Cop haters on gun boards (rant)

[Mack811]

Anyone else frequent gun sites? I am a dyed in the wool gun enthusiast myself and visit several. I enjoy discussing various weapons and such.It seems that on every one there are the tin foil hat wearing, rabid "kill the JBT" types. Sadly they seem to get a lot of support.As a rule I ignore them, but it is really starting to **** me off.I do not read the obvious posts but all too often an otherwise unrelated thread will devolve into a "use such and such ammo to penetrate thier vests" or some similar discussion.
It's mighty easy to be a bad *** on the internet. Guess I will just stick to officer.com now. No real point here, just a bit of a rant brought about by seeing fellow gunowners supporting that POS politician in NH.Deep breath, exhale.Get another cup of coffee. So let's get this forum area fired up and talk about firearms, kind of slow in here.Have a great day and be careful out there.

[tcsd1236]

I hear ya; I was just involved in one of those debates over at ar15.com.
It gets a little depressing after a while; theres the inevitable comparison to Nazi's. Then those people that see ANY sort of gun control as unconstitutional. They are a tough lot to argue with due to their extreme all-or-nothing viewpoint. Then they wonder why the majority of people don't agree with them.

[John from Maryland]

There's a certain dreary routineness to many firearms-board discussions. A debate will start, often ignited by the topic starter "The ----- state legislature just banned -----. I wonder how many LEO's break down the doors of law-abiding citizens' homes to enforce this unconstitutioanl edict?" From then on, it's like listening to every argument you've ever heard a rookie get into with drunk.

A cop points out that police enforce laws passed by freely elected legislatures. No, no, the police should know this law is unconstitutional and disobey lawful orders of both their agencies and elected offficials. Cop suggests that we don't agree with most gun laws and that maybe this issue is an electoral one. No,of course not, the legislature has passed an unconstitutional law. Revolution is around the corner. Cop mentions thatthe law was upheld by the courts. No, no, the courts are wrong as well. Only those who oppose any form of gun regulation understand the constitution. We cops had better not mess with them.

This discussion will be liberally sprinkled with suggestions that Nazi storm troopers were merely following orders, threats of what weapons will be used when the police break down the poster's door in no-knock raid, and inevitable references to the People's Republic of -------.

You realize after a while that many of the cop-haters on these boards are really anarchist in their beliefs. Fortunately, hunters hunt, but seldom howl; howlers howl, but seldom hunt. The ones making the most threats are probably not very dangerous at all.

Be safe.

[Steve in PA]

Yeah I'm a certified "gun nut" too....and frequent several boards, TFL, Glock Talk, ar15.....and really ticked off by some of those idiots. Normally I don't type anything in response.....because I don't feel like wasting my time. There are alot of LEO friendly or neutral people who ask questions looking for our opinions....what ****es me off is the ones that don't like the answers we give....honest answers to honest questions. Guns in cars....what happens if....can I do this or that, what are my rights during a traffic stop. I love there replies..yeah well I'm not going to do that...yeah whatever. I still frequent the boards......just shake my head and think some people shouldn't reproduce.

------------------
Steve

[Niteshift]

"some people shouldn't reproduce."

Yep. Why worry about making you get a permit to carry a gun when what would solve more problems would be making some of these people get a permit to procreate. http://www.officer.com/ubb/smile.gif

They embarass me. If you have a pro2nd rally near you, go there and watch who the media interviews. It will be some beer-bellied, tobacco chewing rube, wearing a "Kill em all and let God sort em out" t-shirt and a "When they pry it......" hat. He'll rant about black helicopters and FEMA, sound like a half-wit and they'll air that interview. They won't talk to the doctor dressed in Dockers or the woman wearing the t-shirt from her son's football team.

BTW, no offense to anyone's relatives with my above description. http://www.officer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif


------------------
Niteshift-
Perseverate In Pugna

[Hoptoe]

Hi,
I am on TFL and GT. It does get old to hear that crap from these people, they are the minority and IMHO are just full of hot air.
The keyboard makes em brave, just like booze and handcuffs do. http://www.officer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif
Doesn't mean it doesn't get to me sometimes, I just try to ignore them. Take care all.

Laters,
Hoppy

[Bob A]

Just remember guys, Darwin was right. Most of these idiots will remove themselves from the gene pool, either voluntarily through their own actions, or involuntarily, through actions of people who recognize what they are. You're right about posting responses ti their antagonisms. Ever hear this?

When you argue with a fool, what is the fool doing?

------------------
It is always better to beg forgiveness, than to ask for permission.

[Bonk]

The three websites I check regularly are this one, GlockTalk, and sixguns.com's "campfire". GT is a good board with its own set of trolls but is generally pretty civilized. Sixguns.com, run by gun writer John Taffin, is by far the tidiest, cleanest, and most equitable discussion site I have ever seen, and I encourage everyone here to take a look.

As for the rest of them, ar15.com, shooterstalk.com, I've been there, posted there, and I just have other things I need to do with my day.

[Sparky]

I really love those types. They are funny!!

I couldn't bring myself to give any examples on why I think this is so silly for OPSEC reasons, but...

HINT!!! We study these things from people with ALOT of experience dealing with REAL terrorists. We practice ALL THE TIME!!!

We had one of these militia types in our area that was promising armegedon. They had a bunch of guns and food and gas masks and booby traps.

Had people coming in from all over the country to help "guard" the place..

In the end, it ended with a whimper...
The only BANG being made by the entry charge!!

Most of these guys talk alot of crappola! I think it's just plain cute.

What is so ironic is that I am fervently against gun control, but as has been said..it is a matter for the legislature. If you disagree with a law, then lobby against it. If it gets passed, then go find a lawyer.



------------------
-Sparky

[Glockarmorer]

"John From MD" successfully and succinctly summed up the gist of most of those conversations.

The two forums I visit, almost daily, are Glock Talk and Officer.com

I was not raised in a "gun" household so did not acquire my interest in firearms until I was in the Marine Corps. I got interested in guns, then I got interested in the political issues surrounding guns.

Since then, I've always considered myself to be staunchly pro-gun. I believe American citizens DO have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, and not merely for sporting purposes either. I am very much in favor of civilian CCW permits. I am firmly convinced that there would be less violent crime if more law abiding citizens did CCW.

I've felt this way since before I became a LEO and the feelings have only gotten stronger in the nearly 10 years since then.

Unfortunately, I recently discovered something that shocked me. Until I began frequenting Glock Talk a few months back, I had no idea just how many gun owners are at best suspicious of the police and at worst, hate and advocate killing LEOs. Until this discovery, I had always assumed that most American gunowners were pro LEO law-and-order types.

I realize that these hard core cases probably represent only a small minority of gunowners, but it is disturbing nonetheless to see some of the paranoid rantings of people who are otherwise outwardly normal.

What is probably most disturbing to me is that these same individuals are the ones who are most vocal in their opposition to the "War On Drugs". To hear some of them talk, you'd think they were crack heads themselves.

I would love for some of these guys to get a chance to go on a ridealong with an inner city narcotics unit to get some idea of the types of individuals they are defending.

These types of threads invariably disintegrate into online "shouting matches" with name calling and finger pointing. When that happens, I just surf on over to Officer.com...

G.A.

BTW...In defense of www.glocktalk.com (http://www.glocktalk.com) , the administrator Eric and most, if not all, of the moderators are pro-LEO. And the anti-LEO types make up a small minority of the posters there. If you've never checked it out, drop by there some time. They cover all topics, not just Glocks and not just firearms.

------------------
No cops, know anarchy.

[POINTERCOP]

I am an old cop...30 years on the job...and a Life Member of the NRA. I teach CCW and I am a believer in the right to bear arms...and if you have never read the founding fathers REASON for the 2nd ammendment you should. Now, as for these uncouth loudmouths...dopers with guns demanding rights and ignoring laws...they are the criminal element of our society. Just like the NH legislator/jerk, these people are DANGEROUS. Dangerous to other people because of their insane ideas...and dangerous to legitimate gun advocates who are seeing their rights dribble away. WE are judged by THEIR actions. Sorry if I am rambling...it just pi**es me off.

[Kaos]

Originally posted by Glockarmorer:

Unfortunately, I recently discovered something that shocked me. Until I began frequenting Glock Talk a few months back, I had no idea just how many gun owners are at best suspicious of the police and at worst, hate and advocate killing LEOs. Until this discovery, I had always assumed that most American gunowners were pro LEO law-and-order types.


I visit that site and was also shocked. I think it has to do with them being intimidated by police for whatever reason. They don't like the "authority" police have at all.

[Jessica]

Just remember, most posters on gun boards are not cop-haters. Most administrators and moderators (on decent gun boards), put an instant stop to threads that may end in arguments. For those gun boards that do not

[Don]

Pointercop,

AMEN! (Yes, I know I'm shouting)

------------------
Don't tell me I look good for my age. That is like saying "Hey, you are pretty smart for someone so stupid!" 6P1 (retired)

[blondie72]

I visited a couple of other law enforcement sites for the first time today, and i was surprised to see the same thing. There was the occasional post similar to "i hate the police and i hope the gangs kick their *ss".

It is disturbing to think of these people with guns, and especially if they are using/ dealing drugs. However, i truly believe that people like that represent the minority of civilian gun owners. My husband and i are firearms enthusiasts and all of our friends are responsible law- abiding people who support the police fully. I think that this is why it is so important that civilians are allowed CCW. This is borne out by the fact that areas in which civilians have these permits, are areas of lower crime.

I'm providing a link to a review of the book 'More Guns, Less Crime' by John R Lott. For those who haven't already read it, i would really recommend it. It's a very good read. http://www.findarticles.com/m1282/n13_v50/20977860/p1/article.jhtml

[This message has been edited by blondie72 (edited 01-07-2001).]

[Bob A]

Unfortunately, this is the same basic reason I don't go to bars or concerts much. I also notice a number of relatives that seem to have forgotten my phone # Since I was sworn.

------------------
In God we trust. All others we run through NCIC.

[Libertarian]

Glockarmorer,

It is completely inappropriate for anyone to talk in general about shooting ANY group of people. Many of the people that post like that are really just blowhards venting steam at what they perceive as encroaching government. It may bother you that some gun owners are distrustful of the police on the gun ownership issue but their fear is not totally irrational. Canada just invoked an extreme gun control law and Britain and Australia have too. Most of the TV time is devoted to anti-gun newcasters and celebrities pushing for gun control. We ordinary gun owners are very concerned about our elected officials pulling the rug out from under us and are unsure whether the LEO's are on our side or theirs. It is not paranoid to fear gun seizure laws when there are so many forces at work trying to make it happen and they get all the free air-time.

In any case, shooting people is the last resort when all legal means have failed to protect the rights of the people. It's certainly not that bad yet.

[Glockarmorer]

Libertarian,

I agree with you. Unfortunately, most of these same people generally CLAIM to be LIBERTARIANS. What's your take on that? Does the Libertarian party really distrust or despise law enforcement because of their views against being governed?

Also, how about drug laws...?

And the one I'm really waiting to hear is a Libertarian individual explaining what I understand to be the party's defense of NAMBLA...

This is not a personal attack on you. I used to think that I was a "Libertarian minded" type of person, until I met a few online. Present company excluded of course.

Sincerely,
G.A.

------------------
No cops, know anarchy.

[Libertarian]

Glockarmorer,

I'm not sure what in particular the NAMBLA reference you are citing involves. I have certainly never run across a libertarian party member that supports what NAMBLA promotes any more than they would support Aryan Nation. Perhaps what they were defending was NAMBLA's free speech right to have a website promoting their views or something like that. That is a separate issue entirely from endorsing any particular activity. Approval of someone's right to say something is not the same as agreeing with what they say.

With regards to distrust of LEO's libertarians are not against being governed but simply disagree with the extent of and power of government in general. Any political party has a gamut of how intensely someone wants to drum a certain issue. There are anti-abortion bombers that call themselves Republican, I don't think that is grounds for damning the whole party. Some people call themselves libertarian because they falsely believe the party endorses the kind of behavior you and I are worried about. Libertarians are very strong gun ownership advocates and generally regard gun bans as creeping federalism, but it is generally the government officials and not the LEO's that draw their ire. The libertarians I have met that actually are active in the party certainly do not talk about shooting cops although they might want to stick pins in their voodoo dolls over some supreme court decisions.

As for the party's stance on drug laws, the view is that drug activity is consensual behavior that does not directly affect 3rd parties and that the state has no right to interfere with said activity. That being said, libertarians often have a widely varying opinion as to what form legalization must take. A few members have tried unsuccessfully to have the issue removed from the party platform to increase the chances of getting elected.

[Sparky]

I'll have to agree with LIB. Most of the "real" libertarians that I have known were very pro-gun ownership and also very pro-law enforcement. They felt that there should be fewer laws and increased civil liberties, but that when responding to "real" crimes like murder, rape, etc. Most actually felt that LE should be less restricted than they are now.

The general logic being that police would be investigating only pretty serious offenses and once a certain burden of probable cause was met, a violator would have protections from unreasonable investigative measures, BUT officers would not have quite as many hoops to jump through all of the time.

Most of the folks I talked to, though, also stressed that LE should also be held to a higher professional standard and that any wrongdoing on the part of officers would need to be dealt with severely.

Most of them also advocated more severe penalties for serious crimes.

The jist I got was more individual freedoms and protections up to a point. Once an individual crossed that line, then they no longer would be seen as deserving of as many protections as others who abide by the law. Libertarianism (in my understanding) does not merely advocate individual freedoms but also advocates individual responsibility. You can't have an increase in one side without a corresponding increase n the other.

Now...I don't know if this is a correct understanding of the party platform, or even of those individual's personal views, but I thought I would throw it out.

Any corrections Lib?

Oh yeah...I hadn't heard about the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) thing, but it would concern me a great deal.

If the libertarians embrace pedophiles, then I will lose ALL respect for the party!!


------------------
-Sparky

[Sparky]

Just realized...

Man, are we WAY off topic!
http://www.officer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

------------------
-Sparky

[Mack811]

Anybody seen a moderator around? Man, just like cops, can't find one when you need one. http://www.officer.com/ubb/smile.gif

[Niteshift]

"Anybody seen a moderator around?"

Check the doughnut shop? They'll rarely be found far from the smell of hot coffee. http://www.officer.com/ubb/smile.gif

------------------
Niteshift-
Perseverate In Pugna

[Libertarian]

Sparky,

That was a pretty good summary you had there. And I agree, if the Libs start advocating for NAMBLA other than just free speech rights I will dump them immediately. I hope Glockarmorer clarifies with a newspaper reprint with clear detail what this issue is about, but it would be better to tackle it in another thread.

To return to the original subject: All of us have individual beliefs as to what we regard as INHERENT rights. These are the philosophical equivalent of axioms. I think most of the people here would regard free speech as an inherent right whether it was specified in the Constitution or not. I certainly do. The question we must all ask ourselves is how far are we willing to go to defend these rights we regard as inherent? Strongly enough to shoot LEO's if we feel they are taking the right away? Didn't we all boo and hiss at the chinese army when they rolled tanks over the tops of the protestors? Suppose you were ordered to shoot at WTO protesters, would you do so if it was the law for you to do so?

This is the very uncomfortable fence that all LEO's hopefully will never be forced to come to grips with. I think the reason that many extreme gun protestors say the things they do is because they believe that the LEO's are all just robots who will salute and enforce any law that comes along, no matter how inhumane it might be. I can't imagine it being that simplistic, LEO's have inherent moral values just like anyone else and probably will balk if the button gets pushed too hard.

Everyday law enforcement doesn't involve issues that create this kind of moral crisis but history shows that such events can occur. I'm sure the chinese army soldiers merely saw themselves as obeying the law, were they conflicted at all? It would be interesting to know.