Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Perd Hapley on January 12, 2017, 04:33:46 PM
-
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/01/11/pew-survey-police-support-gun-rights-over-gun-control-3-1-margin/
Pew finds that cops are overwhelmingly pro-gun, and not just for themselves.
-
Despite the pro-gun results, his survey is actually remarkably biased toward anti-gun responses.
The Pew survey was drawn from “the attitudes and experiences of nearly 8,000 policemen and women from departments with at least 100 officers.”
According to 2013 data (https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/lpd13ppp.pdf) this survey only included the largest 5% of departments.
Anyone want to guess how cops from the other 95% made up of small-town and rural departments would have answered?
-
most of the cops I know are HUGELY pro-gun. Even had one who told nearly everyone he met to "get a gun, get training, carry it."
-
A lot of time I've observed that police chiefs (political appointees) are often antigunners while patrol officers are more progun.
-
Meh. We were also told they would support the rest of us if we pressured congress to support LESOA. They mostly disappeared after that...
I'll believe it when I see it.
-
Meh. We were also told they would support the rest of us if we pressured congress to support LESOA. They mostly disappeared after that...
I'll believe it when I see it.
"Mostly"?
Who among them didn't disappear after we helped them get the LEOSA?
-
A lot of time I've observed that police chiefs (political appointees) are often antigunners while patrol officers are more progun.
Of course. Chiefs are almost always political appointees.
It would be interesting to see a survey of chiefs of police vs sheriffs (who are elected), regarding the Second Amendment. I'd bet that it would be a pretty stark difference.
-
The Detroit police chief is pro-gun. He has publicly called for people to arm themselves, get training in order to protect themselves because his department is unable to protect people properly for a number of reasons.
-
"Mostly"?
Who among them didn't disappear after we helped them get the LEOSA?
Well Sheriff David Clarke recently called for passing of a nationwide carry/reciprocity for example. He is probably the exception vs. the rule though.
-
The Detroit police chief is pro-gun. He has publicly called for people to arm themselves, get training in order to protect themselves because his department is unable to protect people properly for a number of reasons.
He was down here in Cincinnati, before Detroit and was very pro-gun here as well.
-
It's one thing for cops to say they are pro-gun. Doing something about it is something else.
How many of you were lurking on "gun" boards when the LEOSA was first proposed and was being debated? I was. MANY police officers materialzed on the pro-gun forums to ask for our support in enacting the LEOSA. Their mantra at the time was that it was "a good first step," and that once it was passed and the states could see that it didn't result in blood running in the streets, it would be easier to enact national concealed carry. They promised that if we supported them in getting HR 218 passed, they would reciprocate by supporting national concealed carry for the rest of us.
So we supported HR 218 (which became the LEOSA). They got what they wanted. Grateful police officers all across the country responded by ... crickets.
This discussion has been on-going for more than ten years. Here's an example: https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/wi-retired-cops-wont-be-able-to-carry-either.180929/page-2#post-2229482
-
It's one thing for cops to say they are pro-gun. Doing something about it is something else.
How many of you were lurking on "gun" boards when the LEOSA was first proposed and was being debated? I was. MANY police officers materialzed on the pro-gun forms to ask for our support in enacting the LEOSA. Their mantra at the time was that it was "a good first step," and that once it was passed and the states could see that it didn't result in blood running in the streets, it would be easier to enact national concealed carry. They promised that if we supported them in getting HR 218 passed, they would reciprocate by supporting national concealed carry for the rest of us.
So we supported HR 218 (which became the LEOSA). Grateful police officers all across the country responded by ... crickets.
Did "we" pressure congress to pass LEOSA? Personally I didn't do squat for that - did you? Moreover, I absolutely do remember the discussions about HR 218 on the gun forums and there was hardly robust support for it. Some people said it was a good first step, but by and large folks were opposed to it - many very vocally - for a number of valid reasons. This narrative of "we carried their water and they deserted us!" doesn't stand up. Most of us said "meh" and they won a relatively easy fight because guns in the hands of police is easier to sell to statists than guns in the hands of everyone.
Come to think of it, which awesome national concealed carry bill did you want cops to get behind that they failed to?
-
Did "we" pressure congress to pass LEOSA? Personally I didn't do squat for that - did you? Moreover, I absolutely do remember the discussions about HR 218 on the gun forums and there was hardly robust support for it. Some people said it was a good first step, but by and large folks were opposed to it - many very vocally - for a number of valid reasons. This narrative of "we carried their water and they deserted us!" doesn't stand up. Most of us said "meh" and they won a relatively easy fight because guns in the hands of police is easier to sell to statists than guns in the hands of everyone.
Come to think of it, which awesome national concealed carry bill did you want cops to get behind that they failed to?
I remember it well. It was the reason I brought it up earlier. I grudgingly supported it including contacting my rep and senators. I however said all along that I expected they would fail to show up for us. And of course they did in 2009.
http://www.semissourian.com/story/1556733.html
-
Did "we" pressure congress to pass LEOSA? Personally I didn't do squat for that - did you? Moreover, I absolutely do remember the discussions about HR 218 on the gun forums and there was hardly robust support for it. Some people said it was a good first step, but by and large folks were opposed to it - many very vocally - for a number of valid reasons. This narrative of "we carried their water and they deserted us!" doesn't stand up. Most of us said "meh" and they won a relatively easy fight because guns in the hands of police is easier to sell to statists than guns in the hands of everyone.
Come to think of it, which awesome national concealed carry bill did you want cops to get behind that they failed to?
Hell, how many are purely against any idea of a nation carry bill in the first place? Even one as simple as "you have to honor all other states permits and they have to honor yours".
Hell on some boards I've seen the same folks in one thread argue that the police disappeared after they got it, and then in another thread foam at the mouth against any notion of national reciprocity.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Was just talking to a cop friend I ran into at Wendys about this. He laughed and said that he'd gladly support national reciprocity, but no one on the 2A side can even agree on what that should be...
-
Was just talking to a cop friend I ran into at Wendys about this. He laughed and said that he'd gladly support national reciprocity, but no one on the 2A side can even agree on what that should be...
Simple, like I've stated before, just need to write an EO that states that the 2A allows for anyone who can legally own a firearm to carry that firearm where ever and whenever they damn well choose.
-
It's one thing for cops to say they are pro-gun. Doing something about it is something else.
You could say the same thing about 90% of non-cop gun owners.
-
Simple, like I've stated before, just need to write an EO that states that the 2A allows for anyone who can legally own a firearm to carry that firearm where ever and whenever they damn well choose.
Despite the beliefs and actions of recent presidents, especiall the outgoing one, an EO has no effect on State laws, and would be ignored by criminal courts in many states.
-
Despite the beliefs and actions of recent presidents, especiall the outgoing one, an EO has no effect on State laws, and would be ignored by criminal courts in many states.
Do to the states with this like they did to force them to change the drinking age. Withhold money if they don't comply.
-
Did "we" pressure congress to pass LEOSA? Personally I didn't do squat for that - did you?
Yes, in fact, I did. I wrote letters of support to my U.S. Congresscritter and to both of my U.S. Senators.
Moreover, I absolutely do remember the discussions about HR 218 on the gun forums and there was hardly robust support for it. Some people said it was a good first step, but by and large folks were opposed to it - many very vocally - for a number of valid reasons. This narrative of "we carried their water and they deserted us!" doesn't stand up. Most of us said "meh" and they won a relatively easy fight because guns in the hands of police is easier to sell to statists than guns in the hands of everyone.
There was certainly a lot of discussion about the fact that enacting HR 218 was just furthering the inequality between the police and the rest of us. In fact, I personally posted to that effect. I also posted that I fully expected the police to forget all about us "civilians" once they got what they wanted. Which is exactly what happened (sadly, but hardly unexpectedly). But I did support HR 2018, despite my reservations, and I'm sure I wasn't the only "civilian" to have done so.
-
Hell on some boards I've seen the same folks in one thread argue that the police disappeared after they got it, and then in another thread foam at the mouth against any notion of national reciprocity.
It would be ironic ... if it weren't so tragic. Yes, on other forums there are people (including people who have been lamenting for years that their permit from __X__ isn't recognized in __Y__ or __Z__) who are adamantly against the current, proposed national reciprocity bill. Their objections seems to follow a couple of basic themes. The first is, "WE don't need the feds to establish stricter criteria than my state already has." (But the bill doesn't do anything like that.)
Next is "What the feds give, the feds can take away. We shouldn't have a national carry permit." (Again, the bill doesn't do anything like that.)
Then there's the "But the anti states will ignore it" argument. So ... that's what courts are for.
In the end, when asked if they have actually bothered to read the bill they are bloviating against, the answer almost always is, "Well, no ... but I'm against it." It just pisses me off. People have been saying for decades that a carry permit should be like a driver's license -- issued by your home state and recognized everywhere. Here we are, with a President-elect who actively supports that concept and the Republicans in control of both houses of Congress -- meaning we're closer to getting that than we have ever been before, and probably closer than we'll ever be again -- and these idiots are AGAINST it! And can't even be bothered to read the eff'n bill before opposing it!
-
Simple, like I've stated before, just need to write an EO that states that the 2A allows for anyone who can legally own a firearm to carry that firearm where ever and whenever they damn well choose.
No good. A federal (Presidential) EO cannot constrain state governments.
-
Here's my concern with reciprocity. Without clear legislation explaining what is and is not legal, there will be problems. Here in Ohio, I can carry a Glock 17 fully loaded with a +2 adapter for 20 rounds in the gun, loaded up with whatever hollow points I got the best deal on at the store. Now, let's say an EO or federal law gets passed that simply says my permit is good in all 50 states plus DC, so I now carry to visit family in New York, and plan a stop to see a college buddy in Jersey. Can I still carry the Glock 17 in New York with the 19 round mags, or with their SAFE act restrict me to 10 round mags? Do I need to load up ball ammo to legally carry in Jersey?
Honestly, if reciprocity does get passed, my Smith revolver will be my travel gun until all of this gets sorted out, as I don't want to be the guy arrested for illegal possession of high cap mags, etc. and end up sitting in jail somewhere while it all gets argued in court.
-
Honestly, if reciprocity does get passed, my Smith revolver will be my travel gun until all of this gets sorted out, as I don't want to be the guy arrested for illegal possession of high cap mags, etc. and end up sitting in jail somewhere while it all gets argued in court.
^^^ Understood and agreed.
That said, a 6-shot revolver and a spare speedloader is a lot better than harsh words in a "situation." Personally, although I own a couple of Para-Ordnance double stacks, I usally carry a Colt Combat Commander or a Colt Officers ACP, and either of those would be okay under any state's [current] laws.
-
Here's my concern with reciprocity. Without clear legislation explaining what is and is not legal, there will be problems. Here in Ohio, I can carry a Glock 17 fully loaded with a +2 adapter for 20 rounds in the gun, loaded up with whatever hollow points I got the best deal on at the store. Now, let's say an EO or federal law gets passed that simply says my permit is good in all 50 states plus DC, so I now carry to visit family in New York, and plan a stop to see a college buddy in Jersey. Can I still carry the Glock 17 in New York with the 19 round mags, or with their SAFE act restrict me to 10 round mags? Do I need to load up ball ammo to legally carry in Jersey?
Honestly, if reciprocity does get passed, my Smith revolver will be my travel gun until all of this gets sorted out, as I don't want to be the guy arrested for illegal possession of high cap mags, etc. and end up sitting in jail somewhere while it all gets argued in court.
No you can't carry the 19 round mag in NY, and yes you need ball ammo in NJ. Why is that even a question? You would have to comply with the laws that a permit holder in the state you are traveling to complies with.
Example, I can have a RADAR detector in my car in FL. VA (for some reason) bans radar detectors. I can drive in VA on my FL license but I have to take down my RADAR detector. Window Tint that is legal in TX may not be legal in CA. If you take a car with TX plates to CA you have to comply with CA law, or you risk a citation.
It's pretty simple. Comply with the laws of the location you are in. All the Reciprocity Bill does is have the states give out of state residents with permits the same rights as they give their own citizens with permits.
-
Plus states like NJ and NY you'd be a dumbass to carry in anyway. Remember some of these blue states are the ones that will arrest and prosecute people complying with federal law in transporting firearms interstate.
-
Do to the states with this like they did to force them to change the drinking age. Withhold money if they don't comply.
So, trample the constitution in the name of the constitution?
-
So, trample the constitution in the name of the constitution?
Where does it say in the Constitution that the federal government will fund the states?
-
Where does it say in the Constitution that the federal government will fund the states?
Pretty sure it's not telling the federal government to extort the states into doing its bidding
-
Maybe if the feds would just "extort" a few more states over a few more issues we could start to whittle the national debt down a bit and let the economy get back to being quasi-viable.
-
Maybe if the feds would just "extort" a few more states over a few more issues we could start to whittle the national debt down a bit and let the economy get back to being quasi-viable.
How in the world would that help the national debt?
-
How in the world would that help the national debt?
I believe he's talking about the national government spending less on the states.
-
How in the world would that help the national debt?
Where do you think the feral government gets the money they "give" to the states?
They borrow it. Each year the feral government runs a deficit (even if one year's deficit is less than the previous year's deficit) adds to the debt. Every program the cities or states get a federal grant for is a program that adds to the national debt.
"Deficit reduction" is a stupid, meaningless term. Until we enact budgets that have zero deficits and include a line item for paying down the national debt, the country is teetering on fiscal disaster.