Blackwater OPS
New member
LOL, this guy is trying to apply "well-regulated" in the militia clause to mean it's ok to regulate guns, despite being told it means nothing close to what he thinks...
Police officers against the 2nd amendment?
- Thread starter Blackwater OPS
- Start date
LOL, this guy is trying to apply "well-regulated" in the militia clause to mean it's ok to regulate guns, despite being told it means nothing close to what he thinks...
I'm a staunch supporter of the RKBA, and a believer in the right of law abiding citizens to carry for their personal protection and the vast majority of officers I know feel the same way.
Eghad said
You are absolutely right sir. Police officers are come from within our society and bring with them the beliefs and values that they have gained during their life experience. But, my personal opinion is that police officers are probably more pro-gun percentage wise than the general populace. Bear in mind that when the International Association of Chief's of Police (IACP) spouts their anti-gun position, they are political appointees and do not speak for rank and file officers.
Eghad said
You are absolutely right sir. Police officers are come from within our society and bring with them the beliefs and values that they have gained during their life experience. But, my personal opinion is that police officers are probably more pro-gun percentage wise than the general populace. Bear in mind that when the International Association of Chief's of Police (IACP) spouts their anti-gun position, they are political appointees and do not speak for rank and file officers.
Most of the cops around here realize that gun control is a joke. When the AW ban fell, a local Sheriff was quoted as saying he couldn't care less. He said criminals don't use AW because they aren't practical for most of their purposes. It was refreshing to see such clear thinking on the subject from a politician. OTOH, this is Georgia. We are pretty damn pro-gun.
Optical Serenity
New member
ugh, I have yet to meet a Sheriff or Police Chief that agrees with just about anything the IACP puts out.
I also have yet to meet a Sheriff or Police Chief that isn't a strong RKBA supporter.
I also have yet to meet a Sheriff or Police Chief that isn't a strong RKBA supporter.
Gary Conner
New member
Quote from Optical Serenity:
Optical Serenity, meet P. Edwin Compass, III.
P. Edwin, meet Optical.
Optical Serenity, meet P. Edwin Compass, III.
P. Edwin, meet Optical.
Gary Conner
New member
Quote from tim225:
Dear Tim:
Here is a thought. Possibly, the IACP may well be made wholey up of liars if they did as follows: (1) Swore or affirmed their Constitutional oath as a law enforcement officer, but knew they did not believe the 2nd Amendment was what they were swearing to protect (as the 2nd Amendment is what they swear to uphold, when they swear the oath, as well as the IVth. Vth, etc.) or;
(2) are absolute morons who cannot read, and thus should be denied status of being an LEO since their judgement and veracity is often required under oath during hearings and trials as deponants.
The 2nd. Amendment is part of the Constitution they swear to. So any officer who claims to be "anti-2nd" Amendment or who "does not agree" with the 2nd Amendment is simply not trustworty since they swore or affirmed that they indeed, did.
There is no such thing as a "legally authorized" law enforcment officer who disagrees with the 2nd Amendment. They are simply armed imposters wearing a costume.
Dear Tim:
Here is a thought. Possibly, the IACP may well be made wholey up of liars if they did as follows: (1) Swore or affirmed their Constitutional oath as a law enforcement officer, but knew they did not believe the 2nd Amendment was what they were swearing to protect (as the 2nd Amendment is what they swear to uphold, when they swear the oath, as well as the IVth. Vth, etc.) or;
(2) are absolute morons who cannot read, and thus should be denied status of being an LEO since their judgement and veracity is often required under oath during hearings and trials as deponants.
The 2nd. Amendment is part of the Constitution they swear to. So any officer who claims to be "anti-2nd" Amendment or who "does not agree" with the 2nd Amendment is simply not trustworty since they swore or affirmed that they indeed, did.
There is no such thing as a "legally authorized" law enforcment officer who disagrees with the 2nd Amendment. They are simply armed imposters wearing a costume.
I note that Mayor Daley of Chicago refuses to allow retired Chicago PD
officers the right to carry. I read a message from one retired Chicago cop
regarding this on www.keepand beararms.com some time ago, he was bewailing the fact that the criminals in his neighborhood could carry, but he
couldn't. One reply to his lamentations said "Welcome to the world of the private citizen. Must be rought to wake up one day and find you're no longer one of the privileged elite and the Chosen Few, that you're no longer One of
the Boys and you're on the outside looking in."
officers the right to carry. I read a message from one retired Chicago cop
regarding this on www.keepand beararms.com some time ago, he was bewailing the fact that the criminals in his neighborhood could carry, but he
couldn't. One reply to his lamentations said "Welcome to the world of the private citizen. Must be rought to wake up one day and find you're no longer one of the privileged elite and the Chosen Few, that you're no longer One of
the Boys and you're on the outside looking in."