BLOOMBERG- OFF DUTY & RETIRED LEOs NO GUNS

Discussion in 'Vintage Topic Archive (Sept - 2009)' started by FLA2760, Apr 11, 2008.

  1. FLA2760

    FLA2760 Guest

    NYC mayor Bloomberg is a hater of the 2nd Amendment as we know. His frivolous lawsuits against firearm manufactures and his illegal "sting" operations on gunshops OUT OF NY STATE have shown this. But this is a new low. After a retired police officer was killed who had no chance to access his weapon Bloomberg said he sees no need for off duty and retired LEOs to carry. It is clear that Bloomberg's goal is to disarm all gun owners in America. Just look at what happened in the UK. We need to resist this tyrant. :x


    http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-lott081303.asp
     
  2. The scariest thing about Bloomberg is he has the money to convince alot of people that his crazy agenda is right when it is so wrong!
     

  3. I view off duty and retired police being allowed to carry as one more guardian angel watching over me.
     
  4. Strangerous

    Strangerous Member

    4,752
    0
    That's what i'm saying!
    This is almost as bad as the "take away a VETERAN's firearms" hogwash... "BAN BLOOMBERG!"
     
  5. I very rarely say things like this, but maybe he needs to be robbed and beaten by some guy with a knife, and bystanders not be able to do anything because they are all unarmed.

    And realize the fact that sometimes being armed is a good thing.
     
  6. jsumpter99

    jsumpter99 Guest

    While I do not agree with the fact the he prohibits ANYONE from carrying a handgun, I dont believe being a retired or off duty officer should get any special privledges above those afforded to the common citizens. I repspect police officers and am very thankfull for what they do, but do not believe that wearing a badge or bieng an officer should afford them any more rights to carry or own firearms than I am allowed to have as a law abiding citizen. The second ammendment was for all of us.
     
  7. Carbin8r

    Carbin8r Member

    You know what? I have to agree.

    I can understand if being retired LEO counts towards any CCW/firfearms training requirements, but otherwise they should have the same permit process and restrictions as anyone else. A truely democratic society is one where there is only a single class of citizen and all are treated equal in the eyes of the law.
     
  8. elguapo

    elguapo Guest

    I have a novel idea: Everyone gets to carry a gun if they choose. Only prohibited possessors would be banned from possession. Wait, that wont work...Those types of people DONT obey laws anyways....

    Notice all the people who actively voice against personal defense, usually have security types floating around them? They have money, so that money dont appear to them as it does to us: its like air, they dont miss it till its gone. That is how off these people are.
     
  9. In general I agree BUT the flaw is if I'm out to kill a cop ,for whatever reason, I'm going to try when he or she is off duty. It's more likley they won't have other officers with and when out of uniform it will take longer for the "officer shot" call to go out.

    Now if you want to talk about some having more rights than others, much of what I have heard about carry permits in NYC says the tiny amout given out (just a few hundred so I heard) seem to go to Bloombergs pals. Now not living in NYC I can't comfirm if these are real facts but would it really surprise you if such a rabid anti-gun guy was also a hypocrit?
     
  10. Doesn't surprise me; Maryland is a "may issue" state, and if you take out all the retired police, judges, etc. most of the people granted the piddling amount that were handed out were friends of the governor. I don't even know what a MD CCW looks like...
     
  11. yep...might teach this dumbass the errors of his ways. :evil:
    i will never understand these types.
     
  12. p7196

    p7196 Guest

    I have to disagree with part of your statement. Off duty & retired officers do need to afford a little more privilege than regular citizens. Simply they are at just as great of a risk off duty as they are on. Retired officers are at a higher risk as well. Stop and think how many felons they have arrested and subsequently served jail time. People in jail/prison do become bitter and want to get even. Not all do but many more do and actually try to kill & mame or otherwise injure these brave folks. You never know when you go to buy groceries if someone who hates you and wants you dead will be packin after release from an institution and will try some shit. Also regular citizens don't normally have felons or other people wanting to kill them like a retired officer. You will hear many prisoners make the statement "i will catch you without that gun & badge one day."
     
  13. Sniper 995

    Sniper 995 Guest

    women are at higher risk as well, no preferential treatment there so why all the fuss about cops???????? off duty, retired... they are civilians treat them as such.... no preferential treatment.
     
  14. jsumpter99

    jsumpter99 Guest

     
  15. p7196

    p7196 Guest

    jsumpter99 ok I see what you are saying. I am not saying they should actually have more rights. I guess I misworded it. Everyone deserves the same right to gun ownership. I was saying that LEO should not be stripped of their weapon when they retire nor should an off duty officer go unarmed just because he/she is off duty.
     
  16. Sniper 995

    Sniper 995 Guest

    They should not be stripped of the right to carry, however in the case of NYC (and everywhere else too) they should have follow the same rules and apply for a permit just as anyone else does. AND they should recieve no special consideration for the right to carry. Many LEO consider armed citizens a threat, Many do not support the second ammendment, many feel that only LEO should carry guns. Why should they feel any different, because they know they will allways have a gun to defend themselves and their family. when an intruder is coming thru their bedroom door they won't be unarmed and forced to rely on a phone and 911. If it was not such a given that LEO would automatically be allowed to carry when off duty or retired, and if they had to go through the same bullsheet as everyone else to be armed with NO special consideration, you would see many LEO attitude towards the second ammendment change and the Pro-2A movement would swell with a large number of LEO.
     
  17. IMO, if you are living in an uneducated area where the average person is not given the right to arm themselves, having an armed off duty or retired LEO in the convenience store the same time that you are is sure better than no one being armed.

    Something is better than nothing.
     
  18. Carbin8r

    Carbin8r Member

    That's a dangerous argument. You should then argue that the *possibility* of having an armed police officer near by is good enough and there should be no need for CCW. Afterall, the potential of a police officer near by is better than nothing...

    The point some of us are trying to make is that if LEO are against civilians having CCW, they must be consistent. Once you retire, you are a civilian and should have no more or less rightst than any other. If relying on other police officers to come to your aid not not good enough for you, then why should it be good enough for any other civilian? Is one persons need truely greater than any others?

    Agreed that retired LEO may be at higher risk, but so are many who live in certain areas/regions. They often are forced to rely on LEO for protection. Once someone is attacked, the rationale for the attack is moot. They are all equally defenseless and left to the abilities (or lack thereof) of the local authorities.

    If retired LEO had to play by the same rules as everyone else, I bet they'd be singing a different tune rather quickly.
     
  19. I really don't care if its an armed boy scout. If I am in a store and someone goes to rob the place, I hope SOMEBODY is there with a weapon of some sort to keep the bad guy from executing everyone in the store.

    Face it, no one is going to rob a store with a uniformed LEO in the store, and if you are in a store where there are no uniformed LEO's present, they are at best minutes away, minutes you may not have to spare.

    My point is that having SOMEBODY armed is better than only the perps being armed, if you are in a communist state that does not allow its citizens to arm and protect themselves.