Liberals Unwinding America Again: This Time Disarming Police.
A few weeks ago, in another venue, I wrote that confiscation of weapons should be tried on the police first: if it works there, then we’ll talk about it.
As unlikely as it sounded, it seems that some states have adopted my advice. Let’s look at it.
Rhode Island and Police Departments nationwide are cutting back on their policy of "Always armed, always a policeman."
I was serious when I made my statement to disarm police, because we can anticipate the ultimate outcome. This is because I prefer my Law Enforcement being with us, identifying with our realities, not being against us and out of touch with our realities as their administrators are.
Beat cops seem to favor our concealed carry of handguns, and I thank them for their support. You have our support, naturally.
But there’s always the administrator who needs those federal dollars more than anything else – even at the risk of officer and civilian lives – and frustrates the most obvious solutions to crime: civilian resistance. This interferes with the mission right down to the beat cop and the public’s perception of them as being on our side or not.
Refusing to connect with the taxpayer always makes official endeavor and the unending battle for public support that much harder.
According to the Boston Globe’s website Boston.com NEWS, November 26th, 2005 edition, The policy [off-duty unarmed] has been blamed in recent years for the deaths of a handful of officers killed when their colleagues mistook them for suspects.
Uh-huh.
Liberals always do stupid things. Unchallenged, their policies stick and we all pay. This endangers people, like most liberal fix-it policies. Liberals are stupid, though they make like they’re superior; they’re emotionally motivated to look down their nose at others to the point of imposing on others. It’s a defense mechanism, this doctrinaire attitude of thinking they know better. Then forcing it on us against the evidence to the contrary. Intellectualization it’s called. It’s an isolation mechanism.
For the time being, this policy will mean that most off-duty officers won’t intervene unarmed and without back-up. Not good. Who could impose this policy?
This movement to disarm citizens everywhere is unAmerican, and dangerous. I mentioned the idea of disarming police to make the point that for those charged with enforcing more and more intrusive and unAmerican laws, each should professionally and personally question how they would like to be subject to them instead of exempt from them.
Now we get our chance to find out. I don’t think they’re going to like it very much. In arraigning them this way, I plead with them to question the policy until it’s changed.
After all, if disarming is good for the people, it’s good for the public servants. It's a hot topic in Scotland: People there are actually arguing against arming the officers in the face of increased violence against them!
Living with such a policy should include Dianne Feinstein, Boxer, Schumer, Rosie O’Dummell, and all their armed bodyguards. Try it, girls. If you think it's so hot, why not do it yourself?
I didn't think so.
If it’s good for the public servants to carry weapons, it’s good for the people, also, since people have the authority to enforce or stop a felony or violent act, since we have the right to self-defense and since we’re first on scene.
It works where it’s tried. Two-thirds of the states of the union are right to carry states. No problems there with so many guns on the street, so guns on the street isn’t the problem, as long as they’re in the right hands. Police have very few problems with armed citizens. We all have problems with armed criminals. Liberals do not make the distinction, and are to be distrusted for unwinding America by permitting crime to grow and people to be defenseless.
Defenselessness grows violent crime everywhere it's tried, too.
Make no mistake: Liberals want to unwind America. It’s all part of a larger movement to discourage resistance to adversity to make that happen.
This is going to be fought, not merely as civilians who stand up for their officers, but as a joining of law enforcement and civilians who see the importance of both being armed, as the movement to disarm America reaches even professional law enforcement now.
Perhaps they’ll come to appreciate how they have been used in a professional's us-against-them mentality to their own detriment, now within the grasp of the anti-American as much as we are.
For instance, the FBI’s Law Enforcement Bulletin of December, 1999 reports how enforcement stops should be suspicious of motorists who show such extremist clues such as a copy of the Constitution, The Bible (no kidding!) and political literature. Excuse me, but since when is a copy of our Constitution, a copy of our Bible and any political literature a clue of extremism or of a dangerous person?
I would not train our officers to suspect citizens. There are other profiles that fit more accurately. Violent criminals don’t joint the NRA, and the armed resistance of the so-called squirrel eating survivalists in America is grossly overstated and overblown for political purposes such as these. It's a trap.
How many enforcement stop/criminal activities/police officer shootings are perpetrated by Conservatives, the Constitutionalists?
By definition, criminals are liberals, against police and law and order, and certainly not willing to own their actions. Even today, a conservative politician bad actor owns his actions ashamedly and resigns. Who was the last liberal to own their criminal activities and resign? Think of stealing archival documents.
Criminals by definition are liberals.
We can’t think of everyday honest civilians and police as opposed to each other. Law enforcement by way of National ID Cards and other intrusive practices suspect citizens needlessly; Liberty enthusiasts as the subjects of such surveillance view such abusive policies as unthinking, automaton movements of individuals following orders.
In the middle is the devil who stokes the fires of mistrust and takes the profit for it all.
It has to stop in order to save the nation.
People and their law enforcement need to join forces. After all, everybody wants to go home at night. We all want to keep it that way. This doesn't mean doing it law enforcement's way -- it means law enforcement's doing it our way.
Instead of us being against each other, we need to work together to be against the criminal, and having a clearer picture of who that is is everything. Suspicioning citizens – for window stickers or other so-called clues, including surveilling innocent behavior – is to use police as an arm of the movement to unwind America.
Gun owner groups and liberty groups need to come to the aid of the police in support of their right to carry as well as our own right to carry, because as allies we both share very much what it’s all about.
That kind of coming together would be good for the country.
____________________________________
John Longenecker is author of Transfer Of Wealth – The Case For Nationwide Concealed Carry, available worldwide this December.
As unlikely as it sounded, it seems that some states have adopted my advice. Let’s look at it.
Rhode Island and Police Departments nationwide are cutting back on their policy of "Always armed, always a policeman."
I was serious when I made my statement to disarm police, because we can anticipate the ultimate outcome. This is because I prefer my Law Enforcement being with us, identifying with our realities, not being against us and out of touch with our realities as their administrators are.
Beat cops seem to favor our concealed carry of handguns, and I thank them for their support. You have our support, naturally.
But there’s always the administrator who needs those federal dollars more than anything else – even at the risk of officer and civilian lives – and frustrates the most obvious solutions to crime: civilian resistance. This interferes with the mission right down to the beat cop and the public’s perception of them as being on our side or not.
Refusing to connect with the taxpayer always makes official endeavor and the unending battle for public support that much harder.
According to the Boston Globe’s website Boston.com NEWS, November 26th, 2005 edition, The policy [off-duty unarmed] has been blamed in recent years for the deaths of a handful of officers killed when their colleagues mistook them for suspects.
Uh-huh.
Liberals always do stupid things. Unchallenged, their policies stick and we all pay. This endangers people, like most liberal fix-it policies. Liberals are stupid, though they make like they’re superior; they’re emotionally motivated to look down their nose at others to the point of imposing on others. It’s a defense mechanism, this doctrinaire attitude of thinking they know better. Then forcing it on us against the evidence to the contrary. Intellectualization it’s called. It’s an isolation mechanism.
For the time being, this policy will mean that most off-duty officers won’t intervene unarmed and without back-up. Not good. Who could impose this policy?
This movement to disarm citizens everywhere is unAmerican, and dangerous. I mentioned the idea of disarming police to make the point that for those charged with enforcing more and more intrusive and unAmerican laws, each should professionally and personally question how they would like to be subject to them instead of exempt from them.
Now we get our chance to find out. I don’t think they’re going to like it very much. In arraigning them this way, I plead with them to question the policy until it’s changed.
After all, if disarming is good for the people, it’s good for the public servants. It's a hot topic in Scotland: People there are actually arguing against arming the officers in the face of increased violence against them!
Living with such a policy should include Dianne Feinstein, Boxer, Schumer, Rosie O’Dummell, and all their armed bodyguards. Try it, girls. If you think it's so hot, why not do it yourself?
I didn't think so.
If it’s good for the public servants to carry weapons, it’s good for the people, also, since people have the authority to enforce or stop a felony or violent act, since we have the right to self-defense and since we’re first on scene.
It works where it’s tried. Two-thirds of the states of the union are right to carry states. No problems there with so many guns on the street, so guns on the street isn’t the problem, as long as they’re in the right hands. Police have very few problems with armed citizens. We all have problems with armed criminals. Liberals do not make the distinction, and are to be distrusted for unwinding America by permitting crime to grow and people to be defenseless.
Defenselessness grows violent crime everywhere it's tried, too.
Make no mistake: Liberals want to unwind America. It’s all part of a larger movement to discourage resistance to adversity to make that happen.
This is going to be fought, not merely as civilians who stand up for their officers, but as a joining of law enforcement and civilians who see the importance of both being armed, as the movement to disarm America reaches even professional law enforcement now.
Perhaps they’ll come to appreciate how they have been used in a professional's us-against-them mentality to their own detriment, now within the grasp of the anti-American as much as we are.
For instance, the FBI’s Law Enforcement Bulletin of December, 1999 reports how enforcement stops should be suspicious of motorists who show such extremist clues such as a copy of the Constitution, The Bible (no kidding!) and political literature. Excuse me, but since when is a copy of our Constitution, a copy of our Bible and any political literature a clue of extremism or of a dangerous person?
I would not train our officers to suspect citizens. There are other profiles that fit more accurately. Violent criminals don’t joint the NRA, and the armed resistance of the so-called squirrel eating survivalists in America is grossly overstated and overblown for political purposes such as these. It's a trap.
How many enforcement stop/criminal activities/police officer shootings are perpetrated by Conservatives, the Constitutionalists?
By definition, criminals are liberals, against police and law and order, and certainly not willing to own their actions. Even today, a conservative politician bad actor owns his actions ashamedly and resigns. Who was the last liberal to own their criminal activities and resign? Think of stealing archival documents.
Criminals by definition are liberals.
We can’t think of everyday honest civilians and police as opposed to each other. Law enforcement by way of National ID Cards and other intrusive practices suspect citizens needlessly; Liberty enthusiasts as the subjects of such surveillance view such abusive policies as unthinking, automaton movements of individuals following orders.
In the middle is the devil who stokes the fires of mistrust and takes the profit for it all.
It has to stop in order to save the nation.
People and their law enforcement need to join forces. After all, everybody wants to go home at night. We all want to keep it that way. This doesn't mean doing it law enforcement's way -- it means law enforcement's doing it our way.
Instead of us being against each other, we need to work together to be against the criminal, and having a clearer picture of who that is is everything. Suspicioning citizens – for window stickers or other so-called clues, including surveilling innocent behavior – is to use police as an arm of the movement to unwind America.
Gun owner groups and liberty groups need to come to the aid of the police in support of their right to carry as well as our own right to carry, because as allies we both share very much what it’s all about.
That kind of coming together would be good for the country.
____________________________________
John Longenecker is author of Transfer Of Wealth – The Case For Nationwide Concealed Carry, available worldwide this December.
<< Home