Should these be held accountable for anti-2nd amnd. position?
I got to wondering when I saw this info on another thread and did some reasearch of my own. Startling that those sworn to uphold the law and protect our rights should choose to support violating them so openly endorsing gun bans. Very spooky to me as one who deer hunts with a semi-auto rem 30-06. The criticism of Zumbo is valid to a point, but I am sure Congress will give and has given far more weight to these Law Enforcement organizations when they speak on the Hill than a one time - retracted statement by Zumbo. What is to be done about these folks who oppose our rights? Any less that what was done to Zumbo (whoever that is,, unfortunately I had never heard of him before visiting this forum).
Below is the information I posted from a previous thread
Quote:
, Jim Pasco, executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police stated:
An AK-47 fires a military round. In a conventional home with dry-wall walls, I wouldn"™t be surprised if it went through six of them."¦Police are armed with weapons that are effective with criminals in line of sight. They don"™t want and don"™t need weapons that would harm innocent bystanders.
LAW ENFORCEMENT ORGANIZATIONS
THAT SUPPORT THE BAN INCLUDE:
American Probation and Parole Association - APPA
Fraternal Order of Police - FOP
Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association - HAPCOA
International Association of Chiefs of Police - IACP
International Brotherhood of Police Officers - IBPO
Major Cities Chiefs Association - MCCA
Major County Sheriffs"™ Association - MCSA
National Association of School Resource Officers - NASRO
National Association of Women Law Enforcement Executives - NAWLEE
National Black Police Association - NBPA
National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives - NOBLE
National Sheriffs Association - NSA
Police Executive Research Forum - PERF
Police Foundation
Official stance of the ATF, another Law enforcement dept. of the federal gov.
As ATF has explained:
Assault weapons were designed for rapid fire, close quarter shooting at human beings. That is why they were put together the way they were. You will not find these guns in a duck blind or at the Olympics. They are mass produced mayhem.
These weapons "śare not generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes"ť and instead "śare attractive to certain criminals."ť The firepower of assault weapons makes them especially desired by
violent criminals and especially lethal in their hands. Prior to the Act, although assault weapons constituted less than 1% of the guns in circulation, they were a far higher percentage of the guns used in crime. ATF"™s analysis of guns traced to crime showed that assault weapons "śare preferred by criminals over law abiding citizens eight to one"¦.Access to them shifts the balance of power to the lawless."ť
RE: Should these be held accountable for anti-2nd amnd. position?
Held accountable? What are we going to do, call the police on them? 'Boycott' these associations?
LEOs are a lot like any other group of human beings--they have a strong self-interest. A lot of police officers would rather see everyone stripped of this or that weapon rather than take the chance of facing some nut with one on the street. The answer to this problem is that elect leaders who don't compromise on the issue. They're the ones calling the shots for the federal, state, and local LEOs.
RE: Should these be held accountable for anti-2nd amnd. position?
They should be held accountable, but the only way is at the ballot box. Sheriffs are often elected officials. Police chiefs are appointed by mayors or city council. Generally speaking, the majority of officers on the street are on our side. It's the political hacks that run those organizations.
Quote:
An AK-47 fires a military round. In a conventional home with dry-wall walls, I wouldn"™t be surprised if it went through six of them."¦Police are armed with weapons that are effective with criminals in line of sight. They don"™t want and don"™t need weapons that would harm innocent bystanders.
This Pasco clown is obviously pandering to the leftists who have no idea about ballistics, etc. That AK-47 isn't going to penetrate any farther thanthe M-16's, or a Model 700 .308 "tactical" rifles used by his police forces.
RE: Should these be held accountable for anti-2nd amnd. position?
The police are a very vocal and effective enemy of the Second Amendment. People who don't know guns see them as experts and will believe whatever a cop says even if it's complete nonsense, like the quote above.
When the "shall issue" bill was being debated here in Michigan, the police were fanatically opposed.
They always complain about the fear of confronting someone on a traffic stop, for example, who may pull out a gun and start shooting. Of course the obviouls answer to that is guys who are likely to do that don't care if it's legal to carry or not.
It's clear to me that the real motivation with cops is the ability to have that macho feeling, "I can carry a gun and you can't."
RE: Should these be held accountable for anti-2nd amnd. position?
Quote:
ORIGINAL: cr422
The police are a very vocal and effective enemy of the Second Amendment.
Again, I think there have been some polls showing that the majority of police officers support our 2nd Amendment rights. It's the political appointees who are doing the anti-gun lobbying.
CalHunter... Where are you? Care to add your $.02?
RE: Should these be held accountable for anti-2nd amnd. position?
Good points all. These organizations do solicit funds, I would think coming out publicly against giving them donations would be a good start for 2nd amnd supporters. Starve the funds and that will go a long way. Publicizing the fact that they are anti-2nd amnd. would help too. I see a lot of hunters etc. with stickers on their trucks supporting these orgs. Makes me wonder if they know who they support, or if they care, or if the pro-gun community has doen enough to publicize who they are and what they stand for. These orgs are made up of 1000s of people who speak out against the 2nd amnd., so uch more so should we publicize them and condemn them till they recant their position like Zumbo was persuaded to do. Starving the funds can make believers of them only if we speak out. It seemed to work for Zumbo from what I've read here. Make no mistake, these folks will speak on the Hill if they are not countered by us 2nd amnd. believers.
RE: Should these be held accountable for anti-2nd amnd. position?
Quote:
ORIGINAL: ipscshooter
Quote:
ORIGINAL: cr422
The police are a very vocal and effective enemy of the Second Amendment.
Again, I think there have been some polls showing that the majority of police officers support our 2nd Amendment rights. It's the political appointees who are doing the anti-gun lobbying.
CalHunter... Where are you? Care to add your $.02?
I don't believe that. The loudest opponents of our, so-called, Second Amendment rights are the police union leaders, who are ELECTED by, and speak for,that "majority" of police who, supposedy,support us.
Yes there are exceptions of course. But they are a very tiny minority.
If a majority of cops support our, so-called, Second Amendment rights, I'd like to hear from that majority.
RE: Should these be held accountable for anti-2nd amnd. position?
Quote:
Good points all. These organizations do solicit funds, I would think coming out publicly against giving them donations would be a good start for 2nd amnd supporters. Starve the funds and that will go a long way. Publicizing the fact that they are anti-2nd amnd. would help too. I see a lot of hunters etc. with stickers on their trucks supporting these orgs. Makes me wonder if they know who they support, or if they care, or if the pro-gun community has doen enough to publicize who they are and what they stand for. These orgs are made up of 1000s of people who speak out against the 2nd amnd., so uch more so should we publicize them and condemn them till they recant their position like Zumbo was persuaded to do. Starving the funds can make believers of them only if we speak out. It seemed to work for Zumbo from what I've read here. Make no mistake, these folks will speak on the Hill if they are not countered by us 2nd amnd. believers.
I don't give them money anyway, but if we, as gun owners, make a concerted effort to deny funds to LEO professional associations, the antis will have plenty of ammo to "prove" to the public that gun owners are in league with criminals and want to see police officers die.
Again, the answer to this problem is legislation, not direct action. Take complaints straight to the top (state legislatures, Congress, the President).
RE: Should these be held accountable for anti-2nd amnd. position?
Quote:
ORIGINAL: cr422
Quote:
ORIGINAL: ipscshooter
Quote:
ORIGINAL: cr422
The police are a very vocal and effective enemy of the Second Amendment.
Again, I think there have been some polls showing that the majority of police officers support our 2nd Amendment rights. It's the political appointees who are doing the anti-gun lobbying.
CalHunter... Where are you? Care to add your $.02?
I don't believe that. The loudest opponents of our, so-called, Second Amendment rights are the police union leaders, who are ELECTED by, and speak for,that "majority" of police who, supposedy,support us.
Yes there are exceptions of course. But they are a very tiny minority.
If a majority of cops support our, so-called, Second Amendment rights, I'd like to hear from that majority.
Survey results posted on NRA website of 22,000+ police chiefs, etc.
Gun Control: With regard to private citizens owning firearms for sport or self-defense, 93.6 percent of the respondents supported civilian gun-ownership rights. Ninety-six percent of the police chiefs and sheriffs believe criminals obtain firearms from illegal sources and 92.2 percent revealed they hadn't arrested anyone for violation of the so-called "waiting period" laws. When asked if citizens concealed-weapons permits would reduce violent crime, 63.1 percent said yes.
Admittedly this poll is very generic, and doesn't break down their views on specific issues like AWB, magazine restrictions, etc., etc. But, I think you are wrong in your opinion about LEO's generally being anti-2nd Amendment. Keep in mind that most of those organizations are unions (which are left-wing to begin with) and/or dominated by big city types where the leftists are in control. I tend to doubt that LEO's have much input in who runs for union posts, and don't take much interest in their positions on constitutional/political issues, and have virtually zero input in who the national union leaders are.
RE: Should these be held accountable for anti-2nd amnd. position?
I think there is a disconnect that has yet to be addressed. That is that very few officers who support the AWB I&II would say they oppose private gun ownership in general or would go on record as "opposing the 2nd amnd.". They simply feel the AWB doesn't violate that right, and they can support it and still claim to support gun rights. That's what they'll convince congress of and the president I fear. George Bush and all the congressmen who support the AWB claim they support the 2nd amnd. and they have and will cite the support of these law enforcement organizations as proof they are right. I disagree with them respectfully. As for the NRA poll, without specific questions on the AWB proper, many of the respondants likely have this view of claiming to support the 2nd amnd and supporting the AWB simultaneously. Seriously, what Sheriff would say on record, "I oppose the 2nd amnd.!" it would be and extreme minority if it even occured at all.
Should these be held accountable for anti-2nd amnd. position?
