[Andy123]

Originally Posted by seanmac45

Aside from being grammatically a mess, your diatribe does not answer the question.

Why punish the cops who do not make the idiotic laws?

1. Because they enforce them.
2. Because their political groups support them.
3. They appear for photo ops with politicians who do write the laws.
4. They should not be above the laws they enforce.

[WarCry]

Originally Posted by BobbyS

That is interesting. Will people who are victims of violent crime in the "no gun" states be able to sue the state for not being allowed to protect themselves?

Yes.

http://www.isra.org/lawsuits/#Shepard

[BobbyS]

Originally Posted by WarCry

Yes.

http://www.isra.org/lawsuits/#Shepard

Thanks!

[JuneyBooney]

Originally Posted by SPIN2010

Because, it is every COTUS believing/supporting American's job/duty to stand up to the illegal tyranny that is leaking out of the so called leaders in the Wash D.C. sewer.

I agree and most leo I know do support gun rights because they cannot do the job alone.

[GunHo198]

Originally Posted by txleapd

Yes.

The SCOTUS came about when a family tried suing a police department after their daughter was murdered by her ex-husband, who she had a restraining order against. The contention was that they expected the police to protect her.

The ruling was that there is no Constitutional requirement for the police to protect a single individual over society as a whole, unless a previous special relationship exists. We serve the people, not a person.

The ruling was not the "cops get to thumb out noses at anyone who calls for help, and ignore them" that people like you make it out to be.

As a practical matter, we cannot be everywhere all the time, and protect everyone. So if something happens to you, you don't get to sue the cops, because we couldn't be there to stop it.

That's what the ruling was about.

Exactly!

And that's why We as civilians need these weapons. The same weapons that the LEO believe that they need for self defense. I have yet had an LEO show up at the same time I was being robbed. EVER. Seems the Victim is always there first. So why should the LEO have precedence over the people when it comes to the right of self defense?

Me personally, I prefer to shoot it out, and call the cops after to cover my but. (Been barked at by a female officer, because she said if I'm the victim, then why didn't I call the cops!?..) I'm getting old. I'm tired, and I'm cranky. If I get shot, I could use the rest...

[msu_grad_121]

Originally Posted by GunHo198

Exactly!

And that's why We as civilians need these weapons. The same weapons that the LEO believe that they need for self defense. I have yet had an LEO show up at the same time I was being robbed. EVER. Seems the Victim is always there first. So why should the LEO have precedence over the people when it comes to the right of self defense?

Me personally, I prefer to shoot it out, and call the cops after to cover my but. (Been barked at by a female officer, because she said if I'm the victim, then why didn't I call the cops!?..) I'm getting old. I'm tired, and I'm cranky. If I get shot, I could use the rest...

Curious, have you heard anyone in this thread say that private citizens DON'T deserve or need the weapons in question?

Heck, I'm still waiting on those posts where a LEO on this forum said he'd come for your guns and there's nothing you could do to stop him.

[CW Mock]

I'm coming for your guns and there is nothing you can do to stop me ...

[GunHo198]

I tried to find them, but I'm not going through every post in every thread since Sandy Hook to find them. If I could, I would point out the Troll that posted it. But I'm not because I can't find it. It may have been edited. Who knows. But it was there.

As for the other? The OP is complaining that he is being held to the same standards as the civilians in his state. Same as I posted above, that the LEO should not have precedence over the People's right to self defense, as we, the victims are on the crime scene first.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

[msu_grad_121]

Originally Posted by CW Mock

I'm coming for your guns and there is nothing you can do to stop me ...

Sigh... There's always a joker in the crowd! LOL

Originally Posted by GunHo198

I tried to find them, but I'm not going through every post in every thread since Sandy Hook to find them. If I could, I would point out the Troll that posted it. But I'm not because I can't find it. It may have been edited. Who knows. But it was there.

So what you're saying is that we have no proof it was said? Not to put too fine a point on it...

[GunHo198]

Originally Posted by msu_grad_121

Sigh... There's always a joker in the crowd! LOL



So what you're saying is that we have no proof it was said? Not to put too fine a point on it...

Point: I'm not digging through several months of posts to find it. Hindsight? I should have quoted him in my sig line for all to see.

Take it as a grain of salt. I don't care.

[4teecal]

God Im glad I live in somewhere other than the US.

Thankfully all us Jackbooted thugs can have guns that the public cant have.

[Mayhem like Me]

Originally Posted by Southswede

Talk about needing help with reading comprehension........

Again you have no answer.

[Borg]

Spikes joined the fight, http://www.spikestactical.com/salesinformation.html

Also, Magpul put a full page at in the Colorado papers saying they would leave CO if laws passed. They put it out there that about 300+ jobs would go with the move if it happens.

[RussP]

Originally Posted by GunHo198

But when BAD LEO's say on this Forum, (of which I repeatably read) that if they Ban guns, they are going to come and take them, and we aren't going to do anything about it.

You began with "BAD LEO's," plural, meaning more than one LEO.

You continue with more words meaning more than one, them, posts, them a couple more times.

Then you say "the Troll", then "him". So it was one person and one post you should have quoted in your sigline.

If you use the search feature, and search using the guy's user name, his last 200 posts will come up. You should find what you want that way.

I'm glad to hear it was just one person. I'm not up to opening a can of whoop ass on a bunch of these cops. That's hard work...

Do the search. Get back to us...

[mntrpr]

Originally Posted by RyanNREMTP

I still want to know who actually buys Olympic Arms?

Sent from my Federation issued communicator.

I had a co-worker entertain the idea of purchasing one once the hype started. I threw up in my mouth

[lawman800]

Originally Posted by jay1975

lawman800, law enforcement are civilians. When you can get deployed to some third world crap hole as a combatant who is subject to the Geneva Conventions, then I would believe otherwise. Until then, you are a civi who enforces civi law on US soil. There is a fundamental difference between the mission of law enforcement and the mission of the military. One is to keep the peace and serve the criminal justice system of the US, the other is to meet on the field of battle, engage with and kill the enemies of the nation. It is an honorable and admirable position to be in law enforcement, but it is still a civi position.

Yes, I know what the military does and what police do. What does that have to do with being a civilian? The military definition notwithstanding, your fight is with Merriam Webster. Why don't you tell them to change it?

From what I know about dictionaries, they do serious studies on words and meanings constantly to update their product to make sure they have accurate meanings to words in their products. Based on their years of experience and expertise in knowing what words mean and that they have an international reputation that is long-standing, I will take their word over yours.

Originally Posted by mntrpr

You use the term civi like it is a pejorative.

We say civvies all the time when you change out of uniform.

Originally Posted by jay1975

Idiocy? Sorry pal, cops are civilians, regardless of how many sets of camouflage uniforms you may own.

Some cops own camo for duty too. Doesn't mean jack. Some military wear uniforms similar to cops, like the working khakis for navy. Don't make a difference one bit.

Originally Posted by Sharkey

I think we are confusing the term citizen and civillians. We are citizens first and cops second. Cops aren't civilians (well some act like it but that is a subject for another thread).

I like using citizen... but in SoCal, that is not applicable to a lot of contacts in most of the areas I worked.

Originally Posted by Mayhem like Me

Both definitions are correct depending on the audience.

BTW I have never called anyone a Civilian....I prefer Fine citizen..or mope...

Skell, knucklehead, dope, idiot, Adam Henry, etc.

Originally Posted by txleapd

So, basically, you just pick the definition you like... Got it.

Nice to be able to pick and choose what facts to acknowledge, eh?

Originally Posted by countrygun

So, that means that my maternal Grandmother, who grew up in a southern family, was correct when she used a certain word to refer to "African-Americans", because that was what she was taught and grew up using all her life?

Ouch. Now you are bringing logical arguments into bear? You really want to win this fight, eh?

Originally Posted by Mayhem like Me

Then you would be wrong in GA and many other states they sign a 2 year contract that causes them to be responsible to repay the cost of training if they quit they cannot work in LE til the debt is paid.

Actually, LAPD was a test case in CA where they made recruits sign 5 year contracts and if they break it, they needed to pay back the cost of training. Well, a few quit and went to smaller and better paying agencies, LAPD sued, and lost.

Court's ruling here was that the 13th Amendment forbids forced labor, being akin to slavery. If someone does not want to work for you, you cannot force them to stay in the employment relationship. Now, you might be able to recoup costs if you have liquidated damages stipulated beforehand with enough specificity, but they also lost on that count. Maybe the judge just was anti-LAPD?

As for preventing them from working in LE until the debt is paid? How would you even enforce that unless POST pulls their certification until paid and I doubt that is even legal. Now an agency might use that as a consideration in hiring, but as I said, here, those guys already got jobs and didn't have to worry. Made for bad relations for a while with LAPD and that agency, but hey, it happened.

Originally Posted by CW Mock

I'm coming for your guns and there is nothing you can do to stop me ...

Only if you make an appointment and wear a hat.

[Wil Ufgood]

Originally Posted by msu_grad_121

Please, site your source. This I GOTTA hear. Names and quotations of ANY verified Law Enforcement Officer posting those words on this board.

I'll take their guns, well as long as they're quality

[Wil Ufgood]

Originally Posted by Andy123

4. They should not be above the laws they enforce.

I AM THE LAW!

Gotta love Dredd

[WarCry]

Originally Posted by GunHo198

An LEO is not bound by terms of contract to serve a 2-4 year term, or be charged with desertion if he or she doesn't fulfill there contract obligation, like the average person serving in the Armed forces.

Actually, military members can get out before their time is up, and still get honorable discharges from it. Pretty sure they don't advertise that fact, but my platoon sergeant even had a quote hanging in his office about it. I don't recall the general it was from, and the quote is paraphrased, but it was something along the lines of:

"We are a volunteer service. If someone doesn't meet our standards, we thank them politely for trying and send the home."

It's not exactly the same as giving two weeks notice at the office, but it's hardly unheard of.

[marv]

I am not LEO nor am I affiliated with the firearms industry except for being a bonafide gun nut. I believe that this is their way of getting the undivided attention of the legislature in hope lf gaining change/repeal of their new draconian gun laws.

[kellyclan]

Originally Posted by seanmac45

Aside from being grammatically a mess, your diatribe does not answer the question.

Why punish the cops who do not make the idiotic laws?

So the politically appointed hacks calling themselves cops like Gary McCarthy will have to go back to their teets and tell them they are no longer able to outgun the subjects who stand in the way of a police state.

Many cops have their heads on straight, and everyone knows this. But street guys don't usually have permission to speak publicly on political issues. So the admins who owe their jobs to powergrubbing mayors get to go on TV and make claims that the rights of citizens should be revoked and granted by internet opinion polls because that's what the mayor told them to do.

If a "weapon of war" is too dangerous for a peaceful man to use to protect his home, it certainly has NO business being wielded by those that would enforce the law upon us. This is not "screwing" with cops. It is simply a refusal to treat them as a privileged class of citizenry.

The *probability* a cop will need to use lethal force may be greater than mine, but the *severity of need* once lethal force is called for is equal for all men, regardless of who signs your paycheck. If probability was the measure by which we assign need, than cops in places like Newtown would not even be carrying guns.

[Gryff]

Originally Posted by FiremanMike

I read a headline that several firearm/accessory manufacturers (Olympic arms and larue included) were supposedly refusing to sell to cops in states where politicians are passing stricter gun laws.

Is this true?

Why the hell are they punishing the cops who have nothing to do with these political games?

Because most police unions throw their support behind gun-grabber initiatives BECAUSE there is always a LEO exemption. When individual cops start letting their unions know that Brady Bunch-supported/initiated laws aren't acceptable, then they'll start getting sympathy from the firearm companies that are defending RKBA as well as those of us who aren't treated as an equal-but-not-really class.

[HWI]

Police enforce the laws that politicians make, many are not on the side of the people, but on the side of the government. If the police are on the side of the people then they should come out and say they won't enforce the anti 2nd amendment laws and in that case the companies should continue to sell to them.

Regardless, police should not have access to weapons that the people do not have access to, LEO are still civilians and should not be militarized.

[msu_grad_121]

Originally Posted by HWI

Police enforce the laws that politicians make, many are not on the side of the people, but on the side of the government. If the police are on the side of the people then they should come out and say they won't enforce the anti 2nd amendment laws and in that case the companies should continue to sell to them.

Regardless, police should not have access to weapons that the people do not have access to, LEO are still civilians and should not be militarized.

Okay, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, show me a single verified police officer on this forum who has said they are anti-Second Amendment, or will come take your guns or will sit outside your house at night like the boogeyman.

And don't even get me started on the so-called "militarization" of the police...

[HWI]

Originally Posted by msu_grad_121

Okay, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, show me a single verified police officer on this forum who has said they are anti-Second Amendment, or will come take your guns or will sit outside your house at night like the boogeyman.

And don't even get me started on the so-called "militarization" of the police...

I don't frequent many parts of this board aside from the AK forum, so I can't. In addition to that, I highly doubt there is very many anti-2nd amendment cops using a firearm enthusiast forum. We know that there have been some big PDs that have straight up come out against gun rights, Chicago PD and NYPD being the big 2.

The police do not need to be militarized to do their job. I see Sheriffs and SWAT teams with APCs and I think abuse of power and misuse of tax payer money.