Chicago Won't Let Retired Cops Carry Concealed Guns
- Thread starter MoW
- Start date
XavierBreath
New member
Sorry MRex, neither of those links support your argument. Neither does your feint at capitulation. You made the statement, called people bigots and assinine. Now back up your statements.
Do you have some hard data of violent felons extracting revenge on retired officers of the law, or is that just speculation and hollywood myth?
Let's see some sources, and/or some data to back up the fundamental premise of your argument MRex.
Until that time retired police officers in Chicago fall into the same category as Sean Penn and Dianne Feinstein, those who are more equal than others...... or at least they used to fall into the same category, but do not any longer.
Come on, hard data, statistics. With that, you might convince me.
We can certainly present the same for retired civilian victims of violent criminals.
Do you have some hard data of violent felons extracting revenge on retired officers of the law, or is that just speculation and hollywood myth?
Let's see some sources, and/or some data to back up the fundamental premise of your argument MRex.
Until that time retired police officers in Chicago fall into the same category as Sean Penn and Dianne Feinstein, those who are more equal than others...... or at least they used to fall into the same category, but do not any longer.
Come on, hard data, statistics. With that, you might convince me.
We can certainly present the same for retired civilian victims of violent criminals.
Gary Conner
New member
Mrex21 wrote
Quote: Educate yourself.
Dear Mrex21:
Believe me, I have educated myself on this issue. I graduated from the University of kicked ass.
I grew up in an area where the words " Help, someone call 911" didn't help much, when getting beaten and "slightly" stabbed by a group of guys.
I didn't get any help from any retired cops carrying any CCW's, (it was in my neighborhood, and not a lot of retired cops stayed in my neighborhood) and it was not legal for me to carry a pistol at the time, since I am not a cop, and since I follow the law, I was not armed.
But at the time, if I were a retired cop, I would believe I had the right to carry, not because I was "specially trained as an LEO" but because I was getting my ass kicked and stabbed.
I sure wished I had a pistol at the time, so I could defend myself. Even though I was not a cop, I sure felt I had a right to defend myself, but I was not able to whip eight guys who jumped me because we were not of the same race. If I had one, the fight would have never began, because a guy with a broken coke bottle usually is unsucessful stabbing someone who has several .45 rounds that reach much farther.
My question is, I believe you have a right to defend yourself as a retired LEO if you were (obviously) a law abiding citizen, not because you are a retired LEO.
Why do you feel (other than you might think I am incapable of utilizing a firearm) that I don't have the same right?
Quote: Educate yourself.
Dear Mrex21:
Believe me, I have educated myself on this issue. I graduated from the University of kicked ass.
I grew up in an area where the words " Help, someone call 911" didn't help much, when getting beaten and "slightly" stabbed by a group of guys.
I didn't get any help from any retired cops carrying any CCW's, (it was in my neighborhood, and not a lot of retired cops stayed in my neighborhood) and it was not legal for me to carry a pistol at the time, since I am not a cop, and since I follow the law, I was not armed.
But at the time, if I were a retired cop, I would believe I had the right to carry, not because I was "specially trained as an LEO" but because I was getting my ass kicked and stabbed.
I sure wished I had a pistol at the time, so I could defend myself. Even though I was not a cop, I sure felt I had a right to defend myself, but I was not able to whip eight guys who jumped me because we were not of the same race. If I had one, the fight would have never began, because a guy with a broken coke bottle usually is unsucessful stabbing someone who has several .45 rounds that reach much farther.
My question is, I believe you have a right to defend yourself as a retired LEO if you were (obviously) a law abiding citizen, not because you are a retired LEO.
Why do you feel (other than you might think I am incapable of utilizing a firearm) that I don't have the same right?
azredhawk44
Moderator
To be fair (as much as it galls me to be fair) Mrex doesn't feel that we shouldn't have the right.
He just dislikes our glee that the FOP just got it "stuck to them" by having the retired LEOs of chicago disarmed by the kooks in power there.
He says "better some than none, and they need it more" and we respond by "who the hell do you think you are, NEED IT MORE?!!?"
Ideally they should carry just as I should carry. He wants to get the 0.25% of the population that are retired police to be able to carry. I want the other 99.75% to carry too, that are legally able to do so.
azredhawk44
Moderator
BTW, this absolutely smacks of Orwellian "Animal Farm", the whole idea of "need it more" and something that was once commonly available becoming a dwindling elitist resource... I am so very sad that the resource we are haggling over happens to be our right to live and exist rather than be randomly victimized or killed by trash.
Gary Conner
New member
Dear Axredhawk44:
You say he believes we have the same right, but it appears to me, that he believes his right takes precedent over mine. The reason I say that, is due to his statement about there being a "difference". He wrote:
"Simple fact of the matter is, they are different because they do come in contact with the filth of society every day as part of the normal course of their duties. This puts them at a greater risk."
What he appears to be saying is the retired cop has the right now, and I can possibly be granted the right later.
I totally disagree. That is exactly like the politician, caught at the airport with a gun in his briefcase going through the metal detector, trying to avoid prosecution, by saying "My family needs the protection, because I am a high profile person". (Texas State Senator previous to CCW law)
That is exactly as unfair, as whites having the right to vote previous to blacks, or males having the right to vote, previous to women. Both injustices were wrong, in my opinion. You just notice them more, when you are the victim.
It is the same as saying a non-LEO's opinion has less merit than an LEO's opinion on this issue.
You say he believes we have the same right, but it appears to me, that he believes his right takes precedent over mine. The reason I say that, is due to his statement about there being a "difference". He wrote:
"Simple fact of the matter is, they are different because they do come in contact with the filth of society every day as part of the normal course of their duties. This puts them at a greater risk."
What he appears to be saying is the retired cop has the right now, and I can possibly be granted the right later.
I totally disagree. That is exactly like the politician, caught at the airport with a gun in his briefcase going through the metal detector, trying to avoid prosecution, by saying "My family needs the protection, because I am a high profile person". (Texas State Senator previous to CCW law)
That is exactly as unfair, as whites having the right to vote previous to blacks, or males having the right to vote, previous to women. Both injustices were wrong, in my opinion. You just notice them more, when you are the victim.
It is the same as saying a non-LEO's opinion has less merit than an LEO's opinion on this issue.
azredhawk44
Moderator
Yay us!!!!
Harley Quinn
Moderator
Pride-Integrity-Guts =PIG
Thanks for the insight.
Really no reason to try and convince you, you are taking the stance of being right.
I don't believe there is a right and wrong on this topic. Right and Left is better for the overall picture.
Plus or Minus, its no big deal all you did was gang up. Same as in real life.
Did you know that being a LEO is considered an endangered species (occupation)?
Like I wrote before CCW is a big responsibility, maybe they are doing them a favor and we really can't see it...
We will see how it goes in the future and other cities. Florida is an option (everyone carries).
The Senate is not going to go along with the Terrorist act, we will see what they cut to be able to comply with the desire of the Pres and the House of Rep. Like I said it is not right or wrong it is 'Left or Right'.
Harley
Thanks for the insight.
Really no reason to try and convince you, you are taking the stance of being right.
I don't believe there is a right and wrong on this topic. Right and Left is better for the overall picture.
Plus or Minus, its no big deal all you did was gang up. Same as in real life.
Did you know that being a LEO is considered an endangered species (occupation)?
Like I wrote before CCW is a big responsibility, maybe they are doing them a favor and we really can't see it...
We will see how it goes in the future and other cities. Florida is an option (everyone carries).
The Senate is not going to go along with the Terrorist act, we will see what they cut to be able to comply with the desire of the Pres and the House of Rep. Like I said it is not right or wrong it is 'Left or Right'.
Harley
mrex21 said:
Wow.
First Amendment rights are about the most guarded, protected, DEMANDED rights in the entire Bill of Rights. They are probably the single most cherished ones among the American people. And you say, "Meh, we all have crap to deal with in our jobs."
Wow. I have never seen someone so blase about having a very crucial right taken away from him by his employer or anyone else.
-azurefly
xavierbreath said:
I have asked him for that twice now, and he has given us exactly... jack. So don't hold your breath waiting.
He's got about as much to back up that assertion as HCI has to back up the claim that terrorists sneak GLOCKs through airport x-ray machines.
-azurefly
Harley Quinn
Moderator
Regarding violent acts...Done to off duty
Officer going to court and coming out of grocery stores.
In Los Angeles there was many a time when officers had price's on their heads (gang detail 77th Div and Newton Div, 70's and 80's). Snitch's would usually save them. Geting paid to come up with that kind of information.
I remember when outside a court room an officer got killed while in his car leaving court. Another time an officer was killed while off duty and had been stalked, shot him dead as he protected his son. I don't have the stories on the web, but I know of them.
It happens, if you don't want to believe it don't. Go play in the street and see if it is dangerous.
Harley
Officer going to court and coming out of grocery stores.
In Los Angeles there was many a time when officers had price's on their heads (gang detail 77th Div and Newton Div, 70's and 80's). Snitch's would usually save them. Geting paid to come up with that kind of information.
I remember when outside a court room an officer got killed while in his car leaving court. Another time an officer was killed while off duty and had been stalked, shot him dead as he protected his son. I don't have the stories on the web, but I know of them.
It happens, if you don't want to believe it don't. Go play in the street and see if it is dangerous.
Harley
We didn't ask for anecdotes; we asked for statistics.
Anyway...
You showed us cases in which cops were actually killed, even in places where they were not barred from carrying off-duty weapons. (And besides, aren't cops who go to court actually ON duty? Correct me if I'm wrong.)
Wouldn't it be more helpful to your argument if you showed us where their guns ended up being useful in defending themselves? Your examples instead show that despite being armed (whether or not they were on or off duty) they were killed anyway. Hardly a case-maker for you.
-azurefly
Anyway...
You showed us cases in which cops were actually killed, even in places where they were not barred from carrying off-duty weapons. (And besides, aren't cops who go to court actually ON duty? Correct me if I'm wrong.)
Wouldn't it be more helpful to your argument if you showed us where their guns ended up being useful in defending themselves? Your examples instead show that despite being armed (whether or not they were on or off duty) they were killed anyway. Hardly a case-maker for you.
-azurefly
Harley Quinn
Moderator
Not a case I am trying to make
Just giving you information, I am not going to change your mind.
It does not matter to me, you think the way you do, thats life.
I really can not recall any incident that would change your mind. I could write quite a few stories but, there is no Point.
I actually can understand where you are coming from, it will be in the court system soon and then we will be able to follow it and talk about then.
I noticed a thread about a computer system in LA that is designed to track down rouge cops, I think I will go over to it and see 'what up'.
Harley
Just giving you information, I am not going to change your mind.
It does not matter to me, you think the way you do, thats life.
I really can not recall any incident that would change your mind. I could write quite a few stories but, there is no Point.
I actually can understand where you are coming from, it will be in the court system soon and then we will be able to follow it and talk about then.
I noticed a thread about a computer system in LA that is designed to track down rouge cops, I think I will go over to it and see 'what up'.
Harley
Frankly, I don't believe you. You claim you weren't trying to convince us about the incidence of criminals exacting retribution on cops (and thus proving their alleged heightened need to be able to carry guns off-duty), but if you weren't attempting that, why on earth would you have posted those anecdotes? Randomness?
You seem to be attempting to divorce yourself from what you clearly must have been trying to do, now that it has been pointed out that your offering failed to accomplish its goal.
And so we're back to requesting that someone who believes cops suffer a significant amount of post-retirement targeting by those they have arrested come up with stats about how often this happens. Preferably cases that would demonstrate that being armed after retirement would be of help to these cops; not that it lets them end up just as dead as if they'd been unarmed.
-azurefly
DonR101395
New member
To All,
I don't think anyone here wants to disarm current or retired LEO's. What has been stated is that most people don't want special priviledges extended to them. If they get special priviledges who is the next group in line? I vote for the military. We come in contact with some folks that make Chicago gang member look like pansy ballarinas. Giving active and retired military special weapons priviledges would outrage every liberal with eyes and ears. Even though I'm part of that group I don't support it. What I support is legally changing the bad laws, changing the representation, or moving somewhere that is more in line with my thinking and lifestyle. I'm blessed to live in Florida not because I love the area, but because Florida supports my lifestyle.
I don't think anyone here wants to disarm current or retired LEO's. What has been stated is that most people don't want special priviledges extended to them. If they get special priviledges who is the next group in line? I vote for the military. We come in contact with some folks that make Chicago gang member look like pansy ballarinas. Giving active and retired military special weapons priviledges would outrage every liberal with eyes and ears. Even though I'm part of that group I don't support it. What I support is legally changing the bad laws, changing the representation, or moving somewhere that is more in line with my thinking and lifestyle. I'm blessed to live in Florida not because I love the area, but because Florida supports my lifestyle.
XavierBreath
New member
And that is why I'm in Louisiana. Several times I could have relocated and made money doing so. I hate the idea that our politicians are going to line their pockets selling rebuilding contracts on NOLA, building it in the same place that will be out to sea in 75 years, using billions of dollars, when it could be moved north. My state is one that almost revels in stupidity. It does have good gun laws though. Thus I stayed.
An eye opener for me was the confiscations in my own state. That changed me from a firm LEO supporter to a very suspicious one. Yes, I know many did not follow the order, but the order was given. That was enough to alter my perception. I only hope that firm follow-up and prosecutions by the NRA-ILA will prevent this from ever happening again. If not, my next stop might someday be Florida as well.
An eye opener for me was the confiscations in my own state. That changed me from a firm LEO supporter to a very suspicious one. Yes, I know many did not follow the order, but the order was given. That was enough to alter my perception. I only hope that firm follow-up and prosecutions by the NRA-ILA will prevent this from ever happening again. If not, my next stop might someday be Florida as well.
Harley Quinn
Moderator
Azurefly, give up the attacks.
You enjoy attacking. You are taking a position based on what??? Opinion, or have you any creditable evidence to show me? Any stories? Any information? Where are you getting your thoughts from?
Azarefly said:
***
You seem to be attempting to divorce yourself from what you clearly must have been trying to do, now that it has been pointed out that your offering failed to accomplish its goal.
***
You act as if you have first hand knowledge. I don't believe you do, you are a person who has an opinion based on...who know's... when you are writing you give a lot of your thoughts and want others to show 'hard evidence' . Lets see your side of the story 'Mr Attacker'.
Prove your case and show me where it is written that the officers are not at a 'heightened danger'.
Like I said it is pure legal and political BS and the city isnt the least bit caring of the officers safety. Most of the safety issues are brought about by organizations that care for the officers lives.
The city is just the employer and could care less. They pay a lot less out to the widow and orphans than they do to the legal problems that incure by suits that are bogus and bothersome. It is not who is right or wrong it is about, right and left. They do not want to take some sort of unseen responsibility down the road for the retired officer.
Pretty soon we will see suits against the Gov. because they trained men to be killers to potect the country and when they came back and got s**t on by the Gov they were mad and took it out on some citizen. Deepest pocket thats all.
It really does not matter since you are only interested in attacking me or other posters to drive them away, and then you feel like you have won. No win or lose, different opinion. I know mine from experience where do you get yours? We will see when it goes to court. If it does?
Which is where it will go.
When the BG gets taken to jail he feels like everyone is picking on him. No not everyone, only the officer's that arrest him. So if he can't take it out on the officer, who is the next target? Or the next?
I don't know do you? But I have a fairly good idea.
While at a location (take your pick) he is attending, he finds out a retired Officer is there, it just might be the one he goes off on. Makes sense to me.
Make your case. Just don't do it by the normal way you have been, which is to attack. (thanks)
By the way you voice your thoughts, I would say somewhere you have been given a ticket or gone to jail and just don't care for the police. Correct me if I am wrong.
Harley
You enjoy attacking. You are taking a position based on what??? Opinion, or have you any creditable evidence to show me? Any stories? Any information? Where are you getting your thoughts from?
Azarefly said:
***
You seem to be attempting to divorce yourself from what you clearly must have been trying to do, now that it has been pointed out that your offering failed to accomplish its goal.
***
You act as if you have first hand knowledge. I don't believe you do, you are a person who has an opinion based on...who know's... when you are writing you give a lot of your thoughts and want others to show 'hard evidence' . Lets see your side of the story 'Mr Attacker'.
Prove your case and show me where it is written that the officers are not at a 'heightened danger'.
Like I said it is pure legal and political BS and the city isnt the least bit caring of the officers safety. Most of the safety issues are brought about by organizations that care for the officers lives.
The city is just the employer and could care less. They pay a lot less out to the widow and orphans than they do to the legal problems that incure by suits that are bogus and bothersome. It is not who is right or wrong it is about, right and left. They do not want to take some sort of unseen responsibility down the road for the retired officer.
Pretty soon we will see suits against the Gov. because they trained men to be killers to potect the country and when they came back and got s**t on by the Gov they were mad and took it out on some citizen. Deepest pocket thats all.
It really does not matter since you are only interested in attacking me or other posters to drive them away, and then you feel like you have won. No win or lose, different opinion. I know mine from experience where do you get yours? We will see when it goes to court. If it does?
Which is where it will go.
When the BG gets taken to jail he feels like everyone is picking on him. No not everyone, only the officer's that arrest him. So if he can't take it out on the officer, who is the next target? Or the next?
I don't know do you? But I have a fairly good idea.
While at a location (take your pick) he is attending, he finds out a retired Officer is there, it just might be the one he goes off on. Makes sense to me.
Make your case. Just don't do it by the normal way you have been, which is to attack. (thanks)
By the way you voice your thoughts, I would say somewhere you have been given a ticket or gone to jail and just don't care for the police. Correct me if I am wrong.
Harley