| Author | Post |
|---|
abrink
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Nov 20th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 29 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 3rd, 2008 06:17 pm |
|
Instead fo hiring and training lots and lots of people why don't they realize that letting citizens carry would also do a good job for both terrorists and regular criminals.
|
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Sun Feb 3rd, 2008 09:08 pm |
|
yankees98a wrote: The cop is off duty. Why should he receieve specials rights when he is in the role of a citizen (not working) where regular citizens don't!
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/nyregion/07shoot.html?ref=nyregion
I don't think yankee's98a is really questioning why the cop gets to carry off-duty, although it came out that way.
I think he's questioning the citizen prohibition when there is an obvious need for it.
He's also suggested another good point. If off-duty police need to carry in order to stop crime, then so do the citizens.
Last edited on Sun Feb 3rd, 2008 09:10 pm by Citizen
|
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Sun Feb 3rd, 2008 09:18 pm |
|
Tomahawk wrote: 1. Speaking of NY cops, this ought to make us all feel safer.
And on topic, this quote seems applicable to the subject of special rights for government employees:
2. Beneficium accipere libertatem est vendere - To accept a favour is to sell freedom. (Publilius Syrus)
1. It does not make me feel at all safer. I've just read Massad Ayoob's column in the current Combat Handguns, or whatever it is called. Its real hair-raising how many innocent bystanders were hit during police shootings and how many people got hit with shoot-throughs before NYPD went to hollow-points.
2. I have GOT to see your library.
|
Tomahawk
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Feb 3rd, 2008 09:48 pm |
|
Citizen wrote: yankees98a wrote: The cop is off duty. Why should he receieve specials rights when he is in the role of a citizen (not working) where regular citizens don't!
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/nyregion/07shoot.html?ref=nyregion
I don't think yankee's98a is really questioning why the cop gets to carry off-duty, although it came out that way.
I can't speak for yank98, but I certainly am questioning it. Either there are special people or there are not. When not on duty, police officers can abide by the same laws as everyone else. If that means using whatever permit system NY has (if there even is one), then so be it.
No carry for private citizens? No carry for off-duty government officials, either.
Recently here in Virginia Phillip Van Cleeve sent out an email alert pertaining to a bill that would allow Commonwealth's Attornies to carry concealed without a permit. VCDL opposes it for the same reason. Those officials can get a permit like the rest of us, or they can eliminate the permit requirement for all.
No special people.
|
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Sun Feb 3rd, 2008 09:57 pm |
|
Tomahawk wrote: SNIP I can't speak for yank98, but I certainly am questioning it. Either there are special people or there are not. When not on duty, police officers can abide by the same laws as everyone else. If that means using whatever permit system NY has (if there even is one), then so be it.
No carry for private citizens? No carry for off-duty government officials, either.
No special people.
I understand and agree with the general concept.
However, I think the argument, despite being valid generally, would lose on one exact point: Police are not truly off-duty at the end of their shift. Their oath and powers do not stop at the end of their shift.
|
abrink
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Nov 20th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 29 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 3rd, 2008 10:05 pm |
|
Citizen wrote: Tomahawk wrote: SNIP I can't speak for yank98, but I certainly am questioning it. Either there are special people or there are not. When not on duty, police officers can abide by the same laws as everyone else. If that means using whatever permit system NY has (if there even is one), then so be it.
No carry for private citizens? No carry for off-duty government officials, either.
No special people.
I understand and agree with the general concept.
However, I think the argument, despite being valid generally, would lose on one exact point: Police are not truly off-duty at the end of their shift. Their oath and powers do not stop at the end of their shift.
Good point and i agree but everyone should have the right to defend themselves. Just because police officers took that oath and all that that doesn't mean that they should be able to protect themselves and we ordinary citizens cant. I think thats what you're trying to say tho so i'm not arguing with you.
|
Tomahawk
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Feb 3rd, 2008 10:10 pm |
|
Citizen wrote: Tomahawk wrote: SNIP I can't speak for yank98, but I certainly am questioning it. Either there are special people or there are not. When not on duty, police officers can abide by the same laws as everyone else. If that means using whatever permit system NY has (if there even is one), then so be it.
No carry for private citizens? No carry for off-duty government officials, either.
No special people.
I understand and agree with the general concept.
However, I think the argument, despite being valid generally, would lose on one exact point: Police are not truly off-duty at the end of their shift. Their oath and powers do not stop at the end of their shift.
If the system is jacked up enough to prevent private citizens from exercising their rights, I see no reason why it couldn't be equally jacked up for off-duty cops as well.
Just as cops are never truly off-duty, the private citizen is never to be deprived of his rights. If one has to suffer than all should.
Before you can get such government employees to support our efforts to restore our freedoms, you must make them feel our pain and ride in the same boat for a while. You must drill it into their heads that they are equal under the law and that freedom isn't reserved for them alone.
Last edited on Sun Feb 3rd, 2008 10:11 pm by Tomahawk
|
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Sun Feb 3rd, 2008 10:25 pm |
|
Tomahawk wrote: SNIP If the system is jacked up enough to prevent private citizens from exercising their rights, I see no reason why it couldn't be equally jacked up for off-duty cops as well.
Just as cops are never truly off-duty, the private citizen is never to be deprived of his rights. If one has to suffer than all should.
Before you can get such government employees to support our efforts to restore our freedoms, you must make them feel our pain and ride in the same boat for a while. You must drill it into their heads that they are equal under the law and that freedom isn't reserved for them alone.
You might be on to something there. I'd forgotten how it felt to go around unarmed.
How to implement it?
Would it even fly? There would be an awful lot of support for the "heroes in blue" to continue to carry off duty. Also, many police do already support 2A, according to reports on OCDO.
Maybe better to just continue to focus on the rest of us getting our rights back rather than deny their basic human right to self-defense.
|
Tomahawk
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Feb 3rd, 2008 10:58 pm |
|
It wouldn't fly, of course, but you can still make an issue of the inequality under the law, and use that as a way to argue for shall issue.
|
glocknroll
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Feb 3rd, 2008 11:15 pm |
|
Tomahawk wrote: It wouldn't fly, of course, but you can still make an issue of the inequality under the law, and use that as a way to argue for shall issue.
The argument for all cops being to carry off duty will always be "In the course of their duties, the police make enemies of those they arrest. They have to be prepared to defend against those enemies at any time."
I can understand that argument.
What I don't understand is, knowing that bad things happen to good people every day, why the rest of us don't have the same right.
It's already federal law that off duty or retired cops can carry in any state, so you won't have much luck taking that away from them. I have to agree with Citizen, I would stress that their lives are not worth more than yours or mine.
|
thnycav
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Aug 28th, 2007 |
| Location: | Windsor VA |
| Posts: | 214 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 5th, 2008 04:24 pm |
|
| Well simply stated a police officer even when off duty if a crime happens in front of him he would have to do something about it. If he did not and his agency found out he would be in all kinds of problems. A normal citizen seeing a crime is under no obligation to do anything about it. You can leave the area or just not get involved at all.
|
glocknroll
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Feb 5th, 2008 05:15 pm |
|
thnycav wrote: Well simply stated a police officer even when off duty if a crime happens in front of him he would have to do something about it. If he did not and his agency found out he would be in all kinds of problems. A normal citizen seeing a crime is under no obligation to do anything about it. You can leave the area or just not get involved at all.
What if the crime happening in front of you is also happening to you? The whole "leave the area" thing goes right out the window. I, for one, feel a moral obligation to assist those weaker or less prepared than I. You can leave the area if you so choose. I have to live with my conscience.
|
thnycav
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Aug 28th, 2007 |
| Location: | Windsor VA |
| Posts: | 214 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 5th, 2008 05:20 pm |
|
| Well first of all I do think the NY gun laws are all wrong, but having said that you still have the option. I would choose to help if I could as well but remember it is a option to do so.
|
glocknroll
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Feb 5th, 2008 05:24 pm |
|
thnycav wrote: Well first of all I do think the NY gun laws are all wrong, but having said that you still have the option. I would choose to help if I could as well but remember it is a option to do so.
I sincerely apologize for any assumptions on my part. Yes, ignoring other's problems is an option, just one that you, I, and most posters on this forum wouldn't choose.
|
thnycav
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Aug 28th, 2007 |
| Location: | Windsor VA |
| Posts: | 214 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 5th, 2008 05:27 pm |
|
| A police officer would not have that option to just walk away. Especially if it was in the city he worked for.
|
glocknroll
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Feb 5th, 2008 05:33 pm |
|
thnycav wrote: A police officer would not have that option to just walk away. Especially if it was in the city he worked for.
Agreed, but that is because he is sworn to "protect and serve". I don't doubt that some officers have chosen to walk away, especially if dressed in civilian clothes (out of uniform). The police are hired from the rest of society. A few bad apples will always slip through the cracks.
|
I_Hate_Illinois
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Feb 15th, 2008 02:19 pm |
|
.40 Cal wrote: They need to train their cops a little better. Put the right person on the trigger and the would-be killer would be dead. It disgusts me to think that more places are using NY city as an example of the effective use of gun control. As one man put it, "gun control is holding your gun with both hands!" One of the most brilliant things I have ever heard.
|
Wynder
State Researcher
| Joined: | Tue Jul 31st, 2007 |
| Location: | Bear, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 1241 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 15th, 2008 03:27 pm |
|
thnycav wrote: Well simply stated a police officer even when off duty if a crime happens in front of him he would have to do something about it. If he did not and his agency found out he would be in all kinds of problems. A normal citizen seeing a crime is under no obligation to do anything about it. You can leave the area or just not get involved at all.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the police have NO DUTY to protect. Additionally, the Fourteenth Amendment provides equal protection under the law -- laws that affect citizens should also apply to police. Granted, legislature gets around this by crafting laws based on job titles, but that's just furthering the concept that there are different classes of citizens.
Don't think that an officer HAS to do anything while there're off-duty... much less ON-duty, at least in the eyes of the Supreme Court.
|
DT4E31
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu Feb 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | New York USA |
| Posts: | 121 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 9th, 2008 03:30 am |
|
| There is no reason to WHINE and bitch about the police having carry rights when off duty. That will not help the CCW cause. Why hasnt anyone complained about the JUDGES, who can carry 24/7 or the Assistant District Attorneys who can carry 24/7??
|
Smurfologist
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Mar 13th, 2008 06:38 pm |
|
DT4E31 wrote: There is no reason to WHINE and bitch about the police having carry rights when off duty. That will not help the CCW cause. Why hasnt anyone complained about the JUDGES, who can carry 24/7 or the Assistant District Attorneys who can carry 24/7??
DT4E31, people have been complaining (i.e. "Special People"). I wonder how good of a shot they are; I wonder how often they go to the range. Do these "special people" just go get a gun and CC because they can? Riddle me that, Batman!!
2nd Amendment.........Use it.........Or, lose it!!
|
Current time is 09:59 am | Page:   1 2 3   |
|
