General Forums >> General Discussions >> Confiscating civillian guns.

Rate

Confiscating civillian guns.

398 Views
9 Replies Flag as inappropriate
Thumbnail_6__max50

154 posts

back to top

Posted over 1 year ago

 

I ran into a guy at Starbucks who asked me a not so very odd question. He asked me if me or my fellow officers would confiscate civillian firearms if the president ordered it to be done. I advised him that neither me or my fellow officers would participate in the trampling of the second amendment. He seemed a little relieved after that.  So, my question is..what would you and your agency do?

Bluejersey_max50

1779 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 1 year ago

 

Since the "confiscation plot' began in '08 with the help of the likes of FOX 'News', what year did this random stranger just so happened to axe?  Was it asked in '09, '10, '11, '12 or '13 ?? 


Does the stranger know the difference between fear mongering for ratings and actual News broadcasting?  Would you say that this random stranger had a healthy fear of Government like most should experience opposed to those hynotized by social media and news 'PROGRAMMING'? 


Did you alleviate his fear of something that's not actually transpiring at the moment, or did he go home practicing how to build a trench and kill an LEO had he thought this 'event' should occur?


This should be interesting.


What doesn't kill me had better start running!

Silver_warrior_max50

1470 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 1 year ago

 

As I am retired now, I don't have to really worry about that issue from the "confiscator" end.  From the "confiscatee" end, hmmmm. . . . . . . .  Unfortunately, there are a lot of putz's in a good many departments that will blindly follow orders all because they have their noses stuck so far up the end of the boss that goes over the fence last, that they will NEVER be able to think for themselves.  So, to give you accurate numbers. . . . .that won't be known until the hammer falls. . . .if it does.  Only time will tell.


I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to other people and I expect the same from them.

John Bernard Books, from "The Shootist"

-2 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 1 year ago

 

If I'm assuming incorrectly forgive me. Jman has been a member for years but does not have a "Gold Shield" but advised he was an officer in his post?


 

White_shirt_max50

4983 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 1 year ago

 

TNDEPUTY. I refused to verify my first three years.

Half_dome_yosemite_national_park_max50

726 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 1 year ago

 

TNDEPUTY says ...



If I'm assuming incorrectly forgive me. Jman has been a member for years but does not have a "Gold Shield" but advised he was an officer in his post?


 



I think if someone has "sworn" and "actively serving" on their profile than they should have to be verified.


 


Just my opinion, but we have had so many cases of impersonating and trolling.

Imagesca9t39km_max50

106 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 1 year ago

 

TreeHugger719 says ...



TNDEPUTY says ...



If I'm assuming incorrectly forgive me. Jman has been a member for years but does not have a "Gold Shield" but advised he was an officer in his post?


 



I think if someone has "sworn" and "actively serving" on their profile than they should have to be verified.


 


Just my opinion, but we have had so many cases of impersonating and trolling.



AMEN!

Female_bodysurfer_max50

8259 posts

back to top
+1

Rated +1 | Posted over 1 year ago

 

Feb. 24, 2013  9:56AM


Some out-dated information in this thread.  We used to have greater incidence of impersonation before the verification process was tightened up.  Nowadays it's rare to see the unstarred "LEO" who pokes his nose in  to sh*t stir, flame, or blast civilians. Thanks, Admin!


Every so often we get a negative talking head who pipes up to publicly disparage the site.  Sometimes they have a hidden agenda to come on like seasoned "rescuers" of justice in order to take pot shots at LEOs here. 


Despite the occasional blast of hot air, Policelink remains a unique and valuable career resource and social website. 


Uncledennis makes a point. I am certain those officers who refuse to be verified yet publish regularly in Forums get checked out anyway.  Conduct here is monitored by the site designees, not self-appointed "bouncers." As for anyone who aggrandizes OR fictionalizes their position by means of inference, chest-thumping and swagger - word gets around fast.  It gets handled.


One verification star does not a fine officer make.  So, civilians, take heed, and exercise caution accordingly. 

Mr-natural_1__max50

2228 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 1 year ago

 

MarlyB says ...



Feb. 24, 2013  9:56AM


Uncledennis makes a point. I am certain those officers who refuse to be verified yet publish regularly in Forums get checked out anyway.  Conduct here is monitored by the site designees, not self-appointed "bouncers." As for anyone who aggrandizes OR fictionalizes their position by means of inference, chest-thumping and swagger - word gets around fast.  It gets handled.


One verification star does not a fine officer make.  So, civilians, take heed, and exercise caution accordingly. 



Bump MarlyB!


Also, it is worth noting that there have been those "verified" under the older, looser guidelines that still have their star. The current process is not merely tightened, but a lot more thorough. Gone are the days that a photocopy of your creds to a civilian "verifier"'s fax machine could get you a star.




Bessie Braddock: “Sir, you are drunk.”
Churchill: “Madam, you are ugly. In the morning, I shall be sober.”