Spikes Tactical - Updated Policy for State and Local Law Enforcement Agency Sale

[Ronin13]

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]

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.

[def90]

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]

...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).

[PSS]

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.

[Ronin13]

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.

[PSS]

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]

Most Leo arent actually in harms way everyday.
The numbers dont support it.


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):

1. Fisherman (121.2)
2. Loggers (102.4)
3. Pilots (57.0)
4. Farmers and Ranchers (25.3)
5. Police Officers (18.6)
6. Construction Workers (15.7)
7. National Average (3.5)
8. Firefighters (2.5)
9. Cashiers (1.6)
10. Office Admin (0.6)
11. Business and Finance Staff (0.5)

http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/bull...-america/11396

[J]

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]

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.