15,000 Police Officers Weigh In on Gun Control [Charts] - Polidicks

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;40213688]"You care about my constitutional rights, how dare you! I demand you stop trying to uphold the constitution and step down for your support of the document that our whole legal system is based off of." Are you going to tell soldiers to resign if they wouldn't accept orders to fire upon American citizens too? I mean, it's their job to carry out the orders handed down to them by their superiors, right?[/QUOTE] lmfao i think theres a world of difference between enforcing some basic gun control laws and shooting american citizens dead in the streets the 2nd amendment debate is a matter of interpretation, some mongoloid sheriffs personal interpretation of the 2nd amendment doesnt give him the right to not to his job. and if those soldiers wanted to not shoot american citizens, i applaud them, but i wouldnt be surprised if they lost their fuckin jobs

[QUOTE=EnlightenDead;40213697]shooting innocent people might be unconstitutional but its not in my job to think about that so I guess I should do my job and follow my superiors orders A+ logic[/QUOTE] if shooting innocent people was unconstitutional then the NYPD and the LAPD are unconstitutional

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;40213688]Are you going to tell soldiers to resign if they wouldn't accept orders to fire upon American citizens too? I mean, it's their job to carry out the orders handed down to them by their superiors, right?[/QUOTE] Uh, yeah. If a soldier was ordered to fire on his own citizens, I'd sure as hell hope he ditches that outfit ASAP. But hyperbolic comparisons aside, it's not the job of the police to decide whether a law is unconstitutional. That is up to the courts, not the police. A police officer does not have the right to selectively enforce laws, nor is he a lawyer entrusted to review existing laws and determine their validity. He is serving as an agent of the state and must follow its rules, or resign from the position if he cannot or will not (which sometimes is the right thing to do).

[QUOTE=YouWithTheFace.;40213637][img]http://ddq74coujkv1i.cloudfront.net/gun-surveyQ9.gif[/img] why are so many opposed to safety classes? If you learn what you are dealing with you could cause less gun related accidents no?[/QUOTE] I'll never understand how that can't be mandatory. Too many people treat them like some common household item.

[QUOTE=thisispain;40213715]i dont give a fuck what they think. theyre supposed to work for a democratic representative government on the local or state level. they dont get to contemplate constitutional law on the time i pay them. that's the supreme courts job, and thats a delegated power[/QUOTE] They're supposed to work for, like any other elected official, the people who elected them. They're supposed to be the ones enforcing the rulings of the elected government, but they don't work for the government, like any elected office they work for the people.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;40213789]They're supposed to work for, like any other elected official, the people who elected them. They're supposed to be the ones enforcing the rulings of the elected government, but they don't work for the government, like any elected office they work for the people.[/QUOTE] ok well i'm the people and i say do me a solid and enforce the gun laws that we the people pass??

Cops that don't enforce the law should be fired. Plain and simple. It's not your job to decide which laws you'll enforce. Hopefully none of them are promoted to sheriff.

[QUOTE=thisispain;40213476][img]http://ddq74coujkv1i.cloudfront.net/gun-surveyQ16.gif[/img] i thought the police was supposed to enforce the law[/QUOTE] There is also a sworn oath of office, which that oath states you will protect the rights of the people an defend the Constitution.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;40213789]They're supposed to work for, like any other elected official, the people who elected them. They're supposed to be the ones enforcing the rulings of the elected government, but they don't work for the government, like any elected office they work for the people.[/QUOTE] so state and local governments are not representative democracies voted in by the people?

[QUOTE=Zephyrs;40213440]I blame rock and roll.[/QUOTE] I blame Jazz

No demographics? I agree with the polled officers opinions though.

[QUOTE=HkSniper;40213813]There is also a sworn oath of office, which that oath states you will protect the rights of the people an defend the Constitution.[/QUOTE] "cops can ignore the law based on their interpretation of a vaguely worded amendment that people have been arguing about since it was written"

[QUOTE=rilez;40213800]Cops that don't enforce the law should be fired. Plain and simple. It's not your job to decide which laws you'll enforce. Hopefully none of them are promoted to sheriff.[/QUOTE] [url]http://cspoa.org/sheriffs-gun-rights/[/url]

what if theyre a strict STRICT constitutionalist and only enforce what was written by the founding fathers themselves so they start arresting women for voting or something is that cool [editline]9th April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=DaCommie1;40213869][url]http://cspoa.org/sheriffs-gun-rights/[/url][/QUOTE] what is this supposed to prove lol

[QUOTE=thisispain;40213825]so state and local governments are not representative democracies voted in by the people?[/QUOTE] Please point out at what point in that sentence I said that.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;40213869][URL]http://cspoa.org/sheriffs-gun-rights/[/URL][/QUOTE] Your point? They don't get to decide if something is constitutional or not, sorry. That's up to the court.

[QUOTE=rilez;40213886]Your point? They don't get to decide if something is constitutional or not, sorry. That's up to the court.[/QUOTE] My point was it doesn't matter if any of those officers are appointed sheriff, a number of sheriffs are already doing it.

[QUOTE=Kopimi;40213850]"cops can ignore the law based on their interpretation of a vaguely worded amendment that people have been arguing about since it was written"[/QUOTE] "Judges can deem things legal or illegal based on their interpretation of an article written 200 years ago" When you put it that way, anything sounds crazy

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;40213881]Please point out at what point in that sentence I said that.[/QUOTE] i said theyre supposed to work for a democratic representative government to which you said that they work for "the people" not the government obviously youre saying theres a difference between the people and the government in which theres the implication that the government is not the representative functional arm of the people.

[QUOTE=EnlightenDead;40213908]"Judges can deem things legal or illegal based on their interpretation of an article written 200 years ago" When you put it that way, anything sounds crazy[/QUOTE] yeah unfortunately the supreme court is a pretty stupid bunch sometimes but as terrible as they are THATS THEIR JOB. they study the constitution, they study law, they're specially trained and elected to fulfill that purpose no matter how often they fuck up. i trust the supreme court with constitutional decisions a million times more than i do some random sheriff. you have to draw the line somewhere and i think the supreme court is a pretty good fuckin place to draw it

[QUOTE=EnlightenDead;40213908]"Judges can deem things legal or illegal based on their interpretation of an article written 200 years ago" When you put it that way, anything sounds crazy[/QUOTE] that doesnt sound crazy because thats like what the constitution says judges should do

[QUOTE=EnlightenDead;40213908]"Judges can deem things legal or illegal based on their interpretation of an article written 200 years ago" When you put it that way, anything sounds crazy[/QUOTE] The difference is that judges are explicitly given that right. Police aren't given that right at all.

[QUOTE=Kopimi;40213931]yeah unfortunately the supreme court is a pretty stupid bunch sometimes but as terrible as they are THATS THEIR JOB. they study the constitution, they study law, they're specially trained and elected to fulfill that purpose no matter how often they fuck up. i trust the supreme court with constitutional decisions a million times more than i do some random sheriff. you have to draw the line somewhere and i think the supreme court is a pretty good fuckin place to draw it[/QUOTE] Okay, yeah I see your point and agree. I'm not saying the cops are right or wrong, its just their opinion, no matter how crazy it is. Plus 44% SAY they will, saying and acting is 2 different things

[QUOTE=thisispain;40213476][img]http://ddq74coujkv1i.cloudfront.net/gun-surveyQ16.gif[/img] i thought the police was supposed to enforce the law[/QUOTE] when did you get that idea?

The people that misuse guns - the mentally ill, the criminal and the stupid are the disease. Getting rid of guns or certain types of guns is not the cure. The answer is to provide more mental health care, semi-regular mental health checks and attempt to reduce the desirability of owning a gun or the cheapness of guns.

Officers will do as they're told from the ranks. They get stuck doing a lot of things that they dont want to do. Personal beliefs and work beliefs are two things that never mix.

[QUOTE=MrEndangered;40213964]The people that misuse guns - the mentally ill, the criminal and the stupid are the disease. Getting rid of guns or certain types of guns is not the cure. The answer is to provide more mental health care, semi-regular mental health checks and attempt to reduce the desirability of owning a gun or the cheapness of guns.[/QUOTE] calling the mentally ill / stupid a disease lmfao also you realize criminals were once law abiding citizens right? where do you guys get this idea that the only people who commit crimes are hardcore gang members and serial killers or some shit? regular people shoot other regular people. the big link here is almost entirely unregulated access to dirt cheap firearms and ammunition lol what are these magical solutions you listed? "semi regular mental health checks", like for all citizens or just for those buying guns? are you cool with background checks? and how do you "reduce desirability of owning a gun" you cant just make up this shit and pretend everything but guns are the issue

In my country, when you want to buy a handgun (rifles are not allowed) you go through an extensive background check and then you go to the doctor to get checked (blood work, eye exam and psychological exam). After that if you get the permit to own a gun, you MUST complete a 2 week course on handling a firearm responsibly. You learn how to disassemble, reassemble, clean, shoot, safety all of that stuff. I think it works pretty good. America should have a mandatory couple week course on handling firearms for everyone who wants to buy one.

[QUOTE=thisispain;40213929]i said theyre supposed to work for a democratic representative government to which you said that they work for "the people" not the government obviously youre saying theres a difference between the people and the government in which theres the implication that the government is not the representative functional arm of the people.[/QUOTE] I said the sheriff works for the people, I did not say the government is not voted in by the people, but the sheriff doesn't work for the government directly, he works for the people who elected him, and enforces the law of the government. One elected office doesn't work for another, Congress doesn't work for the President, nor do the state governments Congress, even though they are all intertwined by the laws each other creates. All elected offices work for the people who elect them, they do not work for each other, though they can and do collaborate with each other. Now if the sheriff was appointed by the local/state/federal government then that'd be a different story, then he'd work for the government, but as he is an elected official, he works for the people who elected him. While the government is meant to represent the people at a legislative level, the sheriff is meant to represent them at an enforcement level, they can be elected for different reasons, and in different jurisdictions, and each independently of the other has an obligation to the people who voted them into power. [editline]8th April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=H4wkeye;40214020]In my country, when you want to buy a handgun (rifles are not allowed) you go through an extensive background check and then you go to the doctor to get checked (blood work, eye exam and psychological exam). After that if you get the permit to own a gun, you MUST complete a 2 week course on handling a firearm responsibly. You learn how to disassemble, reassemble, clean, shoot, safety all of that stuff. I think it works pretty good. America should have a mandatory couple week course on handling firearms for everyone who wants to buy one.[/QUOTE] Which country is this? I don't think I've ever heard of a country where handguns are legal, but rifles are not.

[QUOTE=areolop;40213464]These are not "facts" these are 15,000 opinions[/QUOTE] Hey, it beats a politician's opinion.