Cops in the District of Criminals Get Semi-Auto Carbines

imported post

LEO 229 beat me to it.



Let officers carry what they need, but on the same hand, let me carry what I need also.

imported post

41 Magnum wrote:

LEO 229 beat me to it.



Let officers carry what they need, but on the same hand, let me carry what I need also.

Click to expand...

Absolutely... all law abiding citizens should be allowed to defend themselves!!

Unfortunately... some governments think otherwise.

When seconds matter... the police are only about6 minutes away.

imported post

As this discussion has developed, what I said which was called "the most ridiculous thing I have heard here all day" has basically been supported. I never said an LEO should NEVER have a rifle.

As I said in another thread a while back about officers being issued rifles, I have no objection to it in general (and by the way, I was using SBR the same way Imperialism was as "scary black rifle" rather than "short barreled rifle). I named some specific location where LE has actively petitioned and testified to gov't to infringe upon citizen rights to bear arms. In those locations I object to officers being armed to the teeth while simultaneously working very hard to disarm LAC as I said. They can make due with their sidearms until they realize that if they are outgunned then so are disarmed LAC. When they start to actively petition gov't to support citizen rights I will also actively support their 2A rights. There are and should be consequences of actions.

Also, as I alluded but perhaps did not clarify, in areas where LE is not actively working to make LACs victims, by all means they should be allowed to carry anything legal for any other citizen to carry. I'm not any more afraid of a fellow citizen who works as LEO having a scary black rifle than I am of my neighbor having one in an area where there is a mutual respect of our individual rights as citizens. I am, on the other hand, very concerned about the motivations of a PD that actively works to have handguns, shotguns, rifles, pepper spray, tazers, bullet proof vests and black ski masks while asking the gov't to infringe upon my rights to have any of these things myself, let alone carry or use them.

imported post

And unfortunately, many officers want to further disarm citizens, even though they don't want the same laws to apply to them when they retire or are off duty.

imported post

Johnny Law wrote:

Pointman wrote:

What I find obnoxiously amazing is the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act allows officers to carry weapons nationally because they're trained in firearms usage and need to remain "safe," even though there are local officers to protect them, yet military personnel, who are far better trained than SWAT teams, are stripped of weapons in every possible way by the government.

Click to expand...

There is another aspect to this that you may have missed. It is the simple fact that if an Officer is qualified to carry a weapon on and off duty in a specific area, why should they not be able to do so in another state or area.

An off duty Officer retains all the powers of an on duty Officer, and can exercise them anytime even outside their jurisdiction. What LEOSA does is provide an added layer of covert Police coverage, without costing anyone more money. It increases the chances that there will be an off duty Cop whocan deal with a dangerous situation at any given place and time.

I take exception to "military personnel" being far better trained than Swat teams, or even your average Cop for that matter.
Military personnel are trained to operate with firearms in a specific (wartime) environment and have a very different objective. As for training, we are talking about two very different objectives. "Friendly fire" is an accepted fact in the Military, but is absolutely not acceptable inany Police realm. The shoot/don't shoot standards are very different.

A soldier may be more proficient on a battlefield, but city streets are not a war zone, and require different more refined tactics.

Click to expand...

So by your theory, since I am qualified to carry a weapon, at least the military though so and Washington State thinks soand I have the same self protection needs as a cop, I should be able to carry anywhere in the country. FYI soldiers are way more proficent at clearing buildings in an urban enviorment than any cop can hope to be. I suppose you think the cities in Iraq are not cities and thetroopsnever clear buildings there way frickin' more often than is done here at home.?

imported post

[align=center]SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED[/align]
[align=center][/align]
[align=left]Personally, I believe that cops should be forced to follow the same requirements that the citizens are. I bet once the DC LEOs had to start carrying dissassembled .22s and keep their ammo in the trunk of their squad cars, they would be leading the fight to get pro 2A laws passed. see a "no guns" sign, the cops should have to leave their sidearms at the door, just like us. same thing goes for the men who protect celebrities, senators and the president. once O'Donnells body guard had to coer her with a slingshot, or Hillarys men had to lay down suppresion fire with water balloons to keep those Bosnian snipers at bay, they might realize that it is ignorant to be unprotected.[/align]
[align=left][/align]
[align=left]As Doug keeps saying, we are all equal, or we are not. I for one believe that "special privilege laws" for the police should be done away with, but that's just me. yes, they may need to draw a weapon one day in order to defend their lifes from someone that they put away 10 years ago, but we may have to do the same to someone that they didn't catch 10 days ago.[/align]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Johnny Law wrote:

I choose to carry a .45 and an ar-15 because thay arehighly effective tools that help me accomplish my job. I also have the good fortune to work for an agency that recognizes the value of good tools. I have been on countless calls with my rifle and I can tell you that an assault rifle has saved my life at least once.

Here is the deal; the Police do not have to play "fair". Bg brings a knife, we bring a pistol. Bg brings a pistol, we bring a rifle. Bg brings a rifle, we bring every Cop in the vicinity and their rifles.

We do not respond to calls hoping to win a gunfight. We go in with the upper hand, and usuallysuperior firepower. This is what gets the job done, and you home safe at the end of shift.

It's not the Police's job toensure a fair fight, it's our job to shut down the bg no matter what.

Click to expand...

Granted that what you have said is 100% accurate... some do not like that YOU have a rifle at all. You have to justify that you even need it and this means your department must have first fallen victim to something first in the past 5 years.

You are not allowed to plan ahead and your department is just power hungry withofficers wanting rifles for the fun of it.

If the citizens cannot have one than why should the police!? What's good for the goose is good for the gander!! :uhoh:

So in a sense..members here want to disarm the police so the policetoo can fall victim to criminalacts. This way there is no "privileged class" of citizen out there.

The solution? Allow all citizensto be armed with the same firepower first.

Click to expand...

I certainly do not object to the local police having EBRs. I am concernedabout the attitude change from peace officer to law enforcement that sometimes happens when military rifles go in the trunk. Militarization of police is bad not because of the more effective tools that are made available. Militarization of police is bad because of the changed attitude that the rifle in the trunk often brings. Police that loose sight of their community policing and evidence gathering mandate have lost the battle before the first shot is fired.

imported post

Thundar wrote:

I certainly do not object to the local police having EBRs. I am concernedabout the attitude change from peace officer to law enforcement that sometimes happens when military rifles go in the trunk. Militarization of police is bad not because of the more effective tools that are made available. Militarization of police is bad because of the changed attitude that the rifle in the trunk often brings. Police that loose sight of their community policing and evidence gathering mandate have lost the battle before the first shot is fired.

Click to expand...

Care to provide some details on this? Do you know people that know people? Or have you spoke to some cop friends and found them to be more "macho" immediately after they load up the trunk?

I speak from experience and I do not know that I have ever seen any officer become more "monster like" or believe he is "Robocop" or even in the military after loading up his car.

Hell, even the guys that carry the shields do not pull them out just for kicks. The gear including shotguns, photo equipment, and CSI stuff all gets tossed in the trunk and stays there unless it is needed.

Maybe you think LEOs day dream that.... TODAY might be the day I get to use x,y, and maybe Z!!!!

To you.... it is a gun.. a weapon of death!! To us cops surrounded by a ton of guns... it is just another gun. One used for a special purpose.

So you lose me when you state alleging attitude seems to surface with a gun in the trunk.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Thundar wrote:

I certainly do not object to the local police having EBRs. I am concernedabout the attitude change from peace officer to law enforcement that sometimes happens when military rifles go in the trunk. Militarization of police is bad not because of the more effective tools that are made available. Militarization of police is bad because of the changed attitude that the rifle in the trunk often brings. Police that loose sight of their community policing and evidence gathering mandate have lost the battle before the first shot is fired.

Click to expand...

Care to provide some details on this? Do you know people that know people? Or have you spoke to some cop friends and found them to be more "macho" immediately after they load up the trunk?

I speak from experience and I do not know that I have ever seen any officer become more "monster like" or believe he is "Robocop" or even in the military after loading up his car.

Hell, even the guys that carry the shields do not pull them out just for kicks. The gear including shotguns, photo equipment, and CSI stuff all gets tossed in the trunk and stays there unless it is needed.

Maybe you think LEOs day dream that.... TODAY might be the day I get to use x,y, and maybe Z!!!!

To you.... it is a gun.. a weapon of death!! To us cops surrounded by a ton of guns... it is just another gun. One used for a special purpose.

So you lose me when you state alleging attitude seems to surface with a gun in the trunk.

Click to expand...

I speak as an analyst that specializes in security policy. We have just finished a research paper on community policing.

If your mindset is that it is just another piece of gear in the trunk, then you are part of the solution, not part of the problem.

I never said that a rifle in the trunk made a person a monster or robocop like. I certainly hope that no cop dreams of using the rifle.

Yourassertion about the military rifle not influencing any police officers is incorrect. The influence of military gear and tactics does have a detrimental effect upon some police officers attitude toward community policing. The military gear and tactics effect is greater upon those in large forces, in federal forces andpolice without military experience.

imported post

I do feel more macho with my Kalashnikov sitting in the trunk of my car. :celebrate

imported post

Thundar wrote:

I speak as an analyst that specializes in security policy. We have just finished a research paper on community policing.

If your mindset is that it is just another piece of gear in the trunk, then you are part of the solution, not part of the problem.

I never said that a rifle in the trunk made a person a monster or robocop like. I certainly hope that no cop dreams of using the rifle.

Yourassertion about the military rifle not influencing any police officers is incorrect. The influence of military gear and tactics does have a detrimental effect upon some police officers attitude toward community policing. The military gear and tactics effect is greater upon those in large forces, in federal forces andpolice without military experience.

Click to expand...

The robocop thing was just for fun.

I find what your saying a little hard to swallow so easily... Please provide us with some type of documentation to back what your saying.

Departments have far more military gear than you may know... I have not seen any "transformation" of attitude that would be detrimental to the public the police serve.

What I do see is "Damn! More stuff I have to put in the car? This sucks!"

imported post

Thundar wrote:

I certainly do not object to the local police having EBRs. I am concernedabout the attitude change from peace officer to law enforcement that sometimes happens when military rifles go in the trunk. Militarization of police is bad not because of the more effective tools that are made available. Militarization of police is bad because of the changed attitude that the rifle in the trunk often brings. Police that loose sight of their community policing and evidence gathering mandate have lost the battle before the first shot is fired.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I (and many other Officers)hada rifle from day one of my career. There is no attitude change, as the rifles have been there all along. I had a .223 in my car when the famous North Hollywood shootout took place (1997) and found it unnerving that the Officers involved didn't.

As for Community Policing, it is more of a fantasy than a reality, as there aren't enough Officers to do any real Community Policing. There are too many calls for service, and not enough Officers, funding, or time in a day. This has nothing to do with what tools are in a patrol vehicle however.

Here is a small sampling of what you may find in my or other Officer's car trunks. Tactical vests, heavy armor, pasgt helmets, gas masks, full biohazard/hazmat suits, scba's, full riot gear, bolt cutters, camelbacks, extra ammo (lots), mre's, water, shotguns, ar-15's, select-fire smg's (including silenced), short barrel rifles, .308 assault rifles, .308 sniper rifles, and .50 cal sniper rifles.

These are allitems to help Officers accomplish their jobs safely and effectively. it is very reassuring to know that one has the tools and training to handle whatever comes along. If you think these items never get used you are wrong.

Bg's arefrequently armed with rifles, and consequently, the Police are armed with the proper tools to handle any situation.

imported post

Going to obviously agree with Johnny Law....

"As for Community Policing, it is more of a fantasy than a reality, as there aren't enough Officers to do any real Community Policing"

And this whole community policing thing is just a touchy feel good tactic to make some members of the community happy.

Members of my agency are assigned police service assignments where we are supposed to handle and look into daily if not hourlyon specific community complaints like parking, soliciting, or other minor BS stuff.

That is all good but when you have regular calls for service coming in and reports to write... these ongoing complaints that must also be handled are just too much at times.

Having rifles are not to make the community fear the police or help the officer feel like a big man. Having that rifle is no different than a citizen packing his daddy's shotgun in a gun rack of his pickup. If he needs it... it is there. It does not make the citizen feel like a tough guy and it really is no big deal.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Having rifles are not to make the community fear the police or help the officer feel like a big man. Having that rifle is no different than a citizen packing his daddy's shotgun in a gun rack of his pickup. If he needs it... it is there. It does not make the citizen feel like a tough guy and it really is no big deal.

Click to expand...

Again, I absolutely agree. LEO on the street should be able to own and/or carry any firearm that the citizens within his/her jurisdiction are allowed to own and/or carry.

imported post

deepdiver wrote:

Again, I absolutely agree. LEO on the street should be able to own and/or carry any firearm that the citizens within his/her jurisdiction are allowed to own and/or carry.

Click to expand...

Johnny Law wrote:

Here is a small sampling of what you may find in my or other Officer's car trunks. Tactical vests, heavy armor, pasgt helmets, gas masks, full biohazard/hazmat suits, scba's, full riot gear, bolt cutters, camelbacks, extra ammo (lots), mre's, water, shotguns, ar-15's, select-fire smg's (including silenced), short barrel rifles, .308 assault rifles, .308 sniper rifles, and .50 cal sniper rifles.

Click to expand...

Wikipedia:

The Heckler & Koch MP5 submachine gun is widely used by law enforcement tactical teams and military forces.

Click to expand...

deepdiver, I wanna live in your jurisdiction!

imported post

Ajetpilot wrote:

deepdiver, I wanna live in your jurisdiction!

Click to expand...

LMAO - I didn't say that is what happens in my jurisdiction, it is just my belief about how things SHOULD be in every LE jurisdiction in this nation.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Pointman wrote:

I have to wonder what gives the governmentthe abilityto guns the citizens have no ability to possess. What gives an officer, who is a citizen, more rights than an individual just because they are employed by the government?

If citizens can't have certain guns, the same goes for citizens that are law enforcement officers. Period.

The fact is that officers, and citizens, should not be disarmed.

Click to expand...

It is called a "law" and to any law there can be exemptions.

Your argument that an officer who is a "citizen" of a location that does not allow a citizen to do something should carry over to him as well. Ridiculous!! :banghead:

In Virginia, there is a code that allows the police to basicallynot obey certain traffic laws.

Click to expand...

Not so. Our country was founded because the citizens overthrew the government of England and declared their independence. It was the founders' belief that the people should have more power than the government, not the government should have more power than the people--in fact, they sited excessive governmental power as a potential problem.

People in the Wild West used to defend themselves without problem. When they formed towns they may have hired one towns-person as the local sheriff to settle disputes and perform duties for the citizens. When the citizens started to relinquish their rights to the sheriff and the court system, that's when the trouble set in, because people no longer had the ability to do "what was right."

Granted, in the movies some laws are needed to prevent a very rich person from strong-arming an entire town that's poor. In real life, poor people posses guns, and manage most things on their own.

In modern society, laws and sheriffs and courts are needed to prevent a strong person from picking on a weak person, mainly thanks to the weak person's neighbors being so self-centered. But that shouldn't give the officers the ability to do things citizens can't. Citizens can make an arrest as can officers, but officers can make an arrest with immunity, thanks to an overly complex court system.

We as a society really need to get back to standing up for what's right and putting everyone on equal ground. Government should have less involvement in our everyday lives. If that were the case, government wouldn't be so unfriendly--it would function as designed.

imported post

exactly. it is a documented fact, that as recently as one hundred years ago, most folks rarely had any personal contact with the federal government, except for once every ten years at census time. now, we can't even use the bathroom without filling out a federal form detailing how many sheets of TP we used, and their exact thread count...

while it doesn't seem tyrranical by todays standards, the standard 4473 form required for a gun purchase from a delaer would have made the founding fathers write out a declaration of independence part 2.

police are seen as public servants, not masters. the very idea that a city would be issuing requests for LEO to be allowed to carry "assault weapons", while at the same time the same city denies its citizenry the right to even carry a sidearm at all, well thats just despotism, pure and simple.

imported post

The only thing I can say is.... criminals using rifles are not acting in a manner to overthrow the government. They are committing crimes where they are stealing from the people.

The police are not concerned about the citizens being armed better but rather.... criminals having superior firepower.

How can you expect the police to go after the criminal when the criminal can easily kill them?

But I do like how many on here justify the actions of a criminal and agree to the disarming of the police based on the fact that the people should be able to overthrow the government. :uhoh: