Author Topic: President Bush signed the police nationwide CCW bill!!! (Read 4446 times)

Mac11700 · « **Reply #60 on:** September 17, 2004, 03:55:50 PM »

I'll say this... and then move on...that by allowing all current LEO's and retired LEO's to carry concealed is a good 1st step to gaining our rights back....rights that have diluted down even before the ink dried on the parchment it was written on...

Should everyone be allowed to carry concealed...if you can prove your compitent enough...yes...if your not a felon...yes...and this should be nation wide as well.......but I feel that the testing for this isn't stringent enough...I've seen some folks at the ranges I go to,getting ready to go qualify to carry concealed...that really shouldn't be carying any gun....do I consider this an eletist veiwpoint...no I don't...but to some here they think that it's ok for someone like the people I'm talking about to carry concealed....and that is a scary thought....but......this is a reality never the less...that even these people.... should be allowed to...if one is to believe in the constitution.

For such a long time...we gun owners have been put down...mistrusted...and always forgotten...till elction time rolls around...then they need our votes...and now the time has come to put us on equal footing with the rest of the country....who lest we forget...holds the majority of votes...wouldn't it seem prudent..to take the right steps to ensure all of those that really aren't anti's...but...still don't own or shoot guns...that we aren't all a bunch of armed wacko's.......because this is also the reality of our situation...this... IS...how most of them see us....

There isn't any law that can't be changed...and with a majority of votes...even the constitution can be changed...that is the way a Democracy works...the last thing we need... is to be divided and fight amongst ourselves...we do have a right to bear arms...unfortunatly...the majority doesn't believe it and is doing their best to keep us from it...it's up to us...to make damn sure those among us that shouldn't don't....and that means tougher but fair rules to be able to...from the start...and that's just plain common sense...

Mac

Haywire Haywood · « **Reply #61 on:** September 17, 2004, 04:25:16 PM »

My opinion of the original subject remains the same. CCW for all LEOs, active and retired I think is a good thing for it's intended purpose. How I choose to see it is not to mean "LEOs can protect themselves and everyone else can't" but rather "Here is an extra level of police presence where there otherwise might not be, and we don't have spend money hiring more active duty to accomplish it." Where it might fall short is ex- LEOs who chose to leave the service for other than disciplinary reasons. They have the same training. Military MPs who get out of service after a hitch or two might be a good example of this. This would complicate tracking of qualified individuals tho. I do think that if retired LEOs choose to carry that they should be required to periodically requalify with their sidearm and take weekend "refresher" courses on Crisis Management as they are distanced from their active service period. What you don't use, you lose over time.

As far as the 2nd amendment goes, as I have read it over the years, it was plain to me that the framers were talking about the ability to raise an impromptu army to protect the young America in the absence of a standing army. This was the original intent of the amendment. However, when you look at this and other similarly worded legal/political documents of the time, they often first stated justification for a law before stating the law. The justification phrase was not intended to limit the law itself, only to explain to the reader the original reason for enacting it. Hence, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" is the law. It is what was being enacted. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is, as I understand it now, a justification clause, letting the reader in the day know why the law was enacted but not limiting the law itself to only that reason.

If you haven't read the paper, I encourage you to do so. It's interesting.

These are my opinions, which are apparently subject to change at a moment's notice if a good enough arguement is presented.

Ian

Edit: Typo correction

Mac11700 · « **Reply #62 on:** September 17, 2004, 07:45:13 PM »

Haywire:

It wasn't just for raising a free army.. let us not forget....the colonist were being disarmed by the occupying troops...and the intent was to insure that all freemen the ability to have wepons...not only to fight...but to survive...there wasn't any supermarkets around :wink: ....and since money wasn't even regulated then...if you weren't a buisnessman,or a man of means as they used to say...you had to put food on the table....the whole pretense of the 2nd Admendment as a way of raising an army if false...read the Madison Papers...and several others of that period and you'll see what and why it is worded the way it is,even then it was a compromise to those who didn't want the commom man to have guns.....while I am not a constitutional scholar by no-means....I have read quite a-bit on it.

Mac

Haywire Haywood · « **Reply #63 on:** September 18, 2004, 03:09:35 AM »

Thanks Mac, I've never heard of the Madison Papers, I'll see if I can find it on the internet somewhere.

Ian

Brett · « **Reply #64 on:** September 18, 2004, 04:12:32 AM »

If you guys want to do an indepth and extensive study of the 2nd Amendment I suggest that you pick up a copy of The Second Amendment Primer - A citizen's guidebook to the history, sources, and authorities for the constitutional guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms by Les Adams.

Mitch in MI · « **Reply #65 on:** September 18, 2004, 04:19:58 AM »

Quote from: MSP Ret

Current or honorably discharged/retired police officers who have been impowered with the powers of arrest indicates a degree of training that ordinary citizens/civilians do not possess.
Training and experience is the key here, as is the increased safety and security of the citizens and the country.

It's good to know the guys in these news articles from yesterday are highly trained in the proper usage of firearms:
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/nyc-nyshot173974975sep17,0,1386782.story?coll=ny-nynews-headlines

http://www.theksbwchannel.com/news/3741257/detail.html

http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/4985791.html

The first link, about a negligent discharge into a friend's head from a few feet away, is the sort of thing I read about every week. Total numbers of negligent homicide by LEOs are similar to the number of officers killed in action nationwide. When they commit negligent homicide despite all their training, they usually get a free pass on criminal charges, when an untrained citizen making the same mistake would go to prison.

There are also those (I personally know one) who were allowed to resign with a clean record in lieu of felony charges. Now these felons (the one I know is an ill-tempered and violent grade-A jackass, something more common in a cop than the public at large) get national CCW.

quickdtoo · « **Reply #66 on:** September 18, 2004, 05:18:35 AM »

Quote from: Mitch in MI

Quote from: MSP Ret
Current or honorably discharged/retired police officers who have been impowered with the powers of arrest indicates a degree of training that ordinary citizens/civilians do not possess.
Training and experience is the key here, as is the increased safety and security of the citizens and the country.

It's good to know the guys in these news articles from yesterday are highly trained in the proper usage of firearms:
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/nyc-nyshot173974975sep17,0,1386782.story?coll=ny-nynews-headlines

http://www.theksbwchannel.com/news/3741257/detail.html

http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/4985791.html

The first link, about a negligent discharge into a friend's head from a few feet away, is the sort of thing I read about every week. Total numbers of negligent homicide by LEOs are similar to the number of officers killed in action nationwide. When they commit negligent homicide despite all their training, they usually get a free pass on criminal charges, when an untrained citizen making the same mistake would go to prison.

There are also those (I personally know one) who were allowed to resign with a clean record in lieu of felony charges. Now these felons (the one I know is an ill-tempered and violent grade-A jackass, something more common in a cop than the public at large) get national CCW.

The one thing they all have in common is they're all rookies, hardly veterans with 15yrs of service.

Mitch in MI · « **Reply #67 on:** September 18, 2004, 08:04:40 AM »

Quote from: quickdtoo

The one thing they all have in common is they're all rookies, hardly veterans with 15yrs of service.

Maybe so, but they all have the magic training that makes them superior to us peasants.

The a*hole I mentioned does have the required 15 years, but he's still one of the top 10 a*holes I've met in my life. He was allowed to quit with a clean record before he had 15 years, the sheriff lost the next election two years later, and the next sheriff rehired him, not knowing of his unwritten record. He's since retired a 2nd time, and qualifies as a CCW holding felon in all 50 states. Judging from the frequency with which cops are getting arrested these days, I hope there won't be many more where he came from. 15-20 years ago, police administrators seemed much more eager to sweep embarassing crimes under the rug if the perp wore a badge.

Brett · « **Reply #68 on:** September 18, 2004, 09:04:55 AM »

So Mitch in MI, your saying that 9 out of the 10 top a#$holes on your list are not cops (or fully 90%), Hmmm. So what do the other 9 do for a living? Cops are people, you got good ones and bad ones just like in the general populace. If a cop gets caught doing something illegal or stupid it's front page news, if 'Joe Shmo' does the same thing it's berried on page three. Cops are held to a higher standard and rightfully so, partially because they are armed most of the time.

.308 · « **Reply #69 on:** September 18, 2004, 11:19:36 AM »

Mitch in MI wrote:
He's since retired a 2nd time, and qualifies as a CCW holding felon in all 50 states. Judging from the frequency with which cops are getting arrested these days, I hope there won't be many more where he came from.

My question to you Mitch is, do you have a problem with this particular cop or cops in general? Hopefully it's just him. I'm just curious. Another thing, have you ever been in a situation where you had to point a firearm at another person to protect yourself or another person? Do you believe police officers WANT to hold someone at gunpoint? I doubt they do, I sure don't. Sure it's news when a stand-off ends in someone getting hurt of killed, but seldom is when it doesn't.

I thought the CCW for officers was a good thing, and asking MSP Ret if he knew about it all I was trying to do, not start a controversy, or make it sound like I was flippin' off the 2nd Amendment. You see if I go packin' without a CCW here in my home state I can get busted, and outside this state same deal. I don't feel 'special or priviledged' because of what I do for a living. It's a job, and the liberal anti everything news media doesn't make it any easier. I'll tell you this if you're down here in my neck of the woods and are needin' some help, I hope it's me that takes the call. I promise I won't be a smarta$$.

Take care,
Lamar

Mitch in MI · « **Reply #70 on:** September 19, 2004, 02:18:31 AM »

Quote from: Brett

So Mitch in MI, your saying that 9 out of the 10 top a#$holes on your list are not cops (or fully 90%), Hmmm. So what do the other 9 do for a living?

Brett, I mentioned one a*hole. Anything else you infer is just putting words in my mouth to further some straw-man arguement to prove that some guy you never met might not be an a*hole because I must be somehow biased. If you really care, I don't know ten cops. Two former cops would be on my top ten list, the one I mentioned fairly low on the list, and another one who is number one more because of some things he did as a politician than his career as a cop.
I do believe that where I live, it used to be quite common for sheriffs who wished to be re-elected to cover up the misdeeds of their employees, but there now seems to be a willingness to clean out the bad seeds.
I just fail to see how granting special privledges to special people helps the rest of us. The police unions have a history of campaigning against our rights whenever their rights are not at stake, I prefer to keep them in the same boat with us so they (FOP, etc) don't try to sink us. (The FOP was in favor of the ban on gun ownership for domestic violence misdemeanors until they found out they weren't exempt, as they are from the prohibition on felon in possession.)

Brett · « **Reply #71 on:** September 19, 2004, 02:40:38 AM »

I wasn't inferring that the cop you know was not an a#$hole, he could very well be one. The only inference I was making is that you seem to base your opinion of all cops on this one a#$hole cop that you know. I was curious as to whether or not you make the same assumption regarding all who share the same professions as the other nine a#$holes on your list? I will have to agree with you about police 'brass' and union leaders being antigun, mostly due to their political aspirations. However they do not speak for the majority of rank and file police officers. I'm sure MSP Ret and .308 will back me on that.

gwhilikerz · « **Reply #72 on:** September 19, 2004, 04:07:09 AM »

Brett I'm not sure either MSP Ret or .308 will back anyone about this thread. I figure they are both pretty tired of us and this discussion. I know I am tired of it.

IntrepidWizard · « **Reply #73 on:** September 19, 2004, 04:45:08 AM »

forget it guys,there are those who hate cops because they are law breakers and there are those who have a bad impression,all want a cop when they are in trouble.

.308 · « **Reply #74 on:** September 19, 2004, 05:27:28 AM »

Quote from: IntrepidWizard

forget it guys,there are those who hate cops because they are law breakers and there are those who have a bad impression,all want a cop when they are in trouble.

Sir,
Forgotten. You 'bout nailed it with that post, IMHO.

Brett,
Fortunately I'm not with a big metro dept. where the administrators for the most part started at or near the top and never WORKED their way up through the ranks, so yes I do agree with you from where I sit.

This sure has been one hum-dinger of a thread. Making folks 'puke', mercy.

TOMMYY01 · « **Reply #75 on:** September 19, 2004, 10:00:47 AM »

Come on yall. As far as I'm concerned, the reason is simply there is a shortage of police. It's well documented. Since the sixties, drugs and the like has caused this type of thing to manifest itself. Sure, you have some people that have an attitude problem, but since 9-11 it has become paramount. People here in the USA have no conception of what terrorism is like. It has been only what they see on TV. People that have sreved in the military and have been overseas know and all those briefings you have had. Then you have these hosebags that are going to rob you, no matter what. Personally, I don't want an assault weapon. Since I was a BRM instructor for 15 yrs in the Army, I had my fill of them. They are NOT a hunting weapon. These weapons are killing weapons and meant to kill people. :eek: I would not have one because I love to hunt animals, not humans.You probably wouldn't want to hunt with them anyway. The simple fact that these weapons shoot at such a velocity that when it hits bone the bullet tumbles and does havoc where ever it goes. Noone in their right mind would want to shell out over 1500.00 dollars to get one.
Just let me have my NEF/HR, Savage, Rem., Win., and the like.I'm not going to side with one or the other, but what I see is a starting of the anti's
to start something to divide and conquer the gun law-abiding people so that they can eventually ban every gun in every AMERICAN HOUSEHOLD.
Just my 2 cents worth. tommy

Mitch in MI · « **Reply #76 on:** September 19, 2004, 11:42:33 AM »

Quote from: IntrepidWizard

forget it guys,there are those who hate cops because they are law breakers and there are those who have a bad impression,all want a cop when they are in trouble.

Speak for yourself, I want a GUN when I'm in trouble. I know the cops have no legal duty to protect me, and the Bible orders me to protect myself and my own.

If I'm the "cop hater" you are talking about (and MSP went after me on another thread today claiming that he "knows" I "don't like cops"), let me ask you this:

Does thinking my mother has as much right to defend herself as a cop make me a cop hater? (I oppose the gov't giving off-duty and retired cops self-defense rights that she doesn't have)
Does thinking that killing my mom is just as bad as killing a homosexual make me a homophobe? (I also oppose laws making it a "hate crime" to kill a homo)
Does thinking that killing my mom is as bad as killing the president make me a politician hater? (I oppose making it a federal offense to kill a politician when it isn't one to kill my mother. I also hate politicians pretty uniformly, but that's coincidental to the subject)

Do you get it yet that what I really hate is "special laws for special people"?

I should have one of my retired buddies talk to you guys. He's a former state trooper, recently retired from guarding our state's House of Representatives. (talk about horrible jobs, he's had to listen to ex-Rep Laura Baird on a daily basis) Doesn't hunt or own a Handi-rifle, but he shoots a pretty good round of PPC with one of his custom 1911s. He's a guy I'd trust with a gun anytime, but I still don't think he should be held superior to me under the law.

Haywire Haywood · « **Reply #77 on:** September 19, 2004, 12:54:23 PM »

So, Mitch in Mich, do ya also think that ex-presidents shouldn't have secret service protection unless your mom can have it too? That's special treatment for special people too ya know.

Ian

Mitch in MI · « **Reply #78 on:** September 19, 2004, 02:26:36 PM »

Quote from: Haywire Haywood

So, Mitch in Mich, do ya also think that ex-presidents shouldn't have secret service protection unless your mom can have it too? That's special treatment for special people too ya know.

It sure is, and there's absolutely no reason for it. When was the last time somebody tried to off a retired politician? This makes even less sense than Kissinger demanding personal SS protection when he was working for Nixon.
And to top it all off, they get to charge the SS rent for being there.

Haywire Haywood · « **Reply #79 on:** September 19, 2004, 02:58:19 PM »

:shock:

Lefty Behind · « **Reply #80 on:** September 19, 2004, 03:27:32 PM »

Mitch said "Speak for yourself, I want a GUN when I'm in trouble. I know the cops have no legal duty to protect me, and the Bible orders me to protect myself and my own. "

So Mitch, you're a bible scholar too? Amazing. One question for you. Where does the bible say that you are ordered (or even asked) to protect yourself? Hehe What a joke.

I'm a retired police officer. I'm tickled pink that our president has enough respect for my years of service to allow me to continue some small way in that capacity.

MGMorden · « **Reply #81 on:** September 19, 2004, 03:45:21 PM »

Quote from: TOMMYY01

I don't want an assault weapon. Since I was a BRM instructor for 15 yrs in the Army, I had my fill of them. They are NOT a hunting weapon. These weapons are killing weapons and meant to kill people. :eek:

Many anti's would say the same of a Handi-Rifle. The bottom line is that most of what the AWB outlawed was cosmetic. A carry handle, barrel shroud, and a bayonet? Yeah, those make a weapon really bad.

Quote from: TOMMYY01

The simple fact that these weapons shoot at such a velocity that when it hits bone the bullet tumbles and does havoc where ever it goes.

Umm, most "assault weapons" that I know of shoot .223 Rem/5.56 NATO, .308, or 7.62x39. The first two are also available in a Handi-Rifle and the later is the ballistic twin of a .30-30, which is also available in a Handi (and is not a high velocity round). Are you going to tell me that the bullet from an "assault weapon" magically gets more lethal than the same round fired from a break or bolt action? :roll:

Quote from: TOMMYY01

No one in their right mind would want to shell out over 1500.00 dollars to get one.

1500.00? The SKS is classified as an assault weapon by many states (a standard Yugo SKS is illegal in California for example). These can be had for less than $100 (and BTW, I had a cousin take a nice 4-point 2 weeks ago with an SKS. Performance was perfect). Even the much maligned Bushmaster rifles cost closer to $600-700. CETME's and FAL's run about the same or a little less. I don't know where you're pulling that $1500 figure from, unless you're listening to the media again and believing that the AWB was talking about fully automatic weapons.

Fred M · « **Reply #82 on:** September 19, 2004, 05:29:10 PM »

MGMorden.
For a young guy you are ok and have lot good sense. I don't know anything about those weapons and would not have one as gift. But if some guy likes one he should be able to get one. They are no different than any other gun fully auto or not. Besides if somebody wants a full auto weapon it is easey to make one from varous components even by hand with a bit of moxy. Fred M.

Mitch in MI · « **Reply #83 on:** September 20, 2004, 01:28:26 AM »

Quote from: Lefty Behind

Where does the bible say that you are ordered (or even asked) to protect yourself? Hehe What a joke.

Sorry, that was Talmud, not Old Testament. Tractate Barachot, pages 58A and 62B.
I was thinking the same idea was expressed in Exodus 22, but upon checking, my translation merely states that it's OK to kill criminals to protect your family, not explicitly that you HAVE to do it. See Genesis 14 for a lesson in what to do when somebody kidnaps a member of your family.

TOMMYY01 · « **Reply #84 on:** September 20, 2004, 10:37:19 AM »

I've seen what the 7.62 will do to the human body. This viet cong was shot in the leg and the bullet traveled up the torso and came out the shoulder. It literally blew his whole shoulder off. Not a pretty sight, I might add. I also used to be a sniper, and that is where the action is at. I just prefer the non-automatic weapons.
tommy

MGMorden · « **Reply #85 on:** September 20, 2004, 11:59:37 AM »

Quote from: TOMMYY01

I've seen what the 7.62 will do to the human body. This viet cong was shot in the leg and the bullet traveled up the torso and came out the shoulder. It literally blew his whole shoulder off. Not a pretty sight, I might add. I also used to be a sniper, and that is where the action is at. I just prefer the non-automatic weapons.
tommy

Yeah, it will do a lot of damage to a person (I'm assuming you're talking 7.62 NATO here), however, 7.62 NATO is VASTLY outclassed in terms of power when compared to common hunting cartridges. Compared to a .300 Weatherby the 7.62 NATO (virtually the same as .308 Winchester. Only difference is slightly different pressure levels) is a darn near wimpy round. There's also the fact the 7.62 NATO can be fired from many, MANY bolt action hunting rifles chambered in .308 Winchester (most modern actions are plenty strong enough). That bolt action is throwing the same bullet as a M-14, and at the same speeds (or likely higher as bolts actions often have longer barrels than military infantry rifles). I'm certainly not saying it won't do damage, but to try and seperate it out as something more powerful than a hunting cartridge just doesn't work (and in fact, the reverse is often true).

And virtually all "assault weapons" are non-automatic. Every law that's been written in regards to an assault weapon specifically names them as SEMI-automatic weapons. Automatics are not included and fall under completely different laws (specifically, the GCA of 1934).

IntrepidWizard · « **Reply #86 on:** September 20, 2004, 01:15:59 PM »

I shoot 7.62's in my 06.And I know what a 06 can do to a human body.The term "Assault Weapon" is a term we gun people can't work with or now get around.A Brown Bess was a assault weapon.My fork in your eye is a assault weapon.The Demos have Bastardized the Terms so bad we can't discuss it with them.

Mitch in MI · « **Reply #87 on:** September 21, 2004, 11:28:23 AM »

One good thing about the cops only CCW is that the dictator of Chicago is upset. I always love to see that creep get his panties in a knot, keeps him out of trouble for a while:
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/news/nl/read_comments.asp?nl=12105768152502&tmpD=

myronman3 · « **Reply #88 on:** September 23, 2004, 06:21:00 PM »

seems i go away for a bit and it hits the fan here.

MGMorden, you are a sharp cookie. never you mind the comment about "in all your 22 years". it was out of line ethical and factually. i love it when people try to silence ya on age. from my point of view, older just means you are closer to the grave.

the whole point here is that we are all equal. that is why some are worked up about it. because others already bought into thinking otherwise.

i think post 9-11, some things have to change. i would love to see all americans who are not felons and mentally fit carry concealed. nationwide. they get stupid, they get shot.

and as far as "needing cops to protect us". thing is, cops cant do squat 99% of the time until after something bad happens to you. not a slam, but this is the way it is. i think we all should be a lot more responsible for our own security and rely a whole lot less on others to do it. we as a nation have gotten way to complacent in this regard.

instead of getting personal digs in, i urge you guys to look at the meat of what MGMorden first said, echoed by g.b. these guys get it. i know what the other side of the discussion is saying, but we already have that right. why pass two laws that say the same thing?

the fact is it is our right to carry, and i do. i also take responsibility for my security, and for my actions.

and as far as the personal digs (even the small ones), come on, guys. it speaks poorly about the person making the comments. lets keep our contributions to valuable material here, please.

lostone1413 · « **Reply #89 on:** September 25, 2004, 02:00:51 PM »

myronman3 I'm with you on that.After GWB signed 218 I had to reread the 2nd amendment. Unless my eyes are totally gone no place could I see for LEOs only