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 02-19-2013, 11:18   #151
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 42,671
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by mntrpr View Post
You use the term civi like it is a pejorative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jay1975 View Post
Not at all, it's just the slang that we use. Civi police, civi clothes, civi laws etc. It is how we differentiate between military and civilian. Nearly everything is implied to be related to the military when on post, so to distinguish from that which is not, we add "civi" to whatever term we are using. It's an old habit and not meant to be disrespectful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jay1975 View Post
Idiocy? Sorry pal, cops are civilians, regardless of how many sets of camouflage uniforms you may own.
The part in red, the , does create a context where "civilian/civi is indeed pejorative.
__________________
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 02-19-2013, 11:26   #152
jay1975
Ultra Master
 
jay1975's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Colorado
Posts: 396
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussP View Post
The part in red, the , does create a context where "civilian/civi is indeed pejorative.
I was taking a swipe at someone who insulted me, nothing more.
__________________
Fear the man who has one gun, for he knows how to use it.
jay1975 is offline  
Old 02-19-2013, 11:58   #153
RyanNREMTP
Inactive/Banned
 
RyanNREMTP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Waco, Texas
Posts: 4,530
So what is the argument over now? I can't keep up.

Sent from my Federation issued communicator.
__________________
Support Free Range Shopping Carts on Facebook.
RyanNREMTP is offline  
Old 02-19-2013, 12:04   #154
Mayhem like Me
Semper Paratus
 
Mayhem like Me's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 15,166
Blog Entries: 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by countrygun View Post
As long s it isn't "Puke" or "Scrote" I can live with that
Everyone gets my best behavior .. till they show me that they do not respond to civil discussion...

Then they are mopes....Pukes and Scrotes come later
__________________
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 02-19-2013, 12:28   #155
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 42,671
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bello View Post
What makes a cop any different then a civilian??? Not trying to start anything just asking a simple question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CJStudent View Post
The expectation to go into harms way every day, and sometimes have it follow you home. Where a civilian may have to deal with some of these idiots from time to time, cops are the ones expected to deal with them all of the time, mostly in a confrontational manner due to the situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FiremanMike View Post
Because when **** is going bad, you don't call ordinary civilians to come as fast as they can to clean it up, you call the cops. Any business that would make an intentional effort to make it more difficult for these officers to equip themselves appropriately just to make a political statement is particularly deplorable, and those cheering them on are essentially happy about the idea of our cops getting ****ed.

I get that many CCWers have made a commitment to act in the face of peril, but police officers have a legal duty to act in the face of peril. They openly put a target on their chest and stand in the fold, the least we can do is ensure they have access to the tools necessary to do so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayhem like Me View Post
Read the above, we are not different but our jobs are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by txleapd View Post
Have you ever chased an armed bank robber, who took a hostage, and then had to be put down while he was trying to carjack another victim?

Have you ever responded to a shooting in progress, then chase an armed suspect through the streets so he doesn't kill someone else, then got into a running gunfight?

Have you ever responded to an active shooter on a school/college campus?

Have ever buried one of your buddies, who was murdered while trying to stop a scumbag from killing people in a local Walmart?

Have you ever visisted a friend in the hospital, after he had his throat cut by a guy who had raped and murdered 3 girls?

Aside from these kind of things, I guess there's not much difference....
Quote:
Originally Posted by msu_grad_121 View Post
And there it is. THERE'S the difference between you and a cop. You got all butthurt and decided you're not gonna come to help out someone else. A cop doesn't do that. No matter how much you goad us into a pointless debate, insult us to our face and behind our backs, tell us you pay our salaries and spit on us, when you dial 911, we still come.

We don't have to like you, we'll still defend you. Obviously you lack the intestinal fortitude to say the same. Bravo, tough guy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Southswede View Post
When seconds count, the cops are only minutes away. The cops go to bad calls in pairs (if not more). The citizen does not have the luxury of body armor, secondary weapons, advanced communications and a host of other resources. So the citizen isn't as well off as the cop.......
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawman800 View Post
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/civilian

Definition of CIVILIAN

1: a specialist in Roman or modern civil law

2a: one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force

b: outsider
Quote:
Originally Posted by jay1975 View Post
Just because the dictionary says police aren't civilians, it doesn't make it so. The police are US citizens working on US soil enforcing US law. They are not combatants that can be deployed to foreign nations as military members are. The police fall under the same laws as those they enforce while the military has additional laws and regulations governing them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawman800 View Post
Just because it's in the dictionary doesn't make it so... okay... let's make up our own definitions for stuff... you practicing to be a Democrat politician?

The view that it's military or else is a very narrow view of the word civilian which has nothing to do with the word other than the popular application.

The laws you live under doesn't matter when you think about it. Military members who are active but who are walking or driving around the city are still subject to civilian laws too.

Extending that even further, foreigners who are here are subject to American law, doesn't make them Americans. (although a lot of Democrats who need voters would think so)
Quote:
Originally Posted by jay1975 View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jay1975 View Post
Idiocy? Sorry pal, cops are civilians, regardless of how many sets of camouflage uniforms you may own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharkey View Post
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).
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/
Quote:
Originally Posted by txleapd View Post
Like I said earlier, the point of my posts has nothing to do with taking away the ability of average law-abiding citizens from being able to protect themselves.

I fully recognize and support people's right to arm themselves for the protection of themselves and others.

It was asked how cops are different from your average law-abiding citizen. I was pointing out some of those differences. We take the calls to go into harms way. We respond to scenes while others run away. We face the monsters others don't want to. It's our job and our duty to do so. It's expected of us.

This does not take away anyone's right to protect themselves. But, it's the difference between cops and your average law-abiding citizen.

I know we can't be everywhere all the time. But we're the ones who get called when things go south, and we're the ones who have to clean up the mess.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayhem like Me View Post
Both definitions are correct depending on the audience.

BTW I have never called anyone a Civilian....I prefer Fine citizen..or mope...
Quote:
Originally Posted by jay1975 View Post
"I prefer Fine citizen..or mope..."
LOL
Some people find it entertaining, this back and forth about whether LE officers/deputies/agents are civilians or not.

Jay, you reject the Merriam-Webster definition of civilian. Are there any other definitions you do not accept?

Let me ask this. Why are the municipal bodies charged with the investigation of complaints by members of the public concerning misconduct by police called "Civilian Review Boards"? Is it to differentiate them from the police?

And, yes, there is within the military branches civilian police forces.

And, yes, there are within LE agencies civilian employees, called such to differentiate them from sworn LE employees.

If you want to call sworn LE personnel "civi" or civilian, justifying it has an old military habit, have at it. Do understand that as is quoted above, it may or may not be contextually correct. In the wrong context, it will be considered pejorative.

It is like the word "cop". It has very different meanings to different people. Some can be defined. There is one usage for which there is no written definition, but when used, others understand.

Lets agree then that those in law enforcement are citizens first.

The descriptor "civilian" may be used referencing members of LE, but the appropriateness is based on the totality of the context.
__________________
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 02-19-2013, 12:34   #156
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 42,671
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by mntrpr View Post
You use the term civi like it is a pejorative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jay1975 View Post
Not at all, it's just the slang that we use. Civi police, civi clothes, civi laws etc. It is how we differentiate between military and civilian. Nearly everything is implied to be related to the military when on post, so to distinguish from that which is not, we add "civi" to whatever term we are using. It's an old habit and not meant to be disrespectful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jay1975 View Post
Idiocy? Sorry pal, cops are civilians, regardless of how many sets of camouflage uniforms you may own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussP View Post
The part in red, the , does create a context where "civilian/civi is indeed pejorative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jay1975 View Post
I was taking a swipe at someone who insulted me, nothing more.
Thanks for confirming what I said!!
__________________
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 02-19-2013, 12:47   #157
Southswede
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 719
Quote:
Originally Posted by txleapd View Post
I think that you're reading into what you're actually reading. Go back and read some of my previous posts.

This time with an open mind.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
My reading comprehension is fine. I am seeing a clear division between groups of gun supporters. Perhaps you should take a closer look.
Southswede is offline  
Old 02-19-2013, 12:56   #158
Mayhem like Me
Semper Paratus
 
Mayhem like Me's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 15,166
Blog Entries: 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by Southswede View Post
My reading comprehension is fine. I am seeing a clear division between groups of gun supporters. Perhaps you should take a closer look.
yes you are because you are not being truthfull, does the CCW holder deserve to carry a gun while other citizens cannot, if you truly cared you would also demand that CCW holders not be allowed this preferntial treatment, and that they be treated like everyone else..Oh wait no thats not what you meant..

Does the CCW holder in my state deserve not to pay for a records check when buying a firearm, yet I have to pay everytime? Even though I am checked every year by my agency. Ohh the humanity and the elevated class of preferential treatment....
__________________
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 02-19-2013, 13:13   #159
fastbolt
Senior Member
 
fastbolt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Within the lightning (Northern CA)
Posts: 9,382
Anybody else getting dizzy from the back & forth in this thread ... and I've only skimmed a little of it.

Okay, civilian law enforcement is just what the term implies. Civilian, not military.

Does that mean the term civilian can't also be used to create a distinction between non-gov employment and that of various gov service (local, state, fed) involving some type of "enforcement activities"? Sure. Happens all the time.

The commonly acceptable definitions (plural) from various sources can be picked up and used to further whatever opinion any particular individual may wish to espouse ... as if it will usually help to resolve disagreement.

I chuckled when I came across this one at some point ... A person following the pursuits of civil life, especially one who is not an active member of the military, the police, or a belligerent group.

A "belligerent group", really? Who slipped that one into the mix?

As far as the original topic?

Folks can react to any company's actions and political philosophies however they wish.

If some smaller manufacturers and/or vendors wish to adopt making political statements into their business management models? Not my business. Not my problem, either.

Not like there's a lack of products of either the same, similar or even better quality and pricing, is there?

Might be more noteworthy if one of the major, internationally active manufacturers did something of a similar nature.

Of course, if it were a publically traded company they would have to answer to their board and shareholders, and might incurr legal complications.

A privately held company might be something else ... but it would be surprising if they adopted some course of conduct in their business model that denied them major sales & repeat business from LE/Mil customers.

Then there's the gun companies who are owned by corporations located in foreign countries.
__________________
Sub Club #9; .40 S&W Club #1953; S&W Club #3913
Retired LE - firearms instructor/armorer
fastbolt is offline  
Old 02-19-2013, 13:24   #160
jay1975
Ultra Master
 
jay1975's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Colorado
Posts: 396
RussP, I do not abide by the Webster definition for civilian, I go by the international definition which is simply any person who is not a combatant. The laws of war (Geneva Conventions) do not differentiate police forces from other civilian bodies, they simply break down people into two basic categories; combatants and civilians.
__________________
Fear the man who has one gun, for he knows how to use it.
jay1975 is offline  
Old 02-19-2013, 13:37   #161
countrygun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 17,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by jay1975 View Post
RussP, I do not abide by the Webster definition for civilian, I go by the international definition which is simply any person who is not a combatant. The laws of war (Geneva Conventions) do not differentiate police forces from other civilian bodies, they simply break down people into two basic categories; combatants and civilians.
When Canada invades then that definition may be of importance. Of course there is the issue of whether you believe in the international definition of "Gun Control" as well.
countrygun is offline  
Old 02-19-2013, 13:58   #162
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 42,671
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by jay1975 View Post
RussP, I do not abide by the Webster definition for civilian, I go by the international definition which is simply any person who is not a combatant. The laws of war (Geneva Conventions) do not differentiate police forces from other civilian bodies, they simply break down people into two basic categories; combatants and civilians.
Thank you for that, but the question was:
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussP View Post
Jay, you reject the Merriam-Webster definition of civilian. Are there any other definitions you do not accept?
I'm also interested in your response to this...
Quote:
Originally Posted by countrygun View Post
Of course there is the issue of whether you believe in the international definition of "Gun Control" as well.
Do you agree 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 02-19-2013, 14:25   #163
jay1975
Ultra Master
 
jay1975's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Colorado
Posts: 396
International gun control is a farce and it has no bearing on my duties. Let the other pansies do as they will. I am a strong 2nd Amendment supporter, but I do have to abide by the rules of war.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
__________________
Fear the man who has one gun, for he knows how to use it.
jay1975 is offline  
Old 02-19-2013, 14:36   #164
countrygun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 17,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by jay1975 View Post
International gun control is a farce and it has no bearing on my duties. Let the other pansies do as they will. I am a strong 2nd Amendment supporter, but I do have to abide by the rules of war.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
So your definitions and your decisions about internal matters in this Country are based upon the international rules of war and those rules, and definitions supersede anything else?

Really?
countrygun is offline  
Old 02-19-2013, 14:47   #165
jay1975
Ultra Master
 
jay1975's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Colorado
Posts: 396
Quote:
Originally Posted by countrygun View Post
So your definitions and your decisions about internal matters in this Country are based upon the international rules of war and those rules, and definitions supersede anything else?

Really?
No, what I am saying is that law enforcement agents in the US are civilians in the military's eyes and those are the eyes I have looked through for over half of my life. The dictionary can say one thing, but in the world I come from, that definition doesn't mean squat to us. There are troops, then there are everyone else. It is not meant to be rude or condescending, it's just the way it is when it comes to war and to those who make it.
__________________
Fear the man who has one gun, for he knows how to use it.
jay1975 is offline  
Old 02-19-2013, 14:50   #166
GunHo198
Senior Member
 
GunHo198's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Tampa
Posts: 1,116
Last I heard the Supreme court ruled that it's not a Police Officers Duty to protect an individual while putting his own life at risk.

Am I wrong in this regard?

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. They can always just quit and find employment in another field, or agency elsewhere without consequences. That, in my opinion makes them a civilian.
__________________
This Message Sponsored in Part by "One Angry White Guy"!

Last edited by GunHo198; 02-19-2013 at 14:50..
GunHo198 is offline  
Old 02-19-2013, 14:51   #167
jay1975
Ultra Master
 
jay1975's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Colorado
Posts: 396
Quote:
Originally Posted by GunHo198 View Post
Last I heard the Supreme court ruled that it's not a Police Officers Duty to protect an individual while putting his own life at risk.

Am I wrong in this regard?

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. They can always just quit and find employment in another field or agency elsewhere, without consequences. That, in my opinion makes them a civilian.
Hoorah Devil Dog
__________________
Fear the man who has one gun, for he knows how to use it.
jay1975 is offline  
Old 02-19-2013, 15:02   #168
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 42,671
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by jay1975 View Post
No, what I am saying is that law enforcement agents in the US are civilians in the military's eyes and those are the eyes I have looked through for over half of my life. The dictionary can say one thing, but in the world I come from, that definition doesn't mean squat to us. There are troops, then there are everyone else. It is not meant to be rude or condescending, it's just the way it is when it comes to war and to those who make it.
Thank you for clarifying the basis for your belief. From your limited perspective, where all except you are civilians without further categorization, your application of the category "civilian" is correct.

Many of us outside the military look at the colloquial application of "civilian". We do use the definition found in the dictionary.

Please remember the thing about context in using the word, especially the shortened version.

__________________
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; 02-19-2013 at 15:03..
RussP is offline  
Old 02-19-2013, 15:04   #169
mntrpr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 971
Quote:
Originally Posted by GunHo198 View Post
Last I heard the Supreme court ruled that it's not a Police Officers Duty to protect an individual while putting his own life at risk.

Am I wrong in this regard?

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. They can always just quit and find employment in another field, or agency elsewhere without consequences. That, in my opinion makes them a civilian.
So who is responsible for the us vs them mentality?
mntrpr is offline  
Old 02-19-2013, 15:12   #170
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 mntrpr View Post
So who is responsible for the us vs them mentality?
That would be us......



......or them.







Depending on how you look at it....
__________________
"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 02-19-2013, 15:15   #171
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 42,671
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by GunHo198 View Post
Last I heard the Supreme court ruled that it's not a Police Officers Duty to protect an individual while putting his own life at risk.

Am I wrong in this regard?
Not that cut and dry...
Quote:
Originally Posted by GunHo198 View Post
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. They can always just quit and find employment in another field, or agency elsewhere without consequences. That, in my opinion makes them a civilian.
Again, from the narrow perspective of members of the military versus everyone else, yes, everyone else is a civilian.

However, for those outside the military, you are one narrow band in the spectrum of citizens. You are military. Others are sworn LEOs. Others not in the military and not sworn LE are grouped together as civilians. That large group is broken down into sub-categories, such as doctors, nurses and other licensed members of the medical profession. I have heard them refer to those not in medicine as civilians on occasions.

The use of the word "civilian" is appropriate in a number of situations, inappropriate in others.
__________________
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 02-19-2013, 15:17   #172
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 42,671
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by mntrpr View Post
So who is responsible for the us vs them mentality?
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarCry View Post
That would be us......

......or them.

Depending on how you look at it....
Yep...
__________________
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 02-19-2013, 15:34   #173
GunHo198
Senior Member
 
GunHo198's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Tampa
Posts: 1,116
Quote:
Originally Posted by mntrpr View Post
So who is responsible for the us vs them mentality?
That would really depend on who's side you stand with. It should be "WE", as in "We the People." But when LEO chiefs Stand behind a Tyrant on National TV, and don't support the Constitution of the United States. Then it becomes "Us vs Them."

I agree that not all LEO are like that. I know plenty here in Florida that support the Constitution. 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. Because who is going to raise our kids when we are gone!?.. It sure puts "Us vs Them" into perspective.

Sadly, putting people on edge will only get good people hurt in the long run.
__________________
This Message Sponsored in Part by "One Angry White Guy"!

Last edited by GunHo198; 02-19-2013 at 15:35..
GunHo198 is offline  
Old 02-19-2013, 15:39   #174
Hrsuhd
Senior Member
 
Hrsuhd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Oregons Bay Area
Posts: 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayhem like Me View Post
Soo you are saying they do not need the same weapons as the criminal to preform their jobs...fascinating....
And your saying we dont need the same weapons to defend ourselves from those same criminals granted less often fascinating
Hrsuhd is offline  
Old 02-19-2013, 15:40   #175
msu_grad_121
BOOSH
 
msu_grad_121's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NW Burbs
Posts: 2,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by GunHo198 View Post
That would really depend on who's side you stand with. It should be "WE", as in "We the People." But when LEO chiefs Stand behind a Tyrant on National TV, and don't support the Constitution of the United States. Then it becomes "Us vs Them."

I agree that not all LEO are like that. I know plenty here in Florida that support the Constitution. 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. Because who is going to raise our kids when we are gone!?.. It sure puts "Us vs Them" into perspective.

Sadly, putting people on edge will only get good people hurt in the long run.
Please, site your source. This I GOTTA hear. Names and quotations of ANY verified Law Enforcement Officer posting those words on this board.
__________________
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.
msu_grad_121 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 04:44.



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


Users Currently Online: 805
236 Members
569 Guests

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