Even LE are now reduced to smaller magazines, CRAZY!!

[spoon059]

That is the point I've been trying to prove here all along. The LEOs will enforce the law until they are told not to, no matter how egregious they may seem to us non-LEOs.

Fox, henhouse.

So... you've been trying to prove that multiple officers have been telling you all along...? Good job?


Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[East2West]

I know it's hard to believe that some people still think LEOs will put principles above their pay checks despite the evidence here saying otherwise. I'm as shocked as you are that the message still needs to be relayed.

 

[spoon059]

law or no law, the moral compass always points you in the right direction.

laws are not always based on morality or common sense. You have to follow your own moral compass

I see abortion as anti-moral... yet I don't blow up abortion clinics. Even though I vehemently detest abortion, I still show up to work and run my calls. We had a Planned Parenthood clinic in my old beat at my old station... I still ran calls there. Morally I am deeply opposed to abortion... legally the doctors and staff there are afforded the same rights as anyone else, so I ran my calls and kept them safe.

Obey the government, for God is the one who has put it there. There is no government anywhere that God has not placed in power. 2 So those who refuse to obey the laws of the land are refusing to obey God, and punishment will follow.

Don't like the law, fight to get in changed. Bickering with me, or another officer here, is akin to urinating into a brisk wind...

 

[spoon059]

I know it's hard to believe that some people still think LEOs will put LAWS above YOUR OPINION despite the MOB MENTALITY here saying otherwise. I'm as shocked as you are that the message still needs to be relayed.

Fixed if for you...

 

[East2West]

Fixed if for you...

True, that was a bit unfair and inaccurate. If their principles were focused on respecting the rights of the people they serve, when an order came down that violated those rights, there wouldn't be any internal conflict.

I would have been better saying if they placed conservative principles, or in the context of this thread respect of gun rights over their paychecks.

 

[Defense Rifle]

I don't what is wrong with some of you, but your heads are twisted and brainwashed to be a stereotypical freedom loving pro-police let's go law enforcement American idiot. Obviously police provide a good service as in maintaining and enforcing public safety, that does not mean they blindly deserve the 2A community's support.

However, for all of you claiming to be so pro-2A, here is a reality check the largest police organizations actually push for gun control laws, especially police departments in big cities. Typically the LEOs that are pro-2A are in more conservative areas or counties with sheriffs but nearly every major city has a vehemently anti-2A police chief and majority police body: NYC, Chicago, Baltimore/PG/Montgomery, Detroit, Oakland, LA, Houston, Miami, DC, SF, Denver, Portland-OR, Boston, Newark-NJ, Jersey City, Seattle, and probably many more.

They are against your right to carry either concealed or openly, many of them believe only they should have guns and civilians have no business carrying them or buying ARs in 2018. Many of them are supportive of red-flag laws. This is their mindset--the majority of them either way.

 

[556Plinker]

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

If the 2A means anything it is that ordinary civilians are allowed to keep and bear the same small arms (including full auto) as the military. Ergo, if I am restricted to low cap mags then I want the military and police to be restricted too.

If we tie the two together then there is much less chance of restrictions on the civilian side.

 

[RepublicOfFranklin]

“Roight, now listen ‘ere. I don’t like the law either but it’s the law. Now ‘and over those muskets and we’ll be goin’. Don’t loike it? Vote for a new parliament”

- Red Flag enforcement officers circa 1700’s Massachusetts

Oath is an oath, can’t uphold the Constitution while helping to tear it up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TACAV]

“Roight, now listen ‘ere. I don’t like the law either but it’s the law. Now ‘and over those muskets and we’ll be goin’. Don’t loike it? Vote for a new parliament”

- Red Flag enforcement officers circa 1700’s Massachusetts

Oath is an oath, can’t uphold the Constitution while helping to tear it up.

pppffffff

Then Again I remember standing in an MSP Barrack talking to a Trooper after the 2013 BS here in MD about how dumb the new laws were and some dude came in to do the "voluntary register" his AR15 (had moved here from VA previously) and the Trooper behind the desk was like


"yea Sir, I'd love to help you... but we are "really busy" right now... how about you come back later and maybe we can help you then." While vigorously shaking his head in the "NO" sign and giving a ...

The guy was like... "uh... Oh... OOoooh... yea.. Ok sure. .
Ill come back later...."

I don't what is wrong with some of you, but your heads are twisted and brainwashed to be a stereotypical freedom loving pro-police let's go law enforcement American idiot. Obviously police provide a good service as in maintaining and enforcing public safety, that does not mean they blindly deserve the 2A community's support.

However, for all of you claiming to be so pro-2A, here is a reality check the largest police organizations actually push for gun control laws, especially police departments in big cities. Typically the LEOs that are pro-2A are in more conservative areas or counties with sheriffs but nearly every major city has a vehemently anti-2A police chief and majority police body: NYC, Chicago, Baltimore/PG/Montgomery, Detroit, Oakland, LA, Houston, Miami, DC, SF, Denver, Portland-OR, Boston, Newark-NJ, Jersey City, Seattle, and probably many more.

They are against your right to carry either concealed or openly, many of them believe only they should have guns and civilians have no business carrying them or buying ARs in 2018. Many of them are supportive of red-flag laws. This is their mindset--the majority of them either way.

many Chiefs (who are really just politicians), and groups like the IACP push for more gun control laws. The troops working for them often times do not.

This was the results from a National Survey a few years back about what verified LEO's views were on gun control in 2013 during the big national push for more gun control.

https://www.policeone.com/p1-gun-co...ey-11-key-lessons-from-officers-perspectives/

1. Virtually all respondents (95 percent) say that a federal ban on manufacture and sale of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds would not reduce violent crime.

2. The majority of respondents — 71 percent — say a federal ban on the manufacture and sale of some semi-automatics would have no effect on reducing violent crime. However, more than 20 percent say any ban would actually have a negative effect on reducing violent crime. Just over 7 percent took the opposite stance, saying they believe a ban would have a moderate to significant effect.

3. About 85 percent of officers say the passage of the White House’s currently proposed legislation would have a zero or negative effect on their safety, with just over 10 percent saying it would have a moderate or significantly positive effect.

4. Seventy percent of respondents say they have a favorable or very favorable opinion of some law enforcement leaders’ public statements that they would not enforce more restrictive gun laws in their jurisdictions. Similarly, more than 61 percent said they would refuse to enforce such laws if they themselves were Chief or Sheriff.

5. More than 28 percent of officers say having more permissive concealed carry policies for civilians would help most in preventing large scale shootings in public, followed by more aggressive institutionalization for mentally ill persons (about 19 percent) and more armed guards/paid security personnel (about 15 percent).

6. The overwhelming majority (almost 90 percent) of officers believe that casualties would be decreased if armed citizens were present at the onset of an active-shooter incident.

7. More than 80 percent of respondents support arming school teachers and administrators who willingly volunteer to train with firearms and carry one in the course of the job.

8. More than four in five respondents (81 percent) say that gun-buyback programs are ineffective in reducing gun violence.

9. More than half of respondents feel that increased punishment for obviously illegal gun sales could have a positive impact on reducing gun violence.

10. When asked whether citizens should be required to complete a safety training class before being allowed to buy a gun, about 43 percent of officers say it should not be required. About 42 percent say it should be required for all weapons, with the remainder favoring training classes for certain weapons.

 

[Biggfoot44]

Body Cams .

 

[Hawkeye]

pppffffff

Then Again I remember standing in an MSP Barrack talking to a Trooper after the 2013 BS here in MD about how dumb the new laws were and some dude came in to do the "voluntary register" his AR15 (had moved here from VA previously) and the Trooper behind the desk was like


"yea Sir, I'd love to help you... but we are "really busy" right now... how about you come back later and maybe we can help you then." While vigorously shaking his head in the "NO" sign and giving a ...

The guy was like... "uh... Oh... OOoooh... yea.. Ok sure. .
Ill come back later...."

That's awesome.

This was the results from a National Survey a few years back about what verified LEO's views were on gun control in 2013 during the big national push for more gun control.

https://www.policeone.com/p1-gun-co...ey-11-key-lessons-from-officers-perspectives/

1. Virtually all respondents (95 percent) say that a federal ban on manufacture and sale of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds would not reduce violent crime.

2. The majority of respondents — 71 percent — say a federal ban on the manufacture and sale of some semi-automatics would have no effect on reducing violent crime. However, more than 20 percent say any ban would actually have a negative effect on reducing violent crime. Just over 7 percent took the opposite stance, saying they believe a ban would have a moderate to significant effect.

3. About 85 percent of officers say the passage of the White House’s currently proposed legislation would have a zero or negative effect on their safety, with just over 10 percent saying it would have a moderate or significantly positive effect.

4. Seventy percent of respondents say they have a favorable or very favorable opinion of some law enforcement leaders’ public statements that they would not enforce more restrictive gun laws in their jurisdictions. Similarly, more than 61 percent said they would refuse to enforce such laws if they themselves were Chief or Sheriff.

5. More than 28 percent of officers say having more permissive concealed carry policies for civilians would help most in preventing large scale shootings in public, followed by more aggressive institutionalization for mentally ill persons (about 19 percent) and more armed guards/paid security personnel (about 15 percent).

6. The overwhelming majority (almost 90 percent) of officers believe that casualties would be decreased if armed citizens were present at the onset of an active-shooter incident.

7. More than 80 percent of respondents support arming school teachers and administrators who willingly volunteer to train with firearms and carry one in the course of the job.

8. More than four in five respondents (81 percent) say that gun-buyback programs are ineffective in reducing gun violence.

9. More than half of respondents feel that increased punishment for obviously illegal gun sales could have a positive impact on reducing gun violence.

10. When asked whether citizens should be required to complete a safety training class before being allowed to buy a gun, about 43 percent of officers say it should not be required. About 42 percent say it should be required for all weapons, with the remainder favoring training classes for certain weapons.

Now, can you imagine what would happen if the law makers actually listened to the line officers on this stuff? It would be great. (Well, except for the CC part, but that's fixable.) So what would have to happen for that to change? I think that one thing would be for some officers (not all, but some, because as is demonstrated on this forum there are officers who are absolutely with us) to stand up and start making noise about it. Make noise to their PBA or other union reps. Make noise in the FoP. Make noise to their line officers and up to their brass. Make noise, because the squeaky wheel gets the grease. They need to cast aside the politicians' attempts at buying their silence with exemptions, and stand up for what they say they believe in.

Other research backs all this stuff up, too, especially the part about CC and mass shootings. If you look at the FBI's uniform crime report and look at the mass shooting data, about 20% of all mass shootings in the US are stopped by a "good guy with a gun" who is not a LEO. That's a pretty damn powerful statistic.

 

[ryan_j]

I’m not standing with NJ oath breaking LEOs anymore. Their unions endorsed Murphy and mark my words - they WILL enforce this law against anyone who is not part of the blue brotherhood. We will fight on our own.

I’ve dropped my support for PBA and PAL and anything to do with LEO, and donated my money to SAF instead. It’s quite clear that they view us as second class citizens.

And yes, the job is dangerous but so is being a gas station store clerk in a bad neighborhood. When multiple assailants come in, high on whatever, 10 rounds simply isn’t enough.

 

[Ammo Jon]

I’d like to see the same restrictions for the officers protecting the politicians, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

[randomuser]

If you think the Police would enforce against their own on magazines?

I know that at this point in time we are past the Police having the same as the public in regards to the magazine limits, but my point is that it does not matter what the rules/laws are. There laws might be the same, but ENFORCEMENT IS DIFFERENT for Police vs. Citizen.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBki3bB-SRo
***how many times does this happen while not on camera?***

 

[dist1646]

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Didn't each of these groups have the opportunity to speak up for themselves and fail to do so? It is a sad lesson of history that many still have not learned.

 

[randomuser]

Didn't each of these groups have the opportunity to speak up for themselves and fail to do so? It is a sad lesson of history that many still have not learned.

I'm sure plenty of people spoke out and even filed paperwork, complained verbally, called their representatives, filed written complaints to those who rounded them up.

How would you speak up when the people who are rounding you up wont listen to your plea regarding your rights being trampled?

How do you speak up when the person you are speaking up to is the one who is infringing upon your rights?

What paperwork could they have filed or done to stop those who wanted to do them harm?

 

[Mark75H]

Its a lesson on incrementalism - one notch at a time, not all at once.

 

[LRoberts]

Good. Why should the government be exempt from laws the public has to follow?
Something like this might actually open some people's eyes.

Damn right!! I agree, wholeheartedly. Cops should not have weapons & equipment we can't or don't have.

 

[dist1646]

I'm sure plenty of people spoke out and even filed paperwork, complained verbally, called their representatives, filed written complaints to those who rounded them up.

How would you speak up when the people who are rounding you up wont listen to your plea regarding your rights being trampled?

How do you speak up when the person you are speaking up to is the one who is infringing upon your rights?

What paperwork could they have filed or done to stop those who wanted to do them harm?

Exactly the point I was hoping someone would pick up on! Just like talking to the politicians of today. You can talk to them as I have on many, many occasions but, it has no effect. The policy of keeping people divided among themselves is just as effective today as it was back then. These kinds of divisive policies will only change when the people realize how they are being manipulated and unite in common cause.

 

[BeoBill]

Fun fact - If the 2nd Amendment was treated like the other amendments, we would be able to have missile silos on our property.

Trust me, you couldn't afford the upkeep (including property insurance) on a live missile site.

BTW, the only place I know of that specifically prohibits nuclear weapons is Takoma Park. So knock yourself out...