Anti gun nuts & cops upset that cops dont get sole decision on who owns guns

[tonymctones]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/24/police-chiefs-gun-rights-advocates-at-odds-over-discretion-in-massachusetts/

Police chiefs in Massachusetts are blasting state lawmakers for shooting down a provision that would have given them sole discretion over who can get hunting rifle or shotgun permits, regardless of criminal records.

“Our position is really very, very simple,” said Wayne Sampson, executive director of the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association. “We, as an association, believe that it’s unconscionable that if we determine a person is unsuitable to carry a handgun, that they can then turn around and apply for a Firearms Identification Card, which allows them, by law, to purchase rifles and shotguns. And there’s no way we can impose any restrictions on that. It just doesn’t make sense.”

[240 is Back]

not surprisngly, the majority of people in that state probably support such a dumb bill.

[RRKore]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/24/police-chiefs-gun-rights-advocates-at-odds-over-discretion-in-massachusetts/

Police chiefs in Massachusetts are blasting state lawmakers for shooting down a provision that would have given them sole discretion over who can get hunting rifle or shotgun permits, regardless of criminal records.

“Our position is really very, very simple,” said Wayne Sampson, executive director of the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association. “We, as an association, believe that it’s unconscionable that if we determine a person is unsuitable to carry a handgun, that they can then turn around and apply for a Firearms Identification Card, which allows them, by law, to purchase rifles and shotguns. And there’s no way we can impose any restrictions on that. It just doesn’t make sense.”

Tony, not sure if you saw this article which is from, of all places, the staunchly conservative National Review Online website, but it might interest you:

 July 21, 2014 6:10 PM
It’s Time for Conservatives to Stop Defending Police
There is nothing conservative about government violating the rights of citizens.
By A. J. Delgado

Imagine if I were to tell you there is a large group of government employees, with generous salaries and ridiculously cushy retirement pensions covered by the taxpayer, who enjoy incredible job security and are rarely held accountable even for activities that would almost certainly earn the rest of us prison time. When there is proven misconduct, these government employees are merely reassigned and are rarely dismissed. The bill for any legal settlements concerning their errors? It, too, is covered by the taxpayers. Their unions are among the strongest in the country.

No, I’m not talking about public-school teachers.

I’m talking about the police.

We conservatives recoil at the former; yet routinely defend the latter — even though, unlike teachers, police officers enjoy an utter monopoly on force and can ruin — or end — one’s life in a millisecond.

For decades, conservatives have served as stalwart defenders of police forces. There have been many good reasons for this, including long memories of the post-countercultural crime wave that devastated, and in some cases destroyed, many American cities; conservatives’ penchant for law and order; and Americans’ widely shared disdain for the cops’ usual opponents. (“Dirty hippies being arrested? Good!” is not an uncommon sentiment.) Although tough-on-crime appeals have never been limited to conservative politicians or voters, conservatives instinctively (and, it turned out, correctly) understood that the way to reduce crime is to have more cops making more arrests, not more sociologists identifying more root causes. Conservatives are rightly proud to have supported police officers doing their jobs at times when progressives were on the other side.

But it’s time for conservatives’ unconditional love affair with the police to end.

Let’s get the obligatory disclaimer out of the way: Yes, many police officers do heroic works and, yes, many are upstanding individuals who serve the community bravely and capably.

But respecting good police work means being willing to speak out against civil-liberties-breaking thugs who shrug their shoulders after brutalizing citizens.

More of this great read here: 
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/383312/its-time-conservatives-stop-defending-police-j-delgado

[tonymctones]

I hope you dont consider my posts in the other thread that I feel police should be given leniency if they abuse their duties.

I said many many times they were wrong and should be dealt with.

[flipper5470]

Look at the actions taken in pursuit of the remaining Tsarnaev brother.   Paramilitary "police" cruising the block in armored personnel vehicles forcing people from their homes for "their safety"...what the fuck do the police need with an APV?   It's all about projecting force and limiting the right of law abiding citizens to protect themselves from the egregious application of that force.

[RRKore]

I hope you dont consider my posts in the other thread that I feel police should be given leniency if they abuse their duties.

...

Haha, that's my fault that you might think that.  I don't think you feel that way at all.  Quite the contrary, in fact.

I thought you'd be interested because I think that you're not into giving up rights no matter what party wants you to give them up.

I feel the same way (though we likely differ some when it comes to which rights we're most concerned about losing).

[tonymctones]

Haha, that's my fault that you might think that.  I don't think you feel that way at all.  Quite the contrary, in fact.

I thought you'd be interested because I think that you're not into giving up rights no matter what party wants you to give them up.

I feel the same way (though we likely differ some when it comes to which rights we're most concerned about losing).

Agreed, I have a friend who is what I would call Republican. I say that b/c I dont think Republicans and conservatives are the same thing. I think you can be both but I also think you can be republican and not be conservative and vice versa.

He is very keen on "small govt" but is just fine with rules and regulations he agrees with and is ok with giving more power to the parts of govt he approves of.

[240 is Back]

He is very keen on "small govt" but is just fine with rules and regulations he agrees with and is ok with giving more power to the parts of govt he approves of.

THIS.   At least libs are pretty open about it - they want the govt to control ALL aspects of our lives.   They like/dislike certain policies, but they want the govt involved in every way to enforce or forbid.  They want the govt in the bedroom 100% of the time.

Repubs, well, they scream about govt involvement until a social issue they want enforced arrives.   The other 50% of the time, leave us alone. 

[avxo]

THIS.   At least libs are pretty open about it - they want the govt to control ALL aspects of our lives.   They like/dislike certain policies, but they want the govt involved in every way to enforce or forbid.  They want the govt in the bedroom 100% of the time.

I'm curious, how do liberals want government in the bedroom 100% of the time? It seems to me - and I'm using a somewhat broad brush here - that liberals don't want the government in the bedroom, whereas conservatives do; this is an oddly ironic inversion.

[Kazan]

I'm curious, how do liberals want government in the bedroom 100% of the time? It seems to me - and I'm using a somewhat broad brush here - that liberals don't want the government in the bedroom, whereas conservatives do; this is an oddly ironic inversion.

How about the government just stays out of people's business as long as they aren't breaking the law?

[avxo]

How about the government just stays out of people's business as long as they aren't breaking the law?

Why would you direct said question to me? Do you think I disagree?

[Kazan]

Why would you direct said question to me? Do you think I disagree?

No I do not.

Point being the right to bear arms is a constitutional right, the fact the cops think they get to decide who owns guns is fucking ridiculous. Now what you do in your bed room isn't necessarily a constitutional right, but its also no ones business. The fucking government has run amok from the local level to the federal level. 

[avxo]

No I do not.

Point being the right to bear arms is a constitutional right, the fact the cops think they get to decide who owns guns is fucking ridiculous. Now what you do in your bed room isn't necessarily a constitutional right, but its also no ones business. The fucking government has run amok from the local level to the federal level. 

I'm not quite sure how the scheme described in the original article can be considered anything other than blatantly unconstititional, especially in the aftermath of Heller and I very much hope that it is challenged in Court.

[240 is Back]

How about the government just stays out of people's business as long as they aren't breaking the law?

The thing is - The "Law" says it's illegal to do a lot of things which could fall under personal freedoms.  It's weird.  Libs say a person should be able to grow pot in their closet, smoke it til they're stupid, and never step out the door with it, and it should be legal.  But conservatives say this person should go to prison.

Libs say a dude should be allowed to marry a dude.  Repubs are very much against it. 

BOTH parties want the govt to get involved in personal stuff.  They just disagree on which things.