DeSantis Gunhide Question of the Day: Why Do (Some) Cops Support Gun Control?

There are political reasons why politically appointed police chiefs of police favor civilian disarmament. Yes but — these guys swear an oath to uphold and defend the United States Constitution. Second Amendment and all. You’d think America’s top cops — especially rural ones — would want law-abiding citizens to protect themselves, having seen exactly what happens when they don’t. They know that gun control will do nothing to stop bad guys. Do these chiefs really have to line up behind the forces of civilian disarmament to protect their jobs? Or are they, at their root, proto-fascists, happy to have the populace under their proverbial thumb, even if innocent life is lost as a result?

desantis blue logo no back 4 small

comments

  1. avatar JmbCollector says:

    Some of today’s police force has a “Us vs. Them” mentality. Remember, it is not a LEO’s job to interpret law, just enforce it. They are nothing more than the muscle behind a broken political system.

    1. avatar Michael says:

      Working with cops from local to federal, I would say most have the thin blue line mentality.

      1. avatar Evan says:

        How about the calling/referring to people as “civilians” thing? Is that real common?
        I know dictionaries now exclude police and firefighters, but I think that’s a newer change, I don’t remember learning that when I was a kid.
        Because I thought the distinction was Military/everyone else is civilian; ie if you fall under Civil authority or if you fall under the UCMJ laws. IIRC police and firefighters are still branches/arms of the civil authority…

        But then again what do I know?

        1. avatar OMGun says:

          ^This
          +1

        2. avatar Hasdrubal says:

          I agree completely, as someone who used to be military but is now police- I don’t know when the language changed, but it’s not accurate. I’ve been saying ‘non uniformed citizens’ sometimes here in the comments, but I’ve never found a term that doesn’t seem awkward.

          It doesn’t help that someone usually chimes in with a suggestion that cops should be referred to as pigs, or leeches, or something similar.

        3. avatar Jim Bullock says:

          ^^This^^

          I say “citizens”, including when talking about law enforcement, to emphasize… The “civilians” aren’t “non-uniformed civilians.” We are all “citizens.” The folks in various uniform are “uniformed citizens” working as agents of us all, to secure us space to pea efully do what we like, against outside infliction, or internal violence, respectively.

          Until we’re in Starship Troopers world, where “Service guarantees citizenship!”, you don’t have to be, or have been, in uniform to have a say. We put some agents in uniforms when they use force on our behalf.

          It is good to reinforce how this is supposed to work, as practice drifts further from the intention. To answer the article’s question, some are functionaries, some facists, some both, but they get to *act* that way, when they, and we forget their role, and ours.

          I become concerned when law enforcement has an opinion on citizen gun ownership, and appalled when they advocate. Their job is to.enforce policy, not make it. Forgetting that should instantly disqualify them from weilding force on our behalf. Because a functionary or a facist weilding force to apply policies of their own choosing is … wait, I know there’s a name for this.

  2. avatar Martin Gomez says:

    Politically, it has to due with voters’ attitudes and the policy of the administration in power. If the administration is anti-gun or voters are anti-gun, no cop will come out as pro-gun.

    Culturally, it is based on background with primarily gun owners or criminals. If you grew up on the south side of Ft. Wayne, people with guns are criminals. If you grew up on the north side, people with guns are hunters/sportmen and perfectly safe. (Now that HUD is using taxpayer’s dollars to wage an antiwhite war on the suburbs, this will all change.)

    Philosophically, it has to do with whether gun violence is basically thugs shooting each other, or a broader problem (where the victims should be arming themselves). Cops kow they can’t protect everyone and when seconds count, they’re 20 minutes away. Cops in Nevada are telling people to arm themselves because the treasonous and incompetent Obama administration has abdicated control to foreign drug cartels. Cops around the country are telling people to arm themselves because the Democrats are importing criminals and terrorists at the same time liberals/radicals are hamstringing police.

    1. avatar Indiana Tom says:

      …….and if you were outside of Fort Wayne; then you knew that guns were for the local good old boy militia of which you were part of.

  3. avatar Milsurp Collector says:

    It has to do a lot with where you were raised and reside in; a cop in NYC is going to see guns in American society differently than a small town sheriff in Georgia. Once you get to “top cop” status, you become a political appointee with an image to maintain and do a lot less on the street police work anyway. Look at the voting patterns of where these guys work and connect the friggin dots.

  4. avatar Mark N. says:

    Once an officer rises through the ranks and becomes a bureaucrat, he becomes convinced, by some mysterious process, that more guns equals more crime, and the only way to reduce crime–the standard under which their job performance is judged–is to disarm everyone. Depositions of the (now former) LA Sheriff and the LAPD Chief repeated these “ideologies” as the basis for their refusals to issue CCWs to average citizens, although both admitted, under oath, that they knew of no studies which supported their stance. The sheriffs in the Bay Area counties, and the police chiefs in all of those cities, backed by their board of supervisors/city councils, have the same beliefs. With a few exceptions, the sheriffs in most of the rest of the state apply the self defense= “good cause” standard. So it really is an urban vs rural distinction in this state.

    1. avatar DJ says:

      Not just true for police. Look at the way the military tramples on the 2nd Amendment for active duty troops.

    2. avatar pieslapper says:

      Nah. Some just like being the jack booted instrument of the state.

  5. avatar TyrannyOfEvilMen says:

    When it comes right down to it, there are some people who value a fat paycheck and the comforts it can buy for them above their oaths, above the rights of their countrymen and even above the disposition of their own immortal souls.

    1. avatar Pond Avenue says:

      Don’t forget the fat lifetime pensions and health care.

      A lot of these seem to get “injured on the job” towards the end of their careers. No tax on their pension!!!!

      1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

        My pension is far from fat. I had to put in over 25 years to get it.
        And it is taxed the same as my paycheck where I work now.
        And if the job I have now didn’t have health care included, I’d have to buy my own because it is NOT included as part of my retirement.

        Might want to get your facts straight.

        1. avatar Mark N. says:

          It depends on where you work and how powerful your union is. I am pretty sure California cops get PERS, which includes health and dental.

        2. avatar jeepers says:

          Hey Tom.
          Just curious. what are your thoughts, if you are aware of, about ret Portland Chief Mike REESE, that pile became a mouthpiece for supporting Bloomberg and Giffords
          speaking against our rights in Salem and beyond.
          Multnomah County Commissioners approved him to become interim Sheriff, at the recommendation of current Sheriff Staton. Staton has been embattled for some time.

  6. avatar Tile floor says:

    Once you become a chief it’s a political position, and many chiefs are spineless politicans who are trying to appeal to their gun grabbing citizens in their jurisdiction, which is crap.

    Your average rank and file officer tends to be pro gun, especially in areas where you find a lot of police grew up shooting guns and own many themselves. The ones that you find that are anti gun tend to be officers who never fired a gun before they became officers, and don’t have the enthusiasm for firearms that others do.

  7. avatar Matt in Oklahoma says:

    They are people that’s why. I’ve known 20yr soldiers who don’t believe in the 2nd. I’ve also known Feds who are more staunch supporters than many of those on here. People are people the titles don’t automatically mean anything.

    1. avatar FedUp says:

      How can a man who obeys the Constitution successfully hold a job as a FLEA, except maybe in Customs and Border Patrol?

      1. avatar Evan says:

        I know a couple, and that’s actually why they became a FLEA over a beat cop. “I want to get real bad guys, like child predators, murderers, etc. instead of writing tickets for a guy just trying to make it home to catch the game.” was what they told me.

  8. avatar More Dead Soldiers says:

    “Or are they, at their root, proto-fascists, happy to have the populace under their proverbial thumb, even if innocent life is lost as a result?”

    Just the chiefs? Really brah?

    1. avatar Indiana Tom says:

      How dare you call them proto-fascists? They are full blown certified Fascists!

  9. avatar Bob315 says:

    In the Democrat Party, they reward loyalty. A Democrat mayor will only promote someone to chief that is 100% loyal to their cause.

  10. avatar jwm says:

    There’s no difference in the attitude that all cops are fascists and anti gun than there is in the attitude that all gun owners are adam lanza. None.

    The chiefs, especially of larger blue cities, are politicians. Nothing else.

    But even in the bay area I’ve been cut slack by rank and file cops about guns.

    1. avatar Pond Avenue says:

      That one time a cop let you off with a gun in your waist band has led to a lifetime of seemingly endless TTAG comments about the incident. BTW, did you hear the Former Water Walker’s wife has a higher melanin skin concentration than he does?

      1. avatar jwm says:

        Wow. You mean nothing to me. Never heard of you til recently. But apparently I made a lasting impression on you.

        Do you moan my name late at night when you can’t sleep?

      2. avatar FormerWaterWalker says:

        Wow dipshite-wtf does my wife have to do with this thread? Pond scum…

        1. avatar SteveInCO says:

          I have to say this guy has me scratching my head too, FWW. And I really shouldn’t do that, receding hairline and all that.

        2. avatar jwm says:

          Near as I can figure pond scum is a troll I offended while he was operating under another name. Doubling down on his trollness he now takes potshots and won’t specify who he was when I clashed with him before.

          Typical troll coward.

  11. avatar Specialist38 says:

    Could be cause they are people.

    People are sometimes dumbasses.

    I don’t like to demonize or elevate people because of their station.

    Still just people.

  12. avatar Jay In Florida says:

    It all political if its an appointed position. Especially in a Democratic environment such as NYC where I used to live. Live in a rural area which I also have. Where the Sherriff is elected it can be as the area goes so goes the sheriff. He works for the people who voted him in after all.

  13. avatar Groutboy says:

    Like I said in on another article. After seeing this.I believe police should be held to high accountability. To much latitude, to much clubhouse rules, to much paramilitary stuff. First and foremost, they are public servants. Who have an oath th uphold the US Constitution-Bill of Rights .After seeing this incident that happened in Boston ,Massachusetts. I believe there should *(National)* full civilian review boards.

    https://mobile.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10209703048076842&id=1349351186

  14. avatar Publius says:

    “Why do MOST cops support gun control?”

    First, I fixed your typo. As for why? There’s a few reasons. One is that by making more things illegal, there’s more demand for cops and thus it grants them job security. Another reason is that they want to feel special or tough by being the only ones allowed to have a gun. Then there’s the assholes who really want fascism and want to see anyone who disagrees with them dead.

  15. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

    Everyone wants to be important. Denying the masses their right to firearms, while reserving your own authority to carry, sets police apart from and above the populace. That’s a very seductive and jealously guarded degree of separation.

    Beyond that, there’s the matter of self-selection. People who yearn to control others naturally gravitate toward occupations, lije law reinforcement, that fulfill that need.

    I’ll add another angle to it. They want to tilt the law enforcement playing field in their favor. They know that people are going acquire firearms, regardless, so why not legally restrict them and snatch some built-in legal leverage against the People?

    We agree with this premise ourselves, after all. We characterize the right to bear arms as a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil and Constitutional right. Yes, I’m sure I read that somewhere once. We also argue that despite firearms laws, criminals will obtain them. So the principle applies to the better and worse elements of society.

    Excessive infringements essentially set everyone up to be guilty of something at any given time. So there’s always that pressure the police can bring to bear on the population at will. It’s like artificially low speed limits or overly precise lane changing requirements. Yes, you have the right to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. However, the imbalance by design between traffic laws and the norms of driving serves as a nice little trump card the police can play whenever they want to stop you in violation of your rights.

    Similarly, excessive firearms laws provide the State with instant incrimination to keep you off balance, uneasy, and perpetually slightly guilty.

  16. avatar FormerWaterWalker says:

    Hmmm…most(and that’s quite a few in 60+ years) have been power-mad jerks. Like the little Mexican guy I knew(from the gym) before and after he became a cop. He told me he hated legal carry ’cause it would interfere with his job(giving tickets?). And the psychopaths I knew from high school who liked authority(one ended up in prison for raping a girl he stopped on duty). Several were with the county sheriff(Kankakee,IL and I could name names) and I know the hiring standards(and pay) were quite low. Us vs. them would seem to fit nicely. Or “I know what’s best for you civilian scum”…I imagine they are going crazy with all the newly minted CC in Illinois.

    1. avatar Indiana Tom says:

      Some of the hoodlums and power psychopaths in high school later became cops. One cop wanna be stated his greatest ambition was to get in a gunfight and kill people.

  17. avatar Rick in NH says:

    NH has been trending liberal for years as Massholes move up to escape taxes and bring their liberal ideas with them. This is Ayotte’s attempt to convince the mushy middle to vote for her Senate re-election. Her opponent Gov. Maggie Hassan just vetoed constitutional carry with the usual liberal talking points.

  18. avatar Ralph says:

    Well, they support gun control because there’s no point in having power if they can’t abuse it. Which is the corollary to “power corrupts.”

  19. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    Or are they, at their root, proto-fascists, happy to have the populace under their proverbial thumb, even if innocent life is lost as a result?
    They love the wonders of National Socialism.
    Policing is easier in a Police State.

  20. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    Police Chiefs’ words: uphold and defend the United States Constitution. Police Chiefs’ action: uphold and defend their income and place in the ruling class.

  21. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    Anti-liberty Police Chiefs are playing both sides. If liberty prevails, they are fine because they were “just doing their job”. If communism prevails, they will be part of the ruling class. Either way, they win and we lose.

    If only there was some way in which Police Chiefs lose when we lose …

  22. avatar Hasdrubal says:

    This is the wrong question to ask. The question should not be, ‘why do police chiefs support gun control,’ it should be ‘why do mayors and city councils appoint police officers to the position of chief who support gun control?’ There’s not much to discuss about that, we all know the answer.

    Those cops who support freedom and encourage citizens to carry are the kind who often do not seek promotion, and often despise department politics. It shouldn’t be a surprise or a mystery why cops who won’t try to become chief and who wouldn’t be picked by political leadership to become chief, don’t often become chief.

    1. avatar Another Robert says:

      I’m thinking that’s a pretty astute observation.

    2. avatar Ralph says:

      “Those cops who support freedom and encourage citizens to carry are the kind who often do not seek promotion power.”

      FIFY

  23. avatar Mk10108 says:

    I travel across the country and carry. If in a state that does not honor CA, my armament is locked in a gun box, locked in a camper. I live in fear of another drug enforcement stop, standing on the side of a highway for an hour until the dog is brought in, false alert, detained then another hour in the back seat of a patrol car. Two hours of my life I’ll never get back on a drug bust that’s never going to happen. Then worry a corrupt cop will plant drugs in my vehicle.

    Cops lie through their teeth and demand the truth from you. They don’t serve and protect, only serve themselves and protect their pensions. Sole reason they exist is to generate revenue for their jurisdiction. Against this backdrop they will gladly shit on your civil liberties, shove the Constutition so far up your ass you can read it with the backside of your eyeballs…fist pump their blue crew buddies while laughing rolling you all the way to the station.

    An armed society in good communities, willing to do violence to evil, have no need for police.

  24. avatar Alan Esworthy says:

    It’s a matter of the way you think about people.

    If you are a collectivist, and regard “society” as an entity with rights, it is easy to come up with “greater good” arguments for just about anything, or to fall for such arguments if you aren’t too bright, or to use such arguments if they suit your purpose.

    If you are an individualist, and regard rights as inherent (or “unalienable” which is the same thing) to every human being, then those rights are first and foremost when you deal with people.

  25. avatar W says:

    Third option. Or do they like being armed in a realm where many others are disarmed, for personal reasons? Judge Alex Ferrer admitted that this was his position years ago, when he was a police officer and before he was a judge.

    Not everyone looks at public policy issues with the public or even with individuals at large in mind. Some consider such issues from a position of themselves first and foremost (i.e.: the Clintons).

  26. avatar tdiinva (Now in Wisconsin) says:

    The modern police attitude is a product of operating in a rules based system that developed after the Warren Court’s new rules and in response to Kerner Commission on the 60s riots. The new oversight took a lot discretion away from the beat cop. No longer could a cop “correct” a wayward youth outside of the legal system. Law enforcement became a zero tolerance system. We all know what happens in such a system.

    We are now in the process of taking whatever discretion is left away from the individual officer. That leaves the police with the choice of doing nothing or rigid enforcement. They are choosing to do nothing. This engineered increase crime is going to be used to push gun control just as the Obama administration planned to use Fast and Furious to get gun registration and an assault weapons ban.

    The left wants your guns so the gangs can enforce social control for them. Anti police rhetoric only advanced their cause. Be careful what you wish for because you are going to get it good and hard.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      “No longer could a cop “correct” a wayward youth outside of the legal system.”

      I got “corrected” quite a few times in my wayward youth days. Back then, the cops didn’t want to jam up a kid, but they would rough a kid up pretty good, kick him in the ass and tell him not to screw up again.

      At the time, I hated those big, tough Irishmen. In retrospect, I think that they were trying to do something good in the only way that they knew how.

      Some of the same tough guys coached me in the Police Athletic League. That approach was far better.

  27. avatar Rooster says:

    From a purely practical standpoint, I imagine it’s easier to work under the assumption that everyone with a gun is a bad guy. So I would say laziness plays a role.

  28. avatar JB Karns says:

    Police, right up thru the ranks, are merely a microcosm of society, with the very dangerous caveat that they are empowered by ‘the state’ to take the freedom and/or the life of other people under color of ‘law’.

    Since a vast majority of the general populous supports various and sundry unconstitutional infringements, regulations, controls, prohibitions, e.g., including all manner of gun ‘laws’ along with a plethora of other collectivist-driven anti individual liberty victimless ‘crimes’, let alone even knowing jack-shit about Liberty or Amendment II, the police closely mirror this twisted belief-system of so very many ‘new aericans’.

    What makes it worse, is that the police take a solumn Oath to support and defend the Constitution, which supercedes any ‘law’ in effect that is contrary to that Constitution and to that Oath.

    Yet, in almost universal lock-step, police ‘enforce’ whatever ‘law’ is presented to them regardless of its glaring anti-constitutionality or glaring anti-liberty intent and effect….often making the ratonalization or justification if challenged that they are Oath-bound to ‘enforce the laws’ yet they deliberately ignore the superceding and supreme law of the land that would necessitate their not enforcing much of what they do.

    Bizarro-thinking and a mental self-defense mechanism to allow their phyche to be assuaged for doing the openly wrong things that they so regularly do, whilst violating and ignoring that which is critically necessary and just.

    Police go a step further than the populous, in that many of them do develop an ‘us against them’ mentality and what used to be a widespread proper mindset and resultant role of being a ‘peace officer’, has now been steadily and deliberately morphed into a mindset and operational action-mode of a ‘warrior’, a ‘hero’ and a ‘Law Enforcement Officer’…..a massive and distinct difference from the proper role and mindset of a ‘Peace Officer’.

    Add in the insular ‘bubble’ nature of police/policing, the steady deliberate police militarization, the fed-driven standardizations of training and enforcement activities and then add in the ridiculous false ‘war on cops’ dogma and one is left with a witches-brew petrie-dish of collectivist tyranny coming from the tip of the spear of govt interacting with the citizenry.

    The agency heads live to pontificate on the dangers, the need to expand mission, expand budgets, gain new equipment, prepare for more threats, cry-wolf to gain public attention and public sympathy which is designed and effective in putting public pressure on those who will then cave-in and give the ‘hero-enforcers’ what they need to ‘go home at night’ and to ‘keep us safe’.

    Propagandaministers from days gne by would be in awe of how systematic and effective the control and information grid is and how effective it is at controlling public opinion and public demands for action. War is peace, up is down, black is white.

    Truth is treason in this empire of lies.

    Go against the trend and the plans for a collectivist-inspired police state and you get to see your funding, fed-grants, task-forces, networking, status and public image all take a hit from those entities who desire to see the size, scope and power of ‘The State’ grow and reign supreme.

    A transparant, ridiculous and insidious paradigm.

    There really should be no surprises here.

    1. avatar Hasdrubal says:

      I’d put at least as much blame on the lawyers, legislators, and judges who lobby for unconstitutional laws, write and enact unconstitutional laws, and uphold unconstitutional laws when they are challenged in court, as on the police for enforcing them.

      Still, here in WA nobody has been able to find a single officer, deputy or trooper willing to enforce the unconstitutional mandates of I-594. In fact, some agencies publicly said they would refuse to enforce it.

      http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/11/robert-farago/wa-state-patrol-wont-arrest-universal-background-check-protesters/

      1. avatar JB Karns says:

        Well, yeah…the whole system is rotten, but this article and commentary is about the cops.

    2. avatar SteveInCO says:

      *populace.

      “Populous” is an adjective meaning having lots of population.

  29. avatar Dave Lewis says:

    Most people outside the law enforcement community don’t understand how LEO’s view the world. Cops work with other cops, hang out with cops, drink with cops, and do social functions like birthday and anniversary parties with cops. Back when people belonged to organizations like the Elks and Masons, cops belonged to cop clubs like the Emerald Society. Today cops have mailing lists and Facebook groups. On the job cops associate with two classes of people – criminals and victims. For the most part they regard victims either as people who did something extremely stupid like leave the keys in their car or their house unlocked, or as people who really are criminals and want the cops to go after their enemies for them. If they see a person as a criminal its because he or she is a “frequent flyer” and should be put away or put under the sod. There’s no middle ground in the cop’s world.

    In small town and rural America law enforcement officers are a part of the community. They often work in the town that they grew up in. They go to church in that town and know everybody and have real roots in that area. If they work for a sheriff department, they’re working for an elected official who depends on the good will of the voters to keep his or her job

    I’ve made no secret of the fact that I’m a reserve deputy sheriff. I’ve worked for the sheriff’s office for 25 years and I am a manager since I’m too old and fat to chase 16 year olds. I’ve tried to do my best to enforce the law – and no matter how much the libertarian and anti law enforcement POTG would argue – crimes like murder, theft and blowing up the OKC Federal Building and killing babies must be seen as an outrage to society. With all of that I’m known as a guy who believes in the constitution. I’m glad to work for a sheriff who believes the same way.

    So why do some cops support gun control? In this tired old deputy’s view its because of the isolation of law enforcement from society in general and the urban/rural split in our society. Is there any way to fix that? I’ll leave the answer to people who are smarter than me.

    1. avatar JB Karns says:

      You said:……………………..”and no matter how much the libertarian and anti law enforcement POTG would argue – crimes like murder, theft and blowing up the OKC Federal Building and killing babies must be seen as an outrage to society. ”

      What a steaming, stinking attempt to divert from a real and deadly serious issue.

      Psst…I spent near 25 years also, working as a full-status patrol Deputy, a Detective and then competitively promoting to Corporal, then Sergeant, then Lieutenant and finally to Captain, commanding the Criminal Investigations Bureau and the subsequently the Patrol Bureau, which was from where I retired. Hell, I even acted as a Police Academy Director.

      I know the ins and outs of all levels of policing, thoroughly, and I know the varieties of people who make up its personnel and how the ‘big-picture’ operates…having interacted and networked extensively with local, county, state and federal agancies in a plethora of venues.

      I, to my continuing self-satisfaction and continuing amusement, often acted as a massive and rare Constitutional turd in the LEO punchbowl.

      That said and to put things back on track…neither I nor anyone else I noted here made an argument against enforcing laws on criminal acts that have real actual victims.

      Perhaps you missed the whole fundamental police/crime 101 thingy, of ‘Malum en Se’ crimes, which are things that are evil and wrong in and of themselves regardless of whether there is a ‘law’ against it. Things such as rape, murder, theft, assault, burglary, child molestation, ect…

      This -vs- the ‘Malum Prohibitum’ crimes which make up a monster-portion of what the legions of intrepid ‘hero law enforcers’ focus on. These things are only ‘crimes’ and against ‘the law’ because some collectivist puke-fuck in the legislature or from govt somewhere, decided they didn’t like individuals doing something that causes zero harm to the Life, Liberty or Property of other people, yet it is made ‘illegal/against the law’.

      Get the difference?

      Being militaristic, aggressive, demanding obedience and compliance, being predatory in focus and spending a massive amount of time and effort with that mindset and those attitudes to ‘catch’ people doing something that is ‘against the law’, of the Malum Prohibitum ilk and then ‘enforcing’ it, often using force and escalating things to deadly force, frequently.

      For what?

      These type police actions are wrong actions, they turn the proper role of policing in a free society on its head, they cause anger, fear, animosity, distrust, resentment and/or a righteous indignation and spirit of non-compliance to develop and grow amongst the prey (general population).

      Such victimless ‘law enforcement’ of Malum Prohibitum crimes have zero to do with keeping the peace, do not comport with the Oath to support and defend the Constitution and everything to do with indoctrination/behavior control/revenue generation and subjugation, designed to maintain a controlled and compliant populous and ‘the state’ in control.

      Bottom-line, such Malum Prohibitum/victimless crimes spawned by the evil ethic-philosophy of Collectivism, do not comport in any way, shape or form with one’s Oath to support and defend the Constitution. Period.

      Yet, golly gee whizzers, look at the near universal lock-step of regular focused ‘enforcement’ (read predations) from our intrepid ‘hero cops’ of these travisty edicts made crimes.

      So, take your attempts to equate overall policing with catching rapists, mass murderers and such and pound that and copious amounts of extra-coarse sand directly up your arse.

  30. avatar Chris Mallory says:

    They are perfectly fine with civilians being armed. They want to see citizens disarmed. Civilians are government employees not in the military, this includes cops.

  31. avatar J.R. says:

    The more power you get, the more control you want. Weapons in the hands of common citizens discourage those who “wish for” or “want” total control over the population.

  32. avatar Dan says:

    Many LEO are part of the “us vs them” mindset. They view themselves as special, privileged and above the law….and when you see what they usually get away with they have good reason to believe that. Thus they
    feel THEY are entitled to own guns but the mere mundanes beneath them should not. That is not a universal
    statement as many LEO do believe in allowing citizens to defend themselves but a substantial number of them
    would be more than happy to disarm us, and if tasked with that objective by politicians would happily attempt to
    do so.

    ANY person who seeks a position of power and authority over other, and this would include police chiefs,
    sheriffs etc. is invariably doing so for THEIR benefit, not to ‘serve the public’. Like politics such jobs draw
    people who have an innate need and desire to control others. Control REQUIRES that you be able to
    physically dominate and dictate to those you intend to control……as in rule. Doing so REQUIRES that your
    intended subject be UNABLE to offer effective resistance. Thus the desire by those in power to disarm society.
    Doesn’t matter if it’s the Earl of Whatever making longbows illegal for farmers, a congressman making guns illegal for citizens or a selectman making phasers or blasters illegal for their subjects the rationale is the same.

  33. avatar Carl in Alaska says:

    Anytime a police chief appears on camera with a hat or his hat in the Col. Klink crush mode I’ve lost any respect or trust immediately before he says ONE word not that appointed chiefs have any trust due. A twenty-three years Air Force E-7 veteran, twenty year volunteer fire service Battalion Chief, eleven year sworn Commercial Vehicle Enforcement Officer

  34. avatar Brian knows of the robots says:

    I know psychopaths. They hate people not just able to protect themselves, but having dignity. They like the phrase “How dare you…” as a precursor to their atrocities. They view themselves as demigods above you, the profane, and it is their right as the ubermensch to not only be surrounded by collateral damage of screaming innocents dying, unarmed and unable to help themselves, but it is their created priviledge to kill a few of those innocents themselves. By collateral damage, of course.

  35. avatar Jim in Conroe says:

    Police chiefs are appointed by city government. They reflect the political mindset of those who appointed thorn, and they set the agenda for the policemen below them. Sheriffs are elected by the people in their jurisdiction, and they reflect the electorates expectations, as do their deputies.

  36. avatar alexander says:

    The question is not why most chiefs of police are anti-citizen / anti-2A, which is easy to understand – they are anointed by the statist system which is an exclusive club. That, I think, most of us understand. The question is why are the rank and file cops (many, if not most) are anti-citizen / anti-2A? At the threat of offending some here (although, if those offended truly reflect on it, they may see the logic), the police profession provides an opportunity for people of relatively low education, moderate or less financial means and without any special privileges due to birth or anything else, to command other people, often of much higher statue then themselves. This is one of the understood, but, obviously, not advertised perks of the profession. As such, this “perk” also happens to attract personalities that enjoy this and, obviously, those personalities are not champions of others’ freedoms. Added to that the obvious anti-2A bias of the chiefs and the closed brotherhood of armed and law-wielding private club, they grab as much power as possible. And oftentimes, if you can’t get yourself into a better position, by worsening the position of others, one may appear to have gained.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
DeSantis Gunhide Question of the Day: Why Do (Some) Cops Support Gun Control? http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2016/05/robert-farago/desantis-gunhide-question-day-cops-support-gun-control/" title="Email to a friend/colleague">
button to share via email