This is topic RECALL THE THREAD ABOUT CONFISCATION? in forum Member forum at The New Huntmastersbbs!.
To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://www.huntmastersbbs.com/cgi-bin/cgi-ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=003390
Posted by Leonard (Member # 2) on February 26, 2013, 02:12 PM:
If this don't piss you off, I would be surprised. Also, the number of police and National Guard that took guns without cause. And the national media ignored the issue. If something happens, I expect the same thing to happen all over again. Weez Fuked!
Good hunting. El Bee
http://www.infowars.com/city-wants-power-to-disarm-individuals-during-crisis/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=BLm5kkBgKSM#!
[ February 26, 2013, 02:18 PM: Message edited by: Leonard ]
Posted by UTcaller (Member # 8) on February 26, 2013, 03:12 PM:
Rotten Son of a Bitches anyway.
I really don't know how I would handle a situation like that. I try to be as law abiding as possible but I don't think I could sit by and let them trample over my right to have a gun to defend myself ESPECIALLY in situation like the ones shown(some type of disaster). It is obvious that the dumb asses in uniform aren't there to help.
Good Hunting Chad
[ February 26, 2013, 03:50 PM: Message edited by: UTcaller ]
Posted by CCP (Member # 913) on February 26, 2013, 04:10 PM:
Glad you posted that up. Guntersville is across the Mountain from me and was there today and will be working there the next week or two. Weird as hell as I have my guns shipped too a store in Guntersville when I buy online, and do most of my coyote hunting around there.
That town exist mostly because of hunters and fishermen and they only found two people to interview against this? I will inform everyone I see there.
Posted by Prune Picker (Member # 4107) on February 26, 2013, 04:24 PM:
Martial Law is one reason why i don't have a concealed carry permit for the obvious reasons seen in the videos.
The NRA, GOA, and all conservative politicians should show those videos everytime the libs talk about gun bans. And if the NRA would do it i might sends a donation or two instead of filling up my trash cans with their pleas for $$$$
Posted by Frank (Member # 6) on February 26, 2013, 06:13 PM:
Like was said, the police already have powers to arrest "unruly" (whatever that means) people. Likely that translates into "whomever they want".
Leonard, I was reviewing California's "Dangerous Weapons" laws dealing with AR's. I just started getting madder by the minute.
I can see a point where someone, somewhere......
Gun owner's have been like Martin Luther King where we demonstrate peacefully. But I can see that has not gotten us anywhere. How about a million man march? Armed! What we need is a Gun Owner's Action Network to organize it. Say we march on Sacramento or something.
HMMM, something to think about.
Posted by UTcaller (Member # 8) on February 26, 2013, 06:25 PM:
Yeah cops have all the tools they need at there desposal to stop UNRULY citizens, why aren't we given those same tools to stop the bad law enforcement if need be. That's my big beef about when these DUMB ASS polititians and ignorant media types say we don't need the AR's and high capacity clips. I would like to have the same type of weaponry as the person I might need to defend myself against. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Good Hunting Chad
Posted by TOM64 (Member # 561) on February 26, 2013, 07:25 PM:
At some point someone's gonna say no with a bang.
That's it, just say no.
Posted by Leonard (Member # 2) on February 27, 2013, 08:54 AM:
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/122812-638766-more-killed-by-knives-hammers-fists-than-with-rifles.htm?ven=OutBrainCP
Posted by Frank (Member # 6) on March 01, 2013, 11:17 PM:
Media sensationalism designed to sway public opinion.
It's all a means to an end driven by what the elites want i.e. The disarmament of America.
Once that is done the media and politicians have nothing to fear.
The media will continue to control the hearts and minds and the politicians will continue to do the media's bidding.
This method of control goes beyond just America.
The few media elites want to control the path and destiny of world society and they are succeeding.
The elites represent a danger more profound than any other threat America has ever faced.
Posted by DEL GUE (Member # 1526) on March 04, 2013, 10:25 PM:
The mayor, a woman (which should explain the whole thing and the bias against guns), wants this law. I didn't see the cops asking for the law. There's already plenty of laws on the books. If somebody is being a problem, they can be dealt with.
Blame the politician. That's where the blame belongs.
Posted by CrossJ (Member # 884) on March 05, 2013, 07:29 AM:
quote:
I didn't see the cops asking for the law.
I didn't see them opposing it either!
Posted by DEL GUE (Member # 1526) on March 05, 2013, 12:48 PM:
Wtf!!!
It's not their job to ask for it or to oppose it. It's their job to enforce it.
Quit blaming them for something they're not responsible for, or are you that determined to make them a whipping boy just because you don't like the police?
The mayor is asking for it...blame the fuckin' mayor.
Posted by UTcaller (Member # 8) on March 05, 2013, 04:09 PM:
Even if it's UnConstitutional? ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by Chris S (Member # 3888) on March 05, 2013, 07:43 PM:
Del Gue and the logical fallacy:
Blind Loyalty (also Blind Obedience, the "Team Player" appeal, or the Nuremberg Defense).
The dangerous fallacy that an argument or action is right simply and solely because a respected leader or source (an expert, parents, one's own "side," team or country, one’s boss or commanding officers) say it is right. This is over-reliance on authority, a corrupted argument from ethos that puts loyalty above truth or above one's own reason and conscience. In this case, a person attempts to justify incorrect, stupid or criminal behavior by whining "That's what I was told to do," or “I was just following orders."
[ March 05, 2013, 07:45 PM: Message edited by: Chris S ]
Posted by Leonard (Member # 2) on March 06, 2013, 09:39 AM:
I don't think Del is as on board for that shit as some may think.
Good hunting. El Bee
PS, but, as a practical matter, he, (or any L.E.) can't pick and choose which regulations within the criminal code he will choose to enforce. I think it can be difficult, if you let it get to you. I'm sympathetic. (edit: if a man has a conscience)
[ March 06, 2013, 09:40 AM: Message edited by: Leonard ]
Posted by 4949shooter (Member # 3530) on March 06, 2013, 01:24 PM:
quote:
I don't think Del is as on board for that shit as some may think.
Leonard is right, Del isn't like that. Not at all.
He is just sick of people blaming the individual street cops for what the brass may be endorsing.
And I don't blame him.
Posted by UTcaller (Member # 8) on March 06, 2013, 01:44 PM:
If they are making UnConstitutional laws I blame both the people making them and enforcing them......
Posted by Possumal (Member # 823) on March 06, 2013, 01:56 PM:
Who is this "They" making all these unconstitutional laws? Is it the same "They" who are coming to take away your guns? I have been hearing about these rascals for the last 30 years or more but haven't seen "Them" yet.
In any event, holding the law enforcement people responsible is off base.
Posted by 4949shooter (Member # 3530) on March 06, 2013, 02:16 PM:
quote:
If they are making UnConstitutional laws I blame both the people making them and enforcing them......
Really? I blame the people who voted the legislators in place.
Posted by Krustyklimber (Member # 72) on March 06, 2013, 03:17 PM:
The individual officer on the street has immense power... he can decide, and often does, who he'll warn, who he'll arrest, and who he'll jack-up like a Nazi Stormtrooper.
Just following orders, my ass... that's why they invented the dash-cam.
Krusty
Posted by UTcaller (Member # 8) on March 06, 2013, 03:26 PM:
Al,
Did you see the video clips above, that is the "They" and "Them". Yeah just stick your head in the sand. Everything will be just fine trust "Them" and don't worry about a thing....
4949,
I totally agree the voters are to blame as much as anybody.
[ March 06, 2013, 03:51 PM: Message edited by: UTcaller ]
Posted by Possumal (Member # 823) on March 06, 2013, 04:04 PM:
I still haven't seen any law abiding citizen have his/her gun confiscated. As for the constitutionality of the laws passed by congress, I am not an authority on constitutional law.
My head is a long way from hid in the sand, but I am not paranoid either.
Posted by R.Shaw (Member # 73) on March 06, 2013, 04:09 PM:
Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law in
St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the last Presidential election:
Number of States won by: Obama: 19 McCain: 29
Square miles of land won by: Obama: 580,000 McCain: 2,427,000
Population of counties won by: Obama: 127 million McCain: 143 million
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Obama: 13.2 McCain: 2.1
Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory
McCain won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country.
Obama territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in low income tenements and living off various forms of government welfare
Posted by DEL GUE (Member # 1526) on March 06, 2013, 06:05 PM:
You guys just don't get it.
When I see all these chiefs of police and so forth standing with Obama when he is advocating gun control somewhere, I want to throw up. Because I know those clowns are NOT hunters and shooters like many cops I know. They aren't us...they are admin pukes...they are remf's.
Since Connecticut, I've talked to supervisors...sergeants and lieutenants... people I've worked for ...who said flat out if they were handed lists and told to go house to house to confiscate weps they'd take their badges off and hand'em to whoever and walk away. As would I. Because we took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. And we couldn't...we wouldn't ...follow an unconstitutonal order like that. Because, among other things, we would probably be on that list too! A lot of cops have personal AR's, high-cap mags, all that stuff.
You know what a retired or resigned cop is? He's a civilian. He's a has-been, a used-to-be. Hell, I have guys in my agency right now working the street that I barely know or hardly ever see. Do you really think they wouldn't be coming for my guns too? And do you really think I'd be waiting around for them to come? I'd get my ass gone to some remote country and hunker down. If I had to cache some of them up on a mountain, I would.
Back in high school, and that ain't fuckin recent, in case you're interested, I would literally sit and wait for a teacher to start trash-talking guns or the 2nd Amendment and then I'd rip them a new ass.
And this shit about some of these ass clowns wanna pass an assault weapons ban but grandfather in whatever you have, but you gotta go down to the po-po station and register it?
FUCK THAT!!!!! I ain't registering SHIT!!!
I've been a law-abiding man all my life, and I've always tried to do the right thing, as I perceived the right thing to be, but NOBODY is taking my guns, and I'm not registering my guns, not a single damn one of them, ever, and if that makes me an outlaw, then an outlaw I'll become. Some things in this life are ABSOLUTE...and for me, that's one of them. If I was a home-invader, or a drug dealer, or a murderer, or a robber, that would be one thing, but I'm not. I'm an honest man and a CITIZEN of these United States, and I WILL BE DAMNED if I'll idly stand by and allow my Constitutional rights to be trampled.
There are good cops and there are bad cops. There are good gun owners and there are bad gun owners. There are good politicians, Republican and Democrat, and there are bad politicians, Republican and Democrat. I call it like I see it, and I call a spade a spade.
[ March 06, 2013, 06:08 PM: Message edited by: DEL GUE ]
Posted by Leonard (Member # 2) on March 06, 2013, 07:24 PM:
That's pretty clear, and I thought as much.
Good hunting. El Bee
Posted by Frank (Member # 6) on March 06, 2013, 07:35 PM:
Those who want to take our guns are anti-constitution of the US. They ARE domestic enemies I have sworn an oath to fight. So, in that light.......
The end game for Senator Feinstein, and others, is not "assualt rifles." Numerous times over the years Feinstein has stated that her real goal is to take ALL guns off the street. Her real goal is to overturn/repeal the 2nd Amendment...... pointing out the differences between semi and full automatic rifles will not dissuade her crusade....she knows that there is a difference, and is using the media/propaganda to convince people that all guns are "evil."
Feinstein wants a country where only the Government has weapons..... she wants, what has been seen before in the world with disastrous results, a "police state." The 2nd Amendment was written with people like Feinstein in mind. It is our protection from their excesses. Someone needs to destroy people like her, with prejudicial force if necessary........
She would do it to us...seems only fair we do it in return, don't ya think?
Posted by jimanaz (Member # 3689) on March 06, 2013, 07:49 PM:
As to Shaw's post: At least the spelling and sentence structure was spot on. I hope that was a spoof, but that's the type of people who got us into this mess.
Al: Better watch the post Katrina video again. You obviously missed all of it.
Del: Well said. No room for misinterpretation.
Posted by Frank (Member # 6) on March 06, 2013, 07:52 PM:
DEL GUE
I'm with ya.
But keep in mind what happened to me. Back when California required the registration of all so called Assault Weapons, I registered only one that I owned. The rest went into storage in another state for the expected confiscation...which never came.
Now, all those other guns I owned are illegal and if I try to bring them back to California and use them in any way a police officer will be there to take them from me and call me a felon. Of course the one that is legally registered is very limited in how I can use it. I can use it only at a gun range. It must be transported only in a locked container along with many other restrictions. My mini-14's suffered no such restrictions.
The point I'm making is it is unlikely guns will be confiscated outright. These motherfuckers know there will be a fight if you do that.
So, like in many other kinds of legislation, they make the law to effect only future generations.
This is how the California government will (has) gotten rid of semi-automatic firearms that look like military assault rifles.
I get to keep mine (so I won't kill anybody that tries to take it) yet it is illegal for anyone else to purchase one. In a generation, all semi-automatic firearms that look like military weapons will be illegal. I can't even will the gun to my sons or daughters on my death!
Fiensquatnatzibitch will have succeeded in banning a certain class of guns. Of course California hasn't stopped there. For example, all long guns must be registered by 2014 or you will be a felon. This is "tightening the noose".
I say it's time all freedom loving Americans join in a gigantic march (armed) and force a return to our constitutional freedoms.
Like an old tiger, sensing his end, he is at his most fierce ...
Time to demand a backing off or a killing.... their choice.
[ March 06, 2013, 08:27 PM: Message edited by: Frank ]
Posted by Dave Allen (Member # 3102) on March 06, 2013, 10:00 PM:
Del & 49 are good guys.
Al needs to quit watching CNN.. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Possumal (Member # 823) on March 07, 2013, 08:39 AM:
How does a local police action in New Orleans after Katrina, when President Bush was president, have anything to do with the national discussion going on here now? They were supposedly confiscating guns to prevent looting at a time of a natural disaster. The rightfully owned guns were to be returned later when their house was back in order.
Posted by UTcaller (Member # 8) on March 07, 2013, 10:05 AM:
Al,
Take law abiding citizens guns at a time when they need them most to protect themselves and there property? And treat them like criminals? That might be the United States you want but it sure is hell ain't the Country I want...They(the "They" are liberal politians) just keep chipping away at our right to keep and bear arms until it will be to late. You probably won't see it in your lifetime but if we don't stop it,it will happen..
Posted by JP (Member # 4095) on March 07, 2013, 10:33 AM:
Who was President at the time is of no consequence. What happened was law abiding citizens who had the right under the law to own firearms had them taken away from them. Thus denying them the right to protect their loved ones, their property and themself. Moreover if I remember correctly it took some time for the guns to be returned and only after court action was threatned by the NRA. Al would you give up your right to protect your family and property?
[ March 07, 2013, 10:35 AM: Message edited by: JP ]
Posted by Leonard (Member # 2) on March 07, 2013, 11:39 AM:
Not only that, but I took note of the complete lack of respect for the citizen's firearms. Tossed in a pile, all scratched up and abused in a way I personally would never do to my own firearms. And, my attitude is to treat other's property with at least as much respect as my own and in most cases, (if possible) more care and respect than accorded my own. That's what galled me the most, those prick cops actually mistreated people's property and no receipts no way of knowing what belonged to who. Then the pricks wanted the owners to prove ownership, total and complete, intentional harassment. Yeah, right, I'm going to give up my stuff to people like that!
Good hunting. El Bee
Posted by TOM64 (Member # 561) on March 07, 2013, 02:21 PM:
Del and 49 are ok.
Al is worse than Tim.
Posted by Possumal (Member # 823) on March 07, 2013, 06:09 PM:
I didn't say I liked what happened after Katrina, but I did want to point out it was not a national deal. I don't think President Bush or the Federal Government had anything to do with it, so I didn't think it fit into the current conversation.
Posted by jimanaz (Member # 3689) on March 07, 2013, 07:56 PM:
You said:
quote:
I still haven't seen any law abiding citizen have his/her gun confiscated.
I said:
quote:
Al: Better watch the post Katrina video again. You obviously missed all of it.
Now you're putting limits on confiscation. It has to start somewhere. You do understand that, right? What happened after Katrina was a test market for those who are interested in that sort of thing. Kintuky water must be delicious, at least the well you've tapped.
Posted by CrossJ (Member # 884) on March 07, 2013, 08:06 PM:
My damn Internet has been down for a day!
WTF back atcha Del!
quote:
It's not their job to ask for it or to oppose it. It's their job to enforce it.
Quit blaming them for something they're not responsible for...
There really isn't much more I can add that others already have not, but your quote sums it up. LEOs in general seem to try to maintain a level of plausible deniability. Why can't you as Johnny law speak up against what you feel is an injustice or infringement on the 2A? It's always a case of 'higher ups', legislators, or 'I don't make 'em, I just enforce them' excuses. Until I see the FOP or some other police assoc. stand up and vehemently support individual gun rights, cops are on the wrong side of the issue. Because, let's face it, you all are the ones who will be knocking on the doors.
Maintain
Posted by Prune Picker (Member # 4107) on March 07, 2013, 09:22 PM:
On Aug 26, 2005, in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans was placed under martial law after widespread flooding rendered civil authority ineffictive.
The state of Louisiana does not have an actual legal construct called "Matrial Law", but instead something quite like it a "State of Public Health Emergency". THE STATE OF EMERGENCY ALLOWED THE GOVERNOR TO SUSPEND LAWS, ORDER EVACUATIONS AND LIMIT THE SALES OF ITEMS SUCH AS ALCOHOL AND FIREARMS. The governors order limitd the state of emergency, to end on Sept 25,2005,"unless terminated sooner".
Contary to many media reports at the time, martial law was not declared in New Orleans in the aftermath of Katrina, because no such term exists in Louisiana State Law.
However, a State of Emergency was declared, which gave the state government "UNIQUE POWERS" to the state government similar to Martial Law.
On the evening of Aug31, 2005, New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin nominally declared martial law AND SAID OFFICERS DIDN'T HAVE TO OBSERVE CIVIL RIGHTS AND MIRANDA RIGHTS IN STOPPING THE LOOTERS.
Federal troops were a common sight in New Orleans after Katrina. At one point as many as 15,000 FEDERAL TROOPS and National Guardmen patrolled the city. Additionally it has been reported that ARMED CONTRACTORS from Blackwater usa assisted in policing the city.
[ March 08, 2013, 12:38 AM: Message edited by: Prune Picker ]
Posted by DEL GUE (Member # 1526) on March 08, 2013, 06:51 AM:
Well, CrossJ, you have nobody to blame but yourself. If you, the American electorate, elect people to office like that mayor and Obama and then don't like the results, then you need to blame the person lookin' back at y'all in the mirror.
Posted by Leonard (Member # 2) on March 08, 2013, 10:19 AM:
Those conclusions are a bit specious, and here's why. I am damned sick of votes and legislation based on a fifty-one percent majority. This country is NOT supposed to be the majority dictating to the minority as to how to conduct their lives. There is supposed to be a degree of respect and tolerance for opposing points of view. I am not willing to let a bunch of ignorant drones voting for free stuff control the whole damned country. I think that's why we have a system of checks and ballances?
Good hunting. El Bee
Posted by Prune Picker (Member # 4107) on March 08, 2013, 11:04 AM:
"There is suppose to be a degree of respect and tolerance for opposing points of view"
Thats the problem! Todays society has been contaminated by the All mighty Buck aka: the give aways. We welcome the arrival of "new americans", give them a check and tell them who to vote for. Does anyone really think our "new american" neighbors have a single clue what made this country the GREATEST COUNTRY IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD? Hell no! But they send Jose & Maria a check every month and record their votes in every election even tho they are illegal and skipped the whole REQUIRED learning process to being an american citizen. I have always been under the impression that i went to school to learn and absorb knowledge and then make rational decisions based on what is best for us (Americans) as a whole.
'Someone spent a bunch of money and invested a lot of of time to make sure i learned enough to become proficient enough to make rational decisions and display a bit of character while doing so'.
Above Paraphrased by me from my parents message to me while growing up. (not maturing)
[ March 08, 2013, 11:24 AM: Message edited by: Prune Picker ]
Posted by DEL GUE (Member # 1526) on March 08, 2013, 11:11 AM:
The problem, Leonard, is that CrossJ is using a double-standard. He accuses cops of espousing plausible deniability, and yet he wants to take no responsibility as a member of the electorate for voting these people in.
CrossJ is much like Obama. He wants to blame cops whether they are responsible for something or not, just like Obama wants to blame Bush whether he is responsible for something or not.
If he's a voting member of the electorate, then he has to assume responsibility for voting these people in, whether he personally voted for them or not, just like he is holding cops responsible for registration/confiscation laws, whether we have supported, lobbied for, or enforced any of these laws or not.
In the original case, the MAYOR...PROPOSED...a law. It was just proposed and not even passed yet and he through some specious reasoning in his own alternate universe made us a part of it. No cop had enforced that law, because it wasn't even a law yet, and yet he started throwing rocks at us.
If he's gonna feel free to stretch my involvement, then I am going to feel equally free to stretch his involvement. We can play TEGWAR (The Exciting Game Without Any Rules)all day long...
The easy...PROPER...solution is to hold individual people responsible for what they do. But he doesn't want to do that.
To spin it his way, until the voting electorate, of which he is one, quits voting these idiots into office, then he, as a member of the voting electorate, is on the wrong side of this.
[ March 08, 2013, 04:35 PM: Message edited by: DEL GUE ]
Posted by Leonard (Member # 2) on March 08, 2013, 11:45 AM:
Okay, I accept your theory, but I want to point out that Geordie is a friend of mine and I consider him good people. We have met and talked at the campouts and you would like him, I promise. Okay, he's an Okie and can be blunt, but he does speak his mind. I respect that.
Good hunting El Bee
edit: put another way, I think you guys are off on the wrong foot, ya know?
[ March 08, 2013, 11:46 AM: Message edited by: Leonard ]
Posted by Krustyklimber (Member # 72) on March 08, 2013, 01:00 PM:
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)
What about when good men chose to do shitty things?
Okay then Del...
I hold the jackboot officer that tackled the poor lil ol lady in her kitchen, for informing them she was able to defend herself, responsible.
I hold the officers who refused to give receipts for evidence/property seized responsible.
I hold those officers who treated peoples personal property with a total lack of respect responsible.
I hold those officers responsible for their actions.
Nobody made them do these things, not George Bush, not some Mayor, and not Geordie... they personally chose these courses of action.
In the first case, the officer could have asked the lady to put down or relinquish her firearm POLITELY... but he chose not to.
Can't blame that one on Geordie.
In the next case, there are standards in place for the documentation and processing of evidence... these officers chose not to follow these standard procedures.
Again, certainly not Geordie's fault, or anyone else's.
And in the last case, nobody made these officers pile peoples personal belongings (many of which could be considered valuable heirlooms) like trash... they chose to!
Passing the buck, in these cases, is bullshit.
I'm not judging you personally on the actions of other officers, but I can see how with the "us and them" mentality prevalent in the law enforcement industry many people judge "you" as a whole.
If you can't see, and more importantly understand, this then there's no use talking to you.
I don't know what you expect us to "do" about the voting record of others?
When I lived in Washington, in Seattle in specific, I did my level best to inform as many people as I could on the issues related to trapping and hunting, and on the 2nd Amendment.
That's as much as I could do.
It's not my fault, any more that it's Geordie's, that these people refused to bend to my will, to see the light, to pull their heads out of their asses.
What have you done in the past, and what will you do in the future, when asked ask part of your job to do that which you believe is wrong... who's fault will THAT be?
Krusty
Posted by CrossJ (Member # 884) on March 08, 2013, 02:50 PM:
Here we go again Del....WTF? I am assuming the unfounded accusations to my voting record are an attempt to steer away from the original point. First, you should take a county by county look at the voting during the past election in my state. Then, compare it to your own state. I'm hoping you weren't a detective. Anyway, enough on that topic.
To the original point; Leo's have a PR problem. I think that has been agreed upon here in the past. So, when you have a group of badge wearing uniformed individuals standing behind a politician nodding their head in agreement to what ever individual right they want to take away, it doesn't go a long way to convincing the public leo's support the average law abiding citizen, and they are just one of us. That conglomeration of uniformed bobble heads is a perceived representation of law enforcement in mass. If it wasn't, the politician wouldn't have them there.
Your point appears to be that the bobble heads don't speak for all Leo's in general. Am I right so far?
My point is, that the uniforms are not standing up in OPPOSITION (this is the word I used) to the infringements on
our rights.
So here is where you need to take some of your own advice...and perhaps do a little campaigning among the people who share your vocation. Because, without words to the contrary, the public is going to assume the bobble heads speak for you all.
Maintain
Posted by Possumal (Member # 823) on March 08, 2013, 03:42 PM:
Quote Jimanaz: Now you're putting limits on confiscation. It has to start somewhere. You do understand that, right? What happened after Katrina was a test market for those who are interested in that sort of thing. Kintuky water must be delicious, at least the well you've tapped.
Jimanaz: I am not putting a limit on anything, but we obviously believe differently on this subject. I don't believe "They" were just planning ahead, waiting for a natural disaster to happen, and then jumping in and starting their master plan of confiscation. If you believe that way, it is your right, but I don't believe that at all. As I said before, I don't think the local action that took place after Katrina has anything to do with the national discussion now.
Posted by 4949shooter (Member # 3530) on March 08, 2013, 04:17 PM:
Crossj, there ARE LEO's standing up for OUR gun rights:
http://www.project.nsearch.com/profiles/blogs/list-of-sheriffs-standin g-tall-against-obama-s-gun-control
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNN1H7UfqiM
http://cspoa.org/sheriffs-gun-rights/
http://www.examiner.com/article/state-sheriff-s-associations-oppose-obama-anti-gun -proposals
I can dig up more if you like, but I think you get the point.
Why don't you cut Del some slack? He is as pro gun as you are.
[ March 08, 2013, 04:18 PM: Message edited by: 4949shooter ]
Posted by DEL GUE (Member # 1526) on March 08, 2013, 04:41 PM:
Leonard,
Understood he's your friend. And if you say I'd like him, I take your word for that.
CrossJ,
I'll pray for you.
49,
Take care, amigo, and be safe.
To all,
I apologize for being a cop.
[ March 08, 2013, 04:43 PM: Message edited by: DEL GUE ]
Posted by Leonard (Member # 2) on March 08, 2013, 05:28 PM:
I'm laughing at that, Del. Pretty funny. I can appreciate the humor with which it was said. And, you guys absolutely would get along.
Good hunting. LB
edit: and, BTW all you guys are my friends.
[ March 08, 2013, 05:30 PM: Message edited by: Leonard ]
Posted by CrossJ (Member # 884) on March 09, 2013, 07:12 PM:
quote:
CrossJ,
I'll pray for you.
Del, thanks. I am sure if all of us were to meet at a campout, we would all get along...except for maybe Al...LOL. I think anyone who hangs out here on a hunting board has a whole lot in common with the other members.
49, thanks for the links. I do have a serious question. Do you feel there is much difference between sheriff and police (from a police prospective)? The reason I ask, is that to me, the sheriff office tends to be more representative of the community than the police of a municipality or a state. The reason being a popular election. Any way, it appears that way in a more rural area like mine.
Maintain
Posted by 4949shooter (Member # 3530) on March 10, 2013, 03:56 AM:
Yes CrossJ, I do feel there is a difference.
Being the sheriff is an elected official, he is more apt to speak his mind without repurcussions rather than a police official (chief or whatever) who was put into position by a governing body. The point I am trying to make is that most LEO's are regular guys just like you, and Tom, and most everyone else on this forum. Sometimes as LEO's our hands are tied being who we work for and the standards we must keep even when we are off duty. There I things I may feel in my heart but I just cannot say on an open forum. Same goes for Del.
But I think I know where you are going with your question, and I will say that you must realize there is often a rift between the patrol cops and the upper echelon police brass. In other words what I have been saying is, some police chiefs of major departments may not stand up for our gun rights, however the regular Joe Schmo street officer will.
Why the unions, FOP, PBA, etc. do not get involved is a mystery. Though I think these organizations have a different agenda.
We could sit down and have a serious conversation about this type of thing at a campout, or such. There might be things we could relate to you that we wouldn't put on an open public forum. I think this is more or less the problem between you and Del, or even myself and some of the guys (and gals?) here.
The bottom line is, we as police officers, sheriffs deputies, or whoever are bound not to obey an illegal order. You can take that on face value, or read between the lines if you like.
Posted by Leonard (Member # 2) on March 10, 2013, 08:33 AM:
Geordie, I have that same impression. Seems like Sheriff's have a more populous attitude? As a practical matter, the street cop attitude might be the same whether a deputy or a police officer. But, the whole enchilada is probably to follow orders, meaning, if the brass says confiscate, they will confiscate.
Good hunting. El Bee
Posted by DEL GUE (Member # 1526) on March 10, 2013, 06:44 PM:
It should be remembered that even during the Revolutionary War there were tory's who actively supported the British against their fellow American colonists in the fight for independence.
Now, more than 200 years later, it should come as no surprise that there will both be cops who are dumb enough or subservient enough to follow illegal, unethical, and immoral orders to confiscate, just as there will be gunowners who are dumb enough or subservient enough to peaceably stand by and hand over their weapons.
A lot of people are sheep, and just stand by ready and willing to do what they are told without thinking, or perhaps having the capacity to think, about what it is they are being told to do and discern whether it is right or wrong.
It is also lost on most people that our revolution started when the British went out to seize powder and shot, essentially trying to implement the gun control of their day. And that one act was the spark that started the Revolution.
[ March 10, 2013, 06:45 PM: Message edited by: DEL GUE ]
Posted by Frank (Member # 6) on March 11, 2013, 06:32 AM:
The other reality comes down to the fact that, in the end, we don’t have faith in our government to protect us. The Anti-Gun Nuts sneer at that thought. We recently saw a quote that encapsulates their thinking.
Police Chief Ken James of Emeryville in Northern California stated “One issue that boggles my mind is the idea that a gun is a defensive weapon. That is a myth. A gun is an offensive weapon used to intimidate and used to show power.”
But if you are in your home and someone is entering that home to possibly rob you, rape your wife and maybe severely harm you, a gun is not an offensive weapon. But James like many Anti-Gun Nuts thinks we should have total faith in the police to protect us.
Those of us who lived through the Rodney King riots would argue with that. Let us remember when that riot began -- after the verdict was announced. A man was dragged out of his car and beaten to near death. What did the police do? They withdrew. There was no immediate show of overwhelming force and thus the fuse was lit that set off the bomb. It was not until the fourth day of rioting that the National Guard showed up and matters began to get under control.
The rest of us sat in our offices, restaurants, and homes wondering whether the rioters were going to leave South Central (Los Angeles) and start moving into Beverly Hills, Century City, and the San Fernando Valley. We were scared that Chief Daryl Gates’ decision to pull back and not engage left us defenseless. People who never thought of gun ownership before talked of changing their minds.
Assuredly from that time, many have acquired guns while questioning the level of protection the police actually provide. That large event plays out daily on a smaller scale every day in communities across America. “To Protect and Serve” may be the motto of the LAPD, but they are almost exclusively a reactionary force appearing after the crime or murder has occurred.
I well remember our small neighborhood getting together to defend ourselves. One neighbor, an anti-Gun Nut, came to my house asking to borrow a shotgun. I smiled and gave him one.
During the riots I saw, on numerous occasions, young black men riding around on motorcycles with 5 gallon cans of gasoline strapped to the back.
Now, normally, I would'nt give this a second thought, but we were in the middle of a riot. What made me worry was when the black motorcyclists would drive by, slowly, while looking around. That's when I noticed their clothes were full of black soot....the kind you might get on your clothes when rummaging around burning buildings or homes.
And that is exactly what was happening. The rioters were burning whatever they could.
[ March 11, 2013, 01:13 PM: Message edited by: Frank ]
UBB.classicTM
6.3.0