"We think that an officer that extends himself and buys this for his department and his community is being unduly punished as they go out the door," said Ron Cottingham, president of the Peace Officers Research Association of California. [More]Yeah, well look who PORAC joined forces with "to Preserve California Assault Weapons Ban" on the rest of us.
F*** you, Ron.
2 comments:
"We think that an officer that extends himself and buys this for his department and his community is being unduly punished as they go out the door," said Ron Cottingham
So, these officers are just being good citizens by buying these assault weapons that no one else in their community is allowed have so they can rub it in everyone's face... ummm... I mean... so that they can better protect the sheep who are forced to be victims. I gotta stop...
OK, so if they are buying these weapons for their community, does the community get to "play" with them too?
Then there's this: "They're obviously not for official use once you're retired," he said. "You have it for target practice, you have it for safety. I would agree the arguments are probably not as strong to have the retired officer have this weapon."
If you may need it for safety after you retire, how are you different from anyone who's not an officer ever? Don't they need safety too? And come on, we know the supreme court(s) have said that you are not obliged to actually protect anyone, so wouldn't the public need it even more?
This posted to the Daily Democrat via facebook - Let's see if it stands.
Ron Cottingham, is the same hypocritical mouthpiece who refuses to recognize the right of citizens of California to own the same firearms he wants retired officers to be able to keep after they are no longer law enforcement officers and no longer better than the people they used to "serve".
I wonder how many of the retired and soon to be retired officers are just now understanding the tyranny they've made a career of protecting, now that that their feet are in the other shoes?
[W3]
Post a Comment