Special Citizens

Vanya, thank you for the correction. I should have been more clear. Yes, militarized is what I meant to write.

"Odd, because LEO in my area HIRE a union to represent them politically and fund the union to do so with a considerable amount of financial support dedicated to political activity. On every last battle for CCW, mag restrictions, AWB, etc., the LEO unions, hired and funded solely by law enforcement officers as their representatives, are anti-gun. In most cases the keystone of the anti-gun campaign is some anti-gun quote by a police chief or LEO union. The union dues of LEOs in my area are wiping out any number of phone calls and letter writing they can claim."
johnwilliams makes a pretty good point here. I don't know if LEO unions have been completely anti-gun, but I can't think of any instances to the contrary.

So, I've written my letters. I've signed my petitions. What else are we to do here? When I was in the military, a platoon sergeant had a saying that I was quite fond of. I cannot remember it verbatim but it went something like; complaining to complain is just complaining (I don't think I can write the real word here), but complaining with a solution is the first step to resolution.
 
but I have never lived somewhere without a decent waste disposal system.
Click to expand...

Try being a dairy/cattle farmer. You have to carry out your own trash, and most likely burn it. And "waste disposal" takes on a whole new meaning, usually involving something euphamistically referred to as a "honey-wagon". The only piece of equipment John Deere wouldn't stand behind.

Urban America may be growing, but rural America isn't really shrinking. Still have vast tracts of land sparsely populated, rarely patrolled, where you really are on your own.

Some of what you say is correct, they are getting caught more with all the cell phones, dash cams, and so on, but what LEO unions are you talking about? As has been pointed out a number of times, the Chief of Police is a political office more than a law enforcement office. While I wouldn't be shocked to hear Chicago, San Francisco, or NYPD unions might come out as pro-control, I don't suspect that's the norm.
 
Last edited:
David, contact US Senator Sherrod Brown's(D OH) office on any firearms issue. I regularly receive replies from his office citing the State SHERIFF Association's stance on the issue. ALWAYS in support of gun control. Talk to the people lobbying at your state legislature and see what they say about law enforcement union stance on bills. Look at the people testifying for legislation and see how the law enforcement people testify. The law enforcement unions in Ohio have been the primary hold-up on passing and improving CHL IMO.
 
There weren't any "police forces" in 1776. The whole concept is relatively new in history. Not to say that there hasn't been a "high sheriff" for centuries. Especially in places under English common law.

But the militarization of crime is driving the militarization of law enforcement. And that comes from money. Profit. Pure and simple. Nothing more. The number of weirdos in crime for the power trip is vanishingly small.
Click to expand...

This is not accurate on the facts or conclusions.
Cops, law abiding citizens and criminals have had access to, and possession of the same classes weapons for virtually all of US history. And crime is LESS militarized than ever.

you mentioned that we don't live in the time of Barney fife anymore in a prior post. We never lived in the time of Barney Fife, unless you mean when we lived with Charles Starkwhether and Charles Whitman, an weal amount of organized and individual crime, and equal amount of per capita violent crime against citizens and cops as we have today.


Police, just like citizen victims are not killed by top of the line of legal guns today anymore than they were killed by the most current legal weapons in the past. It was extremely rare in the past and extremely rare today.

The only main difference between then and now is media amplification.

the less than half the deaths in the line of duty that is from gunfire massively dominated by standard weapons, revolvers and shotguns, and the consistent factor is surprise during a traffic stop, complaint investigation or arrest involving a person who is already a prior criminal.


We have ranking police and rank and file police organizations attacking the second amendment. the difference between these police and the average anti gunner is that the Police actually know the problem with violence is not form legal gun owners by from prior criminals.

The ranking cops attacking the second amendment are doing so for craven political reasons. The rank and file ones doing it are doing it out of elitism.

If you want an example of the elitism look what happened in NY. The obscenely draconian law was passed. The state attorney general immediately ruled it did not apply to active cops with their issue or duty weapons. An amendment was rushed making sure retired cops could have and off duty cops could use 17 round pistols. Retired cops are not generally carrying 17 round pistols. they were afraid their own home defense weapons would not be exempted.

We are not seeing data that retired cops are in more danger at home. We are not seeing data that off duty cops are in more danger than the average citizen. We are seeing ranking and rank and file representatives one class of persons asserting special rights for their own self interests.

People with authority and power always consider themselves above the rules they wish to apply to others.
 
It certainly does seem that the city police are very anti while the Sheriff's office is mostly pro. The article that I posted earlier spoke about street level police being mostly pro while those appointed to higher office tend to be anti. It is easy to deduce that the people elect those who are pro-2A while our elected officials tend to choose those that are anti-2A. A rather strange trend...
 
This is not accurate on the facts or conclusions.
Click to expand...

Well, you left out my most important sentence, that you can't cram 65 years of social change commentary into 50 words. I dare say that even working collaboratively the two of us would have a hard time cramming it into 50K words.


I will help substantiate this statement, although I'm reluctant to claim it as a universal truth as you do. I think there are exceptions, but damned few of them. Remember, George Washington did refuse to continue in power when it was within his grasp. I can name a few others.

People with authority and power always consider themselves above the rules they wish to apply to others.
Click to expand...

Lord Acton claimed that power corrupts, and that absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Frank Hubert in Heretics of Dune says, "All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible."

Apparently there's been some research to vindicate Lord Acton's view.

This is the lay write up. It's free. http://www.actonmba.org/2010/01/does-power-corrupt/

This is the pay to read scholarly journal. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1467-9280

So apparently, yes, power tends to rust the soul.

As the response to the first article says, quoting Lincoln "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." - Abraham Lincoln

Or one of my favorite Republican commentators, and the only truly honest one: "Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys." -- P.J. O'Rourke
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top