Too Many Guns in the Wrong Hands?
It's Time To Expose The Lie!
Most rank and file Law Enforcement Officers [LEO's] are opposed to gun-control. The ranking officers and politically appointed ranking officers profess to be for gun-control. I submit that is their public stance; in private they are against gun-control. Recently some have spoken out. What have they said? Briefly they are against gun-control that restricts the legal ownership of firearms, including hand-guns.
Let's start with the courageous Chief of Police from Cedar Grove New Jersey, William Schnieder:
"We do not have to fear the law abiding citizens who posses firearms, nor do we have to fear the so-called special interest groups that are the vehicle to protect firearm owners rights. We must fear the criminally minded, as they do not go to their local police chief or superintendent of State Police and apply for a firearms ID card or a pistol permit."
The evidence that LEO's are opposed to the Brady bill and further restriction on legal ownership of firearm's, and hand-guns in particular, is not a figment of my imagination. I have more statements from active duty and retired LEO's that I want you to read.
Charles F. Russel-NJ State Trooper Ret.:
"There is no public consensus of opinion [sic] to outlaw any kind of firearm in New Jersey. If the same political buffoons pushing for more gun-control were not trying to pull one over on the citizens of our state, they would be moving for New Jersey to sponsor repeal of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. But they know that the public would never support that, and it remains to be seen what their real motives are. Anyone who believes disarming honest citizens will reduce crime is short of ability for critical thought, or is a toady looking for political favor and, in any event, is a traitor to the memory of the boys who died to keep American rights intact."
Lt. George Banta-Palisades Interstate Parkway Police [retired]:
"I have been a police officer for 26 years and I strongly support the right of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms.
Contrary to popular belief the majority of rank and file police officers do not support blanket gun control.
The answer is not to pass more laws banning firearms, the answer is to enforce the laws we already have and take firearms out of the hands of criminals, not law abiding citizens."
Sgt. Anthony Percoskie-Palisades Interstate Parkway Police [retired]:
"I retired in March '94 and I fear no reprisals. The police chiefs assoc.[sic] do not speak for me, and never have, and I resent the fact that in their statements they imply that they do. I nor any of my men have ever been polled in regards to this issue.
In all the years that I was a police officer our department has never made a gun arrest involving a legitimate gun owner or NRA member. I might add that our area of patrol is on the New Jersey side of the George Washington Bridge and we deal with a lot of spill over and transient crime out of New York City, the Bronx in particular."
Det. Leonard Sileo-Fort Lee Police Department [retired]:
"I've been a Police Officer for 25 years, 12 with the Palisades Interstate Parkway Police and the balance with this department. I have been the Range Officer for Ft. Lee PD for the past 10 years.
On the surface gun control may sound like a good idea, but when it restricts the law abiding citizen from ownership, or imposes excessive laws to allow that citizen get or own a gun, I am opposed to it.
It has been my experience that the felon obeys no law. It has also been my experience that when a crime is committed it usually happens when the Law is not present. The citizen must have the opportunity to defend himself until the Law gets there. Police cannot defend every citizen 24 hours a day, we don't have the manpower. The law abiding citizen must be allowed to posses legal firearms, including hand guns.
As a Range Officer I have some expertise when the discussion is firearms, and I think this "assault rifle" law is ridiculous. The felon gets all the "assault weapons" he wants illegally, and is totally irresponsible with it's use, the law abiding citizen on the other hand, buys "it" legally and uses "it" responsibly."
Notice that the LEO's that have come forward are now "untouchable," by that I mean they are secure in their pension and can not be touched by political retribution. I know that there are many more that are afraid of retribution or re-assignment, and therefore won't say what they feel for the record. If they allowed me to include their statements I would be able to have well over a hundred statements like the ones in this article.
As you can see the consensus is that Law Abiding Citizen's [LAC's] along with LEO's will be the only people without adequate firearm's to defend themselves.
A felon, by definition , has no thought or concern for waiting period's, restriction on the type of gun he/she may legally own, or the responsibility of the ownership of his/her choice of weapon. The felon has only one thought; 'How can I rip this dude off'... all you have to do is read a newspaper or see an interview of the mutants that they caught in Florida that shot the tourists.
Perhaps it was best said by Judge Ellen Morphonios-Gable of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in Florida, in an interview with The American Police Hall of Fame's Dr. Stephanie Slahor.
Judge Morphonios is a law-and-order judge who feels those who misuse the law or commit a crime should be penalized and LAC's should be left alone. One such example is restrictive laws about firearm's ownership. She feels that such laws are "going to do absolutely no good whatsoever. The only ones who will obey them are the ones who obey the law anyway." On the other hand, the criminal will not obey such laws and will, she says, "Capitalize on the knowledge that the victim of the burglary, robbery, or other crime will be unarmed."
She cites automatic weapons as a prime example. There are very restrictive laws in place already about the ownership of such firearms. She says, "The criminals don't seem to mind they've got them [the firearms]. They don't care about your law. It means nothing."
Gun Control law's have not and will not control crime; if anything it will increase crime. There are thousands of gun control law's throughout the United States, and since their implementation crime has sky-rocketed. Law abiding citizen's, by definition, obey the law, felon's by definition do not.
If you were to take a map of the United States and highlight the areas with the most restrictive gun control, and then overlay that map with the areas of the highest crime you would see the overlay fits almost perfectly. Why is that? Could it be that the felon would rather practice his/her trade in an area that he/she could be fairly certain that their prey would be unarmed?
The two best examples to illustrate this point are Morton Grove Illinois, and Kenesaw Georgia. Morton Grove introduced strict gun control, and the crime rate increased five fold, Kenesaw required that all head of household be armed and their crime rate went to a statistical zero.
'nuff said?
|
