[DoubleWide]

No AWB laws are passed. These LEOs are expressing their thoughts.

Let's take a look at different amendments and possible future laws. I mean that's what we're talking about, right?


4th - People start talking about passing laws that allow the police to search and seize property without search warrants and probable cause

13th - People start talking about passing laws that allow the police to allow slavery and involuntary servitude for outstanding debts

19th - People start talking about passing laws to arrest women for voting

Would you have a problem with Sheriff speaking his mind about any of these?

I mean, come on, what's 22 years of involuntary servitude while you wait for the Supreme Court finally hear and decide the case.

[BicycleDay43]

Originally Posted by AK_Stick

So if you walked up to your boss and said, I object to doing what you pay me to do, what exactly do you think would be his recourse?


Thats exactly what those cops are saying. We're not going to do our jobs, and you can't make us do it.

Complete and utter horse crap.

LEO's are paid to uphold and support the U.S. Constitution. Why are you so against cops respecting our Constitutional rights?

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

[Mushinto]

Originally Posted by fg17

AGREE, Give me a break with the Nazi comparisons. Besides if Germany would have won the war a lot of people in this country would have been put on trial for war crimes. People do the victims of real atrocties a disservice when they compare what happened to them and a few little gun laws that might go through.

The police going door to door, confiscating guns from honest citizens is hardly "a few gun laws." Besides being unconstitutional and immoral, it is quite dangerous for the officer. I know many otherwise law-abiding people who might shoot a police officer under these circumstances. I would imagine that many cops would refuse such service on the grounds that it was too dangerous.

As for AK, he is a soldier and not a cop. He does not have a clue. I have trained many ex-military for law enforcement. Some of them were the "only see black and white" kind of guys and they rarely made it as a police officer.

If a soldier refuses an order, he might be court martialed and shot. If an LEO refuses an order, he may be subject to discipline. Refusing an order because it is too dangerous, and assuming it is not normal police duties, will rarely result in discipline.

[fg17]

Originally Posted by Mushinto

The police going door to door, confiscating guns from honest citizens is hardly "a few gun laws." Besides being unconstitutional and immoral, it is quite dangerous for the officer. I know many otherwise law-abiding people who might shoot a police officer under these circumstances. I would imagine that many cops would refuse such service on the grounds that it was too dangerous.

As for AK, he is a soldier and not a cop. He does not have a clue. I have trained many ex-military for law enforcement. Some of them were the "only see black and white" kind of guys and they rarely made it as a police officer.

If a soldier refuses an order, he might be court martialed and shot. If an LEO refuses an order, he may be subject to discipline. Refusing an order because it is too dangerous, and assuming it is not normal police duties, will rarely result in discipline.

"going door to door, your talking extremes. But as long as were on the subject. I have been shooting, hunting and competing for 30 years. I have also experianced my share of violence. I hear a lot of internet tough talkers. 99% of the "from my cold dead hands" crowd would wet there pants if an entry team came through there door, the other 1% would be dead. Its all a silly fantasy

[AK_Stick]

Originally Posted by Mushinto

The police going door to door, confiscating guns from honest citizens is hardly "a few gun laws." Besides being unconstitutional and immoral, it is quite dangerous for the officer. I know many otherwise law-abiding people who might shoot a police officer under these circumstances. I would imagine that many cops would refuse such service on the grounds that it was too dangerous.

As for AK, he is a soldier and not a cop. He does not have a clue. I have trained many ex-military for law enforcement. Some of them were the "only see black and white" kind of guys and they rarely made it as a police officer.

If a soldier refuses an order, he might be court martialed and shot. If an LEO refuses an order, he may be subject to discipline. Refusing an order because it is too dangerous, and assuming it is not normal police duties, will rarely result in discipline.

The problem is not that I don't have a clue.


The problem, is that a bunch of you, have no clue or grasp of what I was ever talking about.

[Bruce M]

Originally Posted by BicycleDay43

LEO's are paid to uphold and support the U.S. Constitution. Why are you so against cops respecting our Constitutional rights?

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

I think that what he might be suggesting is exactly that - they are paid to uphold the Constitution and follow the rule of law. Both of which mean that there are processes to follow to determine the Constitutionality of actions and laws that precludes the officer from determining by himself what is and is not Constitutional, especially for situations where there is not clear consensus on both sides of an issue. Or perhaps I do not understand him myself. But I know I feel that way.

More than a few here would have a problem if a police agency decided to take it upon itself to make up policy to deny concealed weapon licenses despite state statute requirements. Yet people seem to be suggesting using the exact same extralegal process for the police to decide on the Constitutionality of an issue by themselves. If we allow the police to avoid the system in place to determine legality and Constitutionality, we must not be surprised when the police end up coming to a different conclusion than what we wish.

[Sam Spade]

Originally Posted by AK_Stick

Sigh. Again with the invalid comparisons?


Is that truly the best you can do? To re state tired arguments that are nothing like the situation being discussed?

Situation, as I see it, is that you're in vigorous disagreement with LE who would substitute their judgement for the courts. Over-reaching cops, we have people who know better, etc.

You've been given examples from the US, not some foreign land, where the court said, "do it".

So it's entirely valid to ask if you'd do those things. The court said that interning Japanese was legal. Would you do it? How is that off track? How is that nothing like the situation?

You've correctly pointed out a logical fallacy of an appeal to popularity in this thread. You're floundering, though, when it comes to your own use of appeal to authority. Which, if you did t know, is another fallacy.

So: will you enforce a law to pack Japanese away from the exclusion zone? Court said it was proper, and it's not like they're going to the ovens.

[JackMac]

circular formula....the Constitution is the law of the land. If a law is passed that is in contravention to the Constitution, then it is illegal or as the Court's rule....on many laws...."unconstitutional". I support the Constitution and many years ago took an Oath to do just that....in addition to defending my Country against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

[GunHo198]

Any Law that circumvents the Constitution would merely be a Suggestion and not enforceable. And I would never surrender my guns and wait for the courts to take a year or two to sort it out.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

[billn]

Do you enforce every traffic violation you spot?

[Trapped_in_Kali]

Originally Posted by fg17

"going door to door, your talking extremes. But as long as were on the subject. I have been shooting, hunting and competing for 30 years. I have also experianced my share of violence. I hear a lot of internet tough talkers. 99% of the "from my cold dead hands" crowd would wet there pants if an entry team came through there door, the other 1% would be dead. Its all a silly fantasy

It has happened in the USA in your lifetime!
http://youtu.be/-taU9d26wT4

[herose]

Originally Posted by AK_Stick

I applaud their actions, but every single one of them should be fired.


It is not the polices job to decide what law is constitutional or right. Its their job to enforce the law.

Publicly announcing they will not fulfill their oath should be considered a verbal resignation and treated as such.

Wrong. I swore an oath to uphold the Constution of the Commonwealth of Ky and the United States of America. Therefore I can refuse to enforce laws that are unconstitutional. Don't know to what other officers in other states swear an oath.

[Mushinto]

Originally Posted by fg17

"going door to door, your talking extremes. But as long as were on the subject. I have been shooting, hunting and competing for 30 years. I have also experianced my share of violence. I hear a lot of internet tough talkers. 99% of the "from my cold dead hands" crowd would wet there pants if an entry team came through there door, the other 1% would be dead. Its all a silly fantasy

Going door to door is the topic at hand. Lesser fake gun control laws would not be an issue for an officer to ignore.

I just say another left wing radical on TV this morning saying that "He supports the Second Amendment" and No one wants to come and take your guns."

He is a liar.

[bobtheelf]

Originally Posted by AK_Stick

So did I, but I don't remember any clause about being able to pick and choose what laws I obeyed.

Last I checked, we have a system to decide what is constitutional, and it isn't "I won't enforce what I don't agree with"

Had they said, "we think X is unconstitutional, and we won't enforce it until the supreme court rules on it" they would have my support. But cops have no place deciding what is, and isn't constitutional.

So you want a force of drones that will "just follow orders"?

[Diesel McBadass]

Ill thank the police doing this. My federal oath is to the constitution, not to the government. Theres a difference.

[SitkaBob]

Originally Posted by AK_Stick

So did I, but I don't remember any clause about being able to pick and choose what laws I obeyed.

Last I checked, we have a system to decide what is constitutional, and it isn't "I won't enforce what I don't agree with"

Had they said, "we think X is unconstitutional, and we won't enforce it until the supreme court rules on it" they would have my support. But cops have no place deciding what is, and isn't constitutional.

Those who simply follow orders in the protection of their own jobs are simply bureaucrats. We all have the obligation to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States." The Oath I took in 1975, which by the way does not expire, put the constitution First and obeying the orders of those appointed over me second.

None of us has the moral obligation to obey any order we find to be immoral, illegal, or unconstitutional. That is the heart of Ethics. Ethics involves choice and responsibility. A true ethical dilemma is where one is faced with two equally valid yet competing moral obligations. Obey the Constitution as written or obey orders.

I commend these Law Enforcement Officers because they stand ready to pay the price for their choice. Are you?

[Proud2pak]

Refusing to enforce such unconstitutional laws is THE MOST patriotic thing anyone who has sworn an oath can do.

[Proud2pak]

Originally Posted by sitkabob

those who simply follow orders in the protection of their own jobs are simply bureaucrats. We all have the obligation to "support and defend the constitution of the united states." the oath i took in 1975, which by the way does not expire, put the constitution first and obeying the orders of those appointed over me second.

None of us has the moral obligation to obey any order we find to be immoral, illegal, or unconstitutional. That is the heart of ethics. Ethics involves choice and responsibility. A true ethical dilemma is where one is faced with two equally valid yet competing moral obligations. Obey the constitution as written or obey orders.

I commend these law enforcement officers because they stand ready to pay the price for their choice. Are you?

excellent !!!!

[mgentry]

Originally Posted by AK_Stick

I applaud their actions, but every single one of them should be fired.


It is not the polices job to decide what law is constitutional or right. Its their job to enforce the law.

Publicly announcing they will not fulfill their oath should be considered a verbal resignation and treated as such.

But they are defending their oath - most of the public servant oaths include these words - "that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." So as part of their oath, they must make a decision if a law or an order is constitution or not - the same with the military.

[GunHo198]

Originally Posted by fg17

"going door to door, your talking extremes. But as long as were on the subject. I have been shooting, hunting and competing for 30 years. I have also experianced my share of violence. I hear a lot of internet tough talkers. 99% of the "from my cold dead hands" crowd would wet there pants if an entry team came through there door, the other 1% would be dead. Its all a silly fantasy

They are more than welcome to try. But there are a lot more crazy people out there than you think. If you think what you hear in the news is bad now? Wait till the day they try. Most of my military buddies are geared up and waiting. It could only take but a spark to cause a full blown fire. And the kindling is already been set. The shortage of guns and ammo isn't because people are in a buying frenzy to get them off the streets, there buying because they want them before a ban. And there not just going to hand them over peacefully.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

[GSSF17]

Originally Posted by AK_Stick

The problem is not that I don't have a clue.


The problem, is that a bunch of you, have no clue or grasp of what I was ever talking about.

Yes we do. More than you know, my friend. But oh, show us the way. Lead us into the light......


Terrible.

[Annoyinglylongname]

Originally Posted by AK_Stick

I applaud their actions, but every single one of them should be fired.


It is not the polices job to decide what law is constitutional or right. Its their job to enforce the law.

Publicly announcing they will not fulfill their oath should be considered a verbal resignation and treated as such.

Heinrich Himler would be proud of you...

[dcc12]

Originally Posted by Annoyinglylongname

Heinrich Himler would be proud of you...

exactly.

[Glockworks]

Originally Posted by Annoyinglylongname

Heinrich Himler would be proud of you...

As would Joseph Goebbels for drinking the kool aid to the last drop. And this grown up Nazi Youth has an issued weapon? I hope not for he gives officers a very bad name IMO.

[DanaT]

Originally Posted by GunHo198

They are more than welcome to try. But there are a lot more crazy people out there than you think. If you think what you hear in the news is bad now? Wait till the day they try. Most of my military buddies are geared up and waiting. It could only take but a spark to cause a full blown fire. And the kindling is already been set. The shortage of guns and ammo isn't because people are in a buying frenzy to get them off the streets, there buying because they want them before a ban. And there not just going to hand them over peacefully.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

As was recently in the news, imagine if Dorner has 100 buddies that all decided they had wanted to take on the police and the police didnt know who they were.

I think what is not being seen is that if people were to start revolting over gun confiscation, it will come that they wont WAIT for a team to come take them. Once doors start being kicked in for confiscation, that will change everything.

Think of it like how welcome an invading army would be welcomed.