Your 2nd Amendment Cop Buddy Will Take Your Guns

[MountainBear]

Like I said a few posts earlier. There are times when an exceptional amount of force is needed and I will stand behind LE 100%. But there is also the militarization of the local police force. That I do not agree with and I think my posts go hand in hand with this thread.

"Your 2nd amendment cop buddy will take your guns." I believe a bunch would and would be more then happy to do it.

Howard

I think you're wrong. Respectfully.

 

[oknow]

I think you're wrong. Respectfully.

which part
There are times when an exceptional amount of force is needed and I will stand behind LE 100% or I believe a bunch would and would be more then happy to do it.?

 

[Kevatc]

Sure, they're in a warzone. A war waged by the federal government on the people, and the cops are their willing tools of oppression and violence. Modus operandi of the state: create a problem, then rape the civil rights and wealth of the people masquerading as the solution.

Who knew the government created gang bangers, drug cartels, meth heads and what not just to give the police the chance to oppress. Dman you never cease to amaze me.

 

[dmancornell]

Who knew the government created gang bangers, drug cartels, meth heads and what not just to give the police the chance to oppress. Dman you never cease to amaze me.

It's called unintended consequences. Learn some history.

 

[speeddemon94]

Who knew the government created gang bangers, drug cartels, meth heads and what not just to give the police the chance to oppress. Dman you never cease to amaze me.

The government created the "war on drugs" and made everything illegal.

The government created the gang task forces.

They are so busy giving every little garbage country all of our money, while spending what money they do spend here, on the wrong things.

Natural selection is a hell of a thing. If the drugs were legal, the problem would sort itself out. If the gangs and cartels were left to their own devices, and our borders secured properly to keep the majority of those people out, then that would sort itself out too.

The government, really is responsible for a lot of this mess because of their inability to just let people live their lives. Used to be, if you made the wrong decision, you would either learn from your mistake, or pay with life or limb. The nanny state has been too busy making sure none of us run with scissors. I say let them run.

It could get hairy while nature takes it's course, but we have protection, right?

 

[Father of four]

The government, really is responsible for a lot of this mess because of their inability to just let people live their lives.

I agree 100,000,000 %

 

[jfw]

It could get hairy while nature takes it's course, but we have protection, right?

Lol, indeed it would!! But it would be fun to watch the sheeple go crazy!

 

[ZigZagZeke]

Ohh, and just a point, I think you should tell the officers is Southern California, Arizona, Texas, New Mexico, and other states dealing with gangs and cartels that they aren't in a warzone. They might disagree, and they might have a point.

That does not give them the right to treat every citizen they encounter as the enemy. Law enforcement would be a lot easier if we could treat our public streets as a battlefield. But the whole point of being LEOs is that they are NOT soldiers. It's a different job with a different mission. The dressing, arming, and training of our police as if they were soldiers is wrong. It's aimed at permitting them to do a job that is NOT the one they are hired to do. They're not hired to conquer the populace. They're hired to protect it. Assault rifles (back to firearms, OK?) are not the weapons they need to do their job. Neither are APCs the correct equipment, and LEOs shouldn't be permitted to dress, act, and talk as if they were soldiers. They're not.

 

[nwhpfan]

I think this thread is making the FBI Task Force and TFC work extra hard; which I think has officially jumped the shark.

 

[Father of four]

HAHAHA...probably.

 

[Father of four]

Hopefully they will do the right thing and side with We The People and The Constitution.

 

[MountainBear]

That does not give them the right to treat every citizen they encounter as the enemy. Law enforcement would be a lot easier if we could treat our public streets as a battlefield. But the whole point of being LEOs is that they are NOT soldiers. It's a different job with a different mission. The dressing, arming, and training of our police as if they were soldiers is wrong. It's aimed at permitting them to do a job that is NOT the one they are hired to do. They're not hired to conquer the populace. They're hired to protect it. Assault rifles (back to firearms, OK?) are not the weapons they need to do their job. Neither are APCs the correct equipment, and LEOs shouldn't be permitted to dress, act, and talk as if they were soldiers. They're not.

Would you send them back to the days of an empty revolver with a single round in their pocket? While not all the people they meet are criminals, those that are, they're sufficiently armed. Shouldn't they be as well? What make soldiers more special than LEO's? Why should both not be equipped with the best tools available to do their jobs? Certainly not every situation calls for an AR or an armored personnel carrier, or even a ticket (to appease those of you butt-hurt by getting caught speeding), but more and more, situations that do call for those tools are needed.

They say when the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem is a nail. Well, what happens when you don't have a hammer, and the problem actually is a nail?

I respect your opinion, so understand, my attitude should not be mistake as excusing the misuse of power. This happens, and is certainly not a good thing. But at the same time, every time an officer gives you a ticket, or uses a rifle, or even uses an APC to serve a high risk warrant, it is not an abuse of power...

 

[ZigZagZeke]

Would you send them back to the days of an empty revolver with a single round in their pocket? While not all the people they meet are criminals, those that are, they're sufficiently armed. Shouldn't they be as well? What make soldiers more special than LEO's? Why should both not be equipped with the best tools available to do their jobs? Certainly not every situation calls for an AR or an armored personnel carrier, or even a ticket (to appease those of you butt-hurt by getting caught speeding), but more and more, situations that do call for those tools are needed.

They say when the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem is a nail. Well, what happens when you don't have a hammer, and the problem actually is a nail?

I respect your opinion, so understand, my attitude should not be mistake as excusing the misuse of power. This happens, and is certainly not a good thing. But at the same time, every time an officer gives you a ticket, or uses a rifle, or even uses an APC to serve a high risk warrant, it is not an abuse of power...

The difference is that soldiers need not be concerned with the enemy's rights under the US Constitution. Shoot first and ask questions later is perfectly legal for soldiers. Unidentified people on the battle field are considered to be the enemy. Military style uniforms, military style weapons, and most of all, military training has no place in everyday encounters with citizens. It encourages a mentality which devalues or simply ignores the rules under which police must operate if citizens' rights are to be preserved. SWAT teams serving warrants in the wee hours have terrorized and brutalized innocent families when they have gone to the wrong address. This is a product of their militaristic training and the attitudes it promotes. "Sorry" is not in their vocabulary. Constantly screaming at the top of their lungs (as they are trained to do) doesn't leave room for explanations or questions by innocent citizens. Mistakes aren't corrected until after the innocent have been brutalized, their homes tossed, and their rights lay in shreds. There is NO end result that makes these actions acceptable.

My father was a chief of police from the 1930s to the 1950s. He was very concerned about the militarization of our modern police forces. His idea of police work was that officers knowingly put their lives on the line to protect citizens. It was a dangerous job and an officer had NO expectation of going home safe on any particular day. The safety of the public came first. This is a far cry from where we are today.

 

[Father of four]

ZigZagZeke:"It was a dangerous job and an officer had NO expectation of going home safe on any particular day. The safety of the public came first."



I agree 100%.

 

[MountainBear]

The difference is that soldiers need not be concerned with the enemy's rights under the US Constitution. Shoot first and ask questions later is perfectly legal for soldiers. Unidentified people on the battle field are considered to be the enemy. Military style uniforms, military style weapons, and most of all, military training has no place in everyday encounters with citizens. It encourages a mentality which devalues or simply ignores the rules under which police must operate if citizens' rights are to be preserved. SWAT teams serving warrants in the wee hours have terrorized and brutalized innocent families when they have gone to the wrong address. This is a product of their militaristic training and the attitudes it promotes. "Sorry" is not in their vocabulary. Constantly screaming at the top of their lungs (as they are trained to do) doesn't leave room for explanations or questions by innocent citizens. Mistakes aren't corrected until after the innocent have been brutalized, their homes tossed, and their rights lay in shreds. There is NO end result that makes these actions acceptable.

And the answer to these issues is what in your opinion? You seem to be highlighting problems (which I agree, mistakes happen, and problems exist), but without offering answers. So, I repeat my question, respectfully; should we go back to an empty revolver with a round in the pocket? How should high risk warrants be served? I understand the differences between the battlefield and the street, but both have their dangers, and both soldiers and police officers deserve the tools to do their jobs.

 

[RoneKiln]

I think the issue is less about their equipment, and more about their workplace culture. If I am allowed an AR-15, I have no issue with them having an AR-15. If my area has problems with crazed meth heads randomly deciding to shoot everything they see move outside their window (it's happened here), I'm ok with them having an armored vehicle to approach the scene safely.

The issue of whether or not they consider themselves civilians plays into an "us vs them" mentality. That mentality is very important for a soldier in a warzone. It helps them do their job and hold a certain amount of mental trauma at bay. That is a mentality most of us do not wish our local LEO's to have. We want those officers to consider themselves one of us, and not to dehumanize us. That concern feeds directly into the issue of whether they would be willing to sieze privately owned arms. The more they psychologically distance themselves from the people they daily interact with, the easier it gets for them to justify unconstitional or immoral laws and actions.

In some situations, the increase of militarized equipment is used to intentionally play on the sense of coherency, and sadly, the us vs them mentality. This is most likely to emphasize unit coherency and increase moral. What is likely an unintentional consequence (which Dman has so ineloquently referenced several times) is the subtle but important sense of being apart from the general population. Many of us don't think that's healthy for society, or in the long term, even for the LEO's.

While many politicians are trying to change it, I can currently own an AR-15 or even an armored vehicle. So let the police have them. Just stop creating the culture of "we stand above you." Or even just "we stand seperate from you."

Given how many times myself and friends have been thanked by officers for being CPL holders, I'm not too worried that this is an issue in my area. But I understand some may be concerned about it in their area, and I can see concern a few decades down the road as this type of mentality is encouraged. Sadly, calling names and making broad generalizations that are not only negative, but outright hostile is an excellent way to speed up that process. So for all of you ranting about how evil cops are, by all means, keep pushing them towards that "us vs them" mentality. That does so even more effectively than receiving military style training and uniforms.

 

[tacticalgunner]

The difference is that soldiers need not be concerned with the enemy's rights under the US Constitution. Shoot first and ask questions later is perfectly legal for soldiers. Unidentified people on the battle field are considered to be the enemy. Military style uniforms, military style weapons, and most of all, military training has no place in everyday encounters with citizens. It encourages a mentality which devalues or simply ignores the rules under which police must operate if citizens' rights are to be preserved. SWAT teams serving warrants in the wee hours have terrorized and brutalized innocent families when they have gone to the wrong address. This is a product of their militaristic training and the attitudes it promotes. "Sorry" is not in their vocabulary. Constantly screaming at the top of their lungs (as they are trained to do) doesn't leave room for explanations or questions by innocent citizens. Mistakes aren't corrected until after the innocent have been brutalized, their homes tossed, and their rights lay in shreds. There is NO end result that makes these actions acceptable.

My father was a chief of police from the 1930s to the 1950s. He was very concerned about the militarization of our modern police forces. His idea of police work was that officers knowingly put their lives on the line to protect citizens. It was a dangerous job and an officer had NO expectation of going home safe on any particular day. The safety of the public came first. This is a far cry from where we are today.

Shoot first, question later, do you know how many Rules of engagement orders I had to follow, even if shot at first...

 

[MountainBear]

I think the issue is less about their equipment, and more about their workplace culture. If I am allowed an AR-15, I have no issue with them having an AR-15. If my area has problems with crazed meth heads randomly deciding to shoot everything they see move outside their window (it's happened here), I'm ok with them having an armored vehicle to approach the scene safely.

The issue of whether or not they consider themselves civilians plays into an "us vs them" mentality. That mentality is very important for a soldier in a warzone. It helps them do their job and hold a certain amount of mental trauma at bay. That is a mentality most of us do not wish our local LEO's to have. We want those officers to consider themselves one of us, and not to dehumanize us. That concern feeds directly into the issue of whether they would be willing to sieze privately owned arms. The more they psychologically distance themselves from the people they daily interact with, the easier it gets for them to justify unconstitional or immoral laws and actions.

In some situations, the increase of militarized equipment is used to intentionally play on the sense of coherency, and sadly, the us vs them mentality. This is most likely to emphasize unit coherency and increase moral. What is likely an unintentional consequence (which Dman has so ineloquently referenced several times) is the subtle but important sense of being apart from the general population. Many of us don't think that's healthy for society, or in the long term, even for the LEO's.

While many politicians are trying to change it, I can currently own an AR-15 or even an armored vehicle. So let the police have them. Just stop creating the culture of "we stand above you." Or even just "we stand seperate from you."

Given how many times myself and friends have been thanked by officers for being CPL holders, I'm not too worried that this is an issue in my area. But I understand some may be concerned about it in their area, and I can see concern a few decades down the road as this type of mentality is encouraged. Sadly, calling names and making broad generalizations that are not only negative, but outright hostile is an excellent way to speed up that process. So for all of you ranting about how evil cops are, by all means, keep pushing them towards that "us vs them" mentality. That does so even more effectively than receiving military style training and uniforms.

You are certainly more eloquent than dman. I think that there certainly is a rise in the us versus them mentality. But I do not only fault the LEO's. Look at some of the responses on this thread. It's an interesting catch-22. People want LEO's to respect them and will only start to reciprocate after LEO's start. And yet people whine when LEO's do what they are paid to do. It's the LEO's fault that they were going 15 mph over the speed limit. Both sides need to work towards respect. To quote a line from a really bad movie, it's a two way street, not a highway and a bike path. Both sides are at fault and both need to start being respectful.

As to the original point of the thread. Yes, there are some officers who would confiscate guns. They would consider it their duty to obey the laws made by those appointed above them, right or wrong. But there would be enough that would quit, that departments would have a difficult enough time just filling shifts and performing basic policing, that confiscation patrols would be difficult to man. Especially once that 2% of people who would react violently started doing so.

Nice having a reasoned debate with some of you. We may not agree, but at least once Dman and a few of his ilk check out, things are civil.

 

[dmancornell]

Both sides need to work towards respect. To quote a line from a really bad movie, it's a two way street, not a highway and a bike path. Both sides are at fault and both need to start being respectful.

LOL @ two way street. All the organized violence and theft originates from the state, directed at civilians. Respect is mutual, not enforced by gunpoint and threat of imprisonment.

Gotta love how you cynically ask for "solutions" and posit strawmen about having cops carry empty revolvers (which, as beautiful as that would be, nobody ever demanded), even as the state escalates its campaign of warfare upon the citizenry with a mountain of new regulations and laws punishing non-crimes. You want solutions to reduce anti-cop violence? Don't start a war against the people.

 

[jfw]

Very well said ronekiln!