA has been saying for many, many years.