Posted on 01/21/2013 2:56:23 PM PST by neverdem
What possible excuse can there be for exempting RETIRED cops?
Aren’t they just citizens?
Heard some liberal again demand to know why anyone who isn’t a law enforcement officer would ever need hollow point bullets.
No response or defense was given as to why Social Security people would need hundreds of thousands of hollow points under Baraq’s watch.
If I had been there I’d have gladly offed those two bums for the cops with M1A.
.308 in the head ain’t gonna feel good and I would have been ear down the street when I did it.
YOU DON'T NEED TEN BULLETS TO BLOW AWAY A CRIMINAL!!!
I'M SO NEUROTIC!
DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW NEUROTIC I AM!?!
I'M SO NEUROTIC I COULD ONLY BE ELECTED IN NEW YORK
THAT'S HOW NEUROTIC I AM!!!
WOODY ALLEN DOESN'T KNOW WHAT NEUROTIC IS
THAT'S HOW NEUROTIC I AM!
Time to switch to belt fed weapons....
WOW! You've hit on a GREAT point there. The cops don't need more than 7 rounds because the bad guys will no longer have more than 7. That's an excellent point.
Yeah, there was no excuse for that lack of planning. Not a sniper on the force? Would have stopped it in > a minute with head shots. WTF?
LOL!
I normally support law enforcement and do not suffer from that rabid hate of them so often seen here. When my daughter calls 911, chances are those guys are showing up as fast as they can to help her. Car wreck, stalker, whatever.
But, something todays cops miss is that for most of America’s history the cops have carried much less firepower than the citizenry. This concept that the cops must always be able to carry overwhelming firepower when compared to us is a new thing.
And THAT mentality has changed how they deal with us. Before, they were usually bona fide representatives and protectors of the community. This is why they did not demand an overwhelming firepower, or expect a monopoly of firepower.
The current way of thinking is a subtle way of telling them they are a sort of occupation force, and that they never need to worry about pleasing the community.
So yes, the cops should have to revert to whatever magazines the civilians are forced to use.
Since the NY politicians did not give this “law” very much consideration before passing it, the law probably does not explicitly ban belt-fed weapons. Therefor, they are probably legal. This would be too funny if it were not such an unconstitutional law.
I remember that shootout. The perps had both fully automatic weapons AND body armor, BOTH of which are illegal, but since when has that ever stopped criminals. They finally just ran out of bullets and at least one committed suicide on camera.
No, but maybe their Union who probably supported Obama and Cuomo when the rank and file do the hard work, and their SEIU overlords sell then down the river on so many things they believe in...
Perhaps they need Terry Bowman...
Why do coops “need” more than 7 rounds? We have already heard for Rep Nadler that NO ONE “needs” more 2 or 4 round in self defense.
Well, instead of just dropping snide comments, perhaps you could mount a reasoned defense of why cops should have large magazines to defend against multiple criminal shooters, but civilians should not.
On second thought, I see why you are not bothering to try.
Since when doesn’t “law-abiding retired cops” = “private citizen”?
I don’t recall retired military being given special preferences concerning what they can or can’t carry, yet their oaths remain intact and in effect, too.
Sniper rounds go right through body armor.
Cue the "sad trombone" soundtrack.
There is no requirement to show need to exercise your 2A rights.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.