Special Citizens

[Willie Sutton]

"My son is an LEO and has arrested drug felons as well as other violent felons. He has appeared in court and testified against them, some are in prison for a very long time, others not so long. My feeling is that I want my son to have whatever weapon is necessary to protect himself, his wife and my grand children. I would not want him out gunned by the criminals. Also why disarm him after he has served the public for many years making him an easier target for payback from the felons he protected us from ?



We do think he should be able to have whatever weapon is necessary to protect himself, his wife, and your grand children.

We also believe that WE should be able to have whatever weapon is necessary to protect OURSELVES and OUR WIVES and OUR CHILDREN. What we want for all of us takes nothing away from him. But mark this well: His life has no more value than mine... and I want the same tools.


Willie

.

[I'vebeenduped]

"His life has no more value than mine... and I want the same tools."
Well put, Willie

"Very insightful post, mrbatchelor. As with many issues, there are multiple potential causes and no obvious solution. But I think you hit on one of the real problems with police forces today: how militarized they are. It has occurred to me more than once in the last few years -- and the specific issue posed by this thread really brings it home -- that some of our law enforcement agencies may be in the process of becoming exactly what our founding fathers were afraid of."

I agree. I think the police forces have become increasingly militant in nature. The police uniform is even evolving more like a BDU than that of a police uniform. If you couple that with the police union pushing for taking away our weapons, there being a seemingly decrease in due process (i.e. in L.A), and fact that legislators are pushing for only retired and active police to have weapons suitable for defense, we run into a very sticky situation. I think our active group in uniform is responsible enough for this to not get into their heads but what about our next generation? This uneven balance of power could easily come back to haunt our children of the future.

I think that officers who are pro RKBA should be debating these points with officers who are not. Consider this like religion (I am sorry for not finding a milder comparison); There are people who are sitting on the fence. Sometimes a little persuasion is all that is needed. Pro-RKBA officers should also be petitioning the Law Enforcement unions as well. The gains may be modest, but anyone who is for the Constitution is a huge gain.

[Fishing_Cabin]

I think that officers who are pro RKBA should be debating these points with officers who are not...

A lot of officers who are pro RKBA are trying to win others, including the admin over (though many officers at least in rural NC are pro RKBA).

...Pro-RKBA officers should also be petitioning the Law Enforcement unions as well...

There are many officers who are trying try sway the local FOP and PBA over to taking a strong stance for RKBA. Issue is, no one wants to listen to "Officer Smith" around the corner...They want to listen to Chief or Sheriff so n so instead. Many of the Chiefs, are restrained by politics from taking a public side, and Sheriffs may have a similar issue when it comes to their community which elects them, meaning they are to do the job, not play politics and not have time to do the job they were elected to do.

[Evan Thomas]

Originally Posted by delarosadavid

I think the police forces have become increasingly militant in nature.

I think, David, that you meant "military in nature," although militant may apply here as well.

Just for the sake of clarity, a tiny linguistic digression: "Militant" and "Militarized" mean different things.

"Militant" refers to behavior, or to a person who engages in such behavior: "Having a combative character; aggressive, especially in the service of a cause: a militant political activist. n. A fighting, warring, or aggressive person or party."

While "militarize" means : "1.to give a military character to... 2. to equip with military forces and defenses"

And now, back to your originally scheduled thread...

The point about a general trend toward militarizing the police is a very good one.

[johnwilliamson062]

Im my personal opinion the average officer is out there doing the best they can do on one of the worlds most thankless jobs. I get it that not every officer is worthy of that badge but that kind of thing applies to every profession.

50K a year, retirement after 20 years, full medical, uniform allowance, etc. I feel a whole lot worse for my garbage man. I don't want either job, but I'd much rather be a police officer than a garbageman even if pay was matched. I bet the garbage man gets a whole lot less respect than most LEO.

My life would also be more affected by lack of waste disposal services than police. I've lived a few places that effectively had no police(so corrupt you avoided at all costs), but I have never lived somewhere without a decent waste disposal system.

growing body of evidence that innocent law abiding citizens are being attacked with police weapons by former and current police using Ar's and whatever other weapons.

I don't think the problem is new weapons or changes in police behavior. The simple fact is everyone everywhere carries a video camera and recorder on them all the time now. LAPD got it with Rodney King, not because it was the first time they beat someone so high they didn't feel anything into submission, but because it was the first time someone in that neighborhood had a camcorder to record the event. What they were doing was par for the course nationally at that time and if you watch the full 45 minute video and look at what options were available to them you can sort of see why. Now they have tasers and OC spray.

The overwhelming majority of police officers and firefighters for that matter are strongly patriotic and strongly pro second amendment for everyone.

Odd, because LEO in my area HIRE a union to represent them politically and fund the union to do so with a considerable amount of financial support dedicated to political activity. On every last battle for CCW, mag restrictions, AWB, etc., the LEO unions, hired and funded solely by law enforcement officers as their representatives, are anti-gun. In most cases the keystone of the anti-gun campaign is some anti-gun quote by a police chief or LEO union. The union dues of LEOs in my area are wiping out any number of phone calls and letter writing they can claim.

You stay in the biz long enough, you make enemies. You make enough enemies, sooner or later one will try to settle your hash. That alone is justification enough for cops to carry 24/7.

As if police have anywhere close to a monopoly on this claim. I have had my life seriously threatened on several occasions related to work. I am sure many other non-LEO have also.

The part I do disagree with you is that due to the budget situation, there are departments that refuse to purchase the item (mostly carbines) and basically push the officer to do without, or purchase hisself (where legal).

DOD provides rifles to LEO free of charge. The CLEO just has to do a very minimal amount of paperwork.

Ohio AG runs some yearly statistics on crime and they are categorized by industry. I don't know if other states do this or not. I have never seen other statistics so categorized. Police come out on the top of the list for major crimes every year. The stand-out is human trafficking for which they often rank in the top three. Now that isn't to say all police are involved. The percent of police is still small even if greater than other parts of society. What disturbs me about these statistics is I find it hard to believe their fellow officers aren't knowledgeable of their actions and overlooking them or even conspiring with them.

No one is saying police officers shouldn't be able to protect themselves, we/they are just saying they aren't "special" in this need.

[I'vebeenduped]

Vanya, thank you for the correction. I should have been more clear. Yes, militarized is what I meant to write.

"Odd, because LEO in my area HIRE a union to represent them politically and fund the union to do so with a considerable amount of financial support dedicated to political activity. On every last battle for CCW, mag restrictions, AWB, etc., the LEO unions, hired and funded solely by law enforcement officers as their representatives, are anti-gun. In most cases the keystone of the anti-gun campaign is some anti-gun quote by a police chief or LEO union. The union dues of LEOs in my area are wiping out any number of phone calls and letter writing they can claim."
johnwilliams makes a pretty good point here. I don't know if LEO unions have been completely anti-gun, but I can't think of any instances to the contrary.

So, I've written my letters. I've signed my petitions. What else are we to do here? When I was in the military, a platoon sergeant had a saying that I was quite fond of. I cannot remember it verbatim but it went something like; complaining to complain is just complaining (I don't think I can write the real word here), but complaining with a solution is the first step to resolution.

[JimDandy]

but I have never lived somewhere without a decent waste disposal system.

Try being a dairy/cattle farmer. You have to carry out your own trash, and most likely burn it. And "waste disposal" takes on a whole new meaning, usually involving something euphamistically referred to as a "honey-wagon". The only piece of equipment John Deere wouldn't stand behind.

Urban America may be growing, but rural America isn't really shrinking. Still have vast tracts of land sparsely populated, rarely patrolled, where you really are on your own.

Some of what you say is correct, they are getting caught more with all the cell phones, dash cams, and so on, but what LEO unions are you talking about? As has been pointed out a number of times, the Chief of Police is a political office more than a law enforcement office. While I wouldn't be shocked to hear Chicago, San Francisco, or NYPD unions might come out as pro-control, I don't suspect that's the norm.

[I'vebeenduped]

http://www.terry.uga.edu/~mustard/police.pdf
Interesting article in reference to gun laws and police. This is just an aside.

" While I wouldn't be shocked to hear Chicago, San Francisco, or NYPD unions might come out as pro-control, I don't suspect that's the norm."
I did some google-fu and it appears most police unions are pro control.

[johnwilliamson062]

David, contact US Senator Sherrod Brown's(D OH) office on any firearms issue. I regularly receive replies from his office citing the State SHERIFF Association's stance on the issue. ALWAYS in support of gun control. Talk to the people lobbying at your state legislature and see what they say about law enforcement union stance on bills. Look at the people testifying for legislation and see how the law enforcement people testify. The law enforcement unions in Ohio have been the primary hold-up on passing and improving CHL IMO.

[TDL]

There weren't any "police forces" in 1776. The whole concept is relatively new in history. Not to say that there hasn't been a "high sheriff" for centuries. Especially in places under English common law.

But the militarization of crime is driving the militarization of law enforcement. And that comes from money. Profit. Pure and simple. Nothing more. The number of weirdos in crime for the power trip is vanishingly small.

This is not accurate on the facts or conclusions.
Cops, law abiding citizens and criminals have had access to, and possession of the same classes weapons for virtually all of US history. And crime is LESS militarized than ever.

you mentioned that we don't live in the time of Barney fife anymore in a prior post. We never lived in the time of Barney Fife, unless you mean when we lived with Charles Starkwhether and Charles Whitman, an weal amount of organized and individual crime, and equal amount of per capita violent crime against citizens and cops as we have today.


Police, just like citizen victims are not killed by top of the line of legal guns today anymore than they were killed by the most current legal weapons in the past. It was extremely rare in the past and extremely rare today.

The only main difference between then and now is media amplification.

the less than half the deaths in the line of duty that is from gunfire massively dominated by standard weapons, revolvers and shotguns, and the consistent factor is surprise during a traffic stop, complaint investigation or arrest involving a person who is already a prior criminal.


We have ranking police and rank and file police organizations attacking the second amendment. the difference between these police and the average anti gunner is that the Police actually know the problem with violence is not form legal gun owners by from prior criminals.

The ranking cops attacking the second amendment are doing so for craven political reasons. The rank and file ones doing it are doing it out of elitism.

If you want an example of the elitism look what happened in NY. The obscenely draconian law was passed. The state attorney general immediately ruled it did not apply to active cops with their issue or duty weapons. An amendment was rushed making sure retired cops could have and off duty cops could use 17 round pistols. Retired cops are not generally carrying 17 round pistols. they were afraid their own home defense weapons would not be exempted.

We are not seeing data that retired cops are in more danger at home. We are not seeing data that off duty cops are in more danger than the average citizen. We are seeing ranking and rank and file representatives one class of persons asserting special rights for their own self interests.

People with authority and power always consider themselves above the rules they wish to apply to others.

[I'vebeenduped]

It certainly does seem that the city police are very anti while the Sheriff's office is mostly pro. The article that I posted earlier spoke about street level police being mostly pro while those appointed to higher office tend to be anti. It is easy to deduce that the people elect those who are pro-2A while our elected officials tend to choose those that are anti-2A. A rather strange trend...

[mrbatchelor]

This is not accurate on the facts or conclusions.

Well, you left out my most important sentence, that you can't cram 65 years of social change commentary into 50 words. I dare say that even working collaboratively the two of us would have a hard time cramming it into 50K words.


I will help substantiate this statement, although I'm reluctant to claim it as a universal truth as you do. I think there are exceptions, but damned few of them. Remember, George Washington did refuse to continue in power when it was within his grasp. I can name a few others.

People with authority and power always consider themselves above the rules they wish to apply to others.

Lord Acton claimed that power corrupts, and that absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Frank Hubert in Heretics of Dune says, "All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible."

Apparently there's been some research to vindicate Lord Acton's view.

This is the lay write up. It's free. http://www.actonmba.org/2010/01/does-power-corrupt/

This is the pay to read scholarly journal. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journ...ISSN)1467-9280

So apparently, yes, power tends to rust the soul.

As the response to the first article says, quoting Lincoln "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." - Abraham Lincoln

Or one of my favorite Republican commentators, and the only truly honest one: "Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys." -- P.J. O'Rourke