Look out Virginia.

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • S.A. Boggs
    Senior Member
    • Aug 2009
    • 8568

    #16
    Originally posted by togor
    Is anyone seriously proposing disarming law enforcement or even private security? And with Heller, one can only go so far.
    Yes, I am serious as this is what will happen. The guy's that I dealt with had no qualms about hurting anyone, what makes a cop so special? A cop on patrol gets a call early Sunday morning of a drunk sitting by a building. Cop rolls up, see's a guy sitting there innocently with a can of beer in his hand. Cop thinks, "Great another damn drunk to deal with!" Cop goes up telling the drunk to stand up, as the drunk slowly stands up three men come out from the darkness, one with a bat and clubs the cops over the back of the head killing the cop. The drunk was a ruse to set the cop up, now the ex-cons strip the cop of his belt, take his keys to retrieve his long gun and go thru the trunk taking anything of use. Dead cop, no witness, no clues just missing weapons. Many of the politicians on both sides of the aisle want to have only cops have weapons and I guarantee this will happen, then what? Also, what about an arrow, these will penetrate vests except for the ones with chicken plates.
    Sam

    Comment

    • togor
      Banned
      • Nov 2009
      • 17610

      #17
      The wealthier classes in this country will always want armed policing to maintain the status quo. If it isn't public police, then it will be private police. But one way or the other, the people protecting their slice of the pie will be armed. Right now cops have all of the benefit of the doubt when it comes to using deadly force in a way that ordinary civilians don't. Take that lady at the KOA campground who drew on the couple. Had one of the couple been an off-duty LEO, they could have dropped her right there and no one would have a problem with that, because it was in response to that lady drawing first. But they weren't LEOs so they had to play it cool and they did. The video helped a lot too. Cell phone cameras are really changing how things work in the world.

      Comment

      • Clark Howard
        Senior Member
        • Sep 2009
        • 2105

        #18
        Why argue with a known disruptor? It is plain to see that if suppressors,(silencers) were illegal in Virginia, the shooter would not have used one in this crime. More dem lies and obfuscation. Regards, Clark

        Comment

        • S.A. Boggs
          Senior Member
          • Aug 2009
          • 8568

          #19
          Originally posted by togor
          The wealthier classes in this country will always want armed policing to maintain the status quo. If it isn't public police, then it will be private police. But one way or the other, the people protecting their slice of the pie will be armed. Right now cops have all of the benefit of the doubt when it comes to using deadly force in a way that ordinary civilians don't. Take that lady at the KOA campground who drew on the couple. Had one of the couple been an off-duty LEO, they could have dropped her right there and no one would have a problem with that, because it was in response to that lady drawing first. But they weren't LEOs so they had to play it cool and they did. The video helped a lot too. Cell phone cameras are really changing how things work in the world.
          Remember, the police do not have to protect you that is law.
          Sam

          Comment

          • Vern Humphrey
            Administrator - OFC
            • Aug 2009
            • 15875

            #20
            Originally posted by S.A. Boggs
            Remember, the police do not have to protect you that is law.
            Sam
            And yet all the high muckety-mucks have armed guards, from the Pope to the Canadian parliament.

            Comment

            • lyman
              Administrator - OFC
              • Aug 2009
              • 11269

              #21
              Originally posted by togor
              Is anyone seriously proposing disarming law enforcement or even private security? And with Heller, one can only go so far.
              LEO's are a Citizen just like most of us,

              they should abide by the same laws as we do, on duty or not,

              as in, if your state says you cannot have a high cap mag (in NY it's a 7rnd limit, right?) then that is what your duty weapon should have in it,

              ditto if it is a fed law, no exemptions,


              pipe dream, I know

              Comment

              • togor
                Banned
                • Nov 2009
                • 17610

                #22
                Originally posted by S.A. Boggs
                Remember, the police do not have to protect you that is law.
                Sam
                Noted, but police know that some places (and people) matter more than others. Money buys security, one way or the other.
                Last edited by togor; 06-05-2019, 10:16.

                Comment

                • S.A. Boggs
                  Senior Member
                  • Aug 2009
                  • 8568

                  #23
                  Originally posted by togor
                  Noted, but police know that some places (and people) matter more than others. Money buys security, one way or the other.
                  You are correct on that, locally my buddies look out for me and mine. Ten years ago had a junkie get into my truck, neighbors called the S.O. Not only did I get the car for my sector but two of my friends heard on their home police radio my address and came over Code 1 to check on me. It helps that the Chief Deputy is a buddy of mine.
                  Sam

                  Comment

                  • Vern Humphrey
                    Administrator - OFC
                    • Aug 2009
                    • 15875

                    #24
                    Years ago, I had a friend who was running for Sheriff. We had a discussion on citizens carrying guns, and I pointed out that HE could carry a gun, why couldn't I?

                    He said, "You don't know what it's like out there."

                    I replied, "YOU don't know what it's like out there, because you're not OUT there, you're IN there. If YOU call for help, you'll get every car within a ten mile radius. Out here, where I live, it might take half an hour."

                    Comment

                    • clintonhater
                      Senior Member
                      • Nov 2015
                      • 5220

                      #25
                      Originally posted by S.A. Boggs
                      Remember, the police do not have to protect you that is law.
                      Sam
                      Unfortunately, that's true, as many courts have ruled. I'm hoping, however, that the charges just filed against that coward-cop who hid while the Parkland shooting was going on may begin to change this miscarriage of justice.

                      Comment

                      • S.A. Boggs
                        Senior Member
                        • Aug 2009
                        • 8568

                        #26
                        The Parkland shooting is different due it being a school and a protected area. The local's are out to hang him and I believe some of the charges will prevail. Personally I have no use for a man who refuses to do his duty as trained and sworn. All men are afraid I know I was more then once. First time my partner and I got into a chase and rammed the guy was an adrenalin rush, it happened so fast as your training kicks in. After it is all over and one takes stock you get a sick feeling in the pit of your stomach and weak in the knees. The Deputy should have gone to the sound of the gunfire ready to engage the actor not stand outside listening.
                        Sam

                        Comment

                        • free1954
                          Senior Member
                          • Feb 2010
                          • 1165

                          #27
                          Originally posted by S.A. Boggs
                          The Parkland shooting is different due it being a school and a protected area. The local's are out to hang him and I believe some of the charges will prevail. Personally I have no use for a man who refuses to do his duty as trained and sworn. All men are afraid I know I was more then once. First time my partner and I got into a chase and rammed the guy was an adrenalin rush, it happened so fast as your training kicks in. After it is all over and one takes stock you get a sick feeling in the pit of your stomach and weak in the knees. The Deputy should have gone to the sound of the gunfire ready to engage the actor not stand outside listening.
                          Sam


                          indeed. courage is not the absence of fear. courage is realizing that there are things more important than being afraid.

                          Comment

                          • Sako
                            Senior Member
                            • Sep 2009
                            • 654

                            #28
                            Originally posted by togor
                            No doubt there is an agenda out there to severely curtail firearms ownership. Aligning that movement with an opposition to workplace shootings could get traction. Last time I checked, lots of people go to work, and don't want to get shot while at work. Even true of the infantry. Personally I'm OK with expanded background checks. If in order to build up a M1 Garand and transfer it to my kid, we had to drive to see my FFL for the background check, that would be a little paperwork and a couple of hours to shoot the sh*t. Not the worst way to spend the afternoon. I am however firmly against bans on what I can own.
                            You say you are against bans but your posts show that you are very liberal and lean strongly towards socialism.

                            Comment

                            • togor
                              Banned
                              • Nov 2009
                              • 17610

                              #29
                              Originally posted by Sako
                              You say you are against bans but your posts show that you are very liberal and lean strongly towards socialism.
                              I don't expect your litmus tests would do me any justice, Sako. Won't lose sleep over it either.

                              Comment

                              • S.A. Boggs
                                Senior Member
                                • Aug 2009
                                • 8568

                                #30
                                Originally posted by togor
                                I don't expect your litmus tests would do me any justice, Sako. Won't lose sleep over it either.
                                The problem that I can see with "checks" is that unless cast in concrete, surrounded by barbed wire any law regarding "checks" can be made worse! What say ye?
                                Sam

                                Comment

                                Working...