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

[Ronin13]

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.

[Ronin13]

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.

[Ronin13]

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!" 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.

[Rabid]

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.

[Ronin13]

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...

[mindfold]

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.

[Rabid]

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...

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.

[Ronin13]

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...

[hghclsswhitetrsh]

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]

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.