Misinformed LEO, still?

[mikestilly]

imported post

jmlefler wrote:

That's interesting...  Mike Bouchard (Oakland County Sheriff and Governor candidate) told me when we met in our Tea Party office that if the Feds come for our guns, his plan is to deputize all CPL holders, thus exempting us from and Federal action...

Carry on

Nonsense - You're telling me you believe a man who opposed the CPL law in 2000 that allowed us to have CPL's is now all the sudden a pro-gunner? If you do I'm sure Obama has some hope and change to sell you too.

 

[Anthony_I_Am]

imported post

"Officer safety". This seems to be the catch-all excuse for "I can do whatever I want so long as I say I am scared." I think a lot of cops need to brave up a littel bit or find a less scary job.

Seems to me sort of like a guy taking a job in a refrigerated meat packing plant and then complaining that it is too cold. DUHHH.

 

[jeremiahJohnson]

imported post

Anthony_I_Am wrote:

"Officer safety". This seems to be the catch-all excuse for "I can do whatever I want so long as I say I am scared." I think a lot of cops need to brave up a littel bit or find a less scary job.

Seems to me sort of like a guy taking a job in a refrigerated meat packing plant and then complaining that it is too cold. DUHHH.

I agree 100% Cops Volunteer to do the job. Besides the 4th & 5th were written to protect us not the Law. It was to ensure the safety of The Presumed innocent til proven guilty in a court of Law, Not to give the Law Safety.

 

[Rob Washeleski]

imported post

I think the confusion lies in associating ones feelings on gun rights in-general with what a single politician/AG can actually accomplish. I agree that carrying firearms is a right, not a privilege. However, that issue is separate from what Cox can do about said belief. An AG (or Governor) has no standing to make a "decree" that all carry is unregulated and can't overturn legislation in any way, and I am glad that they can't. What if Obama could just implement his grand plans with no approval from Congress? We'd be a far sight worse off than we are now! The Cox situation is a parallel to this. A governor can be pro whatever-he-wants and work his butt off to make change, but in the end the state legislature decides. The most pro gun governor in the world can't overcome an anti legislature.

Not trying to rant, but saying Cox is not pro-gun because you don't like MI gun laws that exist now while he is the AG doesn't make sense.

-Rob

 

[67390FE]

imported post

Rob Washeleski wrote:

...The most pro gun governor in the world can't overcome an anti legislature. 

Not trying to rant, but saying Cox is not pro-gun because you don't like MI gun laws that exist now while he is the AG doesn't make sense.

-Rob  

While this is true, it has been proven by Wisconsin that a pro gun legislature can be derailed by an anti gun Governor.

 

[BreakingTheMold]

imported post

All the more reason to get a Pro-2a AG elected Governor.

 

[67390FE]

imported post

My point exactly!

 

[jeremiahJohnson]

imported post

Rob Washeleski wrote:

I think the confusion lies in associating ones feelings on gun rights in-general with what a single politician/AG can actually accomplish. I agree that carrying firearms is a right, not a privilege. However, that issue is separate from what Cox can do about said belief. An AG (or Governor) has no standing to make a "decree" that all carry is unregulated and can't overturn legislation in any way, and I am glad that they can't. What if Obama could just implement his grand plans with no approval from Congress? We'd be a far sight worse off than we are now! The Cox situation is a parallel to this. A governor can be pro whatever-he-wants and work his butt off to make change, but in the end the state legislature decides. The most pro gun governor in the world can't overcome an anti legislature.

Not trying to rant, but saying Cox is not pro-gun because you don't like MI gun laws that exist now while he is the AG doesn't make sense.

-Rob

No one said Cox is not a pro gun, because they don't like Mi. gun laws that exist now while he is AG.

 

[Guest]

imported post

CrossPistols wrote:

Rob Washeleski wrote:

I think the confusion lies in associating ones feelings on gun rights in-general with what a single politician/AG can actually accomplish. I agree that carrying firearms is a right, not a privilege. However, that issue is separate from what Cox can do about said belief. An AG (or Governor) has no standing to make a "decree" that all carry is unregulated and can't overturn legislation in any way, and I am glad that they can't. What if Obama could just implement his grand plans with no approval from Congress? We'd be a far sight worse off than we are now! The Cox situation is a parallel to this. A governor can be pro whatever-he-wants and work his butt off to make change, but in the end the state legislature decides. The most pro gun governor in the world can't overcome an anti legislature.

Not trying to rant, but saying Cox is not pro-gun because you don't like MI gun laws that exist now while he is the AG doesn't make sense.

-Rob

No one said Cox is not a pro gun, because they don't like Mi. gun laws that exist now while he is AG.

I didn't see this connection anywhere either.

 

[Rob Washeleski]

imported post

CrossPistols wrote:

mikestilly wrote:

CrossPistols wrote:

I don't believe any of the candidate's are for gun rights

Then you sir are uninformed.

Mike please don't say things like that, you don't know me well enough. I know your campaigning for Cox so I have tried to stay out of this whole promoting Cox on M.O.C. But I've met Cox personally, as well as Rogers when Bush was running for his first term. It was a Dewitt NRA meet.
They all said they were for 2nd Amendments. Now here we are 10 years later Cox is head Law enforcer/Top Attorney of the state, and when asked if he'd turn over his phone records from 2003, the all knowing States Attorney General says he can't remember who his provider was in 2003...Well no @#$% I probably couldn't either, but If can find it out!, the highest Attorney in the state sure in the hell can find out as well! What the hell kind of reply is that? leads people to believe he has something to hide.
Beyond that here we are ten yrs later and the only real gun law progress that has been made for our benefit was accomplished by a pro gun sheriff pushing Shall Issue!
I don't mean just Cox, but all of them, if there are that many who say they are for the 2nd, the supreme court would be repealing 99% of the gun laws. Here we are 2010 and we still have to ask permission to carry concealed, & what type of gun we can own. Bottom line I just see the Pro-Gun Pro-Life card as just that a Campaign slogan nothing more!

This snippet is what I was referring to. Maybe I misunderstood the context, but it appeared to me that you were saying that if Cox (and all other gubernatorial candidates) were actually pro 2A then 99% of gun laws would be repealed already and we would not need permits for CC.

 

[jeremiahJohnson]

imported post

I still don't see where any one said mike cox isn't pro gun!

I am simply saying that for as many "Pro 2nd" politicians as there claim to be, between the hundreds of them maybe thousands you'd think they would be making head way. I know that if I was a Pro 2nd, or a Gun right nut, and I were a politician I would do my daily routine but I also would be as out spoken as Ted Nudget. When it came to past, present, and future gun Laws.
If you think about Our Representative Republic as it was set up, the fact that the gun laws were past is a travesty, criminal, and an abomination to the Constitution. You'd think from the minute the first law past, that there would be a halt on any further legislating, till the law was repealed.

Fast forward 2010 here we have an NRA, OCDO, MGO, and other various pro gun groups, and we still have a crap load of "Pro 2nd" politicians, yet instead of removing the first anti-gun law, we now have over 200 various gun laws. If you think about it right now no further legislating should be going on till this blatant disregard for the constitution is taken care of. Instead were debating whether or not all cars should get 30 mpg, 0r should they all have onstar installed mandated by Uncle Fed. So you can see why I say they all say their for gun rights but I don't see as much change, compared to the Jingle I hear.
Bottom line on Mike Cox is that while AG he has alot of power, he is the legal advisor to the State departments, and top Law enforcement Officer. He has a lot of pull, and the power of persuasion. In my opinion he could have did even more than he has, but Politicians have to balance their Agendas and pacify both sides, so as to get re-elected. Thats why they call it Politics!

 

[mikestilly]

imported post

CrossPistols wrote:

I still don't see where any one said mike cox isn't pro gun!

  I am simply saying that for as many "Pro 2nd" politicians as there claim to be,  between the hundreds of them maybe thousands you'd think they would be making head way. I know that if I was a Pro 2nd, or a Gun right nut, and I were a politician I would do my daily routine but I also would be as out spoken as Ted Nudget. When it came to past, present, and future gun Laws.
  If you think about Our Representative Republic as it was set up, the fact that the gun laws were past is a travesty, criminal, and an abomination to the Constitution. You'd think from the minute the first law past, that there would be a halt on any further legislating, till the law was repealed. 

 Fast forward 2010 here we have an NRA, OCDO, MGO, and other various pro gun groups, and we still have a crap load of "Pro 2nd" politicians, yet instead of removing the first anti-gun law, we now have over 200 various gun laws. If you think about it right now no further legislating should be going on till this blatant disregard for the constitution is taken care of. Instead were debating whether or not  all cars should get 30 mpg, 0r should they all have onstar installed mandated by Uncle Fed.  So you can see why I say they all say their for gun rights but I don't see as much change, compared to the Jingle I hear.
  Bottom line on Mike Cox is that while AG he has alot of power, he is the legal advisor to the State departments, and top Law enforcement Officer. He has a lot of pull, and the power of persuasion. In my opinion he could have did even more than he has, but Politicians have to balance their Agendas and pacify both sides, so as to get re-elected. Thats why they call it Politics!
 

If you dont think that going from no NFA machine guns to legally transferable machine guns and going from 8 to 36 states of reciprocity isnt progress then I feel you dont know what progress is about.

 

[jeremiahJohnson]

imported post

Did YOU see where I said I think he could have did MORE than he has. I recognize what he has accomplished. I just expect more from our leaders...as do a couple other people on this site.

 

[springerdave]

imported post

CrossPistols wrote:

I still don't see where any one said mike cox isn't pro gun!

I am simply saying that for as many "Pro 2nd" politicians as there claim to be, between the hundreds of them maybe thousands you'd think they would be making head way. I know that if I was a Pro 2nd, or a Gun right nut, and I were a politician I would do my daily routine but I also would be as out spoken as Ted Nudget. When it came to past, present, and future gun Laws.
If you think about Our Representative Republic as it was set up, the fact that the gun laws were past is a travesty, criminal, and an abomination to the Constitution. You'd think from the minute the first law past, that there would be a halt on any further legislating, till the law was repealed.

Fast forward 2010 here we have an NRA, OCDO, MGO, and other various pro gun groups, and we still have a crap load of "Pro 2nd" politicians, yet instead of removing the first anti-gun law, we now have over 200 various gun laws. If you think about it right now no further legislating should be going on till this blatant disregard for the constitution is taken care of. Instead were debating whether or not all cars should get 30 mpg, 0r should they all have onstar installed mandated by Uncle Fed. So you can see why I say they all say their for gun rights but I don't see as much change, compared to the Jingle I hear.
Bottom line on Mike Cox is that while AG he has alot of power, he is the legal advisor to the State departments, and top Law enforcement Officer. He has a lot of pull, and the power of persuasion. In my opinion he could have did even more than he has, but Politicians have to balance their Agendas and pacify both sides, so as to get re-elected. Thats why they call it Politics!

The problem isn't donkeys or elephants, it's PROGRESSIVES! T. Roosevelt was one, showed up everywhere with guns but behind the scenes wanted yours. The Modern Progressives want to take total control and eventually eliminate your freedoms a little at a time. Like the health care scheme, wait and see if there isn't part of it that mandates removing your fire arms because they would be considered by the Gov/Insurance providers as too dangerous in your hands.springerdave.

 

[mikestilly]

imported post

CrossPistols wrote:

[snip] I just expect more from our leaders..

OK so for an AG like what were you suggesting? This is where the rub is. Like what are you expecting an AG to do that Mike hasn't done? I'd really like to understand that because all your post have been generalities but nothing specific.

I'd like you to show me where in the history of Michigan you've seen another person do more for gun rights in Michigan's government?

To make it simple I asked 2 questions here. "OK so for an AG like what were you suggesting?" and "I'd like you to show me where in the history of Michigan you've seen another person do more for gun rights in Michigan's government?"

 

[Bikenut]

imported post

While I would like to see all politicians who profess to be pro gun actually do something pro gun I understand this one thing...

Those who are pro gun and do get results still have to work within the system and fight all the other politicians who do not, or will not, fight for gun rights... not to mention the other politicians who are actually anti gun.

With that thought in mind I think Mike Cox has managed to make big strides in a generally political lefty oriented State like Michigan. For the progress he has been able to make he deserves my support.

 

[autosurgeon]

imported post

Bikenut wrote:

While I would like to see all politicians who profess to be pro gun actually do something pro gun I understand this one thing...

Those who are pro gun and do get results still have to work within the system and fight all the other politicians who do not, or will not, fight for gun rights... not to mention the other politicians who are actually anti gun.

With that thought in mind I think Mike Cox has managed to make big strides in a generally political lefty oriented State like Michigan. For the progress he has been able to make he deserves my support.

This I can agree with!

 

[jeremiahJohnson]

imported post

mikestilly wrote:

CrossPistols wrote:

[snip] I just expect more from our leaders..

OK so for an AG like what were you suggesting? This is where the rub is. Like what are you expecting an AG to do that Mike hasn't done? I'd really like to understand that because all your post have been generalities but nothing specific.
I never suggested, I made a statement. There is no Rub, your Assuming. Im not the AG but For starters He could hold a press conference addressing Open Carry, especially after the Ponderosa Incident. Maybe he could simply send some Memorandums informing Police departments/municipalities of the Rights of people to OC.

I'd like you to show me where in the history of Michigan you've seen another person do more for gun rights in Michigan's government? I never said any one else did, if you were paying attention I said that is how we got where we are now. The laws just kept coming!

To make it simple I asked 2 questions here. "OK so for an AG like what were you suggesting?" and "I'd like you to show me where in the history of Michigan you've seen another person do more for gun rights in Michigan's government?"

Thats all I'm saying, really, if you think about it!

 

[mikestilly]

imported post

CrossPistols wrote:

mikestilly wrote:

CrossPistols wrote:

[snip] I just expect more from our leaders..

OK so for an AG like what were you suggesting? This is where the rub is. Like what are you expecting an AG to do that Mike hasn't done? I'd really like to understand that because all your post have been generalities but nothing specific. 
   I never suggested, I made a statement. There is no Rub, your Assuming. Im not the AG but For starters He could hold a press conference addressing Open Carry, especially after the Ponderosa Incident. Maybe he could simply send some Memorandums informing Police departments/municipalities of the Rights of people to OC. 

I'd like you to show me where in the history of Michigan you've seen another person do more for gun rights in Michigan's government?                                           I never said any one else did, if you were paying attention I said that is how we got where we are now. The laws just kept coming!  

To make it simple I asked 2 questions here. "OK so for an AG like what were you suggesting?" and "I'd like you to show me where in the history of Michigan you've seen another person do more for gun rights in Michigan's government?"

 
 Thats all I'm saying, really, if you think about it!

It's a matter of fact Mike Cox sent a OC packet of info to every LEO agency in the state. This happened a long time ago.

 

[N6ATF]

imported post

mikestilly wrote:

CrossPistols wrote:

mikestilly wrote:

CrossPistols wrote:

[snip] I just expect more from our leaders..

OK so for an AG like what were you suggesting? This is where the rub is. Like what are you expecting an AG to do that Mike hasn't done? I'd really like to understand that because all your post have been generalities but nothing specific.
I never suggested, I made a statement. There is no Rub, your Assuming. Im not the AG but For starters He could hold a press conference addressing Open Carry, especially after the Ponderosa Incident. Maybe he could simply send some Memorandums informing Police departments/municipalities of the Rights of people to OC.

I'd like you to show me where in the history of Michigan you've seen another person do more for gun rights in Michigan's government? I never said any one else did, if you were paying attention I said that is how we got where we are now. The laws just kept coming!

To make it simple I asked 2 questions here. "OK so for an AG like what were you suggesting?" and "I'd like you to show me where in the history of Michigan you've seen another person do more for gun rights in Michigan's government?"

Thats all I'm saying, really, if you think about it!

It's a matter of fact Mike Cox sent a OC packet of info to every LEO agency in the state. This happened a long time ago.

And some opened it, looked at the cover letter, put it back in the packet, and then in the circular file?