To Protect and to Serve II

#5,226
#5,226
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
The Captain's Journal >> Police Chiefs Lobby Group Campaigns Against National Reciprocity
Click to expand...

Not sure this is a good example.

Though made up of some 30,000 members, just 473 individuals from 39 states elected to lend their name to the letter. There are no active police chiefs who signed the letter from such conservative bulwark states as Idaho, Mississippi, Montana, New Mexico or Nevada. In comparison, states with strict gun laws had numerous chiefs support the declaration. For instance, at least 85 signers were from Massachusetts departments and 55 from New York.
Click to expand...

Nearly a third of the signatories were from NY and MA, shocking. But overall, only 1.5% of their numbers signed it. I'm not sure how they can claim to push that agenda when 98% of their numbers didn't even support it enough to put their name on it.
 
#5,227
#5,227
Grand Vol said:
Not sure this is a good example.



Nearly a third of the signatories were from NY and MA, shocking. But overall, only 1.5% of their numbers signed it. I'm not sure how they can claim to push that agenda when 98% of their numbers didn't even support it enough to put their name on it.
Click to expand...

Example of what? It’s just your usual big bureaucracy where the organization doesn’t speak for the actual members.
 
#5,228
#5,228
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Example of what? It’s just your usual big bureaucracy where the organization doesn’t speak for the actual members.
Click to expand...

Example of police hating firearms. My bad on assuming that was your intent.

However, it is refreshing to know 98% didn't care enough or didn't support it to sign it.
 
#5,229
#5,229
Grand Vol said:
Example of police hating firearms. My bad on assuming that was your intent.

However, it is refreshing to know 98% didn't care enough or didn't support it to sign it.
Click to expand...

I think it’s common sense. Honestly, it shows that the average cop is up against an inflated bureaucracy,
who’s only concern is how to garner more votes from a public that has grown more apathetic than ever.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#5,231
#5,231
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
I think it’s common sense. Honestly, it shows that the average cop is up against an inflated bureaucracy, who’s only concern is how to garner more votes from a public that has grown more apathetic than ever.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't necessarily go that far. 98% didn't support it or, again, didn't care enough to sign it. That's an overwhelming majority. And a good portion of those that did sign were listed as (Retired) or not even the head chief.

Just perusing the letter, I saw a lot of NY, CT, MA and CA signatories. Which is kind of to be expected given the politics of the States themselves and the politicians they elect there that in turn appoint the police chiefs.

Just as a reminder though, there are some that buck the system. Remember the Colorado Sheriffs that flatly said they weren't going to support or enforce the idiotic measures put in place a few years ago? 54 of the 64 Sheriffs in Colorado brought a suit against the Governor (though later thrown out) and represent a lot of area in that State. So they lost the suit. It's just as easy to tell individual deputies "don't go looking for it" even in the aftermath of that lawsuit.

In reference to Ras asking about the gun confiscation thing, I doubt there as many cops out there that are as anti-gun as he might like to believe. Chiefs and whatnot maybe (at least 1.5% lol) but the rank and file probably just don't care that much about it or side on the 2A for the most part. I'm not going to slap a percentage on that, but I'd think there would be widespread revolts if a Chief or Sheriff ever ordered them door to door on confiscation. There are those overzealous lots that get all giddy on confiscating that "assault rifle and hundreds of rounds of ammo!" that gets widely reported. But I don't think they are the majority.
 
#5,232
#5,232
Grand Vol said:
I wouldn't necessarily go that far. 98% didn't support it or, again, didn't care enough to sign it. That's an overwhelming majority. And a good portion of those that did sign were listed as (Retired) or not even the head chief.

Just perusing the letter, I saw a lot of NY, CT, MA and CA signatories. Which is kind of to be expected given the politics of the States themselves and the politicians they elect there that in turn appoint the police chiefs.

Just as a reminder though, there are some that buck the system. Remember the Colorado Sheriffs that flatly said they weren't going to support or enforce the idiotic measures put in place a few years ago? 54 of the 64 Sheriffs in Colorado brought a suit against the Governor (though later thrown out) and represent a lot of area in that State. So they lost the suit. It's just as easy to tell individual deputies "don't go looking for it" even in the aftermath of that lawsuit.

In reference to Ras asking about the gun confiscation thing, I doubt there as many cops out there that are as anti-gun as he might like to believe. Chiefs and whatnot maybe (at least 1.5% lol) but the rank and file probably just don't care that much about it or side on the 2A for the most part. I'm not going to slap a percentage on that, but I'd think there would be widespread revolts if a Chief or Sheriff ever ordered them door to door on confiscation. There are those overzealous lots that get all giddy on confiscating that "assault rifle and hundreds of rounds of ammo!" that gets widely reported. But I don't think they are the majority.
Click to expand...
There are those who buck the system and to those few, I say, huzzah!

Ironically some of the names on that list are from some of the most crime ridden ****holes this country has to offer. Gee... I wonder why those citizens would like the right to carry to defend themselves and their families. Nothing galls me more than some government jackass telling a citizen they don’t have the right protect their lives with the best means available, all the while they can have whatever they want.
 
#5,233
#5,233
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#5,235
#5,235
theutvolunteers said:
I have no doubt most police would love to bust in my door for a gun or anything if they were ordered to do so.
Click to expand...

tbt.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#5,236
#5,236
Grand Vol said:
In reference to Ras asking about the gun confiscation thing, I doubt there as many cops out there that are as anti-gun as he might like to believe. Chiefs and whatnot maybe (at least 1.5% lol) but the rank and file probably just don't care that much about it or side on the 2A for the most part. I'm not going to slap a percentage on that, but I'd think there would be widespread revolts if a Chief or Sheriff ever ordered them door to door on confiscation. There are those overzealous lots that get all giddy on confiscating that "assault rifle and hundreds of rounds of ammo!" that gets widely reported. But I don't think they are the majority.
Click to expand...

How about marijuana, moonshine or a poker game?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#5,241
#5,241
Rasputin_Vol said:
Don't wear a mask... WTF?
Click to expand...

The intent of the law was to damask individuals so that individuals who break the law could be identified.
The group that brought a need for this law is irrelevant. Not allowing masks in public reduces criminal activity. Especially in a protest situation.

I’m sure you’d be opposed to the removal of this law and allowing both sides to wear masks.
Then again maybe you like the violence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#5,243
#5,243
n_huffhines said:
[twitter]987837524700778496[/twitter]
Click to expand...

I’m alright with this. Antifa is a terrorist organization known to take part in violent attacks. If local laws prevent wearing masks in public, to protect people from this terrorist group, I’m alright with that.

If they were really only there to protest Nazis, they wouldn’t need to hide
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#5,245
#5,245
There is no reason to have a law that bans masks. We are not talking about a mask or head covering when you take a photo at the DMV. We're talking about protesters.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#5,250
#5,250
Rasputin_Vol said:
The KKK wearing the hood is not a problem. You do understand that simple concept, right?

Wearing a mask is not a violent act.
Click to expand...

Wearing a mask protects those and encourages those who would act violently to act Violent.

And 20 guys wearing the exact same hood (or black mask) is absolutely a problem when one of them acts out.

And I think you know that. At this point you made a dumb statement without thinking it through and now you’re doubling down.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top