The Law and Guns

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:

[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.
[/quote]

Like you, it varies, but among the folks I know there is consensus that an assault weapons ban is worthless. The guys I associate with (through various sporting groups and events) personally think lowly of so-called assault weapons, but don’t support making them illegal.

(Their take, which I share, is that they are mostly a silly marketing shtick - low caliber with a pistol grip only for that segment of the market that a) want to own a gun because they get action hero jollies from owning such a “fierce” looking gun and b) people who are horrible shots. I know people who hunt with big mag assault weapons and all I see it as is an admission you are low-skilled. As for the group in a), these are the same people who will buy a roll of tape for $10 over an identical regular roll of tape merely because Beretta labeled it “tactical”.)

47

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
thunderbolt23, does that mean states can restrict free speech? Or establish a state religion?[/quote]

Maybe, unless it can be shown that the drafters and the ratifiers intended that the Fourteenth Amendment would do away with it.

It is well-settled precedent that the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to selectively incorporate the Bill of Rights to the states, but there are some historical issues with that idea, much as we have gotten accustomed to it.

Doesn’t mean I think the Supreme Court will reverse that precedent, but it certainly deserves fresh scrutiny when it nakedly infringes on state police powers.

51

Back on topic, every LEO I’ve ever discussed the issue with was firmly in favor of private citizen CC. Can’t say I queried them on a lot more than that, but they were all pretty firmly pro-2nd. Since getting my CC permit, I’ve never once had a ticket issued to me in three times being stopped. Coincidence? Perhaps, but I sure as hell didn’t get out of going 20 over, no registration or proof of insurance on hand (directly in front of the police station, no less) for my good looks.

In my broader experience, elected LEO’s just seem to tow whatever political line suits them, regardless of their personal beliefs. No shocker there.

Besides, there’s no need to speculate on this when someone went and figured it out. This is the best information I’ve found on the topic. A comprehensive survey of verified LEO’s.

11 key lessons:

Executive Summary and link to full survey:

52

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[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.

[/quote]

By the way, this whole post was a dodge (I guess that fits with your boxing analogy). I laid out why I wrote what I wrote in response to you and you did the very thing of which you’ve accused me – you twisted it. You know you did this, boxer.[/quote]

Nope. Point being, you provided a rebuttal or “counter” to…precisely nothing. There was nothing to counter. I didn’t claim AZ cops thought the same way as cops I had talked to and recognized cops in different places have different viewpoints, Einstein.

Learn to box.

53

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
thunderbolt23, does that mean states can restrict free speech? Or establish a state religion?[/quote]

Maybe, unless it can be shown that the drafters and the ratifiers intended that the Fourteenth Amendment would do away with it.

It is well-settled precedent that the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to selectively incorporate the Bill of Rights to the states, but there are some historical issues with that idea, much as we have gotten accustomed to it.

[/quote]

On this we agree and of course, you know this because we’ve discussed it on other occasions. Other than to say that when the history of the drafting and ratification of the 14th is examined we can find no evidence of intent to incorporate.

  1. Doesn’t appear you agree, becausr not a page ago you were insinuating the Sixth Amendment applied to the states. Nice try, though.

  2. Nope, I dont want to freshly scrutinize it only on the Second Amendment - it just happens to come up because every other thread in PWI is about the Second Amendment. You want to start a thread about the Seventh Amendment and whether it applies to States? I’ll gladly offer my two cents.

56

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[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.
[/quote]

Read my post that you quoted right here. Read, boxer, read.[/quote]

Nope, but nice try. What exactly did I extrapolate?

What exactly did I “extend application to in a different scenario” by noting the views of cops I know?

Let’s hear it. Copy and paste it in response. Or state it.

My “extrapolation”. Let’s see it.

59

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[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.
[/quote]

Read my post that you quoted right here. Read, boxer, read.[/quote]

Nope, but nice try. What exactly did I extrapolate?

What exactly did I “extend application to in a different scenario” by noting the views of cops I know?

Let’s hear it. Copy and paste it in response. Or state it.

My “extrapolation”. Let’s see it.[/quote]

I answered this above this post.
[/quote]

No, you didn’t, you just directed me to go reread your post which doesn’t contain any such explanation.

So, explain it to me. Nice and clear. If you think you’ve already explained it clearly, just copy and paste the part I am missing.