Should they get an exception?

[waterhouse]

I think you missed the point being made that 95 percent of the time police respond it is AFTER a crime has been committed.

I did not miss the point. I've already written that police often get there too late. I've already written that people should plan on protecting themselves. For someone to say that the police get there too late all the time is disingenuous.

 

[waterhouse]

911 is a communications system of variable efficacy, NOT a matter transporter or a time machine.

Once again, I am aware of this.

You claim that in order for the police to protect someone 4 things must happen:

The threat wasn't immediate.
The threat wasn't serious.
The victim was insanely lucky because you were STANDING THERE when the threat arose.
You were detailed to protect that individual.

I provided you with a case in which a 911 call was placed, the police were not on scene, the police drove to the correct address, and the police stopped violence. I know these things because I was the first officer on scene.

I freely admit that the 911 system is imperfect and that the police will, the majority of the time, not get there in time to protect you. I have repeatedly written that people should be ready to protect themselves. I have agreed with you that the courts have held that the police have no duty to protect.

I also know, for a fact, that sometimes, the police arrive in time to protect people. This seems to be the major point of disagreement.

 

[Deanimator]

Showing up late and taking reports does happen; it happens all the time.

It happens MOST of the time.

If the police show up in time to "protect" somebody, either it wasn't that serious of a threat or that immediate of one.

I'm not foolish enough to bet my life on total strangers doing the largely impossible.

 

[Sam1911]

[Ahem...I think we all get the point. Sometimes the police arrive in time. Sometimes they do protect people. Sometimes they don't. More often than not, they can't.

You two really aren't even arguing opposing positions, just arguing about how much hyperbole to use. Let's move back to the question at hand. Thanks.]

 

[Deanimator]

.............................

 

[waterhouse]

If the police show up in time to "protect" somebody, either it wasn't that serious of a threat or that immediate of one.

If being asphyxiated by another human's hand is neither serious nor immediate to you, you are clearly beyond convincing. I'll bow out of this one.

 

[The-Reaver]

I think the only people that should have standard capacity mags are the UN when they come.
Sarcasm on.



So, no special treatment
Sarcasm off.

 

[Checkman]

Well this thread is constructive. Why don't we all just start throwing mud at each other and just screech at other "are to" and "are not". Wow. Nothing like adults taking the "High Road".

Seems to me that the majority of the posters on this thread (on both sides) have already made up their minds and will absolutely not talk to each other. Just start shooting at each other now since that's the only logical end to this so-called discussion. Bunch of idiots - the whole lot of you.

Meanwhile the anti's are rolling on the ground. Mission accomplished. We're at each other's throats.

 

[Panzercat]

Hey, there was another society that put all the weapon into the hands of an upper class elite while the little people were unworthy of arms...

...It was an honor to get your head chopped off by them.

 

[Sam1911]

Meanwhile the anti's are rolling on the ground. Mission accomplished. We're at each other's throats.

Somehow I don't think it's quite that bad. We need to be able to discuss things, even if we don't convince each other!

What are you suggesting? That we lock down the thread if not every poster agrees with holding cops to the same standard as other citizens? Ban folks who don't hold the THR "party line?"

I think we can debate these points without giving undue aid and comfort to the enemy. At least we've gotten away from the deluge of "GIVE UP NOW AND SACRIFICE TO THE ANTIS" threads we saw around the first of the year! That was pathetic! Debates like this are natural and constructive.

 

[Deanimator]

This:

Well this thread is constructive.

Followed by this:

Bunch of idiots - the whole lot of you.

As the saying goes, "res ipsa loquitur"...

 

[Deanimator]

At least we've gotten away from the deluge of "GIVE UP NOW AND SACRIFICE TO THE ANTIS" threads we saw around the first of the year! That was pathetic! Debates like this are natural and constructive.

Well, I think by now it was pretty obvious from where a lot of that was coming.

The other side ALWAYS has its sock puppets waiting to "prove" that gun owners really HATE the NRA and are just looking for an opportunity to not BE gun owners.

 

[Sam1911]

You might think so, but I saw that kind of talk from some VERY long-time THR members who I know are not "sock puppets" of anyone. Just very scared people who should have been able to better marshal their strength. Oh well, at least "next time" maybe they won't be so quick to start throwing rights to the ghouls.

 

[HorseSoldier]

Observations:

A) This thread hasn't been locked yet? The unfortunate us vs them mentality most THR discussions feature whenever gun owners discuss law enforcement has been on display from the start, but its gone downhill from that low starting point.

B) Which LEOs are helping pass anti-gun laws? Is this alleged state of affairs a general trend? Is it a reflection of statements by politicians (some of whom wear LE uniforms)? Is it a stereotype held by many persons who post here on THR? Discuss. Bonus points to actually cite evidence versus hyperbole and histrionics.

 

[joeschmoe]

I wish LEO's were with us so we could all hold hands and sing Kumbaya, but they're not. Their actions and posts on this thread prove they are not. Have you seen any national police organizations speak against these bans? Or even just stay out of it? No. They aggressively support the gun grabbers. They are gun grabbers.

"VP Biden Says He Needs Cops’ Help to Reinstate ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban and Much More"

representing law enforcement were
-the leaders of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association,
-the Fraternal Order of Police,
-the International Association of Chiefs of Police,
-the Major County Sheriffs’ Association,
-the National Association of Police Organizations,
-the National Latino Peace Officers Association,
-the National Law Enforcement Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence,
-the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives,
-the National Sheriffs’ Association,
-the National Troopers Coalition,
-the Police Executive Research Forum &
-the Major Cities Chiefs Association, and
-the Police Executive Research Forum.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...-reinstate-assault-weapons-ban-and-much-more/

Obama's AWB speech;

 

[HorseSoldier]

So representatives of those organizations showed up to a meeting with Biden?

Do did the NRA and Cabelas at one point.

More to the point, I will reiterate my previous question as to how many of the organizations that were present are not organizations of politically appointed chiefs of law enforcement in their jurisdiction? Saying those individuals represent law enforcement is on par with saying that everyone in NY state supports gun control because of Cuomo's SAFE Act being passed.

But if it is easier to work in stereotypes and oversimplifications, more power to you.

 

[Deanimator]

Which LEOs are helping pass anti-gun laws?

Every one who agrees to appear in uniform as a prop for an anti-gun event, every time a Daley, Bloomberg or Feinstein snaps their fingers.

 

[Deanimator]

Saying those individuals represent law enforcement is on par with saying that everyone in NY state supports gun control because of Cuomo's SAFE Act being passed.

That is sophistry of the lowest order.

Those organizations FORMALLY REPRESENT cops.

I haven't seen any cops FORMALLY REJECT them IN PUBLIC.

Until that happens, your words ring VERY hollow.

 

[Sam Cade]

They are gun grabbers.

Of course they are.

Once any organization reaches a certain level of size and complexity its primary functions are twofold:

1. Ensuring its own continued existence.
2. Increasing the power (soft or hard) that the organization wields.


Limiting non LEO access to firearms greatly enhances the appeal of being a LEO (soft power) and increases the real, tangible, hard power of individual LEOs relative to the common citizenry.

 

[Arbo]

No, if there are going to be unconstitutional laws put in place, there should be no exemptions. LEO's, former LEO's, former military, etc, they are all just as human as everyone else, and just as likely to 'turn bad' as the anti-gun people seem to think everyone may.

In addition, if there are no exemptions, perhaps those that get normally get exemptions can join the rallies and protests and work with us 'common folk' to ensure such legislation never passes.

 

[HorseSoldier]

Those organizations FORMALLY REPRESENT cops.

Really? When I was an LEO, I was not a dues paying member of any of those organizations, did not have any say in the appointment or election of their officers, or have anything else to do with them.

So how did they "FORMALLY" represent me?

That is sophistry of the lowest order.

Is it?

Compared to the above lack of linkage between myself and the organizations you say "FORMALLY" represented me at that point in my career, it is probably more accurate and fair to say that you are personally to blame -- as an Ohio resident -- for gun control in US due to your implication in the releection of Obama. Your state's electors, who FORMALLY REPRESENT you are who put him in office.

Well, maybe that was sophistry . . .

 

[mrvco]

Ideally we wouldn't have any mag bans, scary black rifle bans or whatever.... but say we do...

My opinion is that if LEO's get an exemption then my CCW permit should at least qualify me for the same exemption.


In reality, it is difficult for me to justify punishing all LEO's (local and state specifically) for ignorant legislators passing bad legislation.

 

[joeschmoe]

So representatives of those organizations showed up to a meeting with Biden?
Do did the NRA and Cabelas at one point.
More to the point, I will reiterate my previous question as to how many of the organizations that were present are not organizations of politically appointed chiefs of law enforcement in their jurisdiction? Saying those individuals represent law enforcement is on par with saying that everyone in NY state supports gun control because of Cuomo's SAFE Act being passed.

But if it is easier to work in stereotypes and oversimplifications, more power to you.

I provide specific links, quotes even pictures and you still refuse to believe the obvious.

The Fraternal Order of Police is the world's largest organization of sworn law enforcement officers, with more than 325,000 members in more than 2,100 lodges.
www.fop.net/

(AKA = UBC/registration of all sales)

Legislation Supported by the National Fraternal Order of Police

S. 54 (Leahy, D-VT), the "Stop Illegal Trafficking Firearms Act," would revise and expand Federal laws ro combat trafficking in firearms

http://www.fop.net/legislative/support.shtml

Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) spoke on the floor Monday night about the Judiciary Committee’s progress on legislation related to gun violence, including last week reporting out the Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act. Leahy, who is chairman of the committee, authored the measure that has the strong support of many law enforcement organizations with a bipartisan group of Senators. In his floor statement Monday, Leahy called on Senators to continue working together, as they did earlier this year on the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization, to pass common sense legislation related to gun violence.

We have the strong support of several leading law enforcement organizations including the Fraternal Order of Police, the FBI Agents Association, the Major Cities Chiefs Association, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, and the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives. Last week I received a letter from the NAACP lending their strong support to our efforts. I thank all of these organizations for their assistance and support.

http://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/s...p-illegal-trafficking-in-firearms-act-of-2013

 

[itsa pain]

leos have made it us against them when they got tanks explosives sniper rifles machine guns drones etc. and they did all that while crime went down to its lowest levels. the lower crime went the more military hardware they got. surely you know that horse soldier

 

[sonick808]

I see no reason for Law Enforcement to be exempt from the civilian rules. That said, I see no reason for most of the civilian rules. Full auto and suppressor technology should be just as common and attainable as your average gun store pistol or rifle.