Cops and the Politics of Guns
What do you think of this pro-gun radio ad?
I need you in the game. With officers laid off and furloughed, simply calling 911 and waiting is no longer your best option. You can beg for mercy from a violent criminal, hide under the bed, or you can fight back. … Consider taking a certified safety course in handling a firearm so you can defend yourself until we get there.
As one might expect, response to the ad was swift and vehement. But what is remarkable is that the ad was not produced by the NRA, but by Milwaukee County (Wisconsin, the home of Progressivism) Sheriff David Clarke Jr.:
“People are responsible to play a role in their own safety, with the help of law enforcement,” Clarke said. “I’m here to do my part, but we have fewer and fewer resources. We’re not omnipresent, and we have to stop giving people that impression.”
“After sitting down and thinking about this, I’m thinking `Hey, I’ve got an untapped reserve over here, and it’s the public,’” Clarke said.
Jeri Bonavia, who is the executive director of “Wisconsin Anti-Violence Effort,” believes Clark’s ad is dangerous. She compared Clarke’s ad to the Trayvon Martin case, which is confusing (Clarke happens to be black). She also wants Clarke to apologize:
“I feel like this is such an irresponsible thing for our chief public safety officer of a county to do,” Bonavia said. “I think he owes this community an apology. And if he really believes that he’s not capable of providing for our public safety he should get a different job.”
Meanwhile, in Washington, D.C., President Obama and Vice President Biden met with select police chiefs and sheriffs, including the police chief of Newtown, Connecticut. This too is remarkable in that virtually all of the other police executives preside over densely populated urban areas. Mr. Obama praised his prescience in inviting them:
No group is more important for us to listen to than our law enforcement officials. They’re where our rubber hits the road.
Independently of Mr. Obama’s meeting, New York City Police Commissioner Ray Kelly not only agreed with Mr. Obama’s agenda, but added one of some gun control supporters’ most fervent, long-term goals: the banning of handguns:
“In most urban centers of America, the problem really is concealable handguns,” he said, adding that only two percent of people arrested for guns in the last two years had assault weapons. “We don’t want (assault weapons) on the streets, make no mistake about it, but the problem is the handgun.”
Mr. Obama picked police executives of urban areas — and the police chief of Newtown — for political purposes. His anti-freedom agenda long since decided, he’s not listening to anyone, but is instead arranging photo ops and trying to gin up grassroots support fora piece-by-piece dismantlement of the Second Amendment. The message, explicit and implied, is that if police chiefs and sheriffs support Mr. Obama’s agenda, so should everyone else. After all, don’t they live to protect and serve?
There are enormous gulfs between police executives and police officers on many issues, but few are as wide as the gun-control chasm. All police officers, patrolman and chief alike, take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, but like Obama, for some that’s been more a guideline than a rule. This pattern is particularly true of big city police chiefs and sheriffs: some from flyover country send letters to Obama notifying him of their intention to refuse to enforce gun regulations and laws that violate the Constitution, while city police executives like Mr. Kelly instead lobby for those violations.
So, that bit of bureaucratic folk-wisdom, "Where you stand depends on where you sit." might actually be true ???
So, that bit of bureaucratic folk-wisdom, "Where you stand depends on where you sit." might actually be true ???
Two weeks ago I learned of Chief Kessler’s call to citizens of Gilberton Borough, Pennsylvania to join... (show more)
Two weeks ago I learned of Chief Kessler’s call to citizens of Gilberton Borough, Pennsylvania to join him and his police department in putting together a “reserve force” to help defend his city in the event of a foreign invasion or, more precisely, an invasion of the Federal government to confiscate firearms. The proposed reserve force is now referred to as the Constitutional Security Force. While the details of how this proposed force would be organized have not been finalized, chapters have been organized in Indiana, West Virginia, South Carolina and Kentucky. Information and links can be found here: <a href="http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/02/constitutional-security-force-develops-as-result-of-police-chiefs-efforts/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/02/constitutional-security-force-develops-as-result-of-police-chiefs-efforts/</a>
I had discussed with like minded citizens the formation of an organization similar to the Committees of Correspondence that existed in the colonies prior to the Revolutionary War to resist the Monarchy’s tyranny. I'm quite sure, though, that such an organization in today’s world would appear to be equivalent to a vigilante, hate mongering militia to the Left and would be used to frighten even more uninformed citizens about the exaggerated dangers of firearms in the hands of citizens and undermine resistance to further gun control. The Constitutional Security Force would be the US Code's unorganized militia under the supervision of each of our county's elected sheriffs.
While legal challenges to unconstitutional laws and citizens peaceful rallies and demonstrations to show support for full constitutional rights are correct and necessary actions, a “show of force” and a display of an intent to resist may many times accomplish more if the other side of the issue is unreasonable. Unfortunately it did not work with Great Britain when their military, under government orders, tried to confiscate arms at Concord and Lexington resulting in war. But one can be hopeful the Constitutional Security Force’s presence would forestall violence from the federal or state governments to enforce unconstitutional gun control laws.
(show less)
Two weeks ago I learned of Chief Kessler’s call to citizens of Gilberton Borough, Pennsylvania to join... (show more)
Two weeks ago I learned of Chief Kessler’s call to citizens of Gilberton Borough, Pennsylvania to join him and his police department in putting together a “reserve force” to help defend his city in the event of a foreign invasion or, more precisely, an invasion of the Federal government to confiscate firearms. The proposed reserve force is now referred to as the Constitutional Security Force. While the details of how this proposed force would be organized have not been finalized, chapters have been organized in Indiana, West Virginia, South Carolina and Kentucky. Information and links can be found here: <a href="http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/02/constitutional-security-force-develops-as-result-of-police-chiefs-efforts/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/02/constitutional-security-force-develops-as-result-of-police-chiefs-efforts/</a>
I had discussed with like minded citizens the formation of an organization similar to the Committees of Correspondence that existed in the colonies prior to the Revolutionary War to resist the Monarchy’s tyranny. I'm quite sure, though, that such an organization in today’s world would appear to be equivalent to a vigilante, hate mongering militia to the Left and would be used to frighten even more uninformed citizens about the exaggerated dangers of firearms in the hands of citizens and undermine resistance to further gun control. The Constitutional Security Force would be the US Code's unorganized militia under the supervision of each of our county's elected sheriffs.
While legal challenges to unconstitutional laws and citizens peaceful rallies and demonstrations to show support for full constitutional rights are correct and necessary actions, a “show of force” and a display of an intent to resist may many times accomplish more if the other side of the issue is unreasonable. Unfortunately it did not work with Great Britain when their military, under government orders, tried to confiscate arms at Concord and Lexington resulting in war. But one can be hopeful the Constitutional Security Force’s presence would forestall violence from the federal or state governments to enforce unconstitutional gun control laws.
(show less)
They'll follow orders before they take a chance on losing their pension.
They'll follow orders before they take a chance on losing their pension.
Night and Day!
It is just unfortunate that advocating the abrogation of Constitutional protections as done by Chief Flynn and others cannot be prosecuted as Treason.
Night and Day!
It is just unfortunate that advocating the abrogation of Constitutional protections as done by Chief Flynn and others cannot be prosecuted as Treason.
I don't know that I'd want to be a non-union cop because I know better than most just how arbitrary and incompetent political-level public sector management can be. That said, cop unions really are a pestilence. The only job I know of in the Country that can have you making $100K/yr. a couple of years out of high school is being a unionized cop or correctional officer. (show less)