How do you guys feel about gun companys not selling to LEO's?

[nighthawk756]

Using this logic you could say that criminals for the most part do not target law enforcement. They target regular citizens. So would it not stand to reason citizens should have the same rights to weapons to defend themselves?

They don't target LE? "Target" isn't the right word to describe it. Yes they "target" citizens but they "attack" LE during their normal duties. Whether it be ambush attacks set up to kill/injure officers or just the normal traffic stop. On top of the violent calls they have to answer. But as I said in my previous statement, yes citizens have to defend themselves from these same criminals. But the chances a citizen will have a violent encounter are FAR less than the chances for an officer to be.

Plus I like how you ignore the rest of my post when I say that I'm absolutely against any more restrictions on citizens. The standard weapon often carried by LE on routine patrol is semi-auto SBR AR's which can be owned by citizens also with a tax stamp.

 

[Devious_Snake]

Very valid points discussed up to this point.

But notwithstanding the political nature of the topic, it comes down to a very rudimentary fact. Criminals don't obey the law. They acquire whatever type weapon they desire very easily. LE has to face those same individuals many times over what a normal citizen has to face them. Therefore it stands to reason that LE needs to have the best weapons to face that threat.

So in my opinion, I don't think LE should be restricted. But on the opposite side of the coin, I'm 100% for keeping the 2nd Amendment intact. I'm 100% against any further restrictions on law abiding citizens. Should we revise the way mental illness is tracked and it be more readily available during backgrounds? Yes. But further restricting the types of weapons we buy? Absolutely not.

And for the record, the reason "beat cops" don't get on the news to viliify their upper echelon for backing gun control is simple....their job would be in jeopardy. Most departments have poilicies restricting their officers (unless approved) from engaging in ANY political activity while in uniform OR while acting as an agent of the department(i.e.-not in uniform but identifying one self as being an officer from said dept.)

This is bang on correct! :beer:

Using this logic you could say that criminals for the most part do not target law enforcement. They target regular citizens. So would it not stand to reason citizens should have the same rights to weapons to defend themselves?

Law abiding citizens should own whatever they like, as long as they are responsible. Pretty simple. The people trying to restrict them are sitting behind a desk....

LEO's are always walking targets, have been killed very frequently over the last few years especially by way of an ambush. The difference is criminals know for certain a LEO is armed where as the chance is much lower with a regular citizen.

 

[SVTPete83]

They don't target LE? "Target" isn't the right word to describe it. Yes they "target" citizens but they "attack" LE during their normal duties. Whether it be ambush attacks set up to kill/injure officers or just the normal traffic stop. On top of the violent calls they have to answer.

Plus I like how you ignore the rest of my post when I say that I'm absolutely against any more restrictions on citizens. The standard weapon often carried by LE on routine patrol is semi-auto SBR AR's which can be owned by citizens also with a tax stamp.

It is not that I was ignoring the rest of your post. I just have a little different view point living in ca. We can't have the same weapons as le as citizens. We have not been able to for some time now. I am a believer that if you are a responsible law abiding citizen there is no reason you should not be able to own the same things. My point was that you never know what type of situation you will be put in, le or not. Shouldn't it be up to the person to decide what kinds of arms they choose to defend themselves?

 

[nighthawk756]

It is not that I was ignoring the rest of your post. I just have a little different view point living in ca. We can't have the same weapons as le as citizens. We have not been able to for some time now. I am a believer that if you are a responsible law abiding citizen there is no reason you should not be able to own the same things. My point was that you never know what type of situation you will be put in, le or not. Shouldn't it be up to the person to decide what kinds of arms they choose to defend themselves?

I agree with that 100% and I happen to think Cali, along with New York, DC and Chicago are all violating our constitution by restricting it's citizens. But the frequency that an officer has to deal with violent aggressors is much more than that of the everyday citizen. So that's why I feel officers should not be restricted.

 

[SVTPete83]

I agree with that 100% and I happen to think Cali, along with New York, DC and Chicago are all violating our constitution by restricting it's citizens. But the frequency that an officer has to deal with violent aggressors is much more than that of the everyday citizen. So that's why I feel officers should not be restricted.

I think we both agree on the same issues I just didn't realize it until now. Lol. I am with u. I do not think anyone should be restricted! However, I do not understand the hypocrisy of legislators that say citizens cannot have then but le and military can. Therefore I tend to side with these gun companies in standing by there beliefs. Lift the restrictions and the companies wont have a problem selling to anyone.

 

[Lt. ZO6]

That's what unions are for--political activity. If we're going to pay retired cops $250,000 a year (California this is you) because the union is effective then they can turn that effectiveness into change on this subject as well.

So, one instance make it the norm? Btw, appears to be a state issue...

 

[65fastback2+2]

Of course cops should abide by the same laws. What does a cop need a deadly assault weapon for if no person has one?

this.

guns are only for offensive strikes. and police are supposed to be defenders.

i say we give police riot shields only...thats a defensive weapon for a defensive force.

 

[Blown_By_You]

Caveat: I am not a cop.

I am unsympathetic to the claim that policemen have a greater right to these weapons than others. If a state legislature has declared certain weapons to be unsuitable for use in defense of oneself and suitable only for war then they ought to be only available to the military. If you want one of these weapons you can hang up your badge and enlist.

If you don't want to have these restrictions, you are free to become politically active. Elect union representation that will go on TV and tell everyone that the chief is pandering to his boss when he says that these weapons should be banned. Start a lobbying group. Do something useful to change things.

Well put

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Planter]

i'm all for the companies taking these measures. These companies rely on the civilian market and demand to make their profits, and when a state takes them away by means of restriction or bans, you're messing with profit and livelihood. I wish these same companies would tell the Federal Law Enforcement agencies and the Military the same thing.

 

[Ruslow]

First off i am not in law enforcent.But feel that they should have the abilty to arm themselves with what is available.Now with that said they are here to ENFORCE the laws that are handed to them.How about we get the ones [law makers] that make the laws use the same weapons that we have to be left with.that also would include there body guards.bet that would be a game changer.

 

[motoman991]

First off i am not in law enforcent.But feel that they should have the abilty to arm themselves with what is available.Now with that said they are here to ENFORCE the laws that are handed to them.How about we get the ones [law makers] that make the laws use the same weapons that we have to be left with.that also would include there body guards.bet that would be a game changer.

That will never happen, politicians care about their safety. They don't care about the average citizen.

 

[Ditty]

That will never happen, politicians care about their safety. They don't care about the average citizen.

THIS is so true that it's sad.

Next is STRICTER gun control for Military Vets like me. B/c we have the training and we're sick and tired of seeing this country get flushed down the toilet.

 

[EvergreenSVT]

So, one instance make it the norm? Btw, appears to be a state issue...

You're missing the forest for the trees again.

Public sector unions have great power. Most cops are unionized. Put that power to work.

 

[RDJ]

I am all for it. Some people miss the point. The companies are doing this to drive home the point. If you want properly armed police do not take away the rights of my customers to own the same guns. Will it work? who knows. what I do know is that more and more companies are climbing abord this train, and if they all do it it will have an effect and maybe the stupid will stop.

 

[DaleM]

I am for Police Officer's having access to carrying guns in places I can't. Such as a courtroom or bank.

If I were Police Department Logistics or supply officer I would retaliate by ordering my guns from overseas makers.

 

[RDJ]

I am for Police Officer's having access to carrying guns in places I can't. Such as a courtroom or bank.

If I were Police Department Logistics or supply officer I would retaliate by ordering my guns from overseas makers.

it is not about whether or not you can carry. I don't think anyone has an issue with that.

the issue is in the right to own an AR-15 and 30 round mags.

as far as ordering from overseas that would be a bigger mistake than the gun bans. I think there would be bigger hell to pay with a buy overseas. and I think some places have a strict "Buy American" policy which would require a change in the law /ordinance / rules

 

[DaleM]

it is not about whether or not you can carry. I don't think anyone has an issue with that.

the issue is in the right to own an AR-15 and 30 round mags.

as far as ordering from overseas that would be a bigger mistake than the gun bans. I think there would be bigger hell to pay with a buy overseas. and I think some places have a strict "Buy American" policy which would require a change in the law /ordinance / rules

Might be time to fight back from an LEO side. If restrictions hit civilians, I'd be OK with LEOs staying ahead of the criminals. I don't want to give the bad guys the advantage over the law. I don;t want law abiding citizens restricted either, don;t get me wrong.

But if LEOs have buy US only and US won't sell, it seems the the LEOs can break contract too. It is not the LEOs fault our leaders are making crazy laws.

The citizen gets to fight back at the voting booth.

 

[x99blacksnakex]

I think that it's an unfortunate consequence of shitty legislation by some shitty legislators. However, I do think that an LEO should have access to the best weapons while on duty. Unfortunately it is a punishment to a group of people that on the whole are pro 2A, which also sucks.

The way I look at is this: We are all humans and we all have the same unalienable rights. We all have the right to keep and bear arms (if you are a law abiding citizen). We have the right to protect ourselves. We want to insure that our loved ones are safe in our homes. Regardless of whether you're an LEO or a civilian you should be able to protect yourself and your home sufficiently. I believe that if, for example, a 30 round magazine is good enough for an LEO to have on duty, then it is sufficient for them to have off duty, and thus sufficient for a law abiding citizen to own as well. I believe whether you are a law abiding civilian, or on duty or off duty officer, you should be able to defend yourself equally. We all know that criminals won't be abiding by gun laws, so both civilian and LEO parties should be able to defend themselves adequately against those threats.

 

[Lt. ZO6]

You're missing the forest for the trees again.

Public sector unions have great power. Most cops are unionized. Put that power to work.

Police Chiefs are unionized?

 

[EvergreenSVT]

Police Chiefs are unionized?

No. I didn't say they were. What I'm saying is that if individual policemen and their unions are going to stand by and allow anti-gun police chiefs to be the only law enforcement voice speaking publicly in this debate then I have no objection to all policemen being treated as if they are anti-gun.