[OldStar]

I participate in a law enforcement officer's bulletin board (http://www.leoaffairs.com) in which I recently posted a notice that the "assault weapons" ban was about to expire and soliciting fellow law enforcement officers to write their congressmen and oppose extension of the ban.

Under the title: You Won't Always Be A LEO (law enforcement officer) I pointed out that once the cops re-entered civilian life they would find themselves limited to 10 round magazines if the ban were extended and they did not own pre-ban magazines.

Years ago ATF announced that officers who purchased "law enforcement only" high capacity magazines were expected to rid themselves of them when they became civilians.

I received several positive responses, but on the Tampa Police Department portion of the board I was blasted by a guy calling himself "Devil's Advocate." Part of his response included this:

"Is there really a need for us to carry guns as civilians with more than ten rounds? When is a civilian going to use that many rounds? Can you tell me any TPD shooting in which the officer fired more than ten? What we have been given is ( in my opinion ) good enough...if we start asking for more, people are going to think we're gun nuts. OD I carry a kel-tech P-32...I believe it has 8 rounds...plenty for me."

The part I thought significant was "...what we have been given..." and "...if we start asking for more..." which shows his pathetic mind set about how citizens should be supplicants ASKING the government for "more."

After several exchanges on the board he posted these gems:

"Be glad for what you have. I fear people like you the same way I fear those who call for taking guns away from everybody."

"Your position is one of those that makes it easy for liberals to point the finger at us and scream " Gun Nuts"!!!"

My response was that I can tolerate being called a Gun Nut because that is better than the title "Liberal."

There's not much point to making you all aware of this. I just thought it might get a blood pressure rise out of a few of you knowing what idiots some cops can be.

:lol:

 

[Tim Burke]

A lot of people that should "get" it, don't. I'm just glad for the ones that do.

 

[Dean Speir]

Memo to "Devil's Advocate:" Well, you got the "A" part right!

 

[SpecialEd]

significant excerpts

OD I carry a kel-tech P-32...I believe it has 8 rounds...plenty for me."

I find this rather telling. "I believe it has 8 rounds?" He doesn't even know how many inadequate rounds he's carrying!

Ed

 

[Arc Angel]

Considering the high percentage of police officers who can't shoot straight and don't use a pistol well, I'm surprised that, 'DA' doesn't want to carry, at least, 3 standard capacity magazines and an MP5! Something tells me this guy is, either, a very very good pistolero; or else, he's a world-class departmental politician.

Which way do you think the betting is going to go? While everyone is placing their bets, I'm going to count the number of rounds in my 32; and I'll get back to you with the exact number. :lol:

 

[Snake45]

I love it when some liberal tells me that assault weapons (or hi-cap mags, etc.) are only good for "killing large numbers of innocent people as quickly as possible."

"If you really believe that," I say, "then surely you must want the police to get rid of THEIRS as quickly as possible. I think it can be done by executive order. C'mon, I'll help you write the governor...."

 

[BigMike]

Trusted to carry ... what?

OldStar, please pass this on to the LEO who felt 10 rounds was enough for civilians.

OldStar, I trust your icon is an image of the real thing, that you wore the Badge of the United States' Secret Service. If so, we know who and what you were trusted to protect and defend when you wore it every day. And we know you were trusted to carry as many rounds of ammo as was appropriate in the execution of your duties. Not ten, not ten plus one, but whatever you needed (and could lift!).

What follows seems to be braggadocio, but I feel the need to support my point, and your point, too. Our nation has trusted many of us immensely, trusted us to do far more dangerous things than having an eleventh round in our magazines.

My father, my father-in-law, and I, also served to protect and defend the United States. My father served in two wars, starting as an E-1 in WW-I, then as an O-4 in WW-II, and retiring in the late 1950s as a Naval Reserve O-6. I don't know my father-in-law's military history, but he retired as an Army Reserve O-6. They both became civilians when they retired from their services. My father-in-law even trusted me with his daughter.

Both my father, and my wife's father, were also DOD civil servants, and both had "Q" clearances, which meant that our government trusted them quite a bit. But, no one set a limit on how many rounds they could have in their personal defense weapons. They were trusted to carry what they felt they needed.

I served in the Navy, retiring from the Reserve as an O-5. I had all the security clearances and classified information needed for service as a line officer aboard warships. I had the nation's trust, and authority, to take its warships to sea, even to fight them against our enemies, on my own volition, should the need arise. By my personal actions I could start a war, or avoid one. I also had a fulfilling career as a Navy civil servant. In my early career as a Navy civilian I wrote technical manuals on how to assemble and use sea mines. I also wrote nuclear weapon manuals, procedures telling how to assemble and use nuclear weapons, and even wrote how they could be rendered safe, i.e. disarmed. When I retired from Civil Service I was the Department of the Navy's Computer Security Coordinator. For the last five years of my career, the taxpayers had trusted me with the security of the Navy's computers. Desktops, mainframes, and embedded. All of them.

Until relatively recently, no one told me how many rounds I could be trusted to have in my personal defense weapons. Our nation trusted me to carry what I felt I needed. And, the same for you.

We have had numerous helpful discussions on our web board about how many rounds a person should have in their personal defense weapons. It has even been suggested that I am planning to miss a lot. [As a matter of fact, I do miss a lot.] Nevertheless, I am profoundly honored to be included in technical discussions that will help me, among other things, decide how many personal defense rounds I may need per target.

As an aside, I note that my center-fire pistols have some empty, wasted, space in the grip area, when their designed 12 to 15 round capacity magazine space is filled with a neutered magazine with only 10 rounds in it. Did the gun designers know something I don't? Do the career marksmen and ex-LEO gun writers carry four rounds in their J-frames, five rounds in their K-frames, and six in their 1911s? If not, they must plan to miss a lot, too. Or maybe these erudite marksmen think they might face more than one target.

No one has told me how many targets you or I will face when we need those rounds.

The only sources of information that seem to bear on that particular matter are:

1. That oath I took "to support and defend the constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign or domestic." I shall never deny that oath.

2. The headlines in the daily paper.

What right do LEOs, newspaper editors, or sitting legislators, have to tell YOU and ME that we cannot be trusted with eleven rounds in a magazine space designed for twelve, fifteen, or more? Or, that we cannot carry an eleven round magazine in a rifle that was designed to hold magazines carrying fifteen, twenty, or thirty rounds? How did these persons get the expertise to determine what we may carry? And, whose side are they on, anyway?

 

[Arc Angel]

:shock: Wow, Big Mike, that's got 'a be one of the best posts on the subject of magazine capacity that I've ever read! It comes close to being a religious statement of the almost sacred trust that should exist between any benevolent government and its law-abiding citizens. Very well said, indeed! 8)


PS: But, really, do you miss a lot? You seem to have hit the mark on this one - pretty good! :wink:

 

[LIProgun]

The part I thought significant was "...what we have been given..." and "...if we start asking for more..." which shows his pathetic mind set about how citizens should be supplicants ASKING the government for "more."

Hey OldStar, kudos for zeroing in on the truly significant. :thumbsup:

BigMike, where can I buy the Cliff Notes for your posts? :wink: [Just kidding - Fine post, actually -- please keep 'em coming.]

 

[Alarmed]

That post by BigMike needs to go to every newspaper in the US. That is without a doubt the best editorial I have ever read on the subject.

 

[OldStar]

Awesome!

Big Mike:

That was a truly awesome post! I have saved it to my hard drive. I'm going to use some of that material in the future.

Yes, I did have a career in the Secret Service, retiring in 1985. The star depicted on my posts is the badge that we carried when I started in 1965. Although not as glamorous as some other badges, it had a venerable history. The metal used in the badge was the same medal used in making "silver" dollars. The scroll work was designed on the same machines that designed the scroll work on U.S. Currency. (The Service was part of the Department of the Treasury, having been created in 1865 to suppress counterfeiting. President Lincoln signed the legislation creating the Service just before he was assassinated.)

Then, somewhere around the early 1970's we went "modern" with a gold colored badge which abandoned the five-pointed star design. More recently the Service was transferred from the Department of the Treasury to Homeland Security. The badge now is the "generic" Homeland Security badge with U.S. Secret Service engraved on it. Alas.............

Toward the end of my career I was in the Washington Field Office. After President Reagan was shot I was assigned to head the WFO Protection Squad which made all advance security arrangements for presidential visits in the metropolitan DC area. Every time that President Reagan left the White House to move around DC, I was either in the lead car of the motorcade or in the helicopter overhead.

Keep that in mind when I tell you about John McGaw. I was already a supervisor in the Service when John became an agent. We were acquainted and I even selected him once for an important public relations assignment. Sometime after I retired he became Director of the Service. Later he was switched to Director of ATF. After September 11th, he was selected to a high post in either the Department of Transportation or the Transportation Security Agency, I forget which.

In testimony regarding the possibility of expediting airline passengers through security checkpoints, John was asked if there wasn't some segment of the population which he felt was trustworthy enough to be given special consideration through the checkpoints to speed things up. His answer was "...no, no one." Well, I don't know about other retired Secret Service agents, but I took that VERY personally!

John had become a politician!

And, in fact, at that very moment I was in my second career as a deputy sheriff in Tampa. I took double offense on behalf of my fellow active law enforcement officers.

But, I digress. The point of this post was to tell you what a fantastic post YOU had made. Great work!

:cheerschug: