imported post
Chrisc411 wrote:
I really liked JDs letter. The author was remiss in hisresponsibility to fairjournalism. Now to C'411, the thing that concerns me most is that much of the LE community is monitoring this forum. That in itself is ok with me but in their intelligence gathering they now understand that we are well aware of our rights and yet they seek to deny them. This is not a surprise to me, so as indicated in the letter the majority opinion among the chiefs is in favor of a ban. It is all to obvious that they would do this just to simplify their duties and to appease the traumatized public.
No recognition made to the fact that a ban is not justified under the authority of making duties more convenient for those "endangered" officers. They knew the job was "---------" when they took it. I see no reason in denying the very tangibleessential right of all people. This has nothing to do with the real issue of officer safety it is based on unreasonable prejudiced ideology. Us verses them for instance. As well as placating what they seem to think is a more significant group of citizens than your average law abiding mind their own type who is concerned with providing for their own defense.I would like to close with, for those who are in authority in these matters fear not we are not your enemy. You should not percieve us as such. Please consider carefully that if a ban on open carry is passedwe willeffectively berendered defenseless.Denied that fundamental humanrightwhich is guaranteedus by the Constitutionwould be akin to sewing our lips shut to prevent us from speeking freely.Consider carefully lest we alllose be itin our homes, on the street, in public opinion polls and on election day.
Sincerely, Defensor
Chrisc411 wrote:
Its just a reminder to all the anti-gun people out there, The USA was claimed and founded with guns, it has been defended by guns since then, today it is kept safe from internal and external threats buy guns wither it be by militia, Army, Navy, Marines, Air force, police, FBI, CIA and so on. All these people are citizens of the united states who took up their guns and stood up for their country. c.o.p. = Citizen on patrol why cant people put 2 and 2 together? Guns are important to our society to kept us all safe and we keep these firearms to keep us safe from each other as well.
I really liked JDs letter. The author was remiss in hisresponsibility to fairjournalism. Now to C'411, the thing that concerns me most is that much of the LE community is monitoring this forum. That in itself is ok with me but in their intelligence gathering they now understand that we are well aware of our rights and yet they seek to deny them. This is not a surprise to me, so as indicated in the letter the majority opinion among the chiefs is in favor of a ban. It is all to obvious that they would do this just to simplify their duties and to appease the traumatized public.
No recognition made to the fact that a ban is not justified under the authority of making duties more convenient for those "endangered" officers. They knew the job was "---------" when they took it. I see no reason in denying the very tangibleessential right of all people. This has nothing to do with the real issue of officer safety it is based on unreasonable prejudiced ideology. Us verses them for instance. As well as placating what they seem to think is a more significant group of citizens than your average law abiding mind their own type who is concerned with providing for their own defense.I would like to close with, for those who are in authority in these matters fear not we are not your enemy. You should not percieve us as such. Please consider carefully that if a ban on open carry is passedwe willeffectively berendered defenseless.Denied that fundamental humanrightwhich is guaranteedus by the Constitutionwould be akin to sewing our lips shut to prevent us from speeking freely.Consider carefully lest we alllose be itin our homes, on the street, in public opinion polls and on election day.
Sincerely, Defensor