The Law and Guns

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

Setting aside Push’s predictable tantrum, the LEOs I know are in favor of people owning guns (particularly fornself-defense) but don’t have a problem with reasonable regulation and restriction.

Perfect example - near my downtown, there is a park where homeless congregate, and this congregation includes some unsavory characters. Though a city park, there are always - always - two city cops there. Without fail. I talk with them fairly often, and I brought up the idea of “constitutional carry” - every cop I interacted with at that park had the response of “Hell no,” precisely because of the situation they monitor every day - a densely packed, unruly group of individuals embedded in a densely packed city block. If one of these individuals was openly carrying a firearm and there was no presumption of lawbreaking, it’d be a public safety nightmare.

That’s their take.

25

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I’m curious, because I really don’t know (so I hope someone in, or with Law Enforcement experience; or who knows someone who is, will post…)

What does the average, “in-the-trenches/out-in-the-street” Law man or woman think should be the “balance” between them and public when it comes to firepower?

Do most advocate any form of Gun Control?

(P.S. Politicians need to get the hell out of the discussion…and I believe the 2nd Amendment is clear…)

Mufasa[/quote]

I am sure the opinions differ just as the do for non law enforcement

26

My brother works for Arizona Department of Public Safety (DPS), my uncle is retired from Illinois State Police as a former trooper, and I have our school resource officer / SRO (a municipal city LEO) speak to my students 3-4 times/semester for sociology class and the Constitution unit in U.S. History.

I formerly co-owned a business that performed equipment installations (e.g., lights, sirens and two-way radio gear) for numerous public safety agencies, including law enforcement, so I’ve had his conversation with many LEOs, including the three mentioned above.

Basically, everyone that I have spoken to supports an individual right to own firearms. Our SRO even teaches a CCW class here locally, in IL, as a private side gig to obtain the state permit. However, all support various degrees of reasonable gun control, but what constitutes reasonable varies according to each office.

My uncle feels that semi-automatic weapons should be more tightly regulated and he’s not a fan of CCW, for example, whereas our SRO is a huge advocate of CCW and opposes most gun control regulations because of the “foot in the door” mentality. I’ve had some officers tell me they support a federal gun registry and unified federal firearms ownership registration, whereas others are as laissez-faire as the most ardent anti-gun control citizens themselves tend to be.

27

the city i live in does not have a real or precieved crime problem at this time,how ever the current police chief appears to be hiring officers for their intelligence and clean records
when you see these people even in uniform it is hard to believe they are police officers
they look like small high school kids ,they are supposed to protect us? how are they going to protect themselves?

28

This is laugh out loud hilarious. Let’s recap.

  1. Mufasa asks if anyone knows LEOs and their take on citizen gun ownership, gun control laws, etx.

  2. I responded by noting conversations I’ve had with city cops who say they draw a line on “constitutional carry,” a state issue (a fairly uncontroversial, mainstream position.) No mention of what these cops thought about Obama or his purported federal executive action gun grab that is looming.

  3. Push lapses into his typical hysterics and starts blubbering about how a number of LEOs are taking aggressive stands against the looming federal executive action - which is irrelevant to anything I’ve posted about - and then claims it “refutes” some position I took.

  4. If you are slow-witted like Push, I’ll spell it out. I represented what cops I know said about “constitutional carry”, hence my statement “That’s their take”, which is what Mufasa was interested in. Push, who never met. A subject he didn’t want to change when he thought he could whip out all his knowledge from right-wing tabloids, starts attacking a position I don’t hold, and certainly one I don’t think my cop friends hold.

  5. Arizona cops may love “constitutional carry”, more power to them. The ones I know are not in support of it. But, importantly, being against “constitutional carry” isn’t the same as being against the Second Amendment or in support of Obama’s puported executive action. That’s only the case for people like Push who constantly flap their gums about being champions of the Bill of Rights but who, like, Push, don’t know and are making it up as they go.

EDIT: added (text)

33

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
the Second Amendment is not all that clear,[/quote]

You’re much to smart to actually think this. About the actual verbiage in the Amendment I mean. You could never convince me you don’t clearly understand the very clear and frank intent of the Amendment.

By this rationale the entire Bill of Rights is now a convoluted mess, because it should have prevented slavery when written.

Just because government doesn’t follow it’s own rules, doesn’t mean the rules aren’t clear.

34

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I’m curious, because I really don’t know (so I hope someone in, or with Law Enforcement experience; or who knows someone who is, will post…)

What does the average, “in-the-trenches/out-in-the-street” Law man or woman think should be the “balance” between them and public when it comes to firepower?

Do most advocate any form of Gun Control?

(P.S. Politicians need to get the hell out of the discussion…and I believe the 2nd Amendment is clear…)

Mufasa[/quote]

My personal experience:

The lower the rank and/or less politics involved, the more pro-2nd they are.

The more politicking involved for getting the job, the less into the peasants having rights they become.

But I live in MA. 2 miles down the road, in NH, it’s very different.

36

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
the LEOs I know are in favor of people owning guns (particularly fornself-defense) but don’t have a problem with reasonable regulation and restriction.
[/quote]

What do they define as reasonable?

I was at a gun show over the weekend and there was an entire table of 30 round mags that said “Law enforcement only.” I don’t consider it reasonable that every citizen in my state is limited to 10 round mags regardless of the circumstances, and an off duty officer can have standard capacity mags (pistol grip, “muzzle device”, telescopic stock.) Most of the officers I have spoken to, whether retired or active, completely agree that mag limits and “assault weapon” bans are completely useless and bullshit.

37

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
the Second Amendment is not all that clear,[/quote]

You’re much to smart to actually think this. About the actual verbiage in the Amendment I mean. You could never convince me you don’t clearly understand the very clear and frank intent of the Amendment.

By this rationale the entire Bill of Rights is now a convoluted mess, because it should have prevented slavery when written.

Just because government doesn’t follow it’s own rules, doesn’t mean the rules aren’t clear. [/quote]

Nope, the meaning of the Second Amendment isn’t clear and it precisely becausr of its history.

It places a restriction on the federal government. States were free to do whatever they want. As a result, there was never any intention on the part of the Framers to have a universal (within the nation) to keep and bear arms. It wasn’t an oops, it wasn’t a clerical error, it wasn’t an oversight. The Framers didn’t mean to enact a universal right and simply forget to codify it in the fine print.

They could have. They elected not to.

Did the Fourteenth Amendment’s framers and ratifiers intend to reverse that original intent? I haven’t seen a completely convincing argument that they did.

You’re a very smart dude, Beans, so be careful of the libertarian narrative on this. Want to understand the Second Amendment? Actually read the history of it. At the end, you may still think there should be an unfettered right to firearms, and that’s fine, but the idea that the Second Amendment is simple is libertarian fantasy (as is Push’s theory that why even the Sixth Amendment applied to states since the founding…sheer idiocy).

Be a libertarian. Just don’t be a libertarian who makes it up as they go along.

38

thunderbolt23, does that mean states can restrict free speech? Or establish a state religion?

39

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
This is laugh out loud hilarious. Let’s recap.

  1. Mufasa asks if anyone knows LEOs and their take on citizen gun ownership, gun control laws, etx.

  2. I responded by noting conversations I’ve had with city cops who say they draw a line on “constitutional carry,” a state issue (a fairly uncontroversial, mainstream position.) No mention of what these cops thought about Obama or his purported federal executive action gun grab that is looming.

  3. Push lapses into his typical hysterics and starts blubbering about how a number of LEOs are taking aggressive stands against the looming federal executive action - which is irrelevant to anything I’ve posted about - and then claims it “refutes” some position I took.

  4. If you are slow-witted like Push, I’ll spell it out. I represented what cops I know said about “constitutional carry”, hence my statement “That’s their take”, which is what Mufasa was interested in. Push, who never met. A subject he didn’t want to change when he thought he could whip out all his knowledge from right-wing tabloids, starts attacking a position I don’t hold, and certainly one I don’t think my cop friends hold.

  5. Arizona cops may love “constitutional carry”, more power to them. The ones I know are not in support of it. But, importantly, being against “constitutional carry” isn’t the same as being against the Second Amendment or in support of Obama’s puported executive action. That’s only the case for people like Push who constantly flap their gums about being champions of the Bill of Rights but who, like, Push, don’t know and are making it up as they go.

EDIT: added (text)

[/quote]

Dude, you’re getting a bit emotional here. Relax.

We’re sure you’ve met a couple of cops who don’t like constitutional carry. No problem. The problem is you extrapolating that beyond your local city park. Now maybe you’ll claim you’re not doing that; fine, just be honest.

The facts, when they are explored outside your park, point to LEO’s being the wrong subset of folks to use to advance the pro-gun control narrative and yes, that includes constitutional carry and its associated issues.

TB, if you think AZ cops are pro-2nd Amendment but anti-constitutional carry go ahead and cite sources. The fact of the matter is that the strongest pro-gun folks – of which LEO’s are represented in HUGE numbers – tend to also be strongly pro-constitutional carry. It’s Logic 101, my shrill amigo.
[/quote]

Ok, Push’s lesson begins now.

First question. Tell me, where exactly did I extrapolate anything about the view of the city cops I know “beyond the city park”?

I look forward to you pointing that out.

40

[quote]pushharder wrote:
By the way, Boltito, you did not claim your interactions with the city park police were specific to constitutional carry. Rather, you claimed a broader spectrum:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I think that will vary a great deal, especially depending on location, but anecdotally the ones I’ve interacted with (both urban and rural) come out in the “mixed” camp, and certainly are not absolutist either way…

[/quote]

This was your initial post and constitutional carry had not yet been mentioned. Your original post was in direct response to Muf’s original post:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I’m curious, because I really don’t know (so I hope someone in, or with Law Enforcement experience; or who knows someone who is, will post…)

What does the average, “in-the-trenches/out-in-the-street” Law man or woman think should be the “balance” between them and public when it comes to firepower?

Do most advocate any form of Gun Control?

(P.S. Politicians need to get the hell out of the discussion…and I believe the 2nd Amendment is clear…)

Mufasa[/quote]

It’s fairly clear you weren’t specifying constitutional carry but general gun control measures.

So it’s completely fair of me to cite sources of LEO’s countering you and your city park buds about general gun control measures.

[/quote]

Ad hoc explanations for your piss poor initial response.

The city park cops were one example, I know many others. But the larger point is, what is there to rebut? I said the answer would vary depending on location, but here is what I have heard from people I know. That isn’t a claim that LEOs elsewhere don’t think differently. Clearly they do, and I never said otherwise.

So, why in the world would I need to prove that AZ cops don’t support constitutional carry? Did I ever claim they didn’t?

Seriously. A (true) story (I’ve mentioned this in PWI before). I asked a boxer friend the classic question of “who is the least fun person to box?” I expected him to say huge guys, or fast guys. He said, “people who don’t know how to box.”

That’s you, in PWI. You don’t know how to box. I answer Mufasa’s questions and you start barfing up examples of LEOs read to defy Obama’s executive order as a “rebuttal”.

Learn to box.