Chicago Won't Let Retired Cops Carry Concealed Guns
- Thread starter MoW
- Start date
mrex21 said:
You're seeing it wrong.
We're "moaning" the exact opposite: they should not be a special class. Giving them the right to carry when they retire makes them a special class. Our point is that now, if they complain about losing that privilege (right?), they are arguing for being a special class, and we say, "If you won't let US carry when we're not cops, YOU should not carry when you're not cops. You're not a privileged class of people. So either support carry for all, or shut your yap."
Not if I won't be allowed to be, no.
Yes, and a good way to make that happen is to have cops on our side, arguing in favor of would-be victims being allowed to bear arms. If they get special privileges, they won't really be driven to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with us as a united front in favor of CCW rights, will they.
mrex21 said:
Yes, and when they are on duty and facing this daily risk, no one is challenging their being able to carry then.
So why are you arguing about that?mrex21 said:
Make them pay? No one is saying that, that I can see. We're saying, don't give them privileges that you won't give to "lay-citizens." Our point is, yeah, let them be barred from retired-carry, so that they can see what WE deal with. And then when they see it our way, they can join with us to get EVERYONE CCW rights. It's not about "making them pay." It's about forcing the issue to a head.
-azurefly
Sorry, but you sound like a liberal.
Follow me on this:
When you look into your neighbor's yard, and you see him driving a shiny new car (which just so happens to be the same sort of shiny new car you've had your eye on for a while), do you:
A. Go do what you have to do to get the shiny new car you want?
B. Pout, moan, and whine and say, "It's not fair. If I can't have it, then he shouldn't have it either."
Follow me on this:
When you look into your neighbor's yard, and you see him driving a shiny new car (which just so happens to be the same sort of shiny new car you've had your eye on for a while), do you:
A. Go do what you have to do to get the shiny new car you want?
B. Pout, moan, and whine and say, "It's not fair. If I can't have it, then he shouldn't have it either."
Okay, you're acting stupid now, so I'm dropping my end of this discussion. You're turning a blind eye to my explanation, and then assembling idiotic strawmen and calling me a liberal for no good cause. If you won't read and see my point there in my text, I'm not going to repeat it in vain.
-azurefly
-azurefly
No. I am concerned because the authority structure in place, especially in places like that, have set LEO's up as a privileged class, not like "everyone else". What I would like would be that there to be no privileged class at all.
Well, if they are allowed to carry when the rank and file citizenry are not, well, that means that they are a "special class", like it or not. They are of the special class "retired LEO", and have the special privilege of "allowed to CCW" when the rank and file citizenry are not allowed to do likewise.
If they want to be armed, that's fine with me.
Of course I do.
And your point is? Oh, you are saying that since the average citizen isn't in as much peril as a LEO, that the citizen has less of an inherent right to self defense? That is what you are implying, isn't it? And just how does this apply to RETIRED LEO's, who by definition aren't going into harm's way anymore? And since when are we meteing out rights, anyway? Oh, right, since the various flavors of gun grabbers decided that was expedient to do.
Finally -- something I can agree with. Now, can we finally get LEO's on the bandwagon and actively support this concept, lending their considerable political weight to this meme? Somehow, that concept seems distasteful to you -- that they may have to be shaken from their complacency.
Laughable. You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. I have no bone to pick with LEO's, current or retired, other than they do seem to be slow to warm up to the concept of rank and file civilian RKBA, especially those in urban areas and "blue states". And I assure you that none of us that you are referring to are actually in favor of stripping RKBA from any law abiding citizen: LEO, retired LEO or whatever.
Wrong-O. Again, you couldn't be any more wrong if you tried. I'm not happy about them losing their inherent RKBA rights, and more than anyone else losing theirs. And I'm pretty confident that nobody else here is happy about it, either. What I am saying is that this may serve as a wake-up call for the LEO community to start taking a more active role in advocating not only their own RKBA, but that of the general population.
Not hardly -- I feel that it is you who haven't considered all of the ramifications.
That sort of defeatist attitude neutralizes whatever pitiful efforts you might make towards RKBA. You assume failure, therefore you will fail. You assume that everyone else will fail, therefore you fail to support them? That's what it sounds like to me.
Who says I'm not? What I am saying is that portions of the LEO community have been less than enthusiastic about supporting general RKBA, and that this may get them on that boat -- since the necessary implication of the edict is that the existing privileged status of retired LEO's is being done away with. I am in favor of dropping the privileged status, but not to the point of stripping RKBA -- but rather to the point of general affirmation of RKBA. Not so that more rights are removed from 1 class, but so that more rights are restored to the people in general.
How to gracefully respond to this? I can't gracefully, other than to say that the language is such that I suspect that the writer is blinded by his own prejudices, seeing anti-cop bigotry under every rock. Get a grip.
BTW -- please excuse the longwinded post, but some things just beg for a good Fisking.
azredhawk44
Moderator
This paragraph pisses me off so much!!! Who do you think you are
Why do you think cops show up and have to contact the "filth of society?" Its because somebody called them for help because they couldn't help themselves. Nobody would choose to be in contact with the filth. That's why a common value judgement like that can exist.
Saying that a retired cop is somehow going to continue to be put in contact with filth is a bit off-base, too. Cops don't go out looking for extra work in their off hours, and the retired ones are probably all off fishing or something. They're certainly not out contacting the "filth of society!"
You appear to absolutely believe in haves-and-have-nots!!!
azredhawk44
Moderator
It's also not an ON-DUTY COP'S normal course of action to use his firearm. How many times in your shifts do you unholster your weapon in preparation to use it? Maybe once a week or so as a precaution while securing a location? Once every few months for a violent arrest? Fired it once or twice in your career while on duty?
Irrelevant.
Whoa, whoa, whoa...easy there, big fella.
You're mistaken. When I say 'filth of society', I really mean the 'filth of society'...the rapists, the murderers, the child moletsers, the gang members, etc. I most certainly do not mean citizens who call on law enforcement for help. Forgive me for not making that clearer.
LEO's come into contact with this societal trash more often than the lay-citizen. It's simple numbers. The average lay-citizen may have a negative contact with a dirtbag, say, 2 to 4 times a year, for example. An officer's stock in trade is confronting the dregs of society on a daily basis. With our revolving door justice system, these criminal sorts are back out on the street quickly, and I have personally seen situations where a dirtbag states something to the effect of, "When I get out, I'll get even with you."
I don't deny that this sort of situation could happen to a lay-citizen, but, just through increased contact alone, it's going to happen more with LEO's. Dirtbags don't differentiate between 'active' and 'retired' LEO's. There are no gentleman's rules for revenge. That is why I support CCW for retired law enforcement officers.
I also support unrestricted CCW for citizens in general.
mrex21 said:
Your obvious misinterpretation of his post confirms my suspicion that you either have a reading comprehension difficulty or you are wilfully inferring the wrong thing from clearly stated text.
I made my points clear, and you went off on them as though you didn't "get" what I said.
Here again you prove that you didn't "get" what someone said.
"Turn in your teasin' comb and go back to high schooool..."
-azurefly
Besides, WHY ARE YOU STILL TALKING ABOUT WHAT COPS ENCOUNTER ON THE JOB? WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THEIR NEED TO HAVE CCW PRIVILEGES AFTER THEY RETIRE.
All this stuff you bring up about how they encounter societal dregs on the job is irrelevant. Once retired, they are not called out to deal with those people.
But I expect you to miss this clarification, too. Or conveniently ignore it. You've been doing that all along.
-azurefly
All this stuff you bring up about how they encounter societal dregs on the job is irrelevant. Once retired, they are not called out to deal with those people.
But I expect you to miss this clarification, too. Or conveniently ignore it. You've been doing that all along.
-azurefly
Those disarmed retired LEOs should just "call 911 and let the cops handle it," the way WE are supposed to do. :barf:
How about you come up with some stats regarding how often released criminals go targeting the retired LEOs who arrested them?
And is it any more frequent than they go after the prosecutors or judges who sent them to jail?
I would think that a bad guy would be more pissed at the judge, the DA, the jury, than the cop who simply brought him to those people.
But let's hear from you how often they are targeted, proving the need for them to be armed after retirement.
And what, ORDINARY CITIZENS can't fall victim to criminals with violent grudges? You gotta be kidding. You're holding this up as the reason for retired LEOs to have CCW rights, and pretending (very unconvincingly) that the same sort of targeting can't happen to a regular guy.
-azurefly
XavierBreath
New member
Yep. I see you have arrived to enlighten us all to the reasons retired cops should have greater rights than retired school teachers, retired attorneys, retired bus drivers and retired fry cooks.
Try to not set up straw men.
No retired cop goes into more dangerous areas than I do on a daily basis, alone and without back-up.
BreacherUp!
New member
Fellas, it seems we are taking steps backwards in order to be equal. Why not try to use the grounds gained with retired LEOs being able to carry as a leverage to work for all citizens.
Why would you rather start back from ground zero, where no one can carry?
I completely understand the sting of someone else being allowed to carry and you can't. No argument there. But we are now fighting within the ranks. This argument can go both ways. But it seems to me that the negative minded view is to take steps back in order to get on line rather than working to bring everyone else "up."
Why would you rather start back from ground zero, where no one can carry?
I completely understand the sting of someone else being allowed to carry and you can't. No argument there. But we are now fighting within the ranks. This argument can go both ways. But it seems to me that the negative minded view is to take steps back in order to get on line rather than working to bring everyone else "up."
Hey look Breacher -- the retired cops used to be able to carry and now they are not allowed to.
Now they want to complain about how crappy it is to not be able to carry a gun for protection.
WE did not force them to experience this "demotion." It was the FREAKIN' POLITICIANS IN CHICAGO.
All WE are doing is saying, "Okay, now, you're in the same boat we've been in for a long time. You gonna help bail with us, or what?"
Some of you are saying we're being vindictive. I say all we're doing is saying, "How do YOU like being treated like a peon who doesn't matter by the politicos?" All we're saying is that it ain't right, but now that retired cops face living like peons and want their privileges back, we would resent them being granted because it would establish that retired cops are worthy of more rights than we are.
-azurefly
Now they want to complain about how crappy it is to not be able to carry a gun for protection.
WE did not force them to experience this "demotion." It was the FREAKIN' POLITICIANS IN CHICAGO.
All WE are doing is saying, "Okay, now, you're in the same boat we've been in for a long time. You gonna help bail with us, or what?"
Some of you are saying we're being vindictive. I say all we're doing is saying, "How do YOU like being treated like a peon who doesn't matter by the politicos?" All we're saying is that it ain't right, but now that retired cops face living like peons and want their privileges back, we would resent them being granted because it would establish that retired cops are worthy of more rights than we are.
-azurefly
Very simple solution to this problem.
Pass a National CCW. Then the retired LEO's can apply for one, JUST LIKE THE REST OF US.
Dont believe this crap of allowing retired LEO's to carry is a stepping stone to National CCW. Skip this stepping stone, that creats a SPECIAL CLASS, and just have National CCW.
Pass a National CCW. Then the retired LEO's can apply for one, JUST LIKE THE REST OF US.
Dont believe this crap of allowing retired LEO's to carry is a stepping stone to National CCW. Skip this stepping stone, that creats a SPECIAL CLASS, and just have National CCW.
DonR101395
New member
How do you spell retired cop.........................
civilian
ci·vil·ian Audio pronunciation of "civilian" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (s-vlyn)
n.
1. A person following the pursuits of civil life, especially one who is not an active member of the military or police.
civilian
ci·vil·ian Audio pronunciation of "civilian" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (s-vlyn)
n.
1. A person following the pursuits of civil life, especially one who is not an active member of the military or police.
Doesn't logically follow. For this to be "us" taking steps backwards, it would mean that we were either the cause of the edict or were supportive of the edict. Neither are the case. Fact is, the steps backwards were none of our doing, but the doing of the gun grabbers in power there.
I would applaud such an effort, but such efforts have been fruitless in the past. To an extent, it is because the ones with the carry privilege have not been enthusiastic about encouraging those privileges to be spread to the citizenry, and the citizenry themselves have been either without an effective voice, or have been hoodwinked by the gun-grabbers into inaction.
I wouldn't. You have to start from where you are, and sometimes that is from ground zero. It is just the way it is.
Well, yes and no. Mostly it is misconceptions that have to be cleared up, logical flaws needing to be exposed, and motivating people to think outside of their own little "worlds" about what the bigger picture is.
Negatively minded? Nah. Realistically minded is more like it, realizing that even negative developments like this can have positive ramifications if we look for them. Remember: we aren't the ones who took the steps backward so much as the adversary made another advance against us, against our will. That advance against us may have opened up a weakness in the adversary's flank, we need to recognize that potential weakness in order to exploit it.
BreacherUp!,
I'm all for going forward for carry for ALL PEOPLE. But since the law passed I've yet to see where Retired LEO's are saying that now since we have ours, we will fight for you to get yours.
I've yet to see any websites by retired LEO's that even tries to go to the next level. Maybe if I saw a "www.retiredleosfortherightofeveryonebeingabletocarry.com and specificially pointing out that if they should be able to carry, then everyone should be able to carry then I would have a different opinion.
Look, I'm not against retired anyone's being able to carry concealed, or even better, anyone can carry concealed, no matter what state/city/area they are in or find themselves. I'm against others being able to do something that I should have been able to do in the first place, as any of the People that live in America.
MRex has some sort of chip on his shoulder and I am hoping that it's not the norm among the LEO's out there. I tend to believe that he is not the norm and the rest of the LEO's out there are for the People to have the same Rights, the same gear, and the same ability for the neat "ninja suit" that they are developing.
Just because some abuse what they can get isn't a reason to ban it from everyone else. If that were the case then cars should have been banned within the first couple of years they came out and especially in the '20's (if we're looking at that sort of "logic").
We do need to work WITH each other and not against each other, that is a given. Yet we cannot and willnot as long as each party (us vs. them) keeps on widening the gap between each other.
Maybe BreacherUp! you can be that bridge that is needed. I will tell you one thing, with Capt. Charlie being a member of this board, as well as LawDog when he comes in, it had really helped me overcome alot of what I see, hear, and read when it comes to LEO's. It's restored my faith somewhat that they are there to actually help and not to condemn humanity as a whole.
Oh, and I can't read what MRex will say in relation to this post if he responds, I've never used the ignore function before, I thought that this one time was warrented in my case, so please quote anything that may be relevant to the thread in general
.
Wayne
I'm all for going forward for carry for ALL PEOPLE. But since the law passed I've yet to see where Retired LEO's are saying that now since we have ours, we will fight for you to get yours.
I've yet to see any websites by retired LEO's that even tries to go to the next level. Maybe if I saw a "www.retiredleosfortherightofeveryonebeingabletocarry.com and specificially pointing out that if they should be able to carry, then everyone should be able to carry then I would have a different opinion.
Look, I'm not against retired anyone's being able to carry concealed, or even better, anyone can carry concealed, no matter what state/city/area they are in or find themselves. I'm against others being able to do something that I should have been able to do in the first place, as any of the People that live in America.
MRex has some sort of chip on his shoulder and I am hoping that it's not the norm among the LEO's out there. I tend to believe that he is not the norm and the rest of the LEO's out there are for the People to have the same Rights, the same gear, and the same ability for the neat "ninja suit" that they are developing.
Just because some abuse what they can get isn't a reason to ban it from everyone else. If that were the case then cars should have been banned within the first couple of years they came out and especially in the '20's (if we're looking at that sort of "logic").
We do need to work WITH each other and not against each other, that is a given. Yet we cannot and willnot as long as each party (us vs. them) keeps on widening the gap between each other.
Maybe BreacherUp! you can be that bridge that is needed. I will tell you one thing, with Capt. Charlie being a member of this board, as well as LawDog when he comes in, it had really helped me overcome alot of what I see, hear, and read when it comes to LEO's. It's restored my faith somewhat that they are there to actually help and not to condemn humanity as a whole.
Oh, and I can't read what MRex will say in relation to this post if he responds, I've never used the ignore function before, I thought that this one time was warrented in my case, so please quote anything that may be relevant to the thread in general
.Wayne