Frank_N_Stein
Grandmaster
in the political section? You said it not me
Uh, yeah.
in the political section? You said it not me
Admit it. You come in here to bask in the glowing light of my posts.
Every real cop I know supports constitutional carry. If they don't then I don't care to know them. It's the politician Leo's that don't. The ones grasping for title and power not the ones on the road actualy keeping us safe.
No limitations whatsoever?
Bad news INGO peace officers. No disarming arrestees...or detainees...or inmates. "Shall not be infringed"!!!!
Now THERE'S a leap in logic! Inmates lose the right (but should be made whole again upon release and possibly a probationary period).
the system now is set up to **** you and push you to reoffend in some way. Too many hoops once people serve their time.Now THERE'S a leap in logic! Inmates lose the right (but should be made whole again upon release and possibly a probationary period).
Thats not something I will ever agree on. Prison stays don't reform anyone.
Thats not something I will ever agree on. Prison stays don't reform anyone.
You mean why are some politically appointed police administrators against the 2nd amendment?
I wish we could find out who the six were that spoke against it.According to Guy Relford, 86/92 elected Indiana County Sheriffs are against or had no position on HB 1159... Reflord skewered their arguments on WIBC earlier tonight. The ISA was invited to participate; didn't even respond to the invitation.
Yes, I consider them opposing 2A no matter what lip service they give it. The proof's in the pudding and they (along with several other LEO organizations) showed their true colors when releasing that position paper last Thursday.
Shame, shame on all of you.
Thats not something I will ever agree on. Prison stays don't reform anyone.
I wish we could find out who the six were that spoke against it.
Shame, shame on all of you.
Unless youre one of the elected sherriffs that voted for this (which I know you aren't), then he wasn't.Don't lump me in with that bunch.
I've seen a metric crap-ton of arguments here, from treason to making someone's job easier to disrespect for the oath to disrespect for the people to disrespect for the Constitution itself.
IMHO, every one of those reasons has missed the mark.
The only person who surprises me by missing it is Leadeye, who has made the saying so ubiquitous as to be a sig line: Always follow the money.
Some percentage of the money from every LTCH goes to the agency that performs the background check for their training budget.
The agencies stand to stop bringing in money if Constitutional Carry passes and they no longer need to do those checks. How would you react if your boss wanted to make a change that would reduce your income, and asked your opinion?
Note that I don't agree with refusal to support, certainly not on those grounds, but I understand the likelihood that that is indeed the primary motivation behind the decision.
Oh... and treason is defined as making war against the United States or giving aid and comfort to her enemies. Only the very loosest reading of it would encompass the refusal to support Constitutional carry.
Considering that the penalty for that crime is death, I think the bar for it needs to be as highly set as possible.
Blessings,
Bill