Pelosi, gun emergency.. [Archive] - M4Carbine.net Forums

Doc Safari

02-15-19, 09:47

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/430098-pelosi-warns-gop-next-president-could-declare-national-emergency-on-guns

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday issued a warning to Republicans poised to support President Trump's decision to declare a national emergency at the southern border: the next Democratic president, she said, could do the same on guns.

"A Democratic president can declare emergencies, as well," Pelosi told reporters in the Capitol. "So the precedent that the president is setting here is something that should be met with great unease and dismay by the Republicans."

Doug Heye, a Republican strategist and former aide to former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), sounded a similar warning on Thursday, moments after the White House announcement.

"Make no mistake: the next Democratic President will declare national emergencies on guns and climate change and cite the Trump precedent when doing so," Heye tweeted.

My take: If they're even talking about it they will do it. We are literally ONE presidential election away from losing our gun rights. This is the beginning of the terrible, horrible, no good, very bad day for gun owners.

BUY YOUR STUFF NOW.

Circle_10

02-15-19, 09:58

BUY YOUR STUFF NOW.

I'm trying! I'm not made of money though.
But even if I get everything I need, how much of a victory is it to be living in a house full of contraband that I can't even take to the range?
That's not what living in a "free" country is supposed to be like.

FromMyColdDeadHand

02-15-19, 10:08

I'm trying! I'm not made of money though.
But even if I get everything I need, how much of a victory is it to be living in a house full of contraband that I can't even take to the range?
That's not what living in a "free" country is supposed to be like.

This is the model. There will not be a confiscation, there will be a delegalization.

Someone has to press Pelosi on the national gun emergency- what does she exactly mean. You realize that this is manna from heaven for the next election. Elect a Dem and your guns are gone- no laws, no court cases- they said they are coming for your guns. She can stay with the current statement which you can then turn to mean that they won't even say what they are going to do- or they can get to particulars which will either be too ineffective and piss off their base, or too invasive and energize Trump's base.

Doc Safari

02-15-19, 10:13

This is the model. There will not be a confiscation, there will be a delegalization.

Someone has to press Pelosi on the national gun emergency- what does she exactly mean. You realize that this is manna from heaven for the next election. Elect a Dem and your guns are gone- no laws, no court cases- they said they are coming for your guns. She can stay with the current statement which you can then turn to mean that they won't even say what they are going to do- or they can get to particulars which will either be too ineffective and piss off their base, or too invasive and energize Trump's base.

I think they will get clever. They will run someone who "appears" to have a decent record on guns and once that person is in office it's a free-for-all of gun bans, registration, deadlines to turn in magazines, etc.

I no longer trust the Democrat party to be stupid or shoot themselves in the foot.

Doc Safari

02-15-19, 10:15

BrigandTwoFour

02-15-19, 10:23

And the drums just keep beating...

Norseman

02-15-19, 10:23

Whatever.

The Trump thing just postpones things, the end game has always been the same. They want all the guns. But, hasn't that always been the case? Not happening though, even if you stopped production of everything gun related RIGHT NOW it would still be like trying to bail water out of the Titanic with a shot glass. That genie is out of the bottle.

I am not going to play the panic game anymore. Personally, I think that's what these people want us to do.

If we are going to pull the band aid off, now is a good as time as any. Otherwise, just another day in D.C..

flenna

02-15-19, 10:32

glocktogo

02-15-19, 10:43

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/430098-pelosi-warns-gop-next-president-could-declare-national-emergency-on-guns

My take: If they're even talking about it they will do it. We are literally ONE presidential election away from losing our gun rights. This is the beginning of the terrible, horrible, no good, very bad day for gun owners.

BUY YOUR STUFF NOW.

I don't think Pelosi is plugged in enough to recognize just how close this country is to willful disobedience. In this case, one is a Constitutional protection (2nd Amendment), the other is a Constitutional requirement (defense of our nation). Please Fräulein Pelosi, suggest to the next Democrat POTUS that they should use the power of the executive office to nullify the Bill of Rights. Do it, and see what happens. :D

Doc Safari

02-15-19, 10:44

Declaring a Constitutional Amendment null and void is not within the same scope of building a border wall. Suddenly millions of gun owning Americans are criminals and thousands more in the gun industry out of work? I know that is their goal but I don’t see a President doing it by decree.

That's easy. The next Democrat president doesn't go so far as to declare the 2A null and void, he just issues a directive to ATF that all new 4473's are to be sent to them for registration.

Think it won't happen? Remember how they "suddenly" decided that purchasing two semiautomatic weapons at the same time in border states required similar reporting like multiple handgun purchases? Congress didn't pass that one, did they?

Once registration is complete and has been in effect for a few years, that president simply revisits the issue and says, "Gee Whiz. Registration didn't reduce crime, so I'm declaring another emergency that all (fill in the blank) are subject to confiscation under the (fill in the blank) Act. You have 90 days to turn yours in to the local police or face terrorism charges."

glocktogo

02-15-19, 11:18

That's easy. The next Democrat president doesn't go so far as to declare the 2A null and void, he just issues a directive to ATF that all new 4473's are to be sent to them for registration.

Think it won't happen? Remember how they "suddenly" decided that purchasing two semiautomatic weapons at the same time in border states required similar reporting like multiple handgun purchases? Congress didn't pass that one, did they?

Once registration is complete and has been in effect for a few years, that president simply revisits the issue and says, "Gee Whiz. Registration didn't reduce crime, so I'm declaring another emergency that all (fill in the blank) are subject to confiscation under the (fill in the blank) Act. You have 90 days to turn yours in to the local police or face terrorism charges."

Because sending 4473's to them wouldn't actually be registration. It would precipitate "gun exchange parties" and many more online WTT ads.

I'm not one who really cares what the .gov thinks I have. I've never paid a dime extra for a gun because a 4473 wasn't required. But I have a lot of guns that have no paper trail back to me whatsoever. That's just 40 years of being a gun owner.

Doc Safari

02-15-19, 11:25

Because sending 4473's to them wouldn't actually be registration. It would precipitate "gun exchange parties" and many more online WTT ads.

I'm not one who really cares what the .gov thinks I have. I've never paid a dime extra for a gun because a 4473 wasn't required. But I have a lot of guns that have no paper trail back to me whatsoever. That's just 40 years of being a gun owner.

More and more states are passing "mandatory background check" laws, though. It wouldn't be a stretch to say something could happen at the federal level too.

I'm not at all saying it would be easy to implement or that it wouldn't ultimately fail...just that they have the chutzpah to attempt it. And I'm sure the average gun owner with a mortgage and 2 1/2 kids would be pressured by the Little Missiz to comply so their nice new house doesn't get SWATted or the dog stomped on by jack-booted thugs. Oh, the humanity.

Of course, the neckbeard that has spent the last 20 years talking about insurgency on the innernetz is going to be loading magazines and will probably go full bubba and accidentally shoot the school crossing guard.

It's not a pretty scenario. Freedom has been dying a slow death in this country for a long time and it ain't gonna be restored quickly.

Circle_10

02-15-19, 11:51

"And This is How Civil Wars Begin..."

I've made similar comments there as well.
I'm thinking the "war" is just going to end up being a bunch of guys too scared of the consequences of being caught with their stuff to actually do anything with it, be it defending life and liberty or just staying proficient with it via practice.
I'm afraid of becoming one of those guys, because like most everyone else here, I have a lot to lose.

Adrenaline_6

02-15-19, 12:09

I've made similar comments there as well.
I'm thinking the "war" is just going to end up being a bunch of guys too scared of the consequences of being caught with their stuff to actually do anything with it, be it defending life and liberty or just staying proficient with it via practice.
I'm afraid of becoming one of those guys, because like most everyone else here, I have a lot to lose.

In retrospect though, to them, they have a lot more to lose then we do. Once that line is crossed, there is no going back and life as we know it ceases to exist for everyone. Suck level = 100. They don't want it anymore than we do, because in that environment, politicians fall to the bottom of the totem pole.

Dist. Expert 26

02-15-19, 12:14

I've made similar comments there as well.
I'm thinking the "war" is just going to end up being a bunch of guys too scared of the consequences of being caught with their stuff to actually do anything with it, be it defending life and liberty or just staying proficient with it via practice.
I'm afraid of becoming one of those guys, because like most everyone else here, I have a lot to lose.

Most people don't want to be the first one to jump, but there are enough people in this country with nothing to lose that someone will make the first move. After that, things just cascade.

Revolutions are always impossible until they aren't.

chuckman

02-15-19, 12:35

I want to see McConnell pull a McConnell and just put It out there on the record to see who in the Senate would be in favor of declaring a national emergency with regard to second amendment/guns, like he did with that stupid Green New Deal.

SHIVAN

02-15-19, 12:49

An EO can not execute a law, and it certainly can not bypass a Constitutional right.

Building a border around federal property, like around a Post Office, is clearly handled under Executive oversight. Just happens that the wall he wants is around a big piece of federal land.

DACA was done by EO because Obama could say stop prosecuting these cases. Let them languish. If you prosecute you will be terminated from gov't service.

Climate Change stuff could be done under an EO, no issues there.

jsbhike

02-15-19, 13:07

In retrospect though, to them, they have a lot more to lose then we do. Once that line is crossed, there is no going back and life as we know it ceases to exist for everyone. Suck level = 100. They don't want it anymore than we do, because in that environment, politicians fall to the bottom of the totem pole.

They have a long line of employees to defend them.

morbidbattlecry

02-15-19, 13:13

My understanding of a National emergency is that the president can do what he likes. There are some things that declaring a NE can't do but the list is small. And none of them say he can't stop a constitutional right. I can't remember the circumstances but Habeas Corpus can be suspended.

SomeOtherGuy

02-15-19, 13:14

NVM, I'll just leave it at this: A formal legal system only works if all parties involved respect it and believe in it, even when they don't like the results.

glocktogo

02-15-19, 13:19

Norseman

02-15-19, 13:23

Did I miss something? All I am seeing in this is a politician made a comment that was a dig at another politician and their base. Isn't that kinda what they do up in their ivory towers?

I guess maybe I am just an idgit and don't get the "why" behind all this hoopla over what a well documented moron on a podium said about something that just can not be done with out destroying everything that this country was founded on. It's called grandstanding for a reason, but I fail to see how it can really be more than that.

Personally, I think the state level game should be more cause for concern, as that seems to be the new, and to a degree, more effective tactic.

But, like glocktogo mentioned earlier, could be interesting to see what happens when people simply say "no" if they do actually go there.

Adrenaline_6

02-15-19, 13:25

They have a long line of employees to defend them.

I don't think you are thinking this through to the big picture. That long line will disappear quickly in this scenario. The "long line" will have families/friends to defend and take care of, not to mention the guaranteed discord that will accompany the situation. Becoming the bottom of the totem pole in importance also alienates any ties or loyalties that were purely professional. Support will fade quickly, especially when people start actually dying, regardless of what side it is.

Adrenaline_6

02-15-19, 13:29

And yet history is littered with examples with revolutions that were foreseeable and preventable, yet those in power ignored the possibility and/or the ramifications. Hell in France it's a running joke! :(

I totally agree, but the French population isn't armed like we are. That statistic alone is enough to make them realize it wouldn't end well. This is why the push for gun control is essential to their agenda. Without it, it is dead in the water.

FromMyColdDeadHand

02-15-19, 13:55

We need to stop guessing what the gun grabbers would do, and make they say what they are planning on doing. Put up or shut up.

I do agree that a National Emergency on global warming is far more likely. The EPA could shut down power plants a lot of different ways.

jsbhike

02-15-19, 14:03

I don't think you are thinking this through to the big picture. That long line will disappear quickly in this scenario. The "long line" will have families/friends to defend and take care of, not to mention the guaranteed discord that will accompany the situation. Becoming the bottom of the totem pole in importance also alienates any ties or loyalties that were purely professional. Support will fade quickly, especially when people start actually dying, regardless of what side it is.

Just looking at history and how it has rarely gone that way. The intended victims always have the cards severely stacked against them by the point they get pissed off enough to retaliate.

JulyAZ

02-15-19, 14:21

jsbhike

02-15-19, 14:25

Honestly, I don’t think he has the power to declare a national emergency for this wall. I think this is going to get blocked by the courts, and then It’ll set a precedent that will show that Pelosi and them can’t do this either for guns.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

He shouldn't be able to declare bumpstocks illegal in the first place not to mention that being compounded by not compensating owners.

JulyAZ

02-15-19, 14:36

He shouldn't be able to declare bumpstocks illegal in the first place not to mention that being compounded by not compensating owners.

You’re 100% correct, but there’s a difference here.

The bump stocks need to be challenged in court. Most of us lowly ****s have neither the time or money to challenge the federal government. And no government body is going to do it for us.

The DNC and GOP have virtually unlimited funding to take this to court. I’m sure the DNC lawyers have been gearing up for this move for months. This wall will be blocked, and like I said it will sent the precedent for limitations on Emergency declarations as well.

The United States Code (Title 42, Chapter 68, Subchapter I, §5122), now defines emergency and major disaster as follows:

"Emergency means any occasion or instance for which, in the determination of the President, Federal assistance is needed to supplement State and local efforts and capabilities to save lives and to protect property and public health and safety, or to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in any part of the United States.

"Major disaster means any natural catastrophe (including any hurricane, tornado, storm, high water, wind-driven water, tidal wave, tsunami, earthquake, volcanic eruption, landslide, mudslide, snowstorm, or drought), or, regardless of cause, any fire, flood, or explosion, in any part of the United States, which in the determination of the President causes damage of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant major disaster assistance under this chapter to supplement the efforts and available resources of States, local governments, and disaster relief organizations in alleviating the damage, loss, hardship, or suffering caused thereby

http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/N/NationalEmergency.aspx

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

jsbhike

02-15-19, 15:27

The wall is something that probably should be getting done while bumpstock bans and any other anti 2nd amendment actions shouldn't be. We get lots of that.

glocktogo

02-15-19, 15:31

The wall is something that probably should be getting done while bumpstock bans and any other anti 2nd amendment actions shouldn't be. We get lots of that.

If there's a way to misuse the law while avoiding any accountability for not using it as it should be used, you know the pols are going to do exactly that. :(

223to45

02-15-19, 15:32

Honestly, I don’t think he has the power to declare a national emergency for this wall. I think this is going to get blocked by the courts, and then It’ll set a precedent that will show that Pelosi and them can’t do this either for guns.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk ProIt will definitely get blocked by the courts, regardless if he has the power or not.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

SHIVAN

02-15-19, 15:42

How much is in the discretionary budgets of the various executive controlled agencies? He has oversight of all those agencies, via their chief execs. Change their mandate and burn through the discretionary.

Here's what I hope happens:

1) The case(s) makes it to SCOTUS.
2) SCOTUS curtails EO's to almost nothing, and for a very narrow band of reasons, and provides clarity on the actual executive powers in the Constitution
2b) With these curtailed, Dems can never pull another DACA end around.
3) The government uses the funding to build parts of the "wall", and then shows some success.
4) Trump shuts the gov down again when this funding bill expires

WillBrink

02-15-19, 15:44

Pelosi has stated, if trump can declare and emergency so can any Dem president in regards to guns...here we go..

I think it's best for all that they have stopped pretending they give a damn about 2A Rights, and show their true and fill colors. Trump seems to bring out the "best" in them, and that just exposes them for who they are and what their goals are. No more pretending they support 2A Rights.

FlyingHunter

02-15-19, 16:02

I would imagine if Pelosi ever had the opportunity to call for a national "Gun Emergency" she would receive a national gun emergency, barrel first.

Honu

02-15-19, 17:08

lets hope the left does that and she leads some emergency gun grab !!! might open more eyes to the ones on the fence as to the truth

26 Inf

02-15-19, 17:46

Honestly, I don’t think he has the power to declare a national emergency for this wall.

He does.

According to the Brennan Center for Justice, presidents have declared national emergencies 60 times (including Trump) since the power was codified in 1976. Although the law — passed in the aftermath of the Vietnam War and Watergate — gave Congress the right to challenge an emergency declaration, most have been uncontroversial.

"There's rarely been a problem," Trump said. "They sign it. Nobody cares. I guess they weren't very exciting."

https://www.npr.org/2019/02/15/695203852/many-presidents-have-declared-emergencies-but-not-like-trump-has

titsonritz

02-15-19, 17:47

Wake me up when the shooting starts.

The_War_Wagon

02-15-19, 17:55

Here we go to what? She literally said this so you would freak out BECAUSE SHE HAS 3 MARBLES LEFT RATTLING IN HER HEAD.

FIFY. :rolleyes:

Adrenaline_6

02-15-19, 19:41

Just looking at history and how it has rarely gone that way. The intended victims always have the cards severely stacked against them by the point they get pissed off enough to retaliate.

Thus my post about it being a nothing burger because we still have our guns. Until they manage to actually take them away....nothing burger.

jsbhike

02-15-19, 19:50

Thus my post about it being a nothing burger because we still have our guns. Until they manage to actually take them away....nothing burger.

Private citizens are already decades behind due to artillery & aircraft just to name a couple of things on the tech side of things alone.

FromMyColdDeadHand

02-15-19, 19:58

I would imagine if Pelosi ever had the opportunity to call for a national "Gun Emergency" she would receive a national gun emergency, barrel first.

Remember when Obama talked up gun EOs... Unless you are claiming martial law, I don't see any real impactful stuff. I'd still like to hear what she has in mind though, or get some tone deaf gun grabber make some suggestions. I agree, the Global Warming stuff is more fertile ground.

Private citizens are already decades behind due to artillery & aircraft just to name a couple of things on the tech side of things alone.

Granted the FAA thinks it knows where all the heavy ones are, but you know how many drones are in private versus public hands? See how one drone jacked with the complete airspace of the UK recently? Technology isn't on the side of the Goliaths.

Adrenaline_6

02-15-19, 20:26

Private citizens are already decades behind due to artillery & aircraft just to name a couple of things on the tech side of things alone.

Put things into perspective. There are more than 10x the active hunters than us active duty military. This leaves out the non hunting gun nuts, retired military, etc. What do you think will happen if DHS, the FBI and the police are called on to enforce gun confiscations? More than half will non comply due to the belief in the 2A. Some will non comply due to the fact that they will be going against friends, family, neighbors. The rest will have to deal with internal sabotage and then concern for their own family once the word gets out that they are "the enemy". Artillery and aircraft? In this type of situation, how does this really play into this scenario?

The attack on the 2A is for a reason. They know this is a must do before they can exercise any real control.

murphy j

02-15-19, 20:34

SteveS

02-15-19, 20:43

I would just like point out, that 13th century, booger eating, goat raping tribesmen have kept the Soviet Union and the United States at bay with nothing more than small arms. Whether or not there is a large of number of people in this country willing to do that is another question.
I tend to agree your gun owning neighbors will be peaking out from behind closed drapes when the government employee scum arrive squad style to kill you because you didn't turn in the guns.I doubt any unionized government people will give up their pay and pensions when it comes time to confiscate the guns or lose their pay and pension.

jsbhike

02-15-19, 20:51

Put things into perspective. There are more than 10x the active hunters than us active duty military. This leaves out the non hunting gun nuts, retired military, etc. What do you think will happen if DHS, the FBI and the police are called on to enforce gun confiscations? More than half will non comply due to the belief in the 2A. Some will non comply due to the fact that they will be going against friends, family, neighbors. The rest will have to deal with internal sabotage and then concern for their own family once the word gets out that they are "the enemy". Artillery and aircraft? In this type of situation, how does this really play into this scenario?

The attack on the 2A is for a reason. They know this is a must do before they can exercise any real control.

The vast majority of hunters and firearms owners in generally have zero idea of what firearms ownership means in terms of the 2nd Amendment and any enlightenment typically repulses them.

While there are some .gov that wouldn't engage in confiscation, the harrassnent by LEO's against firearms owners completely in compliance with current laws doesn't seem to indicate there would be some vast mutiny when those same citizens are in violation.

jsbhike

02-15-19, 21:04

I would just like point out, that 13th century, booger eating, goat raping tribesmen have kept the Soviet Union and the United States at bay with nothing more than small arms. Whether or not there is a large of number of people in this country willing to do that is another question.

The 13th century, booger eating, goat raping tribesmen don't feel any connection to, nor affinity for, outsiders such as Soviets or Americans.

There is an unfortunately uncommon trait among most people that actions they view as abhorrent when committed by a 3rd party aren't so bad(and they may even assist) when committed by someone they feel a connection to.

Adrenaline_6

02-15-19, 21:25

The vast majority of hunters and firearms owners in generally have zero idea of what firearms ownership means in terms of the 2nd Amendment and any enlightenment typically repulses them.

While there are some .gov that wouldn't engage in confiscation, the harrassnent by LEO's against firearms owners completely in compliance with current laws doesn't seem to indicate there would be some vast mutiny when those same citizens are in violation.

And yet we still have the 2A. If it was that easy, it would already be a goner. The reason it isn't is that they don't think they can do it. The end.

This is a much lesser intrusion on the 2A in a liberal state and look how much non compliance there is already.
55982

Adrenaline_6

02-15-19, 21:28

I tend to agree your gun owning neighbors will be peaking out from behind closed drapes when the government employee scum arrive squad style to kill you because you didn't turn in the guns.I doubt any unionized government people will give up their pay and pensions when it comes time to confiscate the guns or lose their pay and pension.

Hmmm,.....pension and pay or high possibly of getting shot..as well as their family getting hurt as payback for deaths on the other side.

Five_Point_Five_Six

02-15-19, 21:35

The wall does not infringe on anyone’s rights.

The people who own land that the wall will run through would probably disagree with you.

Dist. Expert 26

02-15-19, 22:12

I tend to agree your gun owning neighbors will be peaking out from behind closed drapes when the government employee scum arrive squad style to kill you because you didn't turn in the guns.I doubt any unionized government people will give up their pay and pensions when it comes time to confiscate the guns or lose their pay and pension.

There's a reason that Afghan police wear masks to work and tend to turn up dead a lot. A local insurgency, where everyone knows where everyone else lives, isn't something to take lightly. How many local cops are gonna go to work wondering if their house will still be standing when they get home?

That's one hell of a Pandora's Box.

Hmac

02-16-19, 06:40

Pelosi has stated, if trump can declare and emergency so can any Dem president in regards to guns...here we go..

Bah. If some future Democrat President declared a gun emergency, it would get struck down by some judge somewhere, just like Trump’s Wall Emergency is going to be.

jsbhike

02-16-19, 07:22

There's a reason that Afghan police wear masks to work and tend to turn up dead a lot. A local insurgency, where everyone knows where everyone else lives, isn't something to take lightly. How many local cops are gonna go to work wondering if their house will still be standing when they get home?

That's one hell of a Pandora's Box.

The Afghan police are associated with Americans so that is a difference in here vs. there.

jsbhike

02-16-19, 07:27

Bah. If some future Democrat President declared a gun emergency, it would get struck down by some judge somewhere, just like Trump’s Wall Emergency is going to be.

The wall might be, but as a general rule judges really hate the 2nd Amendment. Seems they did read the Federalist Papers.

ABNAK

02-16-19, 08:38

I don't think Pelosi is plugged in enough to recognize just how close this country is to willful disobedience. In this case, one is a Constitutional protection (2nd Amendment), the other is a Constitutional requirement (defense of our nation). Please Fräulein Pelosi, suggest to the next Democrat POTUS that they should use the power of the executive office to nullify the Bill of Rights. Do it, and see what happens. :D

Yeah, disobedience to a pot law means some stoner defiantly burning a doobie to f**k The Man. Yeah dude!

Disobedience to a sweeping attempt to ban guns? Well...…...:rolleyes: (hint: it ain't quite the same as that stoner "sticking it to The Man" with his doobie)

Always remember folks, freaking ALCOHOL was Constitutionally prohibited at one time. Think about that for a minute, let it sink in. Then mull over just how well that worked out.

ABNAK

02-16-19, 08:46

It will definitely get blocked by the courts, regardless if he has the power or not.

How fast it gets to the SCOTUS will be the question.

ABNAK

02-16-19, 08:49

Private citizens are already decades behind due to artillery & aircraft just to name a couple of things on the tech side of things alone.

One thing that hasn't changed in hundreds of years though is families, loved ones, and the fact that everyone has a home they like to go to at night. Just sayin'.....

ABNAK

02-16-19, 08:52

jsbhike

02-16-19, 09:11

One thing that hasn't changed in hundreds of years though is families, loved ones, and the fact that everyone has a home they like to go to at night. Just sayin'.....

This gets in to the connection and affinity angle though.

Take the average person of African descent. They don't bring up slavery that existed in Africa prior to 1654 or even up to the present day as a problem. They don't even bring up Anthony Johnson, a man of African origin who became new world slave owner #1 in 1654 as a problem, nor any of the other people of African descent who owned slaves in the new world.

Caucasians engaging in the same wrongful activity? Whole different story.

It is a common theme. Spousal abuse comes to mind. Democrats being bad when they do antigun Crap while excuses are made for republicans the exact same thing.

On average on outdoor forums, wrongful acts by police tend bring out the apologists. They had to obey orders, somehow it was the private citizens fault, anger and resentment over video being released(but not that the incident happened) is the norm.

Perhaps there is a change in outlook based on the latest in Houston, but if there is it is definitely a recent thing.

prepare

02-16-19, 09:30

she continues to prove what a pathetic, childish, immature, emotional, irrational creature she really is. she doesn't give a rats ass about the U.S., the constitution, or her oath. All she wants is to get her her way by any means necessary at the expense of whatever and whoever or how manny/how much it takes.

ABNAK

02-16-19, 09:31

This gets in to the connection and affinity angle though.

Take the average person of African descent. They don't bring up slavery that existed in Africa prior to 1654 or even up to the present day as a problem. They don't even bring up Anthony Johnson, a man of African origin who became new world slave owner #1 in 1654 as a problem, nor any of the other people of African descent who owned slaves in the new world.

Caucasians engaging in the same wrongful activity? Whole different story.

It is a common theme. Spousal abuse comes to mind. Democrats being bad when they do antigun Crap while excuses are made for republicans the exact same thing.

On average on outdoor forums, wrongful acts by police tend bring out the apologists. They had to obey orders, somehow it was the private citizens fault, anger and resentment over video being released(but not that the incident happened) is the norm.

Perhaps there is a change in outlook based on the latest in Houston, but if there is it is definitely a recent thing.

My point was not that they'd do their jobs so they can support those families and go home at night, it was that those loved ones and homes are their soft underbelly. While I certainly do not advocate anything so unseemly you'd be a fool to believe that if gun owners were being steamrolled across this country that there wouldn't be some ugly, morally questionable "payback" taking place. Oh well, too bad so sad. You reap what you sow so to speak.

Internecine struggles are some of the most cutthroat throughout history. While you can summon hate for people who don't look like you or speak a different language (like in a normal WWII/Vietnam/Afghanistan scenario), there is something about the perceived (or real) betrayal by fellow countrymen that REALLY stokes hatred and vengeance.

What was the most costly war in U.S. history? Yep, even with the relatively archaic weapons in use at the time no other war has surpassed it, even WWII. Keep in mind that this was an era where some shred of chivalry/decency existed. All that Moral High Road shit is l-o-n-g gone these days.

jsbhike

02-16-19, 09:51

Peshawar

02-16-19, 10:02

I think this boils down to a simple truth that I haven’t heard reported in the MSM as of yet.

-Trump is clumsily trying to protect US borders from being invaded by people who are non-citizens breaking our laws.

And in response, Pelosi has openly threatened to nullify the Second Amendment of our Constitution. So because of his desire to stop non-citizens from successfully completing a criminal act, she believes the appropriate response is to punish citizens with the removal of their rights.

Yet I haven’t seen this laid out clearly in the media. It’s insanity.

This type of rhetoric is supposed to fire up her base supporters? Their political calculus concludes that this is what their voters desire and think is fair? What country do we live in at this point?

glocktogo

02-16-19, 10:21

Yeah, disobedience to a pot law means some stoner defiantly burning a doobie to f**k The Man. Yeah dude!

Disobedience to a sweeping attempt to ban guns? Well...…...:rolleyes: (hint: it ain't quite the same as that stoner "sticking it to The Man" with his doobie)

Always remember folks, freaking ALCOHOL was Constitutionally prohibited at one time. Think about that for a minute, let it sink in. Then mull over just how well that worked out.

Oh I get it, but remember that the 34' NFA Act is a direct result of all the shooting that went on over alcohol. Now imagine if Prohibition were about guns. That's all I'm saying.

I am not saying it wouldn't happen at all, but I do doubt it happening on any kind of large scale.

There are an ever growing number of instances of misconduct by police, prosecutors, and judges that have harmed or even taken lives where the perps received no punishment. Obviously some of the victims/families were thugs, so a settlement was a positive if for no other reason than capital for their vices. But not all of them fit that thug description and frankly it surprises me that none of the offenders (at least that I am aware of) have suffered retaliation from their victims or their family/friends.

All it took was blowing up one federal building in the Heartland for both sides to back off in the mid-90's. Some of the many innocent victims in that retaliatory attack were the young family members of government agents. Personally I'd prefer we never revisit that ugly time in America. I just wish people like Pelosi, Schumer, Feinstein, all those leftist pols in CA and the PNW, etc., felt the same way. :(

docsherm

02-16-19, 10:31

Oh I get it, but remember that the 34' NFA Act is a direct result of all the shooting that went on over alcohol. Now imagine if Prohibition were about guns. That's all I'm saying.

All it took was blowing up one federal building in the Heartland for both sides to back off in the mid-90's. Some of the many innocent victims in that retaliatory attack were the young family members of government agents. Personally I'd prefer we never revisit that ugly time in America. I just wish people like Pelosi, Schumer, Feinstein, all those leftist pols in CA and the PNW, etc., felt the same way. :(

Both comments are spot on. People need to really think about their actions and the future it will bring.

glocktogo

02-16-19, 10:45

Both comments are spot on. People need to really think about their actions and the future it will bring.

It literally pains my heart, that these leftist pols can't grasp that their words and deeds come with unacceptable levels of blowback. It's like George Soros earlier this week lamenting that right wing, nationalist extremism is in the rise in Europe. Well you dumbass, stop pissing on their heads and openly attacking them! You're literally a recruiting poster for those people! :mad:

jsbhike

02-16-19, 11:34

I have heard a few theories that alcohol prohibition was put in place as an amendment with the intent of repealing it to show amendments could be repealed.

ABNAK

02-16-19, 12:28

I am not saying it wouldn't happen at all, but I do doubt it happening on any kind of large scale.

There are an ever growing number of instances of misconduct by police, prosecutors, and judges that have harmed or even taken lives where the perps received no punishment. Obviously some of the victims/families were thugs, so a settlement was a positive if for no other reason than capital for their vices. But not all of them fit that thug description and frankly it surprises me that none of the offenders (at least that I am aware of) have suffered retaliation from their victims or their family/friends.

It would depend on how widespread a scale it occurred in. If it was isolated areas/instances (like the examples you offer) it's one thing. If it was a nationwide free-for-all on gun owners then you'd see an "equal but opposite reaction". Physics has a way of spilling over into human interactions.

sgtrock82

02-16-19, 12:37

The people who own land that the wall will run through would probably disagree with you.And Id merrily invite those folks to go piss up a rope.

They can chose between mexican tresspassers of varying motives or a slightly diminished vista to the south. Just be glad they arent being tasked to maintain or pay for it like happens when they decide to drop a sidewalk across your lawn.

I seriously doubt they lose anything truly measurable, as if the bulk of those owning border property have half acre lots or something and no where left for fido and a swing set.

Sent from my SM-J727T using Tapatalk

ABNAK

02-16-19, 12:45

Both comments are spot on. People need to really think about their actions and the future it will bring.

I agree. I just want to be left alone. But the "Progressives" (God I hate that self-flattering term) can't leave well enough alone. No, for their agenda to succeed it requires forced mandatory participation. There is no "opt-out" in their book. They can't miss the opportunity to up-end everything and reshape it in their image and to their liking. It's ingrained in them to poke and prod, to f**k with what ain't broken, to run every aspect of your life.

I too hope people really begin to consider the consequences of what they propose. The libs either don't think of it or don't care. For some reason they are blind to the quiet but seething hatred of them in roughly half of this country.

I've said this on here before and will say it again: Before I'd live disarmed under a Socialist/Communist authoritarian regime I'd rather see this country torn asunder and burnt to the ground.....and everyone with it. Kind of an "If I can't have her nobody will" type of thinking. If it continues down this road we as a nation will come to a fork: A) we go our own ways, either with a confederation or semiautonomous zone, even an outright split, or B) this bitch gets burned to the ground.

The United States of America should not ever be allowed to exist as a Socialist/Communist authoritarian country, and I don't give a damn what a majority of idiots want. There was a time when the majority of German people supported Hitler (granted it was likely in his early days). So in hindsight did that majority make it right? Nope, sure didn't. That is why I couldn't care less if we are told some day that "The majority of your countrymen support this". It means NOTHING to me and carries no weight whatsoever. The Constitution is not a popularity contest; in fact, far from it. The Founders clearly understood the "Tyranny of the Majority" idea.

jsbhike

02-16-19, 14:41

My point was not that they'd do their jobs so they can support those families and go home at night, it was that those loved ones and homes are their soft underbelly. While I certainly do not advocate anything so unseemly you'd be a fool to believe that if gun owners were being steamrolled across this country that there wouldn't be some ugly, morally questionable "payback" taking place. Oh well, too bad so sad. You reap what you sow so to speak.

Internecine struggles are some of the most cutthroat throughout history. While you can summon hate for people who don't look like you or speak a different language (like in a normal WWII/Vietnam/Afghanistan scenario), there is something about the perceived (or real) betrayal by fellow countrymen that REALLY stokes hatred and vengeance.

What was the most costly war in U.S. history? Yep, even with the relatively archaic weapons in use at the time no other war has surpassed it, even WWII. Keep in mind that this was an era where some shred of chivalry/decency existed. All that Moral High Road shit is l-o-n-g gone these days.

Going back to Houston incident, why are we reading about it on this forum? It sure didn't come on the radar because 2 private citizens seem to be the victims of a violent crime.

Firefly

02-16-19, 14:56

I am to the hard far right of Dallas Stoudemire on being maybe not as much “pro-police” so much as Pro-Officer.

That said, deep down the largest fear and administrator has is that the public stops “needing” them.

There may yet come a time when people simply stop dialing 911. Really most people who do are other thuggies snitching on their homies or some ghetto heifer whining about child support.

I think one huge thing that could be done is to restructure RICO and decriminalize drugs to de-incentivize “for profit” busts. Once you take that out of the equation; you find a new paradigm altogether.

It no longer “makes sense” to play Delta Force in suburbia.

Per “don’t ban gun sales to police think of the children sad puppies”....

SPARE ME!

Police get there to take a report. Any officer who just rides around looking to shove it up thuggies ass gets wrote up and fired before too long.

All they do now is just show up, sir sandwich you, say “I understand” while you are bawling your eyes out, and do a report and take a few pictures. Then get 10-8. Rinse wash repeat.

I would love a renaissance of law enforcement where they found the perfect balance of maglite massages and actually caring about your problems but as a whole, nationwide it ain’t gonna happen.

People bitch and sue so much that really we have been painted in a corner.

So yeah. Lorcins in holsters would send a huge message. F the IACP. F the FOP. F Bureaucracy and their dead folks.

If enough people quit then they stop focusing on the job and start focusing on the agency heads.

ABNAK

02-16-19, 15:26

Going back to Houston incident, why are we reading about it on this forum? It sure didn't come on the radar because 2 private citizens seem to be the victims of a violent crime.

Wow. Had to go read the whole thread (I only read the first page when it initially happened). Had no idea the 180 this case took. Jeez....

To answer your question, this is NOT the situation I was talking about. It sounds like (hopefully) heads will roll and someone will go to prison. The situations brought up in this thread are not "one-offs" but instead the future en masse use of force against gun owners, with no one to be prosecuted because that's what they will be sent out there for in the first place. Apples and oranges.....

glocktogo

02-16-19, 15:32

Going back to Houston incident, why are we reading about it on this forum? It sure didn't come on the radar because 2 private citizens seem to be the victims of a violent crime.

Because of the sudden push for ERPO's and Pelosi's comment implying the use of Executive Branch emergency declaration powers to declare a "gun emergency". Houston Police Chief Fart Avocado is rabidly anti-gun. He would literally salivate at the chance to bust down some doors to seize guns. He would use the same tactics he's using in the "War on Drugs", which resulted in two apparently innocent American citizens being murdered by his anti-narco terrorist squad.

If he's willing to use a fake "heroin raid" to stump for gun control, what do you think he'd do if he got it? :(

Dist. Expert 26

02-16-19, 20:11

The Afghan police are associated with Americans so that is a difference in here vs. there.

Americans there = government here. No difference.

jsbhike

02-16-19, 20:20

Because of the sudden push for ERPO's and Pelosi's comment implying the use of Executive Branch emergency declaration powers to declare a "gun emergency". Houston Police Chief Fart Avocado is rabidly anti-gun. He would literally salivate at the chance to bust down some doors to seize guns. He would use the same tactics he's using in the "War on Drugs", which resulted in two apparently innocent American citizens being murdered by his anti-narco terrorist squad.

If he's willing to use a fake "heroin raid" to stump for gun control, what do you think he'd do if he got it? :(

I was meaning if that incident had first made the news due to the officer falsifying information to get the search warrant resulting in 2 deaths, odds are it would have never been brought up in this forum.

jsbhike

02-16-19, 20:34

Americans there = government here. No difference.

Equals government here for who? Certainly not the average firearms owner.

Dist. Expert 26

02-16-19, 20:43

Equals government here for who? Certainly not the average firearms owner.

I'll break it down real simple.

In the event of a nationwide firearms confiscation move, anyone associated with the government would be viewed in the same light as Afghans who associate with NATO forces. Their participation in such an event, were it to occur, would turn them and their families into targets for any type of insurgency, which is not going to be your average gun owner. But it doesn't need to be. 1% of gun owners deciding to push back would turn this country on its head.

I have a 3 year old son and I really, REALLY, don't want to raise him in that environment. I will not, however, place myself or my child at the mercy of the government. Historically that just doesn't end well. Like, ever.

murphy j

02-17-19, 09:11

The 13th century, booger eating, goat raping tribesmen don't feel any connection to, nor affinity for, outsiders such as Soviets or Americans.

There is an unfortunately uncommon trait among most people that actions they view as abhorrent when committed by a 3rd party aren't so bad(and they may even assist) when committed by someone they feel a connection to.

And there are a great many Americans who feel no connection to the history of this nation and the ideals under which it was founded. There's a tribalism that has grown in this country, one which views those who don't share their views as a 3rd party, as you describe it. I would wager that we will see, in our lifetimes, an even further 'Balkanization' than what we have seen so far. One which could very well cause a physical breakdown in government and economics. Who would be the outsiders and 3rd party then?

jsbhike

02-17-19, 09:29

And there are a great many Americans who feel no connection to the history of this nation and the ideals under which it was founded. There's a tribalism that has grown in this country, one which views those who don't share their views as a 3rd party, as you describe it. I would wager that we will see, in our lifetimes, an even further 'Balkanization' than what we have seen so far. One which could very well cause a physical breakdown in government and economics. Who would be the outsiders and 3rd party then?

And that's the catch. As I have mentioned before, the ideas that founded the country didn't even last long as shown by the federalists and the sedition laws intended to keep themselves in power. That bastardization has only continued with anti 2nd amendment laws and other crap.

Now we are coming down to 2 main groups...respect for authority types, no matter what that authority does, and crap like ANTIFA, who will just work to replace one problem with another as their ideological brethren did a century ago in Russia.

WillBrink

02-17-19, 09:52

And there are a great many Americans who feel no connection to the history of this nation and the ideals under which it was founded. There's a tribalism that has grown in this country, one which views those who don't share their views as a 3rd party, as you describe it. I would wager that we will see, in our lifetimes, an even further 'Balkanization' than what we have seen so far. One which could very well cause a physical breakdown in government and economics. Who would be the outsiders and 3rd party then?

It's always been there, and will always be there, being how humans work. Whether it dominates X groups behavior, depends on various factors. Some times it's to the benefit of X group, some times it aint. It's usually ultimately detrimental in modern societies, but it's ingrained in our brains that those who look, act, think, behave like me are better than those who don't, which no doubt came in handy for survival but that usually comes at the cost of the "other" not surviving.

Different groups may rise and fall, but since we threw rocks at each other on some savanna, there from day one.

THCDDM4

02-17-19, 11:50

It's always been there, and will always be there, being how humans work. Whether it dominates X groups behavior, depends on various factors. Some times it's to the benefit of X group, some times it aint. It's usually ultimately detrimental in modern societies, but it's ingrained in our brains that those who look, act, think, behave like me are better than those who don't, which no doubt came in handy for survival but that usually comes at the cost of the "other" not surviving.

Different groups may rise and fall, but since we threw rocks at each other on some savanna, there from day one.

Absolutely. People tend to forget Tribalism has always been a part of human nature and will always be of part of it.

I think about things framing it with "tribes" in mind a lot, my conclusion is that the Western European tribe that is responsible for most of the positive advancements in our recent history is the only tribe in the history of this planet that has decided to commit suicide/allow the tribe to be destroyed.

Tribes are breaking out in regards to Political affiliation currently. Sure, race, Religions etc have influence, but political affiliation is what it's going to come down to. Tribe R Vs. Tribe L.

I will not live under Socialism, Communism, etc- I will not give up any of my Rights regardless of the laws people pass.

If it comes to it, I will burn this mother to the ground and go out dancing in a violent rage, drunk with Liberty coursing through my veins before I see it become just another Statist cess pool of slaves and masters!

I'd prefer to be left alone and just be free and peaceful as I have always been, but that's not happening, nor will it happen from the looks of things.

AndyLate

02-17-19, 12:37

The people who own land that the wall will run through would probably disagree with you.

Americans cannot own land in Mexico, so of the border wall is running through someone's property, they are Mexican and the constitution does not protect the rights of other countries' citizens.

docsherm

02-17-19, 12:44

The people who own land that the wall will run through would probably disagree with you.

Not the ones that I know. They are all for it as these shit stains are messing up their property. And it is in bad form to simple shoot them like they have for decades.

yoni

02-17-19, 12:57

This is an Initial Private Offering, in my new company Guns R US.

We are seeking investors in a new start up that will be formed the day after the Democratic President declares a National Emergency and outlaws guns.

We will be importing guns and ammo into the USA, NFA no need to worry about that since all guns will be outlawed.

We are selling shares valued at $2,000 a share and we will go operational when we hit $1,000,000 .

Invest in your future, now.

jsbhike

02-17-19, 13:02

Americans cannot own land in Mexico, so of the border wall is running through someone's property, they are Mexican and the constitution does not protect the rights of other countries' citizens.

Just read that as being around the Rio Grande. If we can force them to let us build a wall on their land then we could force them to keep their people on their side of the border sans wall.

flenna

02-17-19, 13:03

More proof that the ComDems are outright liars and are only interested in disarming the law abiding American citizens.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/democrats-reject-push-to-alert-ice-when-illegal-immigrants-fail-firearm-background-checks

I wonder if Moms Needing Action and Hoggboy will be protesting in front of Pelosi's office to have this amendment added to HR8?

pinzgauer

02-17-19, 13:17

There may yet come a time when people simply stop dialing 911. Really most people who do are other thuggies snitching on their homies or some ghetto heifer whining about child support.

Snip....

It no longer “makes sense” to play Delta Force in suburbia.

Don't have to go too far to find folks that are there. Parents of a troubled teen in Cherokee county called 911 worried that he would hurt himself.

Swat sniper showed up, did not get briefed, saw the kid come out with a handgun, took him out.

Or the senior citizen in a nursing home that got agitated, and was shot in bed because "he had a weapon". (Cane). Staff said if we had known you were going to shoot him we would not have called.

I am pro officer, feel most are trying hard to do an extremely hard job. But I do think the tac mindset/militarization has gone too far.

I'm not talking training, or patrol carbines.

My first thought on the above was how does Cherokee county justify having snipers? I don't discount the need for swat type resources. But does every Podunk town need a swat team in a bearcat? (Dallas, powder Springs, Smyrna, Hiram, Acworth, Kennesaw, etc?)

Middle of the night burglers, yep, calling 911. Family dispute? Neighbors? Not so much, last resort.

Dist. Expert 26

02-17-19, 18:12

Don't have to go too far to find folks that are there. Parents of a troubled teen in Cherokee county called 911 worried that he would hurt himself.

Swat sniper showed up, did not get briefed, saw the kid come out with a handgun, took him out.

Or the senior citizen in a nursing home that got agitated, and was shot in bed because "he had a weapon". (Cane). Staff said if we had known you were going to shoot him we would not have called.

I am pro officer, feel most are trying hard to do an extremely hard job. But I do think the tac mindset/militarization has gone too far.

I'm not talking training, or patrol carbines.

My first thought on the above was how does Cherokee county justify having snipers? I don't discount the need for swat type resources. But does every Podunk town need a swat team in a bearcat? (Dallas, powder Springs, Smyrna, Hiram, Acworth, Kennesaw, etc?)

Middle of the night burglers, yep, calling 911. Family dispute? Neighbors? Not so much, last resort.

People often fail to understand the psychological side of things as it pertains to police militarization. The "war on xxxx" mentality, military uniforms, training, etc. makes (some) cops feel like soldiers rather than keepers of the peace. Its dangerous and creates the massive divide we see between police and the general public.

ABNAK

02-17-19, 18:47

People often fail to understand the psychological side of things as it pertains to police militarization. The "war on xxxx" mentality, military uniforms, training, etc. makes (some) cops feel like soldiers rather than keepers of the peace. Its dangerous and creates the massive divide we see between police and the general public.

I would have to say that is indeed an accurate observation. Mostly the younger gung-ho guys with a flattop, maybe a little "juicy" and definitely aggressive. There are probably some of them who can't seem to differentiate between the streets of Fallujah and Anytown USA. The older dudes seem to be a bit more laid back; not lackadaisical or complacent mind you, but not ready to double-tap or MMA anyone who sets them off. May just be that they're a little older (and all that comes with it) and more seasoned.

prepare

02-17-19, 19:04

I would have to say that is indeed an accurate observation. Mostly the younger gung-ho guys with a flattop, maybe a little "juicy" and definitely aggressive. The older dudes seem to be a bit more laid back; not lackadaisical or complacent mind you, but not ready to double-tap or MMA anyone who sets them off. May just be that they're a little older (and all that comes with it) and more seasoned.

Its called BTDT, lett the young guys have the action, do the reports, and go to court on their days off:D

Honu

02-17-19, 20:07

sadly I think its just society and people today the amount of over achiever or under achievers are more and the internet brings all the info to you super easy to think OH that operator dude is getting this youtube channel I need to be Mr Bad *$$ to

just think the extremes are happening everywhere anymore sadly like the antifa crap they do NOTHING to them even let them block side walks and destroy business and property and NOTHING again !
but then some other dude does nothing and gets tackled and tazed ? its just bizzare anymore and agree the trust is gone

I do know form the side some prosecutors have said the problem they are having is cases can not be prosecuted cause LEO went to far and says everyone needs to just stay in line do the job and the same goes for prosecutors not wanting to do something or over doing it and going into judge territory and then the judges now are so political leaning in decisions ? just sounds like the extremes are happening everywhere anymore

and of course our gov is prime example of this its like all they can do its try to create laws and control at a insane rate

grnamin

02-17-19, 20:25

How fast it gets to the SCOTUS will be the question.How many times has SCOTUS ruled in favor of the 2A and leftist state and local governments still continue to pass laws that are anti-2A? Too damned many.

Sent from my G8341 using Tapatalk

jsbhike

02-17-19, 21:47

Finger fumble

jsbhike

02-17-19, 21:54

I would have to say that is indeed an accurate observation. Mostly the younger gung-ho guys with a flattop, maybe a little "juicy" and definitely aggressive. There are probably some of them who can't seem to differentiate between the streets of Fallujah and Anytown USA. The older dudes seem to be a bit more laid back; not lackadaisical or complacent mind you, but not ready to double-tap or MMA anyone who sets them off. May just be that they're a little older (and all that comes with it) and more seasoned.

Or there could be an area &/or individual component to it. The Houston officer was far from a newbie. Similar incidents frequently end up with the officer being allowed to retire with a recent example of the SLC officer assaulting the nurse for not assisting him in breaking the law coming to mind.

SteveS

02-19-19, 20:51

How can we not expect this from our the politician and government employee crime gang. Where have we all been for the last 50 years?

jsbhike

02-19-19, 21:28

How can we not expect this from our the politician and government employee crime gang. Where have we all been for the last 50 years?

It goes back much further than 50 years.

Firefly

02-19-19, 21:50

Don't have to go too far to find folks that are there. Parents of a troubled teen in Cherokee county called 911 worried that he would hurt himself.

Swat sniper showed up, did not get briefed, saw the kid come out with a handgun, took him out.

Or the senior citizen in a nursing home that got agitated, and was shot in bed because "he had a weapon". (Cane). Staff said if we had known you were going to shoot him we would not have called.

I am pro officer, feel most are trying hard to do an extremely hard job. But I do think the tac mindset/militarization has gone too far.

I'm not talking training, or patrol carbines.

My first thought on the above was how does Cherokee county justify having snipers? I don't discount the need for swat type resources. But does every Podunk town need a swat team in a bearcat? (Dallas, powder Springs, Smyrna, Hiram, Acworth, Kennesaw, etc?)

Middle of the night burglers, yep, calling 911. Family dispute? Neighbors? Not so much, last resort.

I feel you, bro. I do. Lord I do.

You see in Georgia our good officers are really really good but our dumb ones are really really dumb.

I went through sniper school (officially police countersniper) but I don’t have this idea that I am Carlos Hathcock or Chuck Mawhinney. A LOT of stuff, especially in whiteytown, can be resolved just by talking to people. A lot of these younger folks think they got something to prove. I am not my job. I’m just Firefly. A kinda weird guy who likes retro games and Bailey Jay too much. Not a commando. Not a hero. I poop like everyone else.

I always tell folks, just take five minutes to figure out what is going on. Save yourself some grief and paperwork