MA Governor following NY's Lead

Even if they're banking on that, the Court isn't going to reverse precedent that quickly. It would call their very credibility into question.
 
I can understand why Mass cops are mad. The NY law applies to the police as well as the way the law we written there is no exception added for police.
Click to expand...

That's the one part of the law I can actually support. Why should cops be exempt from the law? If "high-capacity" magazines are only made for murdering large numbers of people, why do the cops need them? The incident at The Empire State Building a few months back (and many others before that) clearly show the dangers of cops having "high capacity" mags.

Mentioning what I think of the NYPD on here would probably get me in trouble, but it's practically impossible to respect them (and I don't) when you hear their response after they realize that suddenly the have to follow the law to like the rest of us dirty commoners. :eek:

Give em all 7 round mags and let the criminals deal with them.:mad:

The US is in dept up to it's eye balls to China. China is using this as leverage and telling Obama to dis-arm it's public. The big question is , why does China want the US public disarmed? It will be done in small steps. Obama has 4 years to start the process.
Click to expand...

I have it on good authority that the Illuminati and Mecha-Hitler are involved as well :p
 
I can understand why Mass cops are mad. The NY law applies to the police as well as the way the law we written there is no exception added for police.
That's the one part of the law I can actually support. Why should cops be exempt from the law? If "high-capacity" magazines are only made for murdering large numbers of people, why do the cops need them? The incident at The Empire State Building a few months back (and many others before that) clearly show the dangers of cops having "high capacity" mags.

Mentioning what I think of the NYPD on here would probably get me in trouble, but it's practically impossible to respect them (and I don't) when you hear their response after they realize that suddenly the have to follow the law to like the rest of us dirty commoners.

Give em all 7 round mags and let the criminals deal with them.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I don't mean to pick a fight but these folks put their life on the line every day... it is there job to run TO danger. They should not be limited. We should not be hoping for things that would endanger them or those they are trying to protect.
 
it is there job to run TO danger. They should not be limited.
Click to expand...
I disagree! They should be aloud the same amount as everyone else! You quoted"it is there job to run TO danger."
How is it fair that 5 cops with 150 bullets in there magazines Holding down 2 thugs with 40 bullets vs. 2 thugs holding me down but I only get 10! I can't retreat from the thugs but the LEOs can back off till more cops show up!
99% of the time it is civilians that meet the thugs first! Also why do they get to be exempt when they are off duty?
ps. It was also ruled that they do not have to protect!
 
I don't wish magazine capacity limits upon anyone, civilian or military. It's nonsense and nobody should be forced to face any threat to their health with inferior equipment.
 
I'm sorry, I don't mean to pick a fight but these folks put their life on the line every day... it is there job to run TO danger. They should not be limited. We should not be hoping for things that would endanger them or those they are trying to protect.
Click to expand...

Frankly people like those are specifically the kind we don't need protecting us.

Did they complain about the law's unconstitutionality? Or that it limit's EVERYONE'S ability to defend themselves? No, they didn't care about any of those things. It's only once they learned that they themselves would be inconvenienced did they start whining.

Screw them. Once the police start getting the idea that they are somehow special and better than the mere "civilians" they must constantly deal with then their well-being is of little concern to me at that point.

If I lived where you do with the police force that you have. Perhaps one of the counties where the Sheriffs specifically refuse to enforce unconstitutional gun laws, then my opinion would be much the same as yours. However when you deal with cops like these all these years, it's hard not to view them as a nuisance at best and and outright enemy at worst.
 
With respect to LEOs and capacity limits, there are two important concepts that really ought to be kept separate. One is: What are the odds of needing a firearm for defensive purposes? The second is: How many rounds does one need, in the event that one does need a firearm for defensive purposes. Those two issues often get tangled up in the discussions about LEOs and capacity limits.

Due to the nature of their work, LEOs have a higher probability of needing to use a firearm. I, as a civilian, do not do things like make traffic stops or strike up conversations with people who are unruly. LEOs do. That means that it is more likely that a LEO will need his gun to defend himself. By extension, this also means that LEOs face an increased probability of multiple attackers, as compared to myself.

However, once that "probability threshhold" has been crossed, and it's clear that a defensive gun use is in play, a law enforcement officer faces a human or humans, just as you or I would. Further, LEOs have the advantages of being able to get backup, and (normally) having notified someone of their whereabouts before making contact.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top