View Full Version : Spikes Tactical - Updated Policy for State and Local Law Enforcement Agency Sale
Updated Policy for State and Local Law Enforcement Agency Sales: In light of the recent and numerous anti-gun and anti-2nd Amendment laws pending across the Nation, Spike's Tactical will be joining other manufacturers and distributors and limiting the business we do in states that have limited the right to keep and bear arms for their citizens.
As of today, it will be our policy not to sell prohibited items to law enforcement agencies, government agencies and agents in states, counties, cities and municipalities that have enacted restrictive gun control laws against their citizens. We urge other companies to join in support.
http://www.spikestactical.com/salesinformation.html
TheWeeze
07-17-2013, 11:09
That's kind of a double edged sword. I think LE should have the good stuff, but I also think I should too. But good for Spikes for stepping up to the plate.
Mick-Boy
07-17-2013, 11:16
Good for them.
We've been in this debate before, and I really don't see how punishing LE in states is really going to accomplish anything. It's not their fault the d-bags in the legislature wrote LE in as an exemption to their stupid laws. So now the fine officers/deputies of Colorado have one less place to shop. Not sure what that's going to do to help the cause. Thanks Spikes- you just solidified that I won't ever be a customer of yours. "Let punishment for the sins of the father be passed down to his children." -Exodus 20:5, an idea I never agreed with in the first place.
Zundfolge
07-17-2013, 11:35
We've been in this debate before, and I really don't see how punishing LE in states is really going to accomplish anything.
I think this illustrates the fundamental difference in how we on this forum view law enforcement and that's what leads to the conflicts where one side is accused of cop bashing by people that in turn get accused of licking the jackboot.
The question you have to ask yourself is this: Who are LEOs? Are they "the state" or are they "the people"?
Those (like me) that see LEOs as "The State" are the ones that get accused of cop bashing.
Governor: Why are our State Troopers armed with muzzle loaders and black powder revolvers? Shouldn't they have the best equipment to protect ME?
Commandant of the State Patrol: Nobody will sell us current equipment due to the stupid laws you signed, so we make do with what's available. Now every 2 bit street punk has us outgunned, and it's your fault. Get with your cronies in the legislature and fix the laws. By the way, if a bear chases us, I'm tripping you.
I think this illustrates the fundamental difference in how we on this forum view law enforcement and that's what leads to the conflicts where one side is accused of cop bashing by people that in turn get accused of licking the jackboot.
The question you have to ask yourself is this: Who are LEOs? Are they "the state" or are they "the people"?
Those (like me) that see LEOs as "The State" are the ones that get accused of cop bashing.
I don't see them as "the state", I see them as maybe "agents of the state"- but it's not so simple. Granted, I'm a bit biased since that's the kind of profession I want to get into, but I don't look at it as an "us vs. them"- are cops not Americans, same as you and I? I see it as most cops are actually FOR 2A rights, and oppose the decisions made by our legislature just as much as us. The only difference is that they were sworn to uphold and enforce the law (or not enforce stupid laws when ordered by their superiors).
The only difference is that they were sworn to uphold and enforce the law (or not enforce stupid laws when ordered by their superiors).
Really? They swear to not enforce stupid laws?
They are not our fathers. Like it or not they are part of the system that is encroaching our rights. Here's an idiom I like. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Since they are civilians I believe they should be held to the same restrictions.
BPTactical
07-17-2013, 12:00
Governor: Why are our State Troopers armed with muzzle loaders and black powder revolvers? Shouldn't they have the best equipment to protect ME?
Commandant of the State Patrol: Nobody will sell us current equipment due to the stupid laws you signed, so we make do with what's available. Now every 2 bit street punk has us outgunned, and it's your fault. Get with your cronies in the legislature and fix the laws. By the way, if a bear chases us, I'm tripping you.
Fogger for the win!
Really? They swear to not enforce stupid laws?
They are not our fathers. Like it or not they are part of the system that is encroaching our rights. Here's an idiom I like. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Please go re-read what I wrote... "When ordered by superiors" not swear. Did you not see that I said most are FOR our 2A rights, regardless of what agenda politicians have. Also, that's a mighty sweeping statement "part of the system encroaching our rights." They swore an oath to support and defend the constitution. I take it you're unfamiliar with that oath, otherwise you'd know that. They don't make decisions anymore than you and I do, it's the politicians, not those who are entrusted by the public to maintain order, who should be blamed/punished.
Since they are civilians I believe they should be held to the same restrictions.
Except when it's written into the law that they're exempt- at no fault of their own.
speedysst
07-17-2013, 12:06
There are plenty of cops that adhere to the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law. Yes, they can write a speeding ticket for 4mph over the limit but most don't because they understand that traveling 4mph over the limit is not causing any excessive danger to the general public.
Really? They swear to not enforce stupid laws?
They are not our fathers. Like it or not they are part of the system that is encroaching our rights. Here's an idiom I like. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
We've been in this debate before, and I really don't see how punishing LE in states is really going to accomplish anything. It's not their fault the d-bags in the legislature wrote LE in as an exemption to their stupid laws. So now the fine officers/deputies of Colorado have one less place to shop. Not sure what that's going to do to help the cause. Thanks Spikes- you just solidified that I won't ever be a customer of yours. "Let punishment for the sins of the father be passed down to his children." -Exodus 20:5, an idea I never agreed with in the first place.
How about when the chief of police for Denver goes on the band wagon for gun control? I say f him and his department.
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk 2
Zundfolge
07-17-2013, 12:16
...I don't look at it as an "us vs. them"...
"Agent of the state" IS "the state" for all intents and purposes (and for this particular purpose, denying "agents of the state" from buying your product because "the state" has kept the people from buying is a clear indication that said company is on the side of the people against the state ... yes it sucks that it's come down to this).
On a whim, a cop can ruin my life (and possibly kill me with retaliative impunity). Worst I can do to a cop is maybe put him in a bad mood for the rest of the day.
Us and them ain't the same anymore. And no, its not the fault of the police, its the fact that government at all levels is too large and too powerful. THAT is why its now us vs them (and only going to get worse).
At any rate, if we're going to follow the spirit of Posse Comitatus, then police are civilians just like the rest of us and should be forced to live under the same laws (even on duty).
Also, that's a mighty sweeping statement "part of the system encroaching our rights." They swore an oath to support and defend the constitution. I take it you're unfamiliar with that oath, otherwise you'd know that. They don't make decisions anymore than you and I do, it's the politicians, not those who are entrusted by the public to maintain order, who should be blamed/punished.
So any cop that does otherwise is what? It may be inevitable with the system the way it is but I don't see the majority that worried about the constitution. It's a job and most cops I have known have a us vs them attitude. We babysat a kid for a sheriff, practically raised him, I still was disturbed by the us vs them attitude. I understand they deal with more assholes than is right ect. but still didn't like the attitude they displayed. They have a job to do and it's a tough one. I think it's good for them to be reminded that they are civilians. Maybe a little taste of their own medicine of being denied a useful tool will help the supposed majority of cops become more active and vocal in supporting the constitution and specifically the 2A. We don't need cops quietly not enforcing laws they disagree in, we need cops fighting the bad laws. Like the lawsuit the sheriffs are filing against the recent laws. That's encouraging.
i think when Ronin says "most" he is probably mistaken. Yes Sheriffs are more open on gun ownership. City cops are less open. And I know geographically it matters. Look at the LEO in major metropolitan areas. There should be absolutely nothing they can own that we cant. absolutely.
Except to meet the threat that is out there... IE: Criminals don't obey laws, and can be- through breaking said laws- better equipped than you and I. Thus, it's only just that those entrusted with maintaining order and public safety are equipped well enough to meet that threat. Nevermind on where an individual LEO stands- or much less their politically appointed Chief (not like Sheriffs who actually do have to be elected). It's based on given the right tools for the job.
Worst I can do to a cop is maybe put him in a bad mood for the rest of the day.
At any rate, if we're going to follow the spirit of Posse Comitatus, then police are civilians just like the rest of us and should be forced to live under the same laws (even on duty).
1- You can actually complain to the department... or if enough infractions are committed you can work toward them losing their job.
2- see my point above. We are not in harms way on a daily basis as per the nature of our jobs, thus I can totally understand why LE needs better than civilian available weapons/equipment.
To be clear I believe in the rule of the law. I believe in the law enforcement having the authority to keep the peace. It's a damn shame that we aren't all on the same page when it comes to the rights of citizens.
HBARleatherneck
07-17-2013, 12:37
Most Leo arent actually in harms way everyday.
The numbers dont support it.
http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/moneybox/2013/04/21/deadliest_jobs_in_america/fishing%20is%20dangerous.png.CROP.article568-large.png
Most cops by far will go to work, and go home safe everyday for 20 years.
Here is the full list of work-related deaths in 2011 (per 100,000 workers):
Fisherman (121.2)
Loggers (102.4)
Pilots (57.0)
Farmers and Ranchers (25.3)
Police Officers (18.6)
Construction Workers (15.7)
National Average (3.5)
Firefighters (2.5)
Cashiers (1.6)
Office Admin (0.6)
Business and Finance Staff (0.5)
http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/bulletin/the-10-most-dangerous-jobs-in-america/11396
Honestly, for me, the multiple chiefs of police that testified to take away our rights is enough cause for me. Just because you are a great dealership doesn't mean people will still buy your stuff when the crap from the factory catches fire spontaneously.
Employees are affected by the actions of their organization.
Mick-Boy
07-17-2013, 12:52
Except to meet the threat that is out there... IE: Criminals don't obey laws, and can be- through breaking said laws- better equipped than you and I. Thus, it's only just that those entrusted with maintaining order and public safety are equipped well enough to meet that threat. Nevermind on where an individual LEO stands- or much less their politically appointed Chief (not like Sheriffs who actually do have to be elected). It's based on given the right tools for the job.
Except the police are not responsible for the safety of the individual citizens (IE: you and I). See Castle Rock v. Gonzales. Ergo, I'm responsible for my own safety. So I should be able to be well enough equipped to meet that threat.
Companies that refuse to sell to LEOs in ban states are doing their part to bypass the "I got mine so who cares about the new bans" attitude.
If more LEOs were outspokenly against maybe we wouldn't be fighting to get back our children's rights to be as well equipped as the threats they might face.
lowbeyond
07-17-2013, 12:55
Please go re-read what I wrote... "When ordered by superiors" not swear. Did you not see that I said most are FOR our 2A rights, regardless of what agenda politicians have. Also, that's a mighty sweeping statement "part of the system encroaching our rights." They swore an oath to support and defend the constitution. I take it you're unfamiliar with that oath, otherwise you'd know that. They don't make decisions anymore than you and I do, it's the politicians, not those who are entrusted by the public to maintain order, who should be blamed/punished.
Bullshit. They choose to enforce gun laws. Is someone sticking a gun at thier head when they bust someone for a 16 round mag ? I doubt it. You cannot be for the 2nd A and enforce anti-2nd A laws.
Except when it's written into the law that they're exempt- at no fault of their own.
Bullshit. You can bet every LE execmption in some gun law was asked for by the cops. Just look at NY for example.
Bullshit. They choose to enforce gun laws. Is someone sticking a gun at thier head when they bust someone for a 16 round mag ? I doubt it. You cannot be for the 2nd A and enforce anti-2nd A laws.
Bullshit. You can bet every LE execmption in some gun law was asked for by the cops. Just look at NY for example.
Name one time that someone has been busted since July 1.... Oh that's right, you can't. And I don't see too many cases of people even being popped in Denver City/County for having "hi-cap" mags either. We are still talking about CO, right? Because DPD notwithstanding (as I don't know anyone on that department), all the LEOs I know personally are pro-2A and would exercise great discretion in the enforcement of any constitutionally vague law (meaning: they won't).
muddywings
07-17-2013, 13:07
http://i.imgur.com/zqZvBUH.jpg
maybe the guys on the line will start bitching to their bosses and we'll get some of the city police chiefs joining the elected Sheriffs
edit: or maybe the line guys will bail on the chiefs that are not 2A and go work for a pro 2A Sheriff. Ronin, totally get where you are coming from the though.
Except the police are not responsible for the safety of the individual citizens (IE: you and I). See Castle Rock v. Gonzales. Ergo, I'm responsible for my own safety. So I should be able to be well enough equipped to meet that threat.
^^^This^^^
The police have no reason to be better armed then i am because the responsibility to protect my self falls solely on myself. To me the people that rely on the police to come save the day are just awaiting their Darwin award.
^^^This^^^
The police have no reason to be better armed then i am because the responsibility to protect my self falls solely on myself. To me the people that rely on the police to come save the day are just awaiting their Darwin award.
I never said the Police are akin to our own private body guards (that's why I carry)... but they do carry guns for their own protection... don't get me wrong, I think we all- law abiding folk and police alike- should be armed commensurate to what WE, as the individual, decide is adequate for our own protection, not some fucking bureaucrat in NY or Downtown Denver.
I never said the Police are akin to our own private body guards (that's why I carry)... but they do carry guns for their own protection... don't get me wrong, I think we all- law abiding folk and police alike- should be armed commensurate to what WE, as the individual, decide is adequate for our own protection, not some fucking bureaucrat in NY or Downtown Denver.
As long as these laws are in place i believe the police should abide by them too. To give the LEO community an exception shows me that they are seen above the law. I know you are not arguing the laws are BS but at the same time you are implying the LEOs are above the law because they have to protect them self's, well as the courts have shown i have to protect myself too. To say LEOs may have a higher frequency to need a gun so they need the best weapons at their disposal elevates them to paramilitary status.
alan0269
07-17-2013, 14:37
Wasn't the 2nd amendment put there to insure that the citizens were able to defend themselves from the government/state? I don't understand how anyone that claims to be pro 2A can also support the thought that the government/state/agents of/etc should be able to purchase items such as "high capacity" magazines while the citizens are not allowed to do so. How can the average citizen that has minimal training be expected to defend themselves with a 10/15 round magazine when it is expected that someone who has training in this area will have the need to have a "high capacity" 17/20/30/?? magazine to do the same?
The legislation in Colorado used the Aurora theater shooting as one of their main justifications for the recent laws, but police officers (Christopher Dorne) and military personnel (Nidal Hasan) have "snapped" and shot people as well - wouldn't the stress the police and military are under be justification that they would be more prone to acting out in this manner than the average citizen? I am by no means a police basher (I have both family and friends in law enforcement), in fact I've been outspoken many times against bashing others have done here and on other boards, but I don't feel it can be justified that they would need higher capacity magazines than you or I - note I'm not saying they don't have a need/use for them, just that the average citizen should have the right to defend himself/herself with the same. I fully support the decision Spikes has made, hopefully when more companies do similar the government will stop infringing on the rights of the citizens.
Laws need to apply to everyone equally. Granting LE an exception to gun laws creates an elite class that has no incentive to fight these kinds of unconstitutional laws since they are unaffected. What's good enough for the common citizen is also good enough for a cop. If I "don't need" more than 15 rounds to protect myself and my family, then neither does a cop. Maybe if everyone was equally affected we'd have more voices speaking against these garbage laws.
And just because LE hasn't busted anyone in this state for mag sizes and what not doesn't mean it won't happen. This type of tyranny takes time to take hold in the hearts and minds of our overseers. I'm sure no one in NY, NJ, CA got busted initially when they passed their shit laws way back when. Look at them now. Countless lives in those states have been ruined for possessing an aluminum or plastic box that has been deemed illegal.
Never count on people to keep doing the right thing when they are given financial incentive (a pay check) to do the wrong thing. I fully support companies like Spikes that haven chosen to pick a side and take a stand.
As long as these laws are in place i believe the police should abide by them too. To give the LEO community an exception shows me that they are seen above the law. I know you are not arguing the laws are BS but at the same time you are implying the LEOs are above the law because they have to protect them self's, well as the courts have shown i have to protect myself too. To say LEOs may have a higher frequency to need a gun so they need the best weapons at their disposal elevates them to paramilitary status.
You completely missed my point. Unless you're implying that we all have the potential to be vigilante posses... I'm simply pointing out that we do not go out confronting the threats in our society on purpose (unless you're Batman), police on the other hand do. Thus it can be expected their need to be armed to meet the threat. I'm not saying it's right, I'm not saying it's fair, I'm only pointing out the logic on that. Sure I honestly believe it would aid in making them no more exempt than a school teacher, but that just isn't the way the world works- unfortunately.
You completely missed my point. Unless you're implying that we all have the potential to be vigilante posses... I'm simply pointing out that we do not go out confronting the threats in our society on purpose (unless you're Batman), police on the other hand do. Thus it can be expected their need to be armed to meet the threat. I'm not saying it's right, I'm not saying it's fair, I'm only pointing out the logic on that. Sure I honestly believe it would aid in making them no more exempt than a school teacher, but that just isn't the way the world works- unfortunately.
No need to be a "vigilante posses", every time the LEOs are called to threat a citizen was in the same situation minutes before the LEOs arrived. To allow the LEOs to have more fire power then us just makes them above the law.
jhood001
07-17-2013, 16:12
Making exceptions for government does only one thing which is make even more exceptions for government.
You're right, Ronin - They need and have a right to the things that have been restricted. So do we. No more exceptions.
newracer
07-17-2013, 16:54
Many manufactures will sell to individual LEOs as a private sale but they will not sell to departments.
scratchy
07-17-2013, 17:35
I'm with the no exceptions crowd. LEO's are civilians, i.e. not "combatants". Period. They and the rest of the citizenry should have access to the same type and
capacity of weapons.
Edit: Some definitions of civilian exclude police and firefighting forces. I imagine that also removes the civilian protected status under the laws of warfare.
spqrzilla
07-17-2013, 17:42
Sir Robert Peel's Seventh Principle of Policing:
"Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence."
I seem to be posting that one a lot recently ...
I look at it this way. The legislature used Aurora incident as a need to BAN things, which is a negative(taking away). As of late thats what they do. Why do they do this? Because they are not smart enough to think of a way to make a positive(giving) impact with this. When you look at the case its not someone who got up one day and decided to do something totally evil. There was a build up to that moment, he schemed and planned his attack. There were red flags and no one with authority seemed to care. Maybe they shouldve banned incompetence instead. Banning a tool doesnt help anything there are plenty of destructive tools (or everyday things that can be made lethal ie Boston). These laws were only voted in for sympathy, as a result they greatly infringed upon all of colorado. What was done that night was downright evil and I applaud the LEO for saving peoples lives AND risking their own to get ppl to medical attention.
Fight the crazies, not the gun owners.
I also believe that having a job that puts your life in danger doesnt make you eligible for things that others cant. Lots of jobs are dangerous, should we let those people do things others can't. I trimmed tress for a while and had to be in a tree with a chainsaw. It was very hard work and I liked having a few beers when I got home. Since my job is hard and dangerous shouldnt I have the right to drive above the legal BAC or have a different BAC level for the work I do?....No. (albeit a skewed analogy it represents the same thing)
Bottom line is LEO are not combatants, they are civilian officers. They do not get any special treatment, they dont like their job or its too dangerous, quit. Thats what I did (and I do have a family to support). I say good on spikes for not selling to 2A rights infringer states. They have my support!
Ronin, I do totally see your point, but I choose to look at Spikes decision as cause and effect (action and reaction). And now that reaction is coming around to bite everyone in the butt.
p.s. I love my spikes st-15 :)
It seems that police tend to want to be in some sort of quasi-state. Not really government but not really common citizens. They don't want to be responsible for the laws that are passed but choose to enforce them anyways. Even when those laws go against their oath of office. They claim they are just common citizens...until they are treated that way. Call one "dude" and see how they react. See if they consider themselves a common man or if they demand respect.
They want to have access to the restricted gear and enforce laws against common citizens having that same gear but turn around and want to be considered no different from those same common citizens.
As a common citizen I am required to "know the law" but the police (whos job is to enforce the laws) isn't required to know the law.
I understand they have a tough job...but they chose that. No one forced them to take it. Chose what side you are on. Then quit demanding the benefits of being on both sides.
If you are for the common citizens...then start being verbal about the illegality of the new laws...in your precinct, to your co-workers, to your bosses, to the legislature...start making it verbal that you won't enforce these laws. Urge your co-workers to follow your example.
If you are for the government...quit crying that these companies won't sell to you. This is what you wanted.
Sir Robert Peel's Seventh Principle of Policing:
"Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence."
^^^This^^^^
cmailliard
07-18-2013, 06:01
LEO's already have the ability to be better armed than most. Departments can purchase Full-Auto, Destructive Devices, BearCat's, etc.
Yes there is a fundamental difference between city and rural LEO's and agencies mostly due to politics.
Yes most Street Cops are Pro-2A and most Chiefs may be as well, but they generally have to fall in line with what their boss (Mayor) tells them to do. Then the street cops must do the same, it's the para-militaristic environment, the fire department is the same way. The reason you won't get the street cops complaining too much is you are not going to bite the hand that feeds you. Many police departments are vindictive and will fuck guys over for complaining, so they don't, they are happy to have a job they enjoy and may move to find a good department but at some point you can no longer do that.
Every LEO I still associate with is Pro-2A, they do their job well, they are respectful, and I trust them completely. I have known LEO's that I would not trust with a squirt gun and teaching civics to 3rd graders, but they are very few and choose not to play with them anymore.
I am 50/50 on this issue. I think LEO's are in harms way more than any non-LEO and that may warrant additional capability. I also respect a company to do what they want and enact any policy they see fit, it's their money and their company.
Many manufactures will sell to individual LEOs as a private sale but they will not sell to departments.
I can agree with this 100%. In fact, I think this would be preferential over just saying "no sales to LEOs whatsoever."
Sir Robert Peel's Seventh Principle of Policing:
"Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence."
I seem to be posting that one a lot recently ...
THIS! That's one great quote. Kind of reminds me of what we used to tell our line units before going on mission- "Everyone is an intel soldier, just because you don't analyze and develop intel doesn't mean you aren't capable of collecting it."
I can agree with this 100%. In fact, I think this would be preferential over just saying "no sales to LEOs whatsoever."
THIS! That's one great quote. Kind of reminds me of what we used to tell our line units before going on mission- "Everyone is an intel soldier, just because you don't analyze and develop intel doesn't mean you aren't capable of collecting it."
Not trying to be confrontational just trying to understand your position. How is it in one breath you say the LEOs should be better armed then the public and in another you agree that the LEOs are nothing more then the public?
Not trying to be confrontational just trying to understand your position. How is it in one breath you say the LEOs should be better armed then the public and in another you agree that the LEOs are nothing more then the public?
Because they're a subsection of the public that should be afforded the opportunity to be on equal footing with those who break the laws. Since laws say that such and such is illegal, and criminals don't obey laws, then they will acquire that which is illegal and be at a greater advantage than those who would confront them. Case in point- N. Hollywood Shootout: Bad guys are armed with assault rifles (yes, real assault rifles- full auto), police are armed with pistols and shotguns- obviously outgunned. As such it became department policy to meet the threat and put LE on equal footing, so all LAPD patrol units had .223 rifles assigned to them. Best tools for the job, so they can do their job effectively. As much as loss of life is terrible, no matter who it is, shouldn't those more likely to confront criminals have a factor that mitigates risk as much as possible? Even if we're not able- due to stupid, unconstitutional laws- then why basically put everyone at risk? I don't expect you to understand my viewpoint or opinion on this, I'm simply trying to explain that we, normal everyday folks, do not go out of our way to confront, detain, or otherwise stop violent, aggressive criminals, it's discouraged. But LE does, and by denying them what we're unjustly denied for the sake of principal (or so you can get them to start petitioning those who didn't listen to OUR grievances) only creates a greater and unnecessary risk for their job. We entrust LE with enforcing laws, and arresting those who break the law... but f**k them, they can't have the equipment they need to do the job because we have been hamstrung by our legislators. Sounds more like jealousy than justice to me. YMMV.
those kind of shootings are probably .000000001 percent of all police actions.
but its for the children
I didn't say that they were common- but that points out that the threat exists... Same reason why JCSO made it department policy to carry rifles in their cars- post-Columbine- because they didn't have the equipment to meet every potential threat that LE may encounter- regardless of how likely or not it is, the potential for that threat exists, therefore it only makes sense to be able to meet that threat on equal (or as close as possible) footing. If a BG had a full-auto AK-47 would you run toward it to stop him? No. But police do, that's the difference I'm trying to point out.
there is a chance a zillion ton asteroid is going to fall on their patrol car too. I guess they should all have up armored MRAPS. But, we shouldnt be allowed them as well? sometimes you say the stupidest shit and argue the dumbest points.
i will bottom line it for you.
LEOs should have no more access to firearms, training, gear, ammunition than any other legal US citizen. PERIOD.
I say stupid shit, yet you throw that out? That's like what the left does, "the second amendment, if completely unrestricted, would allow everyone to have nukes!" [facepalm] So if they banned guns completely (unlikely, but let's look at the UK), you'd say "well if we can't have them, then neither should cops, regardless of what criminals get their hands on"? And what about SWAT officers? Should they not be allowed special weapons, even if it's in their name? You can claim that I'm arguing dumb points, but when you make ridiculous comments like asteroid (I won't even go into how absurd that is) you only prove that you have to reach exceedingly far to try and belittle my argument. C'mon, I know you're better than that.
ETA: And the ad hominem attack is pretty low and underhanded. Step back, and if you want to debate me, please, do so respectfully and logically. [Beer]
Because they're a subsection of the public that should be afforded the opportunity to be on equal footing with those who break the laws. Since laws say that such and such is illegal, and criminals don't obey laws, then they will acquire that which is illegal and be at a greater advantage than those who would confront them. Case in point- N. Hollywood Shootout: Bad guys are armed with assault rifles (yes, real assault rifles- full auto), police are armed with pistols and shotguns- obviously outgunned. As such it became department policy to meet the threat and put LE on equal footing, so all LAPD patrol units had .223 rifles assigned to them. Best tools for the job, so they can do their job effectively. As much as loss of life is terrible, no matter who it is, shouldn't those more likely to confront criminals have a factor that mitigates risk as much as possible? Even if we're not able- due to stupid, unconstitutional laws- then why basically put everyone at risk? I don't expect you to understand my viewpoint or opinion on this, I'm simply trying to explain that we, normal everyday folks, do not go out of our way to confront, detain, or otherwise stop violent, aggressive criminals, it's discouraged. But LE does, and by denying them what we're unjustly denied for the sake of principal (or so you can get them to start petitioning those who didn't listen to OUR grievances) only creates a greater and unnecessary risk for their job. We entrust LE with enforcing laws, and arresting those who break the law... but f**k them, they can't have the equipment they need to do the job because we have been hamstrung by our legislators. Sounds more like jealousy than justice to me. YMMV.
Trust me i understand your view point but from a constitutional stand point this subsection that is above the law is just plane wrong. If the law makers want to limit the public it should apply to the LEOs also because they are nothing more then the public. The 2A is to put us on a level playing field with the government if the need ever arose. If the erosion to the constitutions applied to everyone LEOs included, like they are supposed to be, do you think we would see this erosion? Your view is for the protection of the LEOs and the public and it is a good one, my view is from the documents created in the founding of our country stating that we are all equal. I see it as means to an end of the BS laws that have passed around the country also.
Trust me i understand your view point but from a constitutional stand point this subsection that is above the law is just plane wrong. If the law makers want to limit the public it should apply to the LEOs also because they are nothing more then the public. The 2A is to put us on a level playing field with the government if the need ever arose. If the erosion to the constitutions applied to everyone LEOs included, like they are supposed to be, do you think we would see this erosion? Your view is for the protection of the LEOs and the public and it is a good one, my view is from the documents created in the founding of our country stating that we are all equal. I see it as means to an end of the BS laws that have passed around the country also.
I'm not disagreeing there. This, and first time I'm saying this, is a perplexing issue for me, because a) I respect LE for what they do and think they should be equipped to meet the unique challenges they face, b) I think any limitation to the 2nd Amendment is unconstitutional (shall not be infringed cannot be interpreted any other way than that literal phrase), but on the flip side, if the police state did arrive in this country, it would be LEOs ordered (I believe many would protest/refuse unconstitutional orders- or I hope many would) to do the infringing of basic liberty, and that is the reason the 2nd was written. So don't take my opposition to your arguments as 100% opposed, it's a conflicted position for me to take as part says they should be, but another part says how can we be on equal footing if loopholes for LE are allowed, and stay true to the purpose and intent of the 2A? I only attempt to offer meaningful dialog to present the other side. In terms of the OP, Spikes is a private business, and they're free to run their business how they please, and for that I support them. But if (dare I say when) I do become a sworn peace officer in the great state of CO, on principal (and no fault of my own as I don't write the laws regarding exemptions- but protest the existence of the law in the first place) I will not patronize Spikes- as I won't be able to... [Coffee]
mindfold
07-18-2013, 13:01
My take on this issue has lead me to a grim conclusion. The LEO should be held to the same reduction of personal protection as the rest of us. The sad thing will be when one of these LEO is outgunned by a LAW BREAKER, the State will enact more laws against the NON law breakers, hence giving the criminal more of an advantage. This downard cycle will only reverse itself when these anti-2A lawmakers realise their jobs do not effect law breakers. Just because someone chooses a profession that requires certain tools and exposes them to criminals does not give them special 2A rights.
I'm not disagreeing there. This, and first time I'm saying this, is a perplexing issue for me, because a) I respect LE for what they do and think they should be equipped to meet the unique challenges they face, b) I think any limitation to the 2nd Amendment is unconstitutional (shall not be infringed cannot be interpreted any other way than that literal phrase), but on the flip side, if the police state did arrive in this country, it would be LEOs ordered (I believe many would protest/refuse unconstitutional orders- or I hope many would) to do the infringing of basic liberty, and that is the reason the 2nd was written. So don't take my opposition to your arguments as 100% opposed, it's a conflicted position for me to take as part says they should be, but another part says how can we be on equal footing if loopholes for LE are allowed, and stay true to the purpose and intent of the 2A? I only attempt to offer meaningful dialog to present the other side. In terms of the OP, Spikes is a private business, and they're free to run their business how they please, and for that I support them. But if (dare I say when) I do become a sworn peace officer in the great state of CO, on principal (and no fault of my own as I don't write the laws regarding exemptions- but protest the existence of the law in the first place) I will not patronize Spikes- as I won't be able to... [Coffee]
I personally hold our rights above public safety so i can not support laws that allow a citizen to have more rights then others do. I think the LEOs should only have what we have (pre 86 assault rifles with 15 or less round magazines even if no such magazine exists etc etc) if there is a need for any more then that the laws need to be changed with no exemptions. I only see the rise of a paramilitary organization with the laws that are currently in place and it will only become bigger in time. It may not be in my life time or many generations in the future but at some point we will have to fight back against our government whether it be peaceful or forceful. As history has shown, even recently on our own soil, the "that will not happen in America" statement does not hold water and it is our duty to make sure future generations have their rights to fight back against a tyrannical oppressor. I respect LEOs probably just as much as you do but law makers have allowed them to be above the law and i see that as a gross abuse of power and an attack on our rights.
I personally hold our rights above public safety so i can not support laws that allow a citizen to have more rights then others do. I think the LEOs should only have what we have (pre 86 assault rifles with 15 or less round magazines even if no such magazine exists etc etc) if there is a need for any more then that the laws need to be changed with no exemptions. I only see the rise of a paramilitary organization with the laws that are currently in place and it will only become bigger in time. It may not be in my life time or many generations in the future but at some point we will have to fight back against our government whether it be peaceful or forceful. As history has shown, even recently on our own soil, the "that will not happen in America" statement does not hold water and it is our duty to make sure future generations have their rights to fight back against a tyrannical oppressor. I respect LEOs probably just as much as you do but law makers have allowed them to be above the law and i see that as a gross abuse of power and an attack on our rights.
There's the ticket... blame the lawmakers, not those who enforce them. In that thought line, the recall elections are a go for Morse and Giron! So we're stepping in the right direction. Sadly, I don't see these laws being overturned in time for me to get some Magpul AK mags for Christmas... [Mad]
hghclsswhitetrsh
07-18-2013, 13:57
Good for spikes. Cops aren't any more deserving than me, a law abiding US citizen. Maybe if every officer and every police chief/sheriff would've rallied this would t have happened.
battle_sight_zero
07-18-2013, 14:21
Good for Spikes for doing this. I have nothing more to say other than I would like the police to remain the police a civilian force. Seems to me that they are becoming militarized more and more. Should have same weapons as civilians nothing more nothing less. I would change my tune if the police on the local level would be there to defend us from a potential oppressive Federal Government. However with govts ability to Federalize police sadly I see them as a potential extension of the Federal Government and there is nobody convince me otherwise. Every local,county,state and Federal worker building, you name it is considered an asset in a emergency. You also have many of the corporations that control our food, water, energy ready to join up and be a part of the system. Its not about the people anymore, but protecting the Government.
Good for Spikes for doing this. I have nothing more to say other than I would like the police to remain the police a civilian force. Seems to me that they are becoming militarized more and more. Should have same weapons as civilians nothing more nothing less. I would change my tune if the police on the local level would be there to defend us from a potential oppressive Federal Government. However with govts ability to Federalize police sadly I see them as a potential extension of the Federal Government.
I like this.
Chad4000
07-18-2013, 16:03
I think this illustrates the fundamental difference in how we on this forum view law enforcement and that's what leads to the conflicts where one side is accused of cop bashing by people that in turn get accused of licking the jackboot.
The question you have to ask yourself is this: Who are LEOs? Are they "the state" or are they "the people"?
Those (like me) that see LEOs as "The State" are the ones that get accused of cop bashing.
exactly...
Chad4000
07-18-2013, 16:05
Good for spikes. Cops aren't any more deserving than me, a law abiding US citizen. Maybe if every officer and every police chief/sheriff would've rallied this would t have happened.
agreed here too
Maybe if every officer and every police chief/sheriff would've rallied this would t have happened.
Doubtful with the amount of cotton stuff in the Dems ears at the capital... [Mad]
centrarchidae
07-18-2013, 22:30
However with govts ability to Federalize police
HUH???
I'm sorry. I'd like to phrase my question more delicately, but how the hell did you dream this up?
DingleBerns
07-19-2013, 00:45
edit: not worth it, nothing will change.
edit: not worth it, nothing will change.
It does not seem like anyone is cop bashing. Speak your mind.
lowbeyond
07-24-2013, 11:22
Name one time that someone has been busted since July 1.... Oh that's right, you can't. And I don't see too many cases of people even being popped in Denver City/County for having "hi-cap" mags either. We are still talking about CO, right? Because DPD notwithstanding (as I don't know anyone on that department), all the LEOs I know personally are pro-2A and would exercise great discretion in the enforcement of any constitutionally vague law (meaning: they won't).
You forgot the word *yet*
And really i was not talking about CO only. You can see this in other states. Give it time, and all those pro 2nd A cops will bust people because that is their job. Then we will get the usual excuses, im Pro-2A! Not my fault, i was just following orders. Don't blame me blame the politicians. Law is the Law. Blah Blah Blah
Because they're a subsection of the public that should be afforded the opportunity to be on equal footing with those who break the laws. Since laws say that such and such is illegal, and criminals don't obey laws, then they will acquire that which is illegal and be at a greater advantage than those who would confront them. Case in point- N. Hollywood Shootout: Bad guys are armed with assault rifles (yes, real assault rifles- full auto), police are armed with pistols and shotguns- obviously outgunned. As such it became department policy to meet the threat and put LE on equal footing, so all LAPD patrol units had .223 rifles assigned to them. Best tools for the job, so they can do their job effectively. As much as loss of life is terrible, no matter who it is, shouldn't those more likely to confront criminals have a factor that mitigates risk as much as possible? Even if we're not able- due to stupid, unconstitutional laws- then why basically put everyone at risk? I don't expect you to understand my viewpoint or opinion on this, I'm simply trying to explain that we, normal everyday folks, do not go out of our way to confront, detain, or otherwise stop violent, aggressive criminals, it's discouraged. But LE does, and by denying them what we're unjustly denied for the sake of principal (or so you can get them to start petitioning those who didn't listen to OUR grievances) only creates a greater and unnecessary risk for their job. We entrust LE with enforcing laws, and arresting those who break the law... but f**k them, they can't have the equipment they need to do the job because we have been hamstrung by our legislators. Sounds more like jealousy than justice to me. YMMV..
You are on a roll. Yea forget the principle if it creates a risk to some subsection of people. Sure. OK Got it. Last time i checked, cops are not conscripts. Dont like that you must be armed as everyone else, too bad. Dont take the job or quit. Oh and that part in red, well i guess we will just forget about those thousands and thousands of times non cops do exactly that which you say they do not.
And here we have another excuse. You are all just jealous. Sure Uh-huh.
There's the ticket... blame the lawmakers, not those who enforce them. In that thought line, the recall elections are a go for Morse and Giron! So we're stepping in the right direction. Sadly, I don't see these laws being overturned in time for me to get some Magpul AK mags for Christmas...
I guarantee you. People who are busted over bullshit AWB laws or mag restrictions laws or other gun laws, will not be busted by the lawmakers. They will be busted by the cops who volunteer to do so.
I do find it a bit amusing, or perhaps telling that you do mention you are conflicted in a post, but you resolve your conflict, not by relying on a a principle which you say you support, but rather by carving out a more equal then others exception to a sub-group in which you hold an affinity for.
*shurg* Whatever allows you to sleep at night i guess
I do find it a bit amusing, or perhaps telling that you do mention you are conflicted in a post, but you resolve your conflict, not by relying on a a principle which you say you support, but rather by carving out a more equal then others exception to a sub-group in which you hold an affinity for.
*shurg* Whatever allows you to sleep at night i guess
You misunderstand my words- let me explain simply- I don't support or defend the idea that sworn peace officers are more or less equal than the rest of us, but it would appear, in the eyes of lawmakers, that they should be exempt. I'm only pointing this out as this is the way it is. I was only stating that it's by no fault of LE in being exempted from some anti-2A laws, they don't write policy, they enforce it- but yes I agree they could be more supportive of the cause by being vocal in the opposition to these laws. Some can't, due to their command being appointed (rather than elected) by these liberal tools. Done with this argument now... And I sleep just fine, thank you, no coffee after 7.
The government doesn't rule over us. It receives any power by the grant of the people. I see nothing in the Constitution that says the people are subordinate to anyone.
Those in government need to learn there are consequences to their actions. They sure don't seem care if it's the people, including those that wear a badge, that are victims of their actions. I keep seeing that this is choosing sides as LE has increased risk. With the laws that are being passed, every one of us is at increased risk. If those of you in LE don't like those risks, maybe you need to change careers. If government can't find people to enforce their laws, maybe they'll have to change their ways.
If the pro-2A manufacturers bend over and don't take a stand against those infringing the rights of the people, where does that put them? They're sure not standing with us, the people, but are enabling those that want to stand over us.
To our government: I'm a law abiding citizen. Stop punishing me for things I haven't done.
The government doesn't rule over us. It receives any power by the grant of the people. I see nothing in the Constitution that says the people are subordinate to anyone.
Those in government need to learn there are consequences to their actions. They sure don't seem care if it's the people, including those that wear a badge, that are victims of their actions. I keep seeing that this is choosing sides as LE has increased risk. With the laws that are being passed, every one of us is at increased risk. If those of you in LE don't like those risks, maybe you need to change careers. If government can't find people to enforce their laws, maybe they'll have to change their ways.
If the pro-2A manufacturers bend over and don't take a stand against those infringing the rights of the people, where does that put them? They're sure not standing with us, the people, but are enabling those that want to stand over us.
To our government: I'm a law abiding citizen. Stop punishing me for things I haven't done.
Yeah, what he said!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.