GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-20-2013, 01:37   #226
GumbyDammit
Xtra CoCheese
 
GumbyDammit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Not nearly close enough to Fiji
Posts: 3,726
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy123 View Post
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.
The us/them attitude is nauseating. I know more cops willing to stand up and lose their jobs over your rights than you have any idea. You don't understand what allies you have in LE, at least until you start the jackboot bull****. Cops I know have spoken out about this issue at greater risk to their jobs than any non LE I know.

As for your points:
1. I started on the job prior to the end of the last AWB. Guess how many guns w/ flash hiders I took or +10 rnd mags?? Zero. We also have an adultery law on our books. Guess how many people I've arrested for that? Don't think we are a bunch of lemmings that just shrug our shoulders and violate our oaths on a whim from some ********* politician.

2. I don't know about the big union agencies, but my political group consists of ~50 officers and a Chief with more integrity than you could find at a Boy Scout Jamboree. Everyone else can go to hell.

3. Who appears in the photo ops? The chiefs of a few of the largest cities in the country who also happen to have the worst violent crime in the country. Those puppets don't speak for all of law enforcement or even the majority of their departments. They are political figureheads who do political bidding and the state of their cities shows it.

4. We are all in the same boat together. Just because there may be a job related need to have access to something Joe on the street doesn't have or to run code through a red light on occasion doesn't put cops above anyone else. It's part of the job and a part that could make the difference between life/death for you or a loved one someday. Those things also happen to put a lot of guys at greater personal liability than you have to worry about at the office.

This attitude sounds just like the liberals who are *****ing/moaning about why anyone needs an "assault" weapon. They think gun owners will wield weapons as they themselves would and they fear the result. Too many people think all cops ride around with a Napoleon complex, sitting on a pedestal above the citizenry because if they had that "power", that's what they would do. Reality is 99% of the guys work their asses off for little or no thanks and consider their risks, sacrifices and meager pay to be worth the personal satisfaction found in serving their communities and those who cannot protect nor serve themselves.
__________________
The other night there was a loud argument in the hall outside my apartment while I was trying to sleep. I went out and told them they better leave or I was gonna use some Kung-Fu... THAT scared them off...

Plus I was totally nekkid and holding a gun.
GumbyDammit is offline  
Old 02-20-2013, 01:38   #227
msu_grad_121
BOOSH
 
msu_grad_121's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NW Burbs
Posts: 2,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by HWI View Post
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.
Okay, have you seen the 13,000 officers of CPD all in lockstep saying they don't support the 2nd Amendment? How about the 40,000 officers of the NYPD? No, you've seen a couple high ranking puppets in each department parroting what their mayors said so they can keep their job. So before you go slinging mud against a department, do a little critical thinking on the subject.

As for SWAT teams and APCs? I'm sorry you don't agree with them, but how would YOU have handled something like the Dorner shootout with nothing more than your spiffy class A uniform and pistol? I'll defer to your tactical expertise on the subject...

OR you can admit a miracle happened, and your vocal chords moved to your rectum, cuz you're talking out your ass.
__________________
The name on the left side of your chest represents who you work for. The name on the right side of your chest represents who raised you. Make them both proud.

Last edited by msu_grad_121; 02-20-2013 at 01:45..
msu_grad_121 is offline  
Old 02-20-2013, 03:51   #228
Mayhem like Me
Semper Paratus
 
Mayhem like Me's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 15,166
Blog Entries: 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by HWI View Post
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.
Two things.

The APC's are free from uncle sugar.


Do you want the officers to just get shot up by the guy in the building with the high powered rifle.


__________________
How do you establish intent?
Well when a naked man is chasing a woman down an alley with a butcher knife and a hard on, I figure he's not collecting for the red cross...Inspector H. Callahan
Mayhem like Me is offline  
Old 02-20-2013, 04:31   #229
txleapd
Hook 'Em Up
 
txleapd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: TX
Posts: 6,126
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobbyS View Post
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?
I would argue that by forcing people to give up their means of protection the government is creating a special relationship with everyone they disarm.

I don't know if I would win that argument, but I'd make it.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
__________________
1911 Club #75
Kahr Club #286
Lone Star Glockers #919


"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity” Sigmund Freud
txleapd is online now  
Old 02-20-2013, 04:47   #230
txleapd
Hook 'Em Up
 
txleapd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: TX
Posts: 6,126
Quote:
Originally Posted by GunHo198 View Post
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.
It may have been a troll, but it wasn't a cop here. I've been a member for 9 years, and I've never seen a real cop post anything even remotely close to that.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
__________________
1911 Club #75
Kahr Club #286
Lone Star Glockers #919


"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity” Sigmund Freud
txleapd is online now  
Old 02-20-2013, 04:57   #231
txleapd
Hook 'Em Up
 
txleapd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: TX
Posts: 6,126
Quote:
Originally Posted by HWI View Post
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.
You condemn because you don't understand.

You "think" because you don't know.

If you would like to start a new thread, to ask why the things you mentioned are needed, I'm sure you will be able to find plenty of guys who will explain.

If you actually take a moment or two to think about, you might even be able to rationalize it yourself, without even having to start a thread.



Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
__________________
1911 Club #75
Kahr Club #286
Lone Star Glockers #919


"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity” Sigmund Freud
txleapd is online now  
Old 02-20-2013, 05:15   #232
clancy
Senior Member
 
clancy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,977
Quote:
Originally Posted by txleapd View Post
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.




Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
I was involved in an incident in the early 90's where I and my doorman were getting the crap beat out of us by 8 guys. 2 town cops pulled up in their car, and then left us to get beat up even more.

After we got out of the ER we went to the police department to file a complaint. The cop a the desk refused to discuss the incident with us and we were told to leave. I figured I had already gotten one ass kicking that night, and didn't really need another one, so we left. We tried setting up an appointment with the police cheif, but he would not meet with us.

My quesstion is this. If 2 cops are not held responsible for leaving people to be beaten, what kind of message does that give the public?
clancy is offline  
Old 02-20-2013, 06:02   #233
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 42,671
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by clancy View Post
I was involved in an incident in the early 90's where I and my doorman were getting the crap beat out of us by 8 guys. 2 town cops pulled up in their car, and then left us to get beat up even more.

After we got out of the ER we went to the police department to file a complaint. The cop a the desk refused to discuss the incident with us and we were told to leave. I figured I had already gotten one ass kicking that night, and didn't really need another one, so we left. We tried setting up an appointment with the police cheif, but he would not meet with us.

My quesstion is this. If 2 cops are not held responsible for leaving people to be beaten, what kind of message does that give the public?
clancy, where did this happen?

What led up to the fight?

Was it right for them to not intervene? Not in my opinion.

Give us more about the incident, please.
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921

Last edited by RussP; 02-20-2013 at 06:08..
RussP is offline  
Old 02-20-2013, 07:29   #234
txleapd
Hook 'Em Up
 
txleapd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: TX
Posts: 6,126
Quote:
Originally Posted by clancy View Post
I was involved in an incident in the early 90's where I and my doorman were getting the crap beat out of us by 8 guys. 2 town cops pulled up in their car, and then left us to get beat up even more.

After we got out of the ER we went to the police department to file a complaint. The cop a the desk refused to discuss the incident with us and we were told to leave. I figured I had already gotten one ass kicking that night, and didn't really need another one, so we left. We tried setting up an appointment with the police cheif, but he would not meet with us.

My quesstion is this. If 2 cops are not held responsible for leaving people to be beaten, what kind of message does that give the public?
I don't know. You didn't share enough info to make any informed decision.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
__________________
1911 Club #75
Kahr Club #286
Lone Star Glockers #919


"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity” Sigmund Freud
txleapd is online now  
Old 02-20-2013, 07:53   #235
WarCry
Senior Member
 
WarCry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: IL, on the banks of the Muddy River
Posts: 7,220
Quote:
Originally Posted by HWI View Post
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.
You KNOW that for a fact, do you? The Chicago police SUPERINTENDENT has come out against concealed carry. Do you think that translates to the entire department?

Because the Chicago Police Sergeants have gone on record with the state legislation SUPPORTING concealed carry. And joining them in going on that record is the Chicago Police Lieutenants Association.


I would recommend checking on little, pesky things like facts and details before making such declarative statements.
__________________
"If you have something to say, now would be a perfect time to keep it to yourself." --Col. Chester Phillips
"If you believe everything you read, better not read." --Japanese proverb
WarCry is offline  
Old 02-20-2013, 08:41   #236
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 42,671
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarCry View Post
You KNOW that for a fact, do you? The Chicago police SUPERINTENDENT has come out against concealed carry. Do you think that translates to the entire department?

Because the Chicago Police Sergeants have gone on record with the state legislation SUPPORTING concealed carry. And joining them in going on that record is the Chicago Police Lieutenants Association.


I would recommend checking on little, pesky things like facts and details before making such declarative statements.
April, 2011... Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police voted to support concealed carry
Quote:
In so doing, the IACP joins the Chicago Police Sergeants Association, who expressed their support for Illinois HB 148, the "Family and Personal Protection Act," when it came up for a committee vote on March 8. The Illinois Sheriffs' Association has supported concealed carry since 2009. The Illinois State Police have taken a neutral stance.
Chicago Cops Come Out for Concealed Carry
Cop Talk

Facts...
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921

Last edited by RussP; 02-20-2013 at 08:45..
RussP is offline  
Old 02-20-2013, 08:54   #237
Will Beararms
Senior Member
 
Will Beararms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 1,223
Blog Entries: 1
I applaud principled companies in the firearms industry for making a lawful stand against tyranny. The only thing that makes us different from the rest of the world is that our system does not relegate ordinary citizens to second or third class status. Consider one of the influential people at the forefront of the effort to disarm America. By the standards of our Founders, he would be considered a tyrant. He used wealth and influence to negate a term limit law for the mayoral office of NYC that he might have even been involved in establishing-----I am not sure.

If free, law-abiding, competent citizens are debarred the use of assault-style rifles and high capacity magazines then no one should be privy to their use. Criminals have never cared, do not care now and will never care about obeying the law. If they did, they wouldn't be criminals in the first place.

I am all for greater scrutiny of citizens with regards to gun purchases. I am all for requiring background checks on all transfers private or commercial outside of family heirlooms. I do not think anyone legally prescribed certain classes of drugs should be able to own a firearm. In fact I am certain they should not be.

Certain firearms manufacturers are not attacking our men and women in blue. They are fighting to stand in the gap against politicians who think they give people rights when in fact these freedoms are endowed by God and recognized by our foundation for self-governance.

If you are upset with what is happening then make a sensible, lawful and principled stand for the tax payers who provide the infrastructure for you to pursue you passion in the first place. We did build this-----not the government.

In the heat of this debate, don't forget those currently in power seek to divide us. They purpose to divide and conquer. Whether you agree or disagree with me, I think you will agree we all need to a step back and take a deep breath. Look at the news cycle. For the last four years, we have been kept in edge constantly. Make no mistake this is by design from people who do not believe we are exceptional----people who want us no different than other socialist Euro States. We cannot allow ourselves to be their pawns until this passes.
__________________
"Without a rifle you are nothing, worthless, you are waiting for death, any minute, any second." -- Aron Bielski.

Last edited by Will Beararms; 02-20-2013 at 09:00..
Will Beararms is offline  
Old 02-20-2013, 08:55   #238
WarCry
Senior Member
 
WarCry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: IL, on the banks of the Muddy River
Posts: 7,220
Thanks for covering my back. My Google-fu was weak this morning trying to come up with that.
__________________
"If you have something to say, now would be a perfect time to keep it to yourself." --Col. Chester Phillips
"If you believe everything you read, better not read." --Japanese proverb
WarCry is offline  
Old 02-20-2013, 09:03   #239
Will Beararms
Senior Member
 
Will Beararms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 1,223
Blog Entries: 1
In other words, the politicians are pitting the rank and file LEO's against the average Joe. Let's not lose sight of this.

The first rule of bird dog training: Be smarter than the dog.
__________________
"Without a rifle you are nothing, worthless, you are waiting for death, any minute, any second." -- Aron Bielski.

Last edited by Will Beararms; 02-20-2013 at 09:10..
Will Beararms is offline  
Old 02-20-2013, 09:24   #240
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 42,671
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarCry View Post
Thanks for covering my back. My Google-fu was weak this morning trying to come up with that.
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921
RussP is offline  
Old 02-20-2013, 09:54   #241
merlynusn
Senior Member
 
merlynusn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: NC
Posts: 3,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by jay1975 View Post
I like to rely on the wisdom of someone who has walked both paths:

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...s-too-edition/
So what. Many of us on this board have walked both paths too.

You never did answer the question about what you consider a National Guardsman or a Reservist. Also, what combat are you in in the US? You are a combatant when you are in combat. The Geneva Convention was designed for war, not for peacetime. I challenge you to say that what the Police/Sheriffs encountered with the Dorner shootout was not combat.

But I digress...

Everyone here needs to realize, you are on a gun board. The LEOs here are as pro-gun as you can find. Many of our colleagues are the same way. These debates over gun control are occurring in every police department across the country. Though it is not what you are thinking "he he he, we get to go confiscate all the guns now." It's more along the lines of "WTH are these morons thinking? Can you believe this ****? We need to get some people with common sense back in charge."

When you paint all LEOs with a broad brush saying they are anti-gun, you had better have verifiable facts to back it up. The truth of the matter is that we look at all the facts and make a determination. Do most of these idiotic laws have a chance of passing? No. And the ones that do stand a chance of passing are causing all of us great concern as well because we know they are wrong and will put us at a disadvantage because we WANT the citizenry armed. No one knows better than a LEO that a criminal won't follow the law.

I'll get off my soap box now.

Last edited by merlynusn; 02-20-2013 at 09:56..
merlynusn is offline  
Old 02-20-2013, 10:17   #242
jay1975
Ultra Master
 
jay1975's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Colorado
Posts: 393
merlynusn, a Guardsman or Reservist is a civilian until they are on orders. The difference between a civilian and a military member is not just the aspect of being sent off to other nations to fight in war, it is about the contract and the commitment that separates the military from other civilians. Military members surrender many of their rights that civilians enjoy daily such as protection under the 1st, 2nd and 4th Amendments. Civilian police officers do not surrender these rights. Military members cannot quit, are subject to being moved all across the world and deploy at a moments notice. They make sacrifices that no civilian ever has to make or could understand. When the police can get deployed to war, loose their individual rights and share in all of the other sacrifices that the military does, then I will gladly change my tune, but until then, like every other non-military person, they are civilians.
__________________
Fear the man who has one gun, for he knows how to use it.
jay1975 is online now  
Old 02-20-2013, 10:19   #243
jay1975
Ultra Master
 
jay1975's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Colorado
Posts: 393
Oh, and add Double Star and their distributors to the list that will not deal with the Commie states.
__________________
Fear the man who has one gun, for he knows how to use it.
jay1975 is online now  
Old 02-20-2013, 10:39   #244
WarCry
Senior Member
 
WarCry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: IL, on the banks of the Muddy River
Posts: 7,220
Quote:
Originally Posted by jay1975 View Post
merlynusn, a Guardsman or Reservist is a civilian until they are on orders. The difference between a civilian and a military member is not just the aspect of being sent off to other nations to fight in war, it is about the contract and the commitment that separates the military from other civilians. Military members surrender many of their rights that civilians enjoy daily such as protection under the 1st, 2nd and 4th Amendments. Civilian police officers do not surrender these rights. Military members cannot quit, are subject to being moved all across the world and deploy at a moments notice. They make sacrifices that no civilian ever has to make or could understand. When the police can get deployed to war, loose their individual rights and share in all of the other sacrifices that the military does, then I will gladly change my tune, but until then, like every other non-military person, they are civilians.
You're wrong, still, on so many things, and the arrogance that you have......Not for ONE second while I wore the nations uniform did I EVER have the kind of holier-than-thou attitude you're displaying, and ESPECIALLY not in regards to my opinions of law enforcement.

All your crap about contracts and "can't quit" are just absolutely, 100% flat dead wrong. First of all, it's an employment contract. They're voluntary (in most cases), so don't give me any of that crap about how rough it is. And if you've served more than one term, then you volunteered REPEATEDLY. Any loss of rights you suffered were at your own choosing. It doesn't make you a martyr.

Yes, military members have some restrictions on things like the First Amendment. You think the police DON'T? How about "I can't discuss that, it's an ongoing investigation"? Or, more appropriate to the topic, how many law enforcement officers do you see going on the news - officers, not brass - and sharing their views on the gun control issues?


I served my time, regular army, not reserve or Guard, so please don't try to accuse me of "not getting it" or anything else that I've seen tossed out. You are displaying the same kind of attitude that a handful of police across the country have displayed throughout history: "I wear this uniform, and therefore my opinions trump yours, regardless of what anyone says." And just like those few cops, you do NOT represent everyone in the military, but you're making ALL of them look bad.

I think you've somehow gotten just about the worst case of entitlement belief I've seen in a long time. And it, frankly, pisses me off when you smear the uniform with foolishness.









To the mods, feel free to edit or remove this if I crossed a line. Just can't stand the "I'm better than you" attitudes like that.
__________________
"If you have something to say, now would be a perfect time to keep it to yourself." --Col. Chester Phillips
"If you believe everything you read, better not read." --Japanese proverb
WarCry is offline  
Old 02-20-2013, 10:49   #245
jay1975
Ultra Master
 
jay1975's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Colorado
Posts: 393
Warcry, then enlighten me; what makes a police officer not a civilian? Do they not fall under US law? Do they not enjoy equal protection under the Constitution? Are they not subject to the draft? Yes, they are afforded certain priviledges because of their job, but so do people in other professions.

"All your crap about contracts and "can't quit" are just absolutely, 100% flat dead wrong. First of all, it's an employment contract. They're voluntary (in most cases), so don't give me any of that crap about how rough it is. And if you've served more than one term, then you volunteered REPEATEDLY. Any loss of rights you suffered were at your own choosing. It doesn't make you a martyr."
And no, the volunteering of service doesn't make one a "martyr", but it does separate the military from the civilian population.

"Yes, military members have some restrictions on things like the First Amendment. You think the police DON'T? How about "I can't discuss that, it's an ongoing investigation"? Or, more appropriate to the topic, how many law enforcement officers do you see going on the news - officers, not brass - and sharing their views on the gun control issues?"
The difference is, the police officer may be fired while the military member can be sent to prison.
__________________
Fear the man who has one gun, for he knows how to use it.

Last edited by jay1975; 02-20-2013 at 10:53..
jay1975 is online now  
Old 02-20-2013, 10:57   #246
blk69stang
Senior Member
 
blk69stang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Arizona
Posts: 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayhem like Me View Post
You realize they are allowed to disregard traffic laws also while they are working and activate emergency lights, should car manufacturers boycott as well since you can't drive like that when you want to.

Actually, we are NOT allowed to disregard traffic laws. We still must obey traffic laws, but sections of the traffic laws DO allow for SOME exceptions for emergency vehicles with lights and siren activated. Here in AZ for example, we are allowed to exceed the posted speed limit by 15mph and NO MORE, and can only "run" red lights and stop signs after slowing and checking to be sure that the other vehicles are "yeilding the right of way" to our emergency vehicles.

In a nutshell, we DO have follow the traffic laws, we just have a different set of laws that apply for true emergency situations.

IMHO, LaRue and Olympic have the right idea. The laws are supposed to apply EQUALLY to all. If a certain gun or magazine "belongs on the battlefield and not on the street", then LE should not be allowed any kind of "special privilege" to own it... civilian LE should be limited to the types of weapons that normal civilians can own. Period.
blk69stang is offline  
Old 02-20-2013, 11:04   #247
WarCry
Senior Member
 
WarCry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: IL, on the banks of the Muddy River
Posts: 7,220
Quote:
Originally Posted by jay1975 View Post
Warcry, then enlighten me; what makes a police officer not a civilian?
Pretty sure this has already been answered, but just in case you missed it:
Quote:
one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force

The only argument - the ONLY argument - you've made contrary to this is that "I don't like it, so I say it's not true!"


My son stopped trying to use that argument when he was 4. I guess some folks just mature at different rates.
__________________
"If you have something to say, now would be a perfect time to keep it to yourself." --Col. Chester Phillips
"If you believe everything you read, better not read." --Japanese proverb
WarCry is offline  
Old 02-20-2013, 11:23   #248
Neero
Sleep-deprived
 
Neero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NC
Posts: 1,720
Send a message via AIM to Neero
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayhem like Me View Post
You realize they are allowed to disregard traffic laws also while they are working and activate emergency lights, should car manufacturers boycott as well since you can't drive like that when you want to.
Not true, and not the same argument.

If laws were being passed that restricted gas tank size, horsepower, and "speed" features like ground effect kits, spoilers, or "performance" tires, then yes... it'd be the same argument and yes, we'd all be up in arms (hah!) over the restrictions and supporting car manufacturers that boycott state agencies in turn.

As it stands, cops can already use guns in more ways than non-LEO for their job. Everyone understands that, and encourages that. I definitely want a cop to be able to draw down on a fleeing suspect to protect his/her own life while subdoing someone. I also do NOT want non-LEO to be able to legally point a gun at me because I drove away from them in a parking lot.

You're arguing use of tools, we're arguing features and capabilities of tools.
Neero is offline  
Old 02-20-2013, 11:36   #249
jay1975
Ultra Master
 
jay1975's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Colorado
Posts: 393
Warcry, I did some research of the actual legal meaning of "civilian" and your Webster quote falls short. According to the US Legal dictionary, "Civilian is a person not serving in military or a person who does not belong to a particular group or engage in a particular activity. Any activity pursued by an ordinary citizen can be called a civilian pursuit."
By this definition, nearly everyone is not a civilian. Police, doctors, unions members, Boy Scouts, etc. since these people belong to particular groups and view those not within their particular group as outsiders or "civilians".

"The only argument - the ONLY argument - you've made contrary to this is that "I don't like it, so I say it's not true!""
The argument that I made earlier, that you either missed or ignored, is that under the Law of War (Geneva Conventions), there are only combatants and civilians. This is the definition that I have lived over half of my life with.

If you would have read (or comprehended) some of my earlier posts, I have said that I admire and respect the police. I know that their job is thankless and stressful, but there is a world of difference between the military and the other citizens of the US. To ignore or belittle that difference is insulting and offensive to many of us in the military. You've worn both uniforms, but that fact seems to have escaped you.
__________________
Fear the man who has one gun, for he knows how to use it.
jay1975 is online now  
Old 02-20-2013, 11:45   #250
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 42,671
Blog Entries: 64
I'll address this first...
Quote:
Originally Posted by jay1975 View Post
merlynusn, a Guardsman or Reservist is a civilian until they are on orders.
I believe that is correct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jay1975 View Post
The difference between a civilian and a military member is not just the aspect of being sent off to other nations to fight in war, it is about the contract and the commitment that separates the military from other civilians.
Interesting you use "separates" instead of, oh, say "differentiates". I'll come back to that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jay1975 View Post
Military members surrender many of their rights that civilians enjoy daily such as protection under the 1st, 2nd and 4th Amendments.
And why does that happen?

What are the reasons behind the difference in 1st, 2nd and 4th Amendment Rights. Explain them one at a time, please.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jay1975 View Post
Civilian police officers do not surrender these rights.
No, they do not. Their 1st Amendment Right is, however, restricted by employment policies. The 2nd Amendment Right is still there, as is a member of the military who lives off base/post. 4th Amendment Right is also governed somewhat by employment policy, just like a military member's is living on base/post.

People will see the differences in your explanation of the necessities behind the military's position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jay1975 View Post
Military members cannot quit, are subject to being moved all across the world and deploy at a moments notice.
Yes, facts well known at enlistment time.

You've mentioned several times that military members cannot quit. Have you had experience with someone who did want to? What happened?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jay1975 View Post
They make sacrifices that no civilian ever has to make or could understand.
That is why so few enter the military. The same applies to LE, though. There are sacrifices, perhaps not as extreme, perhaps the same in a different environment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jay1975 View Post
When the police can get deployed to war, loose their individual rights and share in all of the other sacrifices that the military does, then I will gladly change my tune, but until then, like every other non-military person, they are civilians.
Again, you are using "civilians" as a demeaning description. To you, no one not in the military has the status you have given yourself. You separate yourself from all others, especially law enforcement.

Sadly, you do not recognize that these cops do hold those serving and who have served in high esteem, very high esteem. Some of them are veterans themselves, as I am.

Yeah, military life is different. It has varying degrees of risk. Yes, the rules are different for reasons you are going to explain to us.

In the non-military world where all but a very few live, those in law enforcement are not civilians, by definition and by colloquial understanding.
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921
RussP is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 21:32.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,349
396 Members
953 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42