Why are some law-enforcement against the Second Amendment?

[Blackhawk2001]

Really? If you were an officer, you`d have no use for the Constitution?

He didn't say that. Nor did he say that officers would have no use for the Constitution. If you - as a theoretical police officer - have to wear an uncomfortable ballistic vest because you never know when some armed criminal is going to shoot you, that might lead to a couple of reasons you might prefer an "unarmed citiizenry." Says nothing about devotion - or not - to the Constitution and the Second Amendment thereto.

 

[HoughMade]

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...

Bad news INGO peace officers. No disarming arrestees...or detainees...or inmates. "Shall not be infringed"!!!!

 

[churchmouse]

He didn't say that. Nor did he say that officers would have no use for the Constitution. If you - as a theoretical police officer - have to wear an uncomfortable ballistic vest because you never know when some armed criminal is going to shoot you, that might lead to a couple of reasons you might prefer an "unarmed citiizenry." Says nothing about devotion - or not - to the Constitution and the Second Amendment thereto.

Having to deal with that section of society and the vest will cause one to see things differently I am sure.

 

[SSGSAD]

Here is a thought .....

Maybe, they want to be Chief .....

 

[Liberty Sanders]

During my tenure in law enforcement (and I readily admit that I come from a generation that viewed the job in an entirely different way than those presently in the profession) anti-gun sentiment came almost exclusively from command staff and was virtually unknown among the rank and file, with the notable and rare exception of those individuals who were paralyzed by cowardice.

The reason was simple. Those of us who worked the streets were there to protect the lives of the people and improve the quality of their lives insofar as we had the capability to do so.

Those in command positions who were no longer police officers but who had become politicians were motivated by the acquisition of power and influence. Citizens who live in constant fear are willing to accede great power to the government. Citizens who are armed and therefore self-reliant do not depend on the government or its agencies to protect themselves and their loved ones.

We street cops saw armed citizens as our allies. Our superiors viewed them as mortal enemies.

 

[ATM]

There is no need to appeal to the constitution on this matter when the basis of disagreement is actually one of principle, not legislation.


The right to self defense was considered self-evident and certainly predates any restriction noted in the 2A.


Those who do not respect the right of the individual to self defense do not respect individual self-ownership.

 

[poptab]

The caveat is, driving is not a constitutionally protected right...keeping and bearing arms is! Why do many not grasp that law-abiding citizens are no threat to innocents? And that those intent on evil just aren`t going to obey ANY law?

Why do you think driving isn't constitutionally protected?

 

[gregr]

He didn't say that. Nor did he say that officers would have no use for the Constitution. If you - as a theoretical police officer - have to wear an uncomfortable ballistic vest because you never know when some armed criminal is going to shoot you, that might lead to a couple of reasons you might prefer an "unarmed citiizenry." Says nothing about devotion - or not - to the Constitution and the Second Amendment thereto.

 

[gregr]

Bad news INGO peace officers. No disarming arrestees...or detainees...or inmates. "Shall not be infringed"!!!!

 

[gregr]

Having to deal with that section of society and the vest will cause one to see things differently I am sure.

Not to be argumentative, but if LEO`s feel citizens ought to be unarmed, they should find a new line of work.

 

[Vigilant]

Not to be argumentative, but if LEO`s feel citizens ought to be unarmed, they should find a new line of work.

What about guys who don't think 18 year olds aren't mature enough to carry handguns? Shall not be infringed (unless you are 18, and then I can infringe away)

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

INGO never disappoints.

 

[Gabriel]

Why do you think driving isn't constitutionally protected?

Because it isn't.

 

[Gabriel]

INGO never disappoints.

Every once in a while I have to visit the politics forum to remember why I don't visit the politics forum.

 

[Trigger Time]

Beware of false patriots.
who else here swore a never ending oath to protect and defend the constitution against ALL enemies both foreign and DOMESTIC?
our founding fathers knew false patriots would infiltrate the ranks of government. They were so damn intelligent and beyond their time and years.

 

[KellyinAvon]

INGO never disappoints.

It is the gift that keeps on giving.

 

[Trigger Time]

INGO never disappoints.

And you like it or you wouldn't keep coming back.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

And you like it or you wouldn't keep coming back.

No, I tolerate it because number of good members far outweighs the number of *******s.

 

[Trigger Time]

No, I tolerate it because number of good members far outweighs the number of *******s.

in the political section? You said it not me

 

[jbombelli]

No, I tolerate it because number of good members far outweighs the number of *******s.

Admit it. You come in here to bask in the glowing light of my posts.