close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Welcome to Glock Talk

Why should YOU join our Glock forum?

  • Converse with other Glock Enthusiasts
  • Learn about the latest hunting products
  • Becoming a member is FREE and EASY

If you consider yourself a beginner or an avid shooter, the Glock Talk community is your place to discuss self defense, concealed carry, reloading, target shooting, and all things Glock.

So firearms companies are screwing cops..

Discussion in 'Cop Talk' started by FiremanMike, Feb 18, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. GumbyDammit

    GumbyDammit Xtra CoCheese

    I would add even those who have been worried haven't been worried enough.
     

  2. G29Reload

    G29Reload Tread Lightly

    13,286
    363
    Sep 28, 2009
    Not punishing cops. Making a point to the tyrannical governments that employ them. Most rank and file cops support priv gun ownership. The cops have to turn around and say to their employers, hey why so tyrannical? Stop making it hard and get me what i need to do my job!

    Cops are also private citizens too so they have a vested interest. After ten years maybe i dont wanna cop no more. Want to open a pizzeria or a garden shop. Why cant i get a full mag? Wtf?
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2013
  3. FiremanMike

    FiremanMike Way too busy

    3,919
    396
    Jul 26, 2007
    The interwebs
    It occurred to me that there's a different perspective, one that'll probably rile all you "this is great" peeps up..

    The governments in these states are infringing on the constitutional rights of its citizens, but have elected to allow a subset of these citizens (cops) to retain their constitutional rights. These companies, of their own accord, have elected to infringe the constitutional rights of this subset of citizens, who are perfectly allowed to purchase such items.

    I renew my previous assertion that these companies are just as bad as the respective governmental entities. Both are using an emotionally charged situation to trample the constitutional rights of citizens for their own political gain.
     
  4. RussP

    RussP Moderator

    33,734
    3,315
    Jan 23, 2003
    Central Virginia
    Don't post much around here, do you...:rofl:
     
  5. dbcooper

    dbcooper

    1,138
    2
    Mar 2, 2011
    I know that you all have jobs that restrict what you can say while in uniform. Out of curiosity if say,75% of the force disagrees with the restrictions and were to say so publicly what could they do? I can't see wholesale firings and I'm sure the union would have to come to your aid?

    We can petition Politicians til we are blue in the face and it will matter no one bit in places that are Dem. strongholds, they act knowing that you gentlemen have no choice but to have thier backs. I don't see a few manufacturers actions having much effect, but I can't blame them for trying.

    Edit to add: A severe case of blue flu on July 4th?
     
  6. FiremanMike

    FiremanMike Way too busy

    3,919
    396
    Jul 26, 2007
    The interwebs
    I think you overestimate how much the politicians care about the opinion of police officers.
     
  7. RussP

    RussP Moderator

    33,734
    3,315
    Jan 23, 2003
    Central Virginia
    :wow:
    True.
    True, but that is an accidental occurrence, not the intent. Find one statement by these governments that their exemption of LE is to maintain a Constitutional Right.
    So, if they were to sell to citizens simply based on employment or status, that is okay with you.
    The companies are acting for whose political gain?

    I agree that the politicians are acting to advance their political agenda. Are you saying that the companies are acting to enhance the political gains of the politicians?
     
  8. dbcooper

    dbcooper

    1,138
    2
    Mar 2, 2011
    I imagine for the most part they don't give 2 defications, but it would put a face to the fact that the "higher ups" on the stage when this bs goes down don't represent the beliefs of most of LE, at least for the public.

    My local PD has a top dog who openly supports the good guys carrying and our state Senate and House as well as the Gov. are repubs, the NY type of bs won't fly here. The Mayor here , a D. dropped out of Bloomberg's group among other things, someone needs to break the news to him that he's a conservative, a DINO
     
  9. This might shatter some of your views of the world, but there are more political factors that a person uses to decide their political affiliation than guns.

    Also, just because he supports gun rights does NOT make him a conservative. For example, you said he dropped out of MAIG group. That means he WAS a member at one time. Perhaps he dropped out because - politically - he was catching flak for being a member?

    There are more dimensions to politics than any one issue. A Republican who supports same-sex marriage isn't a liberal, and a Democrat that supports CCW isn't a conservative. That's much to narrow of a view of the world.


    ETA, my local mayor also just dropped out of MAIG, and he's about as liberal as you can get at the municipal level outside of a major metropolitan area.
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2013
  10. FiremanMike

    FiremanMike Way too busy

    3,919
    396
    Jul 26, 2007
    The interwebs
    No, I don't assume that the intent of the government was to retain the rights for the officers, but it is factual to say that these exemptions have allowed a subset of citizens to retain their rights (however convoluted it is to get to that end).

    I'm also not saying that they should sell to certain individuals simply based on their employment or any other (insert status), but what we have here is that there IS a group of people who can still legally purchase these items and enjoy their constitutional 2nd amendment rights. Just like the governments are squashing the 2nd amendment rights, these companies are now electing to impede the second amendment rights for the citizens who are currently exempted.

    As far as I'm concerned, the political gain of these companies is that joe-blow gun owner feels they are standing up for their rights, when in reality all they are doing is furthering the degradation of the constitution against even more people.

    Because I'm sure butthurt is coming from my post, let me ONCE AGAIN make the following point VERY CLEAR: I do NOT feel that cops should be allowed to have these guns and no one else can, but I believe we have an interim fix in place currently to keep these items in hands of law abiding citizens until we can WORK TOGETHER to get these absurd laws repealed.
     
  11. FiremanMike

    FiremanMike Way too busy

    3,919
    396
    Jul 26, 2007
    The interwebs
    Nuclear warheads
     
  12. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    9
    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas
    Argumentum absurdum.

    There is a reasonable line to draw. There is nothing wrong with civilians owning 30 round mags.
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2013
  13. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    9
    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas


    The difference is that these companies cannot stop individuals or agencies or their employees from getting what they need, and they can't make any of them turn in or destroy the items they have.

    It's a political statement that these companies support the rights of all, and will not support a "some animals are more equal than others" policy??

    End result, on duty cops still have what they have, retired guys that have not stocked up yet get to live with a little harder time getting more than their neighbors can get.

    Get this, no danger to cops. None. Zip. Zero. They get to keep what they have.

    Look on the bright side, as soon as the civilians can buy them, so can everyone else.

    Fair is Fair.
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2013
  14. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    9
    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas
    Just wow bro.

    First, the constitution limits and enumerates the power of the government.

    Us Joe blows aren't really too concerned with any irritation you have any more than you are concerned about ours.

    You being butt hurt because these companies are sticking it back to the man in such a small way, that won't hurt any on duty police, is really hard to understand.

    Either you aren't really understanding the reality of the situation and it's real world impact, or I just don't know. It's not adding up.

    What is it about this that is REALLY getting under your skin???
     
  15. TheJ

    TheJ NRA Life Member Lifetime Member

    1,716
    103
    Jan 24, 2011
    GA
    Yep going to nukes is the same argument most of the antis use when you try to explain the right to arms is the right of defense (including resistance to tyranny). But it's a straw man as firearms are not even in the same universe as nukes.

    IMHO there is not a hand held firearm made that should be barred from private citizens. We're fighting over mag capacity and cosmetics but nobody talks about the fact that we've already practically lost access to select fire. While I'm personally not that interested in owning select fire, it was the beginning of the slippery slope. Absolutely positively nobody is safer because select fire arms are practically banned. We've mostly just come to accept that select fire firearms are too dangerous for common folk using the exact same flawed logic they are using to push for new restrictions on semi auto and magazine capacities.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.