militarization of cifvilian police

[The Shadow]

Law enforcement agencies, in general, do not refuse to enforce the law. It might happen in edge cases every once in a while, but is not common. So asking someone to go find one that doesn't enforce a set of laws, as a rhetorical device, is kind of meaningless.

I can say from first-hand knowledge that most LEO's and a fair number of CLEOs are supportive of the individual RKBA. LEOs are allowed to possess and use numerous tools that the legislature has deemed dangerous weapons. Sir Robert Peele fathered modern policing with the notion that every citizen has the duty to keep order and protect the citizenry; it's just that LEOs are paid to do so on a regular schedule. This is still taught in police academies and is consistent with the patriotic mindset of most officers.

Batons, AWs, large capacity pepper spray/mace, large capacity magazines are some examples. If you really have a problem with that, talk to your government representatives. Cops don't make the laws.

That's all really neat. The bottom line though is that time after time, legislators are emboldened by LE organizations who endorse the bills that legislators sponsor. Other politicians are encouraged to support those bills because LE has their stamp of approval on the bill. Case in point is AB144, and the constant repetition by cops that UOC uses LE resources that could otherwise be used to catch criminals. So what happens, LE endorses Portantino's bill, politicians vote to make it law, and now UOC is criminalized with LAW ENFORCEMENTS HELP.

So your comment is disingenuous when you say that LE doesn't make laws. They may not vote on a bill becoming law, but LE sure as hell is influential in that bill becoming law.

[FailedAngrMgmt]

The civil war was nothing compared to what may be coming-the difference is the character of American citizens at large and the backbone they will carry in hopes of defending themselves against an increasingly oppressive government who no longer serves their interest.

[1911su16b870]

The police are already estranged from gun owners in this state. Think about who the average gun owner faces more danger from, the police, or criminals. Especially in certain urban areas like SF, I'd argue that the police are a much bigger danger to the health and freedom of the average gun owner than criminals ever can; at least with criminals, you can protect yourself if they oppress you! The police? Not so much. You can blame the legislature for passing ridiculous laws that the police need to enforced, but in the end, it's not Dianne Feinstein's glock, taser, and handcuffs you'll become acquainted with.

Just like who?

And congrats, that has to be about the most pathetic post I've ever seen on Calguns!

I wonder if you would roll over and give up your other rights as easily.. cheering in the process.. I imagine so.

...and down the sewer hole this thread goes...

[Wherryj]

No, because the military isn't roaming the streets of our country.

...and I haven't had to walk around in Afghanistan lately.