View Poll Results: If ordered to remove all guns from American homes; would you:
- 49. You may not vote on this poll
Comply, we must follow orders
Refuse to Comply
Quit the force
Results 1 to 15 of 85
12-19-2012, 01:26 PM #1
Potential Gun Ban?
Alright, so in light of recent cowardly acts by cowardly people, there has been an increased discussion on gun control. We come from different backgrounds, but at the end of the day, we are sworn to uphold the law. Many of us also share political beliefs, and the interpretation of our Constitution. So here is the million dollar question:
What would happen if you were ordered by your division head to start confiscating guns from ordinary citizens? Take the poll, and leave comments if you like. I posted this in the public area to encourage a discussion. If it is moved, I will understand. In speaking with non LE friends, it seems that they believe that most LE is against CCW and gun ownership; and would gladly take every gun out of American homes. I think that this thread may inform some folks.
So would you take the guns and follow orders? Please do remember that this is public, so please do not make any statements that will get you bit inthe hindquarters later! God Bless and be safe!
EDIT: By the way, the third option, to quit the force, was poorly written. The idea was that you would sooner quit your job than follow this order.
Last edited by TopSite; 06-24-2013 at 07:42 PM. Reason: Clarify Poll
12-19-2012, 02:46 PM #2
Since I am retired, I do not fear retribution, and I voted as if I was still active. In a nutshell....NO WAY in Hell would I start grabbing honest citizen's weapons to serve someone's political or misguided intentions.
I proved it once too. Back before Texas had concealed carry permits, I refused to file a weapons charge against a lady I had arrested for a misdemeanor traffic violation. She explained that she had a pistol in her car due to the location of her employment and the time of day she got off. I fully agreed with her and got in a heated discussion with my captain over it. We....(she and I) won.If you see anybody I know, give them a hug!
12-20-2012, 02:30 PM #3
I am with you on this too Delzo...there is no way I would take guns from citizens, just to take guns. We have a second ammendment for a reason.
12-20-2012, 04:20 PM #4
NO WAY (I too am retired though) would I seize anyone's guns as long as they were in lawful possession of same.
12-20-2012, 05:10 PM #5
I've also (frequently) heard and read how the police would love to seize firearms and oppose CCWs. I travel extensively, doing training sessions with LEOs from all over my state. I have yet to encounter a single veteran officer who supports gun confiscation or opposes realistic CCW.
Permit me to elaborate ..
We all took an oath to 'support and defend' the Constitution. Absent amending, or complete removal, by Congress of the Second Amendment, it overrides any other legislation a state or national legislation might pass. Unless the USSC upheld the 'new' law as constitutional, we're being asked to violate the Constitution.
I, and I suspect other LEOs, feel we should not follow unlawful orders. For example, if my state ordered me to take all Asian, Black or Brown people into custody because they "might" be illegal aliens, I'd refuse that order as well.
On confiscation: If we seize everyone's guns, that means we also take them from our fathers, grandfathers, and even our own homes. LEO exemptions would probably be pretty limited. Not gonna happen. From a practical view, this would be closer to impossible and we'd expect to have some serious - probably armed - resistance from some die-hards. People would likely die.
On CCWs: I don't oppose CCWs, per se. However, I do believe we need to screen holders far better than we currently do. Being "law abiding" and feeling they need a weapon for 'safety' really doesn't hold much appeal to me. People who carry a firearm - even police - assume a larger obligation than just themselves. If you have a gun in your home or business, that's your choice. But, as with drugs, alcohol or driving, when you enter the public arena, you have to behave and use a firearm in a more responsible way. A person who has little or no skill places me and my loved ones in greater damger than even the Bad Guys ...
We could, of course, debate what we each think the wording of the 2nd Amendment 'really' means. Even the courts seem unable to come to grips, defininitively, even after over 200 years.As with most laws, we don't get the luxury of deciding which laws we'll obey and which we will not. For now, the words "well-regulated militia" seems to mean all citizens.
Can Congress then define 'militia' [eg, age 18 to 65], can they insist on 'well-regulated' being a defined level or training and even registration, can they legislate that one firearm meets the threshold of 'armed', can they limit ammo quantities?
Thus, I believe people who want to carry in public should be adequately [which isn't just a 2 hour classroom session] trained in safe gun handling, laws of self-defense, realistic shooting skills and the tactical use of the weapon. Being able to hit a bullseye or other paper target at 15 feet proves little. They should have background checks that include access to medical/mental health records as well as criminal histories.
They should be tested in low-light shooting, threat assessment, and a shoot/don't shoot simulator like police use for Force Option Training. They should be retested at least semiannually.
I disagree with my own state law that allows the CCW to be issued by the sheriff (unicorporated) or police chief (incorporated) primarily based on thier own ideology and/or personal whims. There could be a state standard but a national reciprocacy law.
We're all reading about arming teachers and even students on campuses, as if this will prevent or minimize campus violence. Most teachers will probably not want to carry and, more importantly, not have the mindset to take a human life. Worse, I fear we'll be inserting yet more ill-secured firearms into a school environment. In my college, we sat in large lecture halls with 200+ students. I would not want a 150 or more ill-trained and unskilled students blasting away to 'stop a threat' .... Cops have a (national) miss rate at about 80+% and we're 'trained' and qualify at least annually. We've usually experienced stress and close combat; not many students can react properly to an armed threat.
12-23-2012, 02:15 PM #6
Well put Eljefe!
12-24-2012, 02:34 AM #7
I would not take guns from law abiding Americans if ordered. If the feds want our guns, let the FEDS come and take them or try to at least. I don't think that a lot of folks will just hand them over peacefully and I don't want any part of that. Not only do I not support a gun ban, I do support the constitution and as others said, that's what I am sworn to protect.
12-24-2012, 05:42 AM #8
In the past week, there's been a lot of (and I use this term broadly) dialogue about 'gun control' ... Many folks seem imbedded in one extreme or the other: Ban all guns or allow everyone to have guns, with no willingness to expolre some level of compromise. What's worse, the pro-gun advoctes appear to not hear anything but "bann the guns" in the agenda of the Gun Control advocates; either or, no inbetween.
Okay, let's call it: There will never be a total gun ban in the USA, at least in our lifetimes. Let that go.
What we will see is probably more restrictions on the purchase of firearms - extended wait times, limited purchase numbers, extensive backgrounds, etc., and probably at the pruchaser's expense - and possession of weapons limited by type, magazine capacity and such. Personally, I wouldn't object to requiring people be tested and licensed (that 'well-regulated' part) but that's my opinion based on encountering too many poor gunhandlers in my lifetime ... that includes cops, military and civilian.
But let's not get our knickers twisted using the 'Gun Ban' distraction; it's never been proposed by any president nor any Congress. Let's focus on finding ways to reduce mentally ill, stupid and criminally-inclined people being given access. Those who misuse a gun should get legally booted in the butt so hard they taste shoepolish. Let's not 'punish' those who otherwise obey the law and desire the ability to protect themelves in a lawful manner.
Guns in the home or place of business should be an individual choice - like sex, smoking, drinking or prayer. A gun in the home becomes the liability of the owner, not the government. Once the gun is inserted into the public arena, a different social responsibility comes into play.
12-25-2012, 02:46 PM #9
As I've posted on another thread... if I'm shot on duty it sure isn't gonna be trying to take someone's weapon (unless it's an unlawful carry situation). Some of the folks I talk to around our county aren't gonna give 'em up while they've still got ammo and are able to load -- especially if UN forces come to do the confiscation.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand why our political enemies like the ChiComs want the US citizens disarmed. If you've ever seen the move "The Russians Are Coming" from decades ago, it makes the point very clearly when a sub commander is faced with several hundred townsfolk sporting all manner of firearms pointed in his direction.
Having said that, I am all in favor of trying to keep firearms out of the hands of the mentally unstable. There's probably no ideal way of making that happen. But it might go a long way to put the Ten Commandments back in school and teach "Thou shalt not kill" again.Officer Jay McGuire, Minneapolis Park Police EOW 5/14/2009 age 11
Among Texas' finest
Deputy Andy Taylor, Llano County SO EOW 5/9/2005
Senior Deputy Jessica Laura Hollis, Travis County SO EOW 9/18/2014
12-26-2012, 06:10 AM #10
The UN forces can't even keep Third World peasants under control; forget them coming to the USA as 'invaders' or seizing our guns. To start with, how will they get here in force? Landing craft? A fleet of aircraft? The UN 'forces' - which is all the nations, not one, can't muster up that many ships or aircraft that wouldn't be reduced to rubble.
'The Russians are Coming', like 'Red Dawn', is just movie stuff. One clumsy submarine crew against a township of buffoons and crackpots ... a sqaud of Marines with fixed bayonets woulda cleaned up those mopes before lunch.
And, with all respect, the Ten Commandments need to be taught at home, not the schools. I don't want laypeople, with little or no theological training and most likely a very different ideology than mine 'teaching' faith-based topics in public schools.
The Ten Commandments aren't part of every faith, much like the belief that Jesus is Lord & Savior isn't accepted by all faiths. Eeven the first four Commandments require a certain faith adherance, which may not apply to all faiths. It's only the last six that have more universal application. One faith principle cannot override all others in a society like ours. That said, the commandment of 'Thou shalt not kill' isn't even consistent in all Christian bibles and Hebrew texts ... some read 'Thou shalt not murder', which is a very different interpretation.
12-26-2012, 04:41 PM #11
I never said that The Russians Are Coming wasn't a comedy. I didn't say the townspeople would have actually won a pitched battle. What I was trying to say is that common ordinary folks will take to arms to defend against a perceived threat from another nations forces. Or perhaps I should have said that there was a time when they would. That movie was made back in the day before the word patriotism was redefined and people weren't afraid to get involved.
Um... last I was aware the US wasn't the lone "super power" at the UN. I would think that the Russians and Chinese wouldn't hesitate to drop troops into this county if they could get away with it under the cover of a UN arms treaty ratified by the President.
No confiscation in the future? Yeah, well I'll believe that in the future. Even the governor of NY is calling for confiscation.
<sigh> I forget... its better to teach no morals or moral responsibility and blame shifting than to expose children to anything positive if it can be construed as Christian. But perhaps there is something in the Ten Commandments that is detrimental to society that I don't know about.
I'd better shut up before I get blamed for hijacking the thread.Officer Jay McGuire, Minneapolis Park Police EOW 5/14/2009 age 11
Among Texas' finest
Deputy Andy Taylor, Llano County SO EOW 5/9/2005
Senior Deputy Jessica Laura Hollis, Travis County SO EOW 9/18/2014
12-26-2012, 07:08 PM #12
I suggest doing some study - not just what the NRA, et al, sells - about the ATT. Despite the hoopla, it's really about international arms sales. Considering the US sells some $5 billion annually around the world, it just might be there's an ulterior motive by gun makers (which contribute heavily to the NRA) to bad-mouth the treaty. That said, it appears the treaty is (a) really not necessary and (b) lacks the senate votes for ratification. Even if it passed, that wouldn't provide the impetus for China or Russia to invade for the purpose of confiscating guns. As I said, they have to get here and - as we learned in WWII - that's no easy task. Likewise, I don't fear the black helicopters or the local PD/SO coming to take my guns.
The governor of NY can call for all the confiscation he wants to but will find himself on the wrong side of history and politics. Banning and confiscation isn't a solution to gun violence.
I think the 'religion' aspect isn't off-topic. Perhaps if we had a better national moral compass, we'd see less violence. Like some Old Guys here, I grew up when we all had guns - usually .22s and .410s - and rode across town on bikes with them. The cops just waved to us; we never thought of shooting our classmates. We didn't handle guns in someone's home without permission or carelessly; to do so made you 'persona non grata' and you weren't welcome again.
I don't disagree that teaching some moral and ethical standards is a good thing. I also think every kid should be taught civility, good manners, firearms safety and self-defense. But my point is that religion doesn't belong in secular schools, being "taught" from a lesson plan and/or by people with varied - and questionable - theological skill and knowledge. Virtually all faiths have some variation on the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule, even if not described by those words. The problem is in the presentation and the emphasis. Given the ethnic makeup of our nation, we cannot - should not - impose Christian values and standards on all students; it's a slippery slope.
12-27-2012, 01:12 AM #13
Sad to say, I know of a few officers on my department who would happily confiscate weapons. I've seen it done.
12-27-2012, 01:52 AM #14
- Join Date
- Jul 1999
- Lake Murray Country, South Carolina
- Rep Power
12-27-2012, 06:56 AM #15
A "Special Unit" that was involved in a "special detail" to help curb the violent crime due a spur in gang related shootings. The weapons were legally owned. Officers who objected or raised concerns were basically told to "shut up". One senior officer was removed from a command posistion and transferred when he objected to the confiscations.