Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 67

Thread: Disarm LEO, Interesting article

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North of San Diego South of LA, , USA
    Posts
    9

    Post imported post

    Found this interesting article as i was poking around the web to see if there are any movements to disarm LEO.

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north198.html
    Ron

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Vista, California, USA
    Posts
    516

    Post imported post

    Disarming police would be a bigger disaster than Jimmy Carter.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Menifee, California, USA
    Posts
    3

    Post imported post

    The article is so ridiculous I couldn't even finish reading it. Ditto on the Carter comment with the addition of Clinton.

    My wife's from England where most cops don't carry. I think that will change very soon allowing all cops to carry. They've had many close calls over the last few years with having to call in cops who do carry. Crime has exploded due to all of the third world immigration allowed in their country.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Escondido, California, USA
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    Considering that cops are notorious for murdering people, I find this idea to be perfect.

    You guys are nuts.

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    pullnshoot25 wrote:
    Considering that cops are notorious for murdering people, I find this idea to be perfect.

    You guys are nuts.
    You said it.


    Edit: Anybody who finds such conversation genuinely interesting is highly encouraged to read the following article which analyzes the history of law enforcement and professional policing in America:

    http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    East Bay, California, USA
    Posts
    48

    Post imported post

    i wouldn't go as far as disarming LE but close... i think they should have a recruit depo. similar to military but in every state, with a lot more testing and training on the laws not just that BS multiple choice and they should all be held accountable when they violate some ones rights just like normal citizens. You hand cuff some one you better have that probable cause or your a$$ is on the line.

    I believe in enforcing the reasonable laws but i don't agree with ignorant police officers or BS gun laws

    an where i live near Richmond **** you tell all those drug deal'in gang-bangers the cops don't have guns and your just asking for trouble it would be all out war seriously not good

  7. #7
    McX
    Guest

    Post imported post


  8. #8
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748

    Post imported post

    mark28699 wrote:
    Crime has exploded due to all of the third world immigration allowed in their country.
    Citation?

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area, ,
    Posts
    78

    Post imported post

    My wife & I travel back to Ireland quite a bit for vacation and I've never seen a Police Officer over there with a handgun or any type ofweapon! Northern Ireland is a different story though. I've seen the police there with machine guns. That was 10 yrs. ago though so maybe not anymore as it's a lot more peaceful now with a new govn't in place.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    San Diego County, CA, California, USA
    Posts
    1,402

    Post imported post

    McX wrote:
    Disarm the ones that violate citizen gun rights. That would humble them!
    Heh.

    Poblacht32 wrote:
    My wife & I travel back to Ireland quite a bit for vacation and I've never seen a Police Officer over there with a handgun or any type ofweapon! Northern Ireland is a different story though. I've seen the police there with machine guns. That was 10 yrs. ago though so maybe not anymore as it's a lot more peaceful now with a new govn't in place.
    More peaceful, maybe, but every so often I hear about some major crime on the BBC podcasts I subscribe to, and I wonder, did the Troubles really end?

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area, ,
    Posts
    78

    Post imported post

    They "haven't" completely ended but it's not like it used to be. You havethe dissendents out there trying to cause trouble but they don't have the support like the IRA did over the years. Also, don't believe everything you hear from the BBC when it comes to the "Troubles" in Northern Ireland. They have a history of being very biased on their reporting. I do read the BBC but don't agree with everything they're saying.

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    San Diego County, CA, California, USA
    Posts
    1,402

    Post imported post

    Poblacht32 wrote:
    They "haven't" completed ended but it's not like it used to be. You havethe dissendents out there trying to cause trouble but they don't have the support like the IRA did over the years. Also, don't believe everything you hear from the BBC when it comes to the "Troubles" in Northern Ireland. They have a history of being very biased on their reporting. I do read the BBC but don't agree with everything they're saying.
    Oh, I don't usually listen more than a couple minutes. I mostly just read the podcast description where it says "Northern Ireland" such and such, no mention of the Troubles, as if it's a dirty word.

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    mark28699 wrote:
    The article is so ridiculous I couldn't even finish reading it. Ditto on the Carter comment with the addition of Clinton.

    My wife's from England where most cops don't carry. I think that will change very soon allowing all cops to carry. They've had many close calls over the last few years with having to call in cops who do carry. Crime has exploded due to all of the third world immigration allowed in their country.
    I lived in London in 2005.

    It provided an interesting dichotomy. "Bobbies" who are unarmed and provide directions with a smile.

    But they have fascist traffic cops who search the cars of drivers without suspicion, just like we do here.

    And, if they suspect innocent Brazilians of terrorism for no good reason, they show up with a squad of tacticool clowns with MP5s and shoot the victim 37 times.

    Disarmed street cops de-escalate happenstance encounters. Militarized police are not a good thing.

    The only people who should be armed on a regular basis are citizens, NOT the state.

    The state should require a warrant to bear arms against its citizens.

  14. #14
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660

    Post imported post

    McX wrote:
    Disarm the ones that violate citizen gun rights. That would humble them!
    +1

    This system is already in place. When a LEO violates any of your civil rights (which is never a minor infraction IMO) then you hold them accountable. You file complaints,civil lawsuits and try to get the DA to filecriminal lawsuits. Its a system that works pretty well.
    "Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?" -- Mark Levin

  15. #15
    Founder's Club Member MudCamper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Sebastopol, California, USA
    Posts
    710

    Post imported post

    Not entirely related, but another interesting read about the problematic trends of US police forces:

    SWAT Overkill: The Danger of a Paramilitary Police Force: http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...w/4203345.html


  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    San Diego County, CA, California, USA
    Posts
    1,402

    Post imported post

    coolusername2007 wrote:
    McX wrote:
    Disarm the ones that violate citizen gun rights. That would humble them!
    +1

    This system is already in place. When a LEO violates any of your civil rights (which is never a minor infraction IMO) then you hold them accountable. You file complaints,civil lawsuits and try to get the DA to filecriminal lawsuits. Its a system that works pretty well.
    Sarcasm detected! :quirky

  17. #17
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660

    Post imported post

    N6ATF wrote:
    coolusername2007 wrote:
    McX wrote:
    Disarm the ones that violate citizen gun rights. That would humble them!
    +1

    This system is already in place.* When a LEO violates any of your civil rights (which is never a minor infraction IMO) then you hold them accountable.* You file complaints,*civil lawsuits and try to get the DA to file*criminal lawsuits.* Its a system that works pretty well.
    Sarcasm detected! :quirky
    No sarcasm. I believe we have the best system possible. Whether one chooses to use the system to its fullest extent is their personal choice. When someone creates a system that is void of personal favors and corruption then I'll choose that one...until then I'm happy.

    The issue here is the fact that individual LEOs choose to go over-step their bounds. Why is this? Maybe because its poor training, lack of accountability, fear, etc., or all of the above. Hopefully as LEOs become more aware of our 2A rights and us holding them accountable to our 4A rights they will become better LEOs overall...not just for us but for eveyone.
    "Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?" -- Mark Levin

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    coolusername2007 wrote:
    McX wrote:
    Disarm the ones that violate citizen gun rights. That would humble them!
    +1

    This system is already in place.* When a LEO violates any of your civil rights (which is never a minor infraction IMO) then you hold them accountable.* You file complaints,*civil lawsuits and try to get the DA to file*criminal lawsuits.* Its a system that works pretty well.
    Wow. What country are you living in these days? Sounds great!

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    San Diego County, CA, California, USA
    Posts
    1,402

    Post imported post

    marshaul wrote:
    coolusername2007 wrote:
    McX wrote:
    Disarm the ones that violate citizen gun rights. That would humble them!
    +1

    This system is already in place. When a LEO violates any of your civil rights (which is never a minor infraction IMO) then you hold them accountable. You file complaints,civil lawsuits and try to get the DA to filecriminal lawsuits. Its a system that works pretty well.
    Wow. What country are you living in these days? Sounds great!
    Yep, in my country complaints hit the circular file, civil lawsuits are defended with unlimited funds (tax dollars), and DAs are more likely to charge a citizen for being a victim of criminal police than the other way around.

  20. #20
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748

    Post imported post

    coolusername2007 wrote:
    This system is already in place. When a LEO violates any of your civil rights (which is never a minor infraction IMO) then you hold them accountable. You file complaints,civil lawsuits and try to get the DA to filecriminal lawsuits. Its a system that works pretty well.
    So dirtykoala's complaints about how his rights were violated were heard? If I recall correctly, they came back with a big ole, "We didn't do anything wrong." And when wolfenstein files his complaint, are we going to see the DA and the FBI all over the blatant violations of his fourth amendment? I think not.

    Sadly, we have to put our own ass on the line and file a civil lawsuit in federal court if we want any actual recourse to take place. And if we lose, we end up paying tens of thousands of dollars (at a minimum) to the government's lawyers. I might have some hope for the system if the DA wouldn't have to prosecute and defend the police officers in a criminal case, but as it is today, we're lowly peasants in the government's eye.

  21. #21
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660

    Post imported post

    Wow! I thought I was cynical...damn!

    So let me get this straight...some of you want to be able to sue the government without having to pay for it? Do I have this right? Sounds like a bunch of free loading to me. As a taxpayer the LAST thing I want to do is fund a "Sue theGovernment for FREE"program. Get real.

    If you've been wronged, and your complaint doesn't go anywhere, then sue. If you find a lawyer who you think is capable of winning, and he/she thinks you can win, then put it on the line and sue. Otherwise, don't complain because you aren't interested in ponying up some coin to fight and protect your rights.

    Further I will not concede the point that complaints have not had a positive effect for this movement. Just look at all the documents that can be downloaded from californiaopencarry. Did not (at least some) of thesecome from activism and formal complaints that lead to awareness and training?

    Are things moving as fast as we want? NO. Are things moving in the right direction? YES. Will your fight be easy? NO. Achieving the best and most important things never are.


    "Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?" -- Mark Levin

  22. #22
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    What the hell? Why should I be prepared to pay to defend my rights (morally, not practically speaking)? Against the unlimited funds of the state? They are my rights. I should exercise them without fear even if dead broke, and I should be able to seek recompense if they are violated, once again without a penny.

    As far as I am concerned, police should have to hire their own lawyers or pay for their own defense, same as we do. Hell, I'm of the mind that police should have to do their own prosecution, since they've monopolized the levying of charges, a domain which once belonged to the citizen. Maybe if this happened legal proceedings could once again be affordable to the common person.

    As long as the state uses its unlimited resources to violate our rights with impunity, the idea of making the state pay for the legal fees of people who have their rights infringed and have to sue sounds like a pretty damn good one to me, since you bring it up.

    Police could always, you know, stop violating peoples' rights.

    The problem with your position is that I, who cannot afford to set aside money for the purpose of initiating legal proceedings to defend my violated rights after-the-fact, am left unable to practice them as a practical reality.

    In essence, the system you defend only enables rights for the rich.

  23. #23
    Regular Member The Big Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Waco, TX
    Posts
    1,950

    Post imported post

    In reading this thread it has sent me on a journey of thought about the situation we find ourselves in today in trying to maintain our rights. It is sad to remember a time growing up in small town America where we were taught that the Policeman was our friend and was there to help us. In those days they were referred to as "Peace Officers", meaning to keep the peace. Generally by the de-escalation ofany event or situation to which they happened upon or were called to. Today we have Law Enforcement Officers, the term "Enforcement" having a negative connotation denoting "force". The “us against them” attitude is prevalent and growing amongst our men and women in black (used to be blue), switching colorbecause black has an intimidating effectupon the citizen. There aretwo basic ways to enlist cooperation, one is to command respect by word and deed, the other is to instill fear. Sadly the second has become the easier path. In my opinion, as our police are moving more toward federalization the line between police and military grows thin. History tells us this isone of the steps toward all out population control. We must attempt to educate our police whenever possible. Talk to them about their oath to defend the Constitution. Point them to the Oath Keepers website. Explain to them that they are not immune to the oppression that they enforce. When they help relieve us of our rights, their rights as humans and citizens also diminish. Ask them if they have children and do they want their kids growing up fearing the police? Perhaps we can change a few attitudes.
    Life member GOA and NRA. Member of SAF, NAGR, TXGR and Cast Bullet Assoc.

  24. #24
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660

    Post imported post

    The Big Guy wrote:
    In reading this thread it has sent me on a journey of thought about the situation we find ourselves in today in trying to maintain our rights. It is sad to remember a time growing up in small town America where we were taught that the Policeman was our friend and was there to help us. In those days they were referred to as "Peace Officers", meaning to keep the peace. Generally by the de-escalation ofany event or situation to which they happened upon or were called to. Today we have Law Enforcement Officers, the term "Enforcement" having a negative connotation denoting "force". The “us against them” attitude is prevalent and growing amongst our men and women in black (used to be blue), switching colorbecause black has an intimidating effectupon the citizen. There aretwo basic ways to enlist cooperation, one is to command respect by word and deed, the other is to instill fear. Sadly the second has become the easier path. In my opinion, as our police are moving more toward federalization the line between police and military grows thin. History tells us this isone of the steps toward all out population control. We must attempt to educate our police whenever possible. Talk to them about their oath to defend the Constitution. Point them to the Oath Keepers website. Explain to them that they are not immune to the oppression that they enforce. When they help relieve us of our rights, their rights as humans and citizens also diminish. Ask them if they have children and do they want their kids growing up fearing the police? Perhaps we can change a few attitudes.
    "Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." George Washington


    "Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?" -- Mark Levin

  25. #25
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    coolusername2007 wrote:
    "Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." George Washington
    Gotta watch out using that quote. Its been debunked.

    Second quote down from the top:

    http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndbog.html
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •