A posting worth posting....

I posted the following on a messageboard. I think it is also worthy of blogdum.


I thought you all may get a interest out of this bill.

http://www.leaa.org/218/summary.html

What it does it it allows all off duty and retired law enforcement officers the right to carry a concealed handgun anywhere in the U.S. I see this as a bit of discussion material.

For:

1. Allows more guns on the street in law abiding hands, something I am for. (I am for all citizens who have no criminal record a right to carry.)

2. Police Officers make a lot of enemies and should be protected after they hang up their badge.

3. I may be a cop some day, could be a nice bonus my way.

4. If it is proven that on the street cops can handle bad situations and help prevent crime, maybe the more liberal and middle of the road politicians will allow conceal and carry in their jurisdictions.

Against:

1. Makes a second class citizen status out of everyone else. Why should police officers get special protection from bad people when any women who has a restraining order against a violent husband can't get one? And why do they get a special status based on their job? If you are a 7-11 employee, taxi drivier, or even a pizza deliveryman you are more likely to be gunned down.

2. Law Enforcement vs Citizen carry. All the officers I have met support citizens carrying guns. When well trained and with little or no criminal history a lot of bad things are prevented from happening. And they know this. But most Law Enforcement Agencies and higher echelons don't like, in fact loathe the idea of trained citizens getting the right to carry. Why is this? Trained citizens are more accurate, get involved in less unjustifiable shootings,(8 percent vs 14 percent for cops,) and are more likely to change the outcome of a crime in progess. Law Enforcement rarely prevents crime. It either investigates and solves it or cleans up and has a open case. This legislation here can and may put a divide in law enforcement supporting citizen right to carry.

3. Other interested parties:
WHy can law enforcement and not ex military carry? What about highly trained security guards? (a lot of security is a joke but about 17 percent are better trained than the average police officer.) And what about those who have special needs? Witness protection? Restraining order? Previous cases of abuse? These are people that are also at risk, a greater one at that, and they are only ignored by the legislators.

So the question is, who do you support and why?

For me it is a really hard to answer question. Originally I was all for equal protection, no one but all getting the rights and powers of one law. A bit of thinking over it and then I was middle of the road, seeing pluses but negatives. After seeing a certain law enforcement page I am slightly for it, if for no reason seeing how supportive of firearms rights they are. But it is a mixed bag of the umphteenth degree since we all know the first tool of big brother is law enforcement officers willing to stomp anyones rights just to get a piece of adrenal action.

Police State

In my criminal justice classes we learned that as police officers we cannot, except under the most extreme cases, stop a protest.   If someone is protesting on a sidewalk they cannot be interfered with as long as they don't block the sidewalk.   And if hecklers threaten the speaker we remove the hecklers unless the hecklers overwelm all available police power and threaten the speaker's life.

That is why pure and utter assholery like this  ,thanks to Ravenwood, makes my blood boil.   The police can set up much better protesting zones than this without any security threats and the democrats can be more lenient to peoples' freedom.  (Or not?  this is the dems.)

I write all this up to the following:

1 Police Lazyness

Crowd control isn't real hard, you just need an overwhelming force of officers, you can have them on hand but you don't need the whole public to see them, bad publicity and it gives off too much of a police state feel.

2.  Give an inch lose a mile.

When one security precation is taken and given the authorities want to go to the next level.  Why?  They get more power, more forces to command,more money, and more authority over the general populace.

3. Bad publicity gives good cover.

The democrats won't have to see the protesters while going to the convention and with all the law enforcement, the protestors message will be lost in the fine print, so a bit of bad publicity hides the true meaning of the protesting and the cause the people that are protesting are supporting.

4. Lack of interest.

If people would truly backlash, write congressmen, investigate officers and their commanders,(trust me, not all those Law Enforcement Officers are angels,) and lash back against the party that approved those conditions than such a thing will dematerialize.   But if there is no interest in fighting the good fight, the bad guys will keep on doing it. As the old quote goes:

For evil to succeed, all that is needed is for good men to do nothing.

Or something like that.....

Slowness....

Yeah, I know it is not a word.

Well in nine days I posted four times, not a good track record but I hope to improve on that.

On a different subject.  I was at work today and something interesting happened and a thought popped into my head.  (I don't want to mention my employer but it is one of the biggest retailers out there.)  Well while at work a parent was leaving the door while I was working the register.   The Lady had a daughter with her who picked up a toy to take out with her.  The mother told her to put it back and she didn't  Well mommy threatened the little girl with having to go to the babysitter tonight if she doesn't behave.  That comment quickly got the little kid in near tears.  She handed the toy to me and cried out she didn't want to be sent off to the babysitter.    I find it very sad that we have come from a society that spanks to one of seperation and distance.  Here the little girl hates being seperated from mommy, or just hates the babysitter, and mommy knows this and uses it as a tool against the child.   And I'll say it is a prety poor one at that.

Conflicting Reports....

As a Criminal Justice student who is likely going to go into a law enforcement profession,( I haven't fully decided yet, don't ask;) I strive to gather any and all info on related equipment.  One such piece is the body armor or bullet resistant vest police wear and something interesting has come to my attention.   The previous night I heard a physisist on the Art Bell Coast to Coast Radio program state that body armor does stop a good range of rifle bullets but the armor itself flexes too much without a ceramic plate and a good portion of the armor pokes a hole into the chest cavity.  That does make sense to me.  The stuff is very strong but flexible, therefor the stuff can and probably will damage the human body with enough velicity.   But on another hand I was watching several programs on the History Channe; over the past year on the topic and one I specifically remember is Mail Call where the host puts a small caliber rifle round through a vest.  It was the 7.62X39 round, the same stated round the physisist said won't go through a vest.    So I'm not sure if any "expert" out there really knows what they are talking about when they bring up the vest, or any other subject in general.

So remember that next time you hear someone screaming about armor piercing bulllet hoses.

I'm late!

Well I planned on updating once a day but got caught up in wordly matters.  Needless to say I think the effect will be minimal since my viewership is probably zero.   Have no fear because I should now be on the ball now that I got some stuff out of the way.

My English friend and I will be going to the Kansas Cosmosphere tomorrow.  Some awesome pics and a bit of commentary should follow.

Morons at the helm of the Denver Post

Kim du Toit reports that The Denver Post    think the police are shooting to many criminals justifiable.
 
In the first half of my continuing law enforcement training they teach us that we cannot shoot unless one of these circumstances are met:
 
1. A dangerous or violent felon is trying to escape police custody, or evade the police after the commission of a crime.
 
2.  The officer feels his/her life or the life of the another is in danger.
 
Pretty cut and dry right there.  Denver may be a little more lenient, I think Kansas is a bit more lenient but our instructor tries to teach us by the strictest state standards. Civilians  can't shoot fleeing felons but they can kill under a recent KS law change which allows one to use deadly force to protect property.  (Please check all local laws and regulations before you even consider owning a gun for self defense.)
 
I really don't see a problem in increased police shootings.  It means that LEO's  (Law Enforcement Officers,) are doing their job.  They are getting into the dirt and fighting the hell out of crime.  If crime fights back then crime is beaten down by whatever means are required to stop the crime and criminal.  I really don't see how that is law enforcements' fault.  The Supreme Court itself has said that no law enforcement officer should be forced to back down when met by force. This means that when someone resist violently the police should not have to wait until the situation dies down. If so it would encourage violence toward law enforcement and promotes violence in the criminal populace.  (Who's motto is "go with what works.") The S.C. has made bad calls before but this one is a good one.
 
Oh yeah, another thing they train us to do is to empty the gun until the threat goes down, if the threat doesn't go down, reload and repeat. Lethal force is just that, lethal.  Shooting someone in the arm can be just as lethal as shooting them in the heart, and shooting them requires that a major threat be made toward the officers before it is justifiable.  SO if a officer pulls a gun he probably has good reason to.   And injuring a suspect who has a lethal weapon is just stupid.  That just gives the offender more time and more reason to go for the kill.  If the Denver PD gets the same advice and training we do, which it sounds like, then they save the taxpayers a lot of hassle and they save their own lives.

Welcome.....

Well hello everybody and welcome to my new blog.  I doubt many will read this welcome message but it is still wise to put the "open" sign out. Over the next few weeks/months/years expect right-winged political commentary on all sorts of subjects.  I don't know how succesful I will be and I really don't care.  Blogging is not a popularity contest, nor a means to support yourself via writing.  For the writer it is a way to vent and make his or her opinions known, and for the reader it is a better way to get news commentary that they agree with rather than going to the sell-out networks that have their own agenda.