Cop - Soldier - Law-Abiding Citizen...What's the Difference Where Weapons are Concerned?

reply to post by Biigs

yes, we've shared commentary in that thread, what's the point ?

he did so with police cooperation, JCP cooperation and well within the law ... just because you find it outrageous, doesn't mean it is.

guns are designed to defend life, not take it.

there are plenty of hoops or i would have owned one 20 odd yrs ago and there are even more hoops now.

any tool that can inflict death is extremely dangerous in the hands of a violent or mentally unstable individual ... what makes guns so special ?

sorry, you won't get me to defend LEOs very often and certainly not in this topic. and, to be honest, i am one of those who finds them anything but safe operators of firearms

see the story from a NC gun show ... yeppers, those police really know their stuff

and for the record ... neither Rules or Laws are capable of 'making guns safe', period.

Your kidding right?

Originally posted by pacifier2012
Your kidding right?

Uh.....(in my best NYC accent, with De Niro wince)...you tawkin' to me?

A common majority of military and police are hired thugs for big banks,Ceo's,politicians,shadow organizations...world police etc, etc.So what's the difference you ask?the last part...the law abiding citizens....they are the property of these organizations stated here in.Why would they give a slave a tool for fighting?They would much rather have you subdued,mindless,and filled to the brim with disinformation- information to keep your mind busy from seeing a horror filled agenda that the world around you has become.

the law abiding citizens....they are the property of these organizations stated here in

reply to post by Onewhoknowsjesus


What in the heck are you talking about?

reply to post by okiecowboy


He's saying he feels that civilians are slave workers for big business, and private security contractors, military, and LEOs are hired protection against civilians for such business.

I have a question for you though cowboy. Just curious about what you said regarding LEOs not being obligated to protect the great masses. Usually on the side of a patrol car you see "to serve and protect". Who or what is this in regards to?

Thanks.

reply to post by Kevinquisitor


Ahh well thanks for the explaining that to me...

In regards to the protect and serve...
It means society as a whole...in regards to city or state laws...
the police actually have no duty to protect You as an individual....at least according to the supreme court...
Meaning if the police are busy and can't respond to the killer in your house attacking your family...there is nothing you can do...

reply to post by okiecowboy

just asking here ... was this a prophetic statement or a typo ??

[color=amber]Meaning if the police are busy and can't respond to the killer in your house attacking your family...[color=amber]there is nothing you can do...

in my mind, i want to correct it to say ... there is nothing THEY can do ... but rather convince myself otherwise, i thought i'd ask

reply to post by Honor93

Sorry didn't type that out well...

Meaning you can not sue the officer or dept or city if they fail to show up in time...
More info

reply to post by okiecowboy

thanks for the clarification ... i thought that's what you may have meant but it doesn't hurt to be sure in this day and age

and yes, i'm aware of both ... the protect & serve ... statement has been purposely removed from many if not all cars, here.

and from my recollection, there was a big tooodoo over a kidnap victim, who had called 911 from a trunk and couldn't be reached/located in time.
ever since, i often wonder what the outcome could have been had she been packin.

I agree with your OP. Why shouldn't citizens have the same equipment as the military and LEO's? I can only put it down to the fact that I believe that when it comes to citizens... LEO's and the military want to have the upper hand to prevent uneseccary loss of life in dire situations...

reply to post by GoOfYFoOt


I was in the military and currently in LE.....I think there is nothing wrong with citizens owning guns and carrying guns concealed. I would say the big obvious difference is training and maybe discipline....but most gun "nuts" respect guns anyway. So this isn't a huge issue.

However the hidden difference is this.....When you enter the military and/or LE you have an extensive background check, criminal history check....hell they even interviewed my high school teachers and friends I hadn't spoken with in years. That is the true difference...you weed out most of the crazies with extensive background checks for military and LE....so why not let civilians have the same options...but...then civilians should have to go through a polygraph, interviews...extensive background and medical checks as well....seems fair to me and im all for more people being educated about guns. They provide security...they provide survival...they provide protection from governments if need be and they are fun...its a great hobby.

Originally posted by Biigs
reply to post by Honor93

 

this guy walks into JC Penny with a semi auto AR-15 strapped to his back

Yep, completely legal, and though he wasn't using the muzzle discipline I would use, obviously nothing happened, so your point? Honor93 said fully-automatic, not semi, there's a huge diffrence.


Anyway, back on topic. I am former Military, and I have no problem with civilians owning whatever gun they want, I also know a large amount of former and current military and police who feel the same way.

Comparing guns to cars is like apples to oranges. Yes, cars are registered, and you have to take a test to get a license. However, how many times have you seen highschool kids streetracing, or elderly people getting in to accidents, or drunk drivers. Obviously, the tests and registrations have not been effective to prevent such things. If they have, then I'd hate to see the numbers of auto-related deaths if they weren't federally controlled. Most gun owners respect their weapons and are just as proficient with them as military or police.

The problem with young people committing gun crimes, I think, is that they are not trained with guns from an early age. I have been handling and firing guns since I was 6, it's just how things are in my area. When I was in the navy, I noticed the people committing gun errors were the ones who had no experience with them or were afraid of them, by gun errors, I mean improper muzzle control, or "breaking blue", or not keeping the weapon pointed down range in the event of a malfunction.

reply to post by dave_welch

"breaking blue"

Could you expound on this term and explain how you came to know it?

reply to post by GoOfYFoOt



In boot camp, there is a blue line in front of the shooter, if that line is crossed with a weapon by pointing it right or left, that was known as breaking blue, also could refer to "blue on blue" aggression, meaning friendly fire or attack on other naval personnel. That's the term we learned in Navy boot camp in Great Lakes, Illinois (aka Great Mistakes, lol).

reply to post by dave_welch


Thank you...I assumed something similar, but had never heard the term, before!

p.s. I like your Chevy II....I had a '64 for a brief spell...327c.i. .202s, Holley 850cfm on an Edelbrock Victor jr., B&B'd, Muncie 4-sp, (rock crusher), into a Ford 9" w/ 4.11s....She was running 11's, in the 1/4 when the tires would hook...

Thanks for the memories!

reply to post by GoOfYFoOt


Nice, mine wasn't a chevy2 though but a 64 Dodge Dart, I used to have a 74 nova though.

reply to post by cosmicexplorer


Ah...those pesky background checks.

Being born into a career military family and moving every two years, dropping out of High School and enlisting, (Yes, I did finish school and have took many college courses) and continuing to move every two-three years over the next decades always had the investigators scratching their heads whenever I needed to upgrade my clearance or get it renewed.

Being a law abiding citizen there was not much to find even when I furnished them with all the data required.

All to often I heard the statement, "We can't find anything on you except for one bounced check...What are you hiding?"

It almost cost me my clearance rating while they continued digging. Still didn't find anything though.

It's a sad day when the authorities deny you a right because they can't find anything to brand you with. Which they would then use to deny you your right anyways.

reply to post by dave_welch


Ah! I see it now....Tough to differentiate from the angle of your photo...At least I got the year right! That should make up for the mistakes of my old age.....LOL

Originally posted by GoOfYFoOt
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

 

I agree on both counts...And these are not isolated stories, either. Here in my county, deputies are required to shoot 100 rounds every year for their re-qual...I shoot that in 10 minutes at the range!

But, why, other than conditioning, would a person ignorant of these facts about LEOs and Military members, not even consider that regular citizens might have umpteen times the training and weapons discipline, of those whose JOB requires the use of a weapon?

As a civilian, I had to fire 500 rounds a year at re-qual. 250 rounds practice, then another 250 on a modified FBI course. The really amusing thing is that to maintain my certification, I had to shoot 80% or better as a civilian. Police could maintain their certification with only 70%

That's right - as a civilian contractor, I had to qualify to HIGHER standards than police, by law.

Ponder that in light of the OP's question.