A police officer is a human being, but we can't tolerate them breaking the law. [More]So he got a year and a day?
What about "federal law requires that a person convicted of possessing half a kilogram or more of cocaine powder be sentenced to at least five years in prison"...?
And no comment on why the pot charges were dismissed?
I guess some humans are more equal than others. Like the "Only Ones" who would happily ruin our lives for what they themselves "profit" from. And who then, presumably, turn snitch on their "benefactors" when it's their turn in the barrel, to mitigate the consequences of their evil cowardice.
Amazing. See this moral defective with a gun and the uniform makes it all OK. See you or me and the whole damn herd spooks and stampedes.
There is a contingent among politically-oriented gun owners who are overtly hostile to the open carry normalizing movement, cautioning that exercising their right to do so will be the cause of the government cracking down with more restrictions. Some of the ugly stuff I have read them post over the recent attempt in California convinces me they hate principled gun owners more than they do outright antis.
[Via FFFW]
6 comments:
Actually, the officer didn't not harm anyone's person or property so he should receive 0 days in jail.
I get your point though. I don't know what it is about our culture and people wearing state issued costumes. Can anyone count how many cop worshiping crime dramas there are on TV?
Maybe if we could get rid of the government schools, people might know from history that tyranny comes in a uniform.
"Can anyone count how many cop worshiping crime dramas there are on TV?"
I thought the pilot for the show "Terriers" was pretty good. But of course, the main character turns out to be a down-on-his-luck ex-police officer with plenty of contacts still on the force. Couldn't just be some regular guys who decided to fight back can it?
Besides, how exiting would a show be if during a kidnapping 40 minutes of air time were spent with the cops setting up a "vehicle perimeter" instead of saving the victims? You gotta sex that up a bit.
As for open carry; I supported Oklahoma's push for it, but I also know why some in the gun community are against it. It has been a long fight to regain territory that was once lost. Those against open carry don't want to undo that by turning gun owners into the next smokers. Smokers lost most of their rights, even that of smoking outdoors, because they were obnoxious. Who wants to fight for people who smell up the place and leave their trash every where?
So there is a push and pull between extending recognition of our rights and trying not to be obnoxious.
"sentenced to at least five years in prison."
Where else did I see that recently? Oh yes. Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership has a poll about abolishing the ATF. There's a link to an official NRA letter about same. They don't like the idea, but they DO like Project Exile. "An illegal gun" -- whatever they SAY is one -- "gets you five years in federal prison."
I understand your point, warriorgeek, and I hate confrontation myself, but the other side thinks we're being obnoxious just by THINKING of open-carrying or owning guns at all. We have to run hard to stay in one place. They own the treadmill for now.
While this is neither the time nor place to discuss smokers-rights, my copy of the Constitution doesn't mention the right to keep and bear cigarettes, but it does mention arms.
To even think of equating one with the other is beyond comprehension and precisely one of the reasons we find ourselves so enthralled.
Boggles.
Once had an occasion in Arizona to have an individual ask in a snotty manner, why I was carrying a pistol.
Since I wasn't bothering anyone at the time and didn't feel as though I deserved the attitude from him, I simply said "for people like you."
I didn't know how right I was.
The U.S. constitution specifically cites the right to keep and bear arms, with no mention of any restriction to only any members of a standing army (the police). It is nice to see that Federal law says that as an off-duty law enforcement officer he has the right to bear arms, but so do you and I because of the U.S. Constitution.
What relevance interstate commerce has to do with restrictions of when and where you carry weapons is questionable.
After all, do we allow interstate commerce to interfere with our First Amendment rights?
Post a Comment