Brady and law Enforcement

imported post

It would seem that the Reagon/Brady shooting would be a good example of how we can't depend on LE to protect us. Isn't the SS suppose to be the crack elite personal protection? Even they couldn't defend against an act of violence, and the attacker was right there amidst them.

The Brady Bunch expects the rest of us to rely on the average LEO to watch our backs?

No thank you, I'll pack my own protection.

imported post

Task Force 16 wrote:

It would seem that the Reagon/Brady shooting would be a good example of how we can't depend on LE to protect us. Isn't the SS suppose to be the crack elite personal protection? Even they couldn't defend against an act of violence, and the attacker was right there amidst them.

The Brady Bunch expects the rest of us to rely on the average LEO to watch our backs?

No thank you, I'll pack my own protection.

Click to expand...

To be fair a personally carried sidearm would not have given Reagan any protection in that situation either. If someone wants to get you and they do not care if they get away after the fact, they WILL get you.

imported post

My son-in-law's cousin is a local LEO in the tiny little town I live outside of here in the middle of nowhere Kansas. I've told him on several occasions that I had his back if he ever needed. I have discussed the RKBA with him and he's of the opinion that citizens should NOT have weapons. I keep asking him why not? but he's veary vague in his answers and opinions. Troublesome it is but he gladly accepted my support.

imported post

Their LER only works with the top ranking officer corp of the police departments. Most line LEOs do not support the Brady group.

A while back there was a big uproar because the national Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), donated a chunk of money to the Brady organization. A lot of Line LEOs objected strongly to this use of their dues.

There are a lot of LEOs that see the "Brady bunch" in very much the same light as members of this forum do.

Click to expand...

Please refrain from interpreting this as a bash, and please do not start bashing.

I think it's time to realize that belonging to the Fraternal Order of Police is practically equal to belonging to a gun control organization. All members of the FOP lend their collective voices to the organization. When the organization backs taking firearms away from the citizens, it is a gun control group.

This is a binary choice folks, and the FOP has often times chosen to be a ZERO just like the Brady, VPC and others of their mindset.

http://www.rangerfop.com/Guns%20release.doc

check out this "discussion" about the parks issue. Divided, yes. But, no attempt to "re-steer" the direction. No uproar or exodus from the lodge. For all the ballyhooing about supporting the 2nd and disapproving of the actions, that's it.

Passive acceptance.

There are archived previous discussions of this in which it came to light that some of the park rangers had busted local/state leos. FOIA confirmed 2 incidents, 1 of which is on my site. These people have a mindset that so long as THEY are armed, everything else is secondary.

"Guns for me, but not for thee".

Years ago we were told howLE would get behind national reciprocity if we supported it for LE.So, what group has come out and supported national citizen reciprocity? How about which LE groups have supported the Parks ban repeal?

If you're in law enforcement and reading this, you probably say that you support the rights to keepand bear arms. You may shoot regularly, or instruct, you may be a pillar of the community. Do you belong to FOP, or another organization which advocates for law enforcement and yet supports gun control?

I'd be genuinely interested to hear your rationalization for that.

More importantly, I'd be interested to know how we can end this division and bringour respective factions together to fight this.

imported post

Mr. Y wrote:

...SNIP

Click to expand...

More importantly, I'd be interested to know how we can end this division and bringour respective factions together to fight this.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I do not wish to foster a fight on this either, but membership in FOP means a lot more than firearms rights lobbying. Most LEOs are not single issue people. So just because an organization does not support a particular position on a single issue, that does not mean that the organization does not bring benefit to them in a lot more areas that are worth the trade off. Also remember that there is peer pressure to belong to that organization right from the top of most departments. So membership is not always as voluntary as you might think.

I personally am about as strong an advocate of firearms rights as you will find anywhere, however that does not mean that I will ignore everything else in favor of that single issue. I also support free speech, but I am not prepared to give up part of my free speech rights to expand my firearms rights. Same thing.


But it seems to me that uniting could starts LEAA), resists the FOP, NEAA, Brady, and even at times the NRA if the legislation is not inclusive.

To be fair the organization does maintain a tiered membership which in my view is wrong headed, but that distinction does not seem toimpact on their mission.

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

Mr. Y wrote:

...SNIP

Click to expand...

More importantly, I'd be interested to know how we can end this division and bringour respective factions together to fight this.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I do not wish to foster a fight on this either, but membership in FOP means a lot more than firearms rights lobbying. Most LEOs are not single issue people. So just because an organization does not support a particular position on a single issue, that does not mean that the organization does not bring benefit to them in a lot more areas that are worth the trade off. Also remember that there is peer pressure to belong to that organization right from the top of most departments. So membership is not always as voluntary as you might think.

I personally am about as strong an advocate of firearms rights as you will find anywhere, however that does not mean that I will ignore everything else in favor of that single issue. I also support free speech, but I am not prepared to give up part of my free speech rights to expand my firearms rights. Same thing.


But it seems to me that uniting could starts LEAA), resists the FOP, NEAA, Brady, and even at times the NRA if the legislation is not inclusive.

To be fair the organization does maintain a tiered membership which in my view is wrong headed, but that distinction does not seem toimpact on their mission.

Click to expand...

It may mean more to the members, but that membership necessarily means for us that those people are lending their support to an organization that supports gun control. All other issues and advocacy aside, that's the net effect. I don't see how free speech is implicated here. In a nutshell what I'm asking for is reationalization of professing to support the rights to keep and bear arms and belonging to, supporting and lobbying on behalf of a group which undermines those rights.

BTW, are members of the FOP frat boys & frat girls(is there such a thing?)

Anyway, my point here was that we've been way too tolerant of the ... lack of support from law enforcement for our rights.

If you think about it in abstract, LE actually spend a great deal of effort to either prevent you from exercising, suppressing or usurping your rights and curbing your freedom. Essentially, that is likely the outcome of a professional encounter - you'll either be persuaded to talk yourself into admitting guilt, or perhaps a search conducted under unclear circumstances that the courts back, etc. I'm sure it's happened, but when was the last time we had a sheriff or PD chief testifying "we need to repeal this law!" ? <- again, an abstract observation, that's it.

I'm not saying I have the answer, but maybe someone here does.

imported post

Mr. Y wrote:

...SNIP

Click to expand...

I'm not saying I have the answer, but maybe someone here does.

Click to expand...

I hear all these arguments all the time. I suspect that you are not LIVING this argument as much as MAKING it.

Are you careful not to shop at stores that support anti rights groups? Do you shop in places that prohibit firearms? The list goes on and on. I think you will find that Mikey D's is not a very firearms friendly organization and they do give money to organizations you would probably not like. Can you say MMM? Had a big Mac lately?

So before you slam an entire professional organization that has a HUGE list of issues it deals with, (firearms is just one of thousands) be certain YOU are already doing what you can in your life. FOP does a lot of other things that most people consider as good and necessary.

Look Mr. "Y" we do not need to fight over this. All I ask is that you keep in mind FOP provides support to widows, children, and families of slain LEOs and TONS of other things, so it is not all about firearms for them. Yes they stand up next to the Brady's on stage a few times a year, but that is no different than a lot of other outfits. Reagan did that too and he was pro firearms rights. Now if they were a single issue organization like Brady, HCI, MMM, or a bunch of others I would be right there with you, but they aren't.

Where I AM with you is that I am not a member of FOP. You, and Ican send them a message every year when they ask for donations.

Take a look at the link I provided and I think you will find an organizations that is doing what your first post said you were trying to do, foster a more unified front.

imported post

FOP::NRA

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

So before you slam an entire professional organization that has a HUGE list of issues it deals with, (firearms is just one of thousands) be certain YOU are already doing what you can in your life. FOP does a lot of other things that most people consider as good and necessary....

Click to expand...

As an FOP member in good standing, I agree.

imported post

ChickenFarmer wrote:

SNIP...
Also, wasn't Brady a SS agent that was shot by someone intending to assassinate Regan? HE was LE trying to protect a public figure and was shot by a normal citizen.

...SNIP

Click to expand...

The shooter, I thinkhis name was Hinkley,was NOT a NORMAL citizen, he was a mentally disturbed one who had not yet been adjudicated!

JoeSparky


Edited to add ..."I think his name was Hinkley"

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

Task Force 16 wrote:

It would seem that the Reagon/Brady shooting would be a good example of how we can't depend on LE to protect us. Isn't the SS suppose to be the crack elite personal protection? Even they couldn't defend against an act of violence, and the attacker was right there amidst them.

The Brady Bunch expects the rest of us to rely on the average LEO to watch our backs?

No thank you, I'll pack my own protection.

Click to expand...

To be fair a personally carried sidearm would not have given Reagan any protection in that situation either. If someone wants to get you and they do not care if they get away after the fact, they WILL get you.

Click to expand...

I understand that Hawkflyer. Along time ago I resigned myself to the fact that there are no garauntees in life, except death.

imported post

JoeSparky wrote:

ChickenFarmer wrote:

SNIP...
Also, wasn't Brady a SS agent that was shot by someone intending to assassinate Regan? HE was LE trying to protect a public figure and was shot by a normal citizen.

...SNIP

Click to expand...

The shooter, I thinkhis name was Hinkley,was NOT a NORMAL citizen, he was a mentally disturbed one who had not yet been adjudicated!

JoeSparky


Edited to add ..."I think his name was Hinkley"

Click to expand...

Yes. As mentioned in my post at the bottom of page 1.

imported post

Sheriff wrote:

Hawkflyer wrote:

So before you slam an entire professional organization that has a HUGE list of issues it deals with, (firearms is just one of thousands) be certain YOU are already doing what you can in your life. FOP does a lot of other things that most people consider as good and necessary....

Click to expand...

As an FOP member in good standing, I agree.

Click to expand...

Hhhmmm, I'm not sure. Granted I have very little interaction with the FOP limited pretty much to an annual fund raising request and reading in the newspaper about their latest regurgitation of Brady Bunch (incorrect) statistics, support for infringing American's 2A rights or supporting some new traffic law such as .08 BAC limit or lower speed limits which fly in the face of facts, science and reality and research. In other words, my very limited experience with FOP is that besides having various funds to help wives and dependents of injured and killed LEOs, something I commend and have specifically supported in the past, their methodology is the same as the Brady Campaign. Ignore the facts and act purely on emotion and conventional wisdom no matter how disparaged by facts and research, if unseccessful just make up their own data or twist the data to a nonsensical point, and if unsuccessful again or in conjunction with BS stats fall back to appeals to authority and defensive emotion to cow your opponent.

The FOP's lobbying practices and positions on speed limits, BAC limits and 2A infringements have definitely soured me on the union. Supporting them in general when they have shown an utter lack of integrity on issues that have concerned me and about which I have more than enough knowledge to analyzie and refute BS information, one of those issues being a fundamental constitutionally protected right, is nearly impossible. The FOP has a long history of ignoring good science and long term research and disputing it with anecdotal information of dubious value. So I have to either accept that the entire FOP leadership has for 3 decades suffered from gross willful ignorance or that integrity is not part of their job description.

To say, "Hey, but they do a lot of other good things in other matters so it doesn't matter that they support infringing your constitutional rights, whisper in the ears of politicians to cause them to ignore good science in lieu of anecdotal stories, while simultaneously demanding elitist rules and rights for themselves" is akin to saying "Hey, sure, they molest a few children, but look at all the good charity work and community organizing they do."

imported post

deepdiver wrote:

Sheriff wrote:

Click to expand...

Hawkflyer wrote:

So before you slam an entire professional organization that has a HUGE list of issues it deals with, (firearms is just one of thousands) be certain YOU are already doing what you can in your life. FOP does a lot of other things that most people consider as good and necessary....

Click to expand...

As an FOP member in good standing, I agree.

Click to expand...

...SNIP

Click to expand...

To say, "Hey, but they do a lot of other good things in other matters so it doesn't matter that they support infringing your constitutional rights, whisper in the ears of politicians to cause them to ignore good science in lieu of anecdotal stories, while simultaneously demanding elitist rules and rights for themselves" is akin to saying "Hey, sure, they molest a few children, but look at all the good charity work and community organizing they do."

Click to expand...

The quote you attribute to me above is out of context.

I don't want to fight over this with you any more than with Mr.Y. I am not a member of FOP and I do not support their involvement in the political process, or their positions on a lot of issues. But, I never said to completely ignore them or to support them fullybecause they do other good works. You are doing here exactly the same thing you accuse Brady of doing.

I said that when they come around asking for a donation you can express your thoughts to them at that time. That would be in the part of my post covered by the "...." at the end of what you quoted above.

To whit- "Where I AM with you is that I am not a member of FOP. You, and Ican send them a message every year when they ask for donations."

I do not understand people who say they want change, but seem to only post on the Internet and pray. You said they call you every year, well they call me every year too. That is the time you could actually DO something. Posting about it here does nothing to change the situation. How about "posting" a letter about the FOP to the editor of your local paper, and keep doing it until it gets printed? As a non member the only way you can influence them is by hitting them in the wallet.

You should also not forget that a lot of ranking LEOs "suggest" their subordinates join FOP. SO I know for fact that t lot of members do not like what the FOP does, but they have no choice but to join. FOP CLAIMS to speak for ALL LEOs everywhere, and in fact that is not true, any more than the claim the NEA speaks for ALL teachers.

You must not understand how unions work, because this is the same thing.

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

There are a lot of LEOs that see the "Brady bunch" in very much the same light as members of this forum do.

Click to expand...

An excellent observation. I think LEOs should consider that once the Brady Campaign has accomplished their ultimate goal of gun registration & eventual confiscation from law abiding citizens all across America, they will eventually come after LEO guns as well, quoting the statistics of accidental shootings, and the fact that there would be no need to LEO to carry guns, since they have been banned.

Granted, there would be a lapse of time between confiscation from law abiding citizens, and the eventual confiscation of most guns from criminals, before such logic would fly. Then LEO would only be permitted to carry pepper spray and stun guns, with perhaps special SWAT teams with small arms.

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

The quote you attribute to me above is out of context.

Sorry - just quoted Sheriff and your quote was truncated there. I did read and mull over your entire post and should have quoted it differently.

I don't want to fight over this with you any more than with Mr.Y. I am not a member of FOP and I do not support their involvement in the political process, or their positions on a lot of issues. But, I never said to completely ignore them or to support them fullybecause they do other good works. You are doing here exactly the same thing you accuse Brady of doing.

I wasn't intending to fight with you or anyone else about it, just throwing out my thoughts provoked by the comments on the matter. I am not doing anything like the Brady Bunch. I think my grabbing the quotes the way I did made my post seem personal to you which was not the intent although it was in some matters a reply.

snip
I do not understand people who say they want change, but seem to only post on the Internet and pray. You said they call you every year, well they call me every year too. That is the time you could actually DO something. Posting about it here does nothing to change the situation. How about "posting" a letter about the FOP to the editor of your local paper, and keep doing it until it gets printed? As a non member the only way you can influence them is by hitting them in the wallet.

Assumes facts not in evidence... I have done and do do things about such matters. I write letters, post comments on local news discussion boards and I have over the years been a member of organizations that have raised monies for the FOP and other similar LEO groups/unions funds for widows and orphans. As a condition of participating in such fund raising personally (or for the organization as an officer) I have insisted that the monies raised be earmarked and used ONLY for such survivor funds as I disagree with many of the other missions and activities. I am not shy about expressing my opinions or leery of working to invoke changes I think important.

You should also not forget that a lot of ranking LEOs "suggest" their subordinates join FOP. SO I know for fact that t lot of members do not like what the FOP does, but they have no choice but to join. FOP CLAIMS to speak for ALL LEOs everywhere, and in fact that is not true, any more than the claim the NEA speaks for ALL teachers.

I removed a few sentences at the end of my comments before I posted addressing and acknowledging this very matter and actually also using the NEA as a comparison. Should have left it in.

You must not understand how unions work, because this is the same thing.

I do very much understand how they work. My criticisms were of the union leadership and the union activities rather than of the rank and file, a fact that perhaps I should have been more explicit in expressing. I have numerous times on the forum drawn a strong distinction between LEO leadership, be it in individual departments or LEO unions/groups and the street LEOs. I think the fact that LEO brass opinions and street LEO's opinions are often very different, especially regarding armed citizens, is well known by those who understand and follow the issues.

Click to expand...

imported post

Task Force 16 wrote:

Hawkflyer wrote:

Task Force 16 wrote:

It would seem that the Reagon/Brady shooting would be a good example of how we can't depend on LE to protect us. Isn't the SS suppose to be the crack elite personal protection? Even they couldn't defend against an act of violence, and the attacker was right there amidst them.

The Brady Bunch expects the rest of us to rely on the average LEO to watch our backs?

No thank you, I'll pack my own protection.

Click to expand...

To be fair a personally carried sidearm would not have given Reagan any protection in that situation either. If someone wants to get you and they do not care if they get away after the fact, they WILL get you.

Click to expand...

I understand that Hawkflyer. Along time ago I resigned myself to the fact that there are no garauntees in life, except death.

Click to expand...

Don't forget taxes. :banghead:

imported post

deepdiver wrote:

...SNIP...

Click to expand...

I have never had a problem with your views, and do not in this case. I apologize for perhaps overreacting to the nature of the quote.

I also accept your point concerning facts not in evidence, and will flog myself mercilessly.:banghead: <-- (Me flogging)

As Will Smith says to Jeff Goldblum, in "Independence day", "We're going to have to work on our communication":lol:

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

deepdiver wrote:

...SNIP...

Click to expand...

snip

Click to expand...

It's all good

imported post

Are you careful not to shop at stores that support anti rights groups? Do you shop in places that prohibit firearms? The list goes on and on. I think you will find that Mikey D's is not a very firearms friendly organization and they do give money to organizations you would probably not like. Can you say MMM? Had a big Mac lately?

Click to expand...

Apologies for taking so long to get back, I was occupied (with stuff dealing with the former NPS ban, which let me just point out the repeal effort was supported by exactly ZERO law enforcementgroups)

In answer to your questions, Yes, no, you may be correct, I can and no - respectively.

As a previous poster indicated or maybe alluded tois a better statement, does the good thatgroups such as FOP do outweigh the damage they do to our rights?