Why do their gun control ideas never seem to apply to the police?

Discussion in 'Gun Control' started by Siskie, Nov 29, 2020.

  1. Siskie

    Siskie Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2013
    Messages:
    508
    Likes Received:
    205
    Trophy Points:
    43
    It does seem strange to want to ban:

    1) Magazines that hold over a certain number of rounds in them, “because who needs that many rounds to defend themselves”, then allow the cops that have the ability to call for back up to keep those same magazines.

    2) Semi-automatic rifles for being weapons that “only belong on the battlefield” and are “only good for mass murder”, then exclude the police from the ban when the cops are not on a battlefield and a weapon “only good for mass murder” does not seem like it can be used “to serve and protect”.

    It also seems very strange to have the very same people who give their blessings to all the street protesting of rampant police abuse to design legislation that would ensure those same police are the only ones with semi-automatic weapons. That is like saying “I don’t trust you cops, but I want you better armed than me. You take all the guns worth a damn in a shootout, I’ll stick with these grampappy guns that won’t help me fight back against your abuse”.

    It makes me think what is really going on is these people just want to live in a police state where the cops are the only ones with decent firepower to keep the peons in line. This is why I will never give up or register my arsenal; and why I am glad I live in a pro gun red state. If Jonny Law gets to keep his AR-15 and 30-round magazines, I’m keeping mine.
     
    557 and JET3534 like this.
  2. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,175
    Likes Received:
    62,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    because we can avoid the kinda dangerous situations they may be needed in, then have to confront it
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2020
  3. Siskie

    Siskie Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2013
    Messages:
    508
    Likes Received:
    205
    Trophy Points:
    43
    It is hypocritical and full of lies. If Joe Biden’s exact words are “these are weapons of war that only belong on the battlefield”, then he lets the cops keep them, he is a liar; since the cops are not at war with us.

    If you protest the rampant police violence, then want them to be the only ones with those guns, putting you at their mercy, you are a very confused individual.

    That is like protesting the school bully, then asking the school to make sure only the school bully has access to the baseball bats; to ensure the school bully has the upper hand when things get nasty when he decides to mess with you.
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2020
    JET3534 and MJ Davies like this.
  4. joesnagg

    joesnagg Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2020
    Messages:
    4,749
    Likes Received:
    6,799
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Gonna piss some people off here, but...the military did a study some years ago as to whether troops would enforce dictates of the government if it required fighting American citizens, the results were disappointing for the authoritarians too say the least. No they would NOT, by a resounding majority. Sooo... the push to militarize the police who will be the front line in enforcing unconstitutional laws. Remember Katrina? It wasn't the military that went door to door in New Orleans, ILLEGALLY seizing firearms! Yes, the police do a necessary and thankless job, but they WILL enforce the law, be it unpopular or unconstitutional.
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2020
    JET3534 likes this.
  5. Capt Nice

    Capt Nice Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2017
    Messages:
    9,998
    Likes Received:
    10,217
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Remember, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not after you. :)
     
  6. Siskie

    Siskie Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2013
    Messages:
    508
    Likes Received:
    205
    Trophy Points:
    43
    I just don’t understand the logic behind viewing a certain class of firearms being only good for killing lots of people quickly, then turning around and wanting to make sure the same cops you don’t trust not to kill and abuse people are the only ones that get to have those exact weapons; thereby putting you their mercy at the same time you protest them in the street for being merciless to you.
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2020
    JET3534 and Rucker61 like this.
  7. Nightmare515

    Nightmare515 Ragin' Cajun Staff Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    11,132
    Likes Received:
    4,899
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Actually a lot of those folks don't want anybody to have those types of guns. They envision an America like the UK where the cops walk around with batons only and citizens chase off criminals with broom sticks and stuff lol.

    There was actually a discussion in this forum a few years ago where a member here was talking about her home invasion experience and how she was thankful she had a firearm to defend herself. Somebody from the UK came in and said she didn't need a gun because in her country they chase criminals off by tossing the dishware at them because they are civilized unlike America. Perfect discussion to have with someone who was the recent victim of a home invasion....shoulda just tossed the plates at the guy because having a gun in the house is statistically more dangerous than not lol.

    For those who think only the cops should have AR-15s that comes from the misconception that they are "professionally trained" and more experienced with guns than "you". It's the same argument you hear regarding the military pretty often as well which is pretty funny to military folks who have ever spent time on an official range waiting for hours in the freezing cold because the average military person takes like 10 tries to qualify. Unless you are in a specialized police or military unit who actually shoots firearms on a regular basis then your job title of "police officer" or "soldier" has about zero bearing regarding your experience over civilians. The average gun owner has more experience with that weapon than most cops or soldiers unless you are SWAT or combat arms or something.
     
    Siskie likes this.
  8. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Because the left believes only the police and military should have guns.
     
    JET3534 likes this.
  9. Hey Nonny Mouse

    Hey Nonny Mouse Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2016
    Messages:
    1,106
    Likes Received:
    315
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Cops have more need for defense than private citizens.

    Who says those things? Nobody I know of who wants the police to have these weapons.

    We aren't going to effectively deal with police brutality by opening fire on police officers.

    Whether you agree with the position or not, there's nothing mysterious or hypocritical about it.
     
  10. Siskie

    Siskie Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2013
    Messages:
    508
    Likes Received:
    205
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Yes, it is hypocritical. If you want to ban a weapon for being “only good for mass murder”, yet your legislation that bans it lets the very group of people you have been protesting all year long for killing and abusing people keep it, that is hypocritical and stupid. If you really feel the weapon is only good for mass murder, then that is not a weapon that can be used to serve and protect.

    Joe Biden lied. He specifically said these weapons “only belong on the battlefield”, yet the legislation he supports allows the cops to keep theirs. That makes him a liar, since the cops are not at war on a battlefield with the public.

    Sorry Charlie, if the state get to keep theirs, we will keep ours. Even Steven.

    Thankfully we have a 6-3 court to shut this stuff down. And worse comes to worse, red states can ignore the federal ban the way blue states ignore the federal ban on weed. Monkey see, monkey do. We won’t enforce it. Our local sheriffs won’t enforce it here in deep red Missouri.
     
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2020
  11. Hey Nonny Mouse

    Hey Nonny Mouse Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2016
    Messages:
    1,106
    Likes Received:
    315
    Trophy Points:
    83
    ...then you shouldn't want the police to have it. Sure. But I've never met anyone who maintains that a weapon is "only good for mass murder" and that the police (or soldiers, or anyone else) should have it.

    Can you cite that quote from Biden please?
     
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2020
  12. Siskie

    Siskie Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2013
    Messages:
    508
    Likes Received:
    205
    Trophy Points:
    43
    https://mobile.twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1305300227721703424

    “Weapons of war have no place in our communities.”

    Letting the cops keep “weapons of war”, means you either really don’t think they are weapons of war or you think the cops are at war with us. I will be keeping my AR-15s if the cops get to keep theirs. Even Steven. I refuse to live in a world where the same cops the left protest for being violent, abusive killers, get to be the only ones with the guns worth a damn in a shootout.

    And are you insane? The entire point of all these decades of complaining from the left has been that these weapons are mass murder weapons. That is why you want to ban them. That seems like a fair assessment, given all the yelling and screaming over them.

    I just find it funny that anyone would protest police abuse, then be ok with legislation that ensures those same cops are better armed than you with guns you have deemed to be “weapons of war”, while you get stuck with a dinky, dorky Elmer Fudd shotgun that won’t do you a damn bit of good fighting back against that abuse.

    The state of California had gun owners, years ago, register their “assault weapons”. Years after that, they decided they had to get rid of them. Since they had a list, they knew where to go. Because of this, I will not register mine under Biden. I will not be a disarmed peon.

    Luckily we have a 6-3 pro gun Supreme Court to smack down an assault weapon ban. I also live in Missouri, which has decided preemptively not to enforce a Biden ban and keep those weapons legal in our state; our local sheriffs won’t enforce it either.

    You see how that works? If blue states get to keep weed legal in their states, ignoring federal drug laws, then we can ignore federal laws we don’t like in the same way. Goose/gander.

    Bottom line is, if the same cops you protest get to keep their “assault weapons” we are keeping ours. And gosh dang it, I lost all my guns in a tragic boating accident. Poof.
     
  13. Hey Nonny Mouse

    Hey Nonny Mouse Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2016
    Messages:
    1,106
    Likes Received:
    315
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I see what you are talking about. Yes, that was bad phrasing by Biden. But he's always been open that the ban on assault weapons he supports doesn't apply to police. It's not like he's ever pretended otherwise, or ever argued that there should be a more general ban than that.

    Why? The best approach to dealing with police abuse is not opening fire on the police. There's crime in the military too, but I assume you don't want citizens to be as heavily armed as soldiers.
     
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2020
  14. Nightmare515

    Nightmare515 Ragin' Cajun Staff Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    11,132
    Likes Received:
    4,899
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That just doesn't make sense to me. There have been protests against police brutality all over the country for the past year and many of the same people protesting against the police for being overly aggressive or trigger happy are advocating that the police should be more heavily armed than "you". As it stands now the average police officer is roughly as armed as you can be unless they are in SWAT or something and they are being protested against for being trigger happy. Yet we're arguing that the police should then by MORE heavily armed than you now? How does that make sense?

    Plus the military isn't the same as the police force. The police are tasked with enforcing the law in the community, the military is designed to fight wars. Now if the military were designed to patrol the community and enforce laws at home and there were Soldiers patrolling the streets in full battle rattle with M4s acting as cops then I absolutely would want the citizens to be as heavily armed as them. Which you pretty much can be as it is if you want to spend enough money, there is very little that a ground pounder Soldier deploys to war with that you couldn't purchase yourself if you so desired. Those tasked with protecting citizens don't need to be more heavily armed than said citizens. If the cops feel like they need certain weaponry to protect the community because there is something dangerous in the community that may require that then the citizens should be allowed to have that same weaponry as well because we live in the community too.
     
    Siskie likes this.
  15. Hey Nonny Mouse

    Hey Nonny Mouse Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2016
    Messages:
    1,106
    Likes Received:
    315
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Why doesn't that makes sense? It would be foolish to think that the best way to reduce police brutality is to open fire on the police.

    Regarding the military, if you don't think that the only possible way to combat military crime is to be ready to shoot at the military, then you shouldn't think that the only possible way to combat police crime is to start shooting at the police.

    How is someone even supposed to use a gun to protect themselves from police brutality? Presumably, you don't want people to shoot any cop that pulls them over. How is it supposed to work?
     
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2020
  16. Nightmare515

    Nightmare515 Ragin' Cajun Staff Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    11,132
    Likes Received:
    4,899
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Who said anything about opening fire on the police?

    Im just saying if I were out there protesting because I believed a large swath of my police force was untrustworthy and trigger happy then I wouldn't simultaneously be saying that I wish said police force had better guns than I did...I'd be advocating in the other direction like saying they should only have tasers or something. I wouldn't be saying they should get better guns than civilians when supposedly they keep shooting people with the guns they already have while then saying civilians shouldn't be able to have the same guns they do.

    Is it a belief that the cops tend to shoot quickly because they assume folks are armed so if folks were more commonly unarmed then maybe cops wouldn't be so quick to pull the trigger? Am I close to the mark at all here?
     
  17. Hey Nonny Mouse

    Hey Nonny Mouse Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2016
    Messages:
    1,106
    Likes Received:
    315
    Trophy Points:
    83
    How exactly are you people supposed to protect themselves from police brutality with assault weapons? If there's no good way, there's no reason to give people assault weapons to protect themselves from the police with.

    Why wouldn't criminals with guns just shoot the cops with tasers? How are the cops supposed to do their jobs?

    As I've said many times, it's a belief that shooting at police isn't a good method for reducing police brutality. But perhaps you can describe how arming the citizens with assault weapons is supposed to reduce police brutality. If you can't think of any way, then there's no reason to expect anyone else to support such a move, regardless of how bad they think police brutality is.
     
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2020
  18. Siskie

    Siskie Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2013
    Messages:
    508
    Likes Received:
    205
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Maybe not individually, but well... you didn’t see the kind of police brutality against the AR-15 protesters thar you did against the left. Maybe if you all tried wearing gas masks to counter their tear gas, body armor for protection and wore ARs as well, they would think twice on it.

    A SWAT team can surround a house. No try it against an entire red neck town of 4,000 armed and ready. It keeps things in check.
     
  19. Chrizton

    Chrizton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2020
    Messages:
    7,707
    Likes Received:
    3,784
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Okay, but if you are that worried about it, maybe you should support the defend the police movement.
     
  20. Hey Nonny Mouse

    Hey Nonny Mouse Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2016
    Messages:
    1,106
    Likes Received:
    315
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Or maybe one excited fool in the crowd, maybe a drunk one, would open fire, others would panic and respond, and there'd be a bloodbath. Maybe the first shots aren't even fired at a human being, but folk get scared and confused when the shooting starts.

    Meanwhile, we can fight police brutality against protestors just by filming the police and charging those who break the law.

    How exactly is the crowd supposed to use guns to respond to police brutality anyway? If a cop hits a protestor, should the protestors all open fire on the police with assault weapons?

    How often do you get SWAT teams surrounding your house in situations where it would be in your best interests to resist them with guns rather than surrender to the police? The less likely it is, the less important it is to defend yourself against.
     
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2020
  21. Rucker61

    Rucker61 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    9,774
    Likes Received:
    4,103
    Trophy Points:
    113
    En masse seems to work.
     
  22. Nightmare515

    Nightmare515 Ragin' Cajun Staff Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    11,132
    Likes Received:
    4,899
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Who said anything about protecting against police? I was simply pointing out the irony in believing that the current cops are brutal and trigger happy yet also proclaiming that only they should have access to "assault rifles" while you can't. If I believed that the cops were too trigger happy then I wouldn't be advocating that only they get to have guns like that. But if that's the stance ya'll want to take then I mean sure by all means. This isn't my stance, I don't think there's a police brutality problem that's the other side of the aisle not this side.

    My rifles aren't for protecting against the police and their rifles, I'm not worried about them I don't have a fear of the cops shooting me for no reason. My rifles are for protecting against what is statistically 13x more likely to try to kill me than the cops are, other citizens that are the same color and gender as me.

    My stance is pretty simple. If there are folks in society so dangerous that the cops feel the need to have assault weapons in their arsenals while policing the community then I, someone who lives in the community, want assault rifles to protect from said dangers of society also.

    I don't particularly like those tasked with protecting society being more heavily armed than the society they are protecting. I have all the respect in the world for law enforcement and I think it's disgusting what so many have decided to paint them as lately. But that doesn't mean I trust them or the state enough to where I'm ok with only they having access to weapons like that but we the people don't.
     
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2020
  23. Hey Nonny Mouse

    Hey Nonny Mouse Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2016
    Messages:
    1,106
    Likes Received:
    315
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Why would there be any irony in that unless you thought arming citizens like the police would make them safer from corrupt cops?

    That has nothing to do with police brutality, so offers no support for your view that anyone who thinks there a problem with police brutality should want the public to have the same weapons as the police.
     
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2020
  24. Nightmare515

    Nightmare515 Ragin' Cajun Staff Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    11,132
    Likes Received:
    4,899
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Allowing citizens access to the same armament as law enforcement makes society as a whole safer against potential corruption by the state. When a state decides to become corrupt history has shown they usually tend to use the police as a strong arm for that purpose. Having an armed populace makes thinking of trying something like that a bit more difficult. Knowing that the populace is just as heavily armed as you are would also likely make police who may wish to side with the state in an effort like that think twice about it.

    My concern is of the big picture of society overall, I have virtually zero concern over the cops shooting people more often than some folks seem to be comfortable with. I am the exact race and gender of the "victims" society keeps rioting about and I have more fear of being hit with a meteorite than I do of getting shot by the cops.

    However, if I WERE one of those who were super concerned about getting murdered by the cops for my skin color then I sure as hell wouldn't want them running around with AR-15s....I will however give respect where it is due. Thank you for being rational enough to recognize that even though you feel too many cops are shooting too many people we still need cops and we still need said cops to have guns....even AR style ones. Unlike so many other arguments I hear about folks saying we need to disarm the cops and have them running around with billy clubs like they do in the UK since they can't seem to stop shooting people for "no reason".

    So you believe there is excessive police brutality but you also believe the police still need to be armed and they need to have access to heavier weaponry as well if necessary. That's a position I can respect although I completely disagree with the first part. At least it makes actual sense. Kudos.
     
    Siskie likes this.
  25. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    53,251
    Likes Received:
    18,015
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I think people misunderstand what the job of the police is.

    They see that little slogan stenciled on the car to protect and serve and they think that's illegally binding contract and it's not it's a bumper sticker.

    It's not even a complete thought to protect and serve what?

    The job is not to protect you or me. That's why any lawyer you ever talk to tells you do not talk to the police if the questioning you about your involvement in something.

    also detectives wouldn't exist if a police officer's job was to protect you there would be no reason to investigate murder or rape that wouldn't happen because police would protect you.

    It's an authoritarian view that people need somebody else to protect them. It is a libertarian view to believe that you should protect yourself. Further one of those ideas is more rational than the other. One requires an authoritarian State the other one requires nothing except for the state not interfering with your ability to do so.

    So I really find it concerning when people say police should have all the weapons were not allowed to. The strange thing is these same people are saying that militarization of the police is wrong.
     
    kazenatsu and Siskie like this.

Share This Page