Gun Control: A War Not a Conversation [W:170]

[Heebie Jeebie]

Re: Gun Control: A War Not a Conversation

Yes, I have found that in the past. It is the exception in dictionaries rather than the rule. Every standard dictionary of the English language as used in the States that I have ever seen indicates that cops are not civilians and say so quite clearly.

And I have found others that do not include the police or firefighters in the definition. It is irrelevant as the police are governed by civilian law not military law or 'police officer' law. They may have a specific designation while on duty but off duty they are just civilians and follow the same laws as everyone else.

 

[haymarket]

Re: Gun Control: A War Not a Conversation

And I have found others that do not include the police or firefighters in the definition. It is irrelevant as the police are governed by civilian law not military law or 'police officer' law. They may have a specific designation while on duty but off duty they are just civilians and follow the same laws as everyone else.

I will be happy to examine what you submit.

So are you now conceding that police officers while on duty are not civilians?

 

[BretJ]

Re: Gun Control: A War Not a Conversation

Please read my post above to see what I think is causing all this revisionism to a normal dictionary definition that sat unchallenged for as long as I can remember.

If the dictionary - and that is every one I can locate - clearly states that police officers are NOT civilians - lets ask the important question as to why... after decades and decades and decades of agreement - all of the sudden this has become a sort of cause celebre among some on the right of the gun issue?

Give an honest answer to that as I have done and it is really obvious what is the focus behind all this.

I have to admit that it is pleasant to see you phrase the question that way. Truthfully? Not sure why it is an issue at all. Outside its use in bills and legal documents pertaining to relationships between the military and noncombatants (civilians), it can mean whatever it means with no real legal or societal ramifications. As I stated earlier, we can debate all day on the justifications of why citizens outside the scope of police work should or should not be allowed to own any firearms that the police use; the term Civilian has nothing to do with it in reality IMO. It is an empty argument point. The keyword that I would concentrate on is citizen.

 

[Heebie Jeebie]

Re: Gun Control: A War Not a Conversation

So are you now conceding that police officers while on duty are not civilians?

They are police officers while on the job, just like a fire fighter is a firefighter, just like an EMT is an EMT, just like anyone else is. They are allowed to do specific things on their job that others cannot, just like a doctor can do, like an electrician can do, just like anyone else can. They cannot steal your stuff just because they are on duty and be charged under 'police law'.

Off the job they have the same rights as we do except as allowed by civilian law.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Gun Control: A War Not a Conversation

Again, you quibble because others do not use the terms you true believers prefer. And you just admitted that the article was correct about effective gun control.

You make a great witness for my case Turtle. Thanks for testifying.

I guess when you post a turd laden article like that crap from Rolling Joints that is the best you can do. The fact is, the anti gun assholes in the press have been deliberately interchanging non-interchangeable terms in an effort to alarm the sheeple. AR 15s are not military "grade" rifles since they are incapable of fully automatic fire. why do you rely so much on dishonest douchebags like the writers at Rolling Stone Magazine which is a far left libertine rag

 

[haymarket]

Re: Gun Control: A War Not a Conversation

They are police officers while on the job, just like a fire fighter is a firefighter, just like an EMT is an EMT, just like anyone else is. They are allowed to do specific things on their job that others cannot, just like a doctor can do, like an electrician can do, just like anyone else can. They cannot steal your stuff just because they are on duty and be charged under 'police law'.

Off the job they have the same rights as we do except as allowed by civilian law.

Agreed.

So are you agreeing then that - while on the job - police officers are not civilians?

 

[haymarket]

Re: Gun Control: A War Not a Conversation

I guess when you post a turd laden article like that crap from Rolling Joints that is the best you can do. The fact is, the anti gun assholes in the press have been deliberately interchanging non-interchangeable terms in an effort to alarm the sheeple. AR 15s are not military "grade" rifles since they are incapable of fully automatic fire. why do you rely so much on dishonest douchebags like the writers at Rolling Stone Magazine which is a far left libertine rag

So they write an expose of how the NRA is out of touch and has become more radicalized over the years and you hate them for it. Got it loud and clear.

I provided you with another source which says much the same thing but you opted to ignore that and simply attack the messenger in the person of RS.

 

[Heebie Jeebie]

Re: Gun Control: A War Not a Conversation

Agreed.

So are you agreeing then that - while on the job - police officers are not civilians?

No they just refer to everyone else as 'civilians'. They are civilians to others doing their job.

When there is a power line down across the road and the electric company say 'civilians should not approach it', do you think they are including or excluding on duty police officers? That is are they authorizing a cop to go up to it or not?

 

[BretJ]

Re: Gun Control: A War Not a Conversation

They are police officers while on the job, just like a fire fighter is a firefighter, just like an EMT is an EMT, just like anyone else is. They are allowed to do specific things on their job that others cannot, just like a doctor can do, like an electrician can do, just like anyone else can. They cannot steal your stuff just because they are on duty and be charged under 'police law'.

Off the job they have the same rights as we do except as allowed by civilian law.

The difference is that they are not obligated under force of law to do their job on or off duty. Military members are. If a police officer refuses to fill a citation quota or show up for work, there is no civilian law which would compel them to short of being fired/lose their badge or raked over the coals. They are no different than any other civilian (nor any more trustworthy). Military members can be arrested and serve time for talking to the media, ranting about the Commander in Chief or yelling at their "boss". There is miltary law and civilian law. Very different beasts and "civilian" is generally used to legally define who falls under which judicial system.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Gun Control: A War Not a Conversation

So they write an expose of how the NRA is out of touch and has become more radicalized over the years and you hate them for it. Got it loud and clear.

I provided you with another source which says much the same thing but you opted to ignore that and simply attack the messenger in the person of RS.

they write a hit piece that starts with the premise that the NRA is evil and they present lies and half truths to come up with something that justifies their opinion. The article is full of disinformation-something anyone who isn't blinded by anti gun hate would see

1) it presumes that being "in touch"means supporting all sorts of idiotic gun restrictions

2) it calls weapons that are rarely used in crimes "military grade"

3) it claims the NRA stifles the passage of "effective" gun control laws. What the piss-ant who wrote that crap fails to mention is "effective gun control" to most people means laws that decrease gun crime while to the piss-ant it means laws that effectively harass honest people

4) the article is full of factually devoid assumptions such as if the NRA would let the assholes in the Dem party pass the stuff they want-crime would go down

The NRA is no more "radical" now then it was when the Dems first launched a jihad against gun rights. Its the Dem party that has become radical on this subject. In 1968, the Dem candidate-HHH was more pro gun than Nixon. Obama and Biden are the most anti gun politicians to hold the Oval office as President/Vice President.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Gun Control: A War Not a Conversation

Again - that language was examined and discussed earlier and refuted. It does NOT say that cops are civilians. The term CIVILIAN LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES refers to agencies that have legal jurisdiction over civilians. It is NOT calling police officers CIVILIANS.

Police officers have the weapons they do as tools of the job. It has not a thing to do with any Second Amendment rights. It has nothing to do with common use. They are exceptions and perform a special job. There are police officers all over the world who have weapons as tools of their job and in many of those same nations there is no right to bear arms. But the cops have them anyways because they are tools of the job.

Cops in the USA having certain weapons has nothing to do with the Second Amendment or any rights under it and cannot be used in any way to back door certain weapons into ownership by average people.

This is the diversion I was speaking of. For years, your democratic party masters claimed that the only thing the Second Amendment guaranteed was the right (LOL) of the States to arm its militia and state officers as they saw fit. SO glad you have rejected that bit of idiocy of Handgun Control Inc and other DNC organs.

but you are diverting. The issue is NOT why Cops have weapons or what law allows that. Its about the suitability of weapons being used by OTHER civilians for use against the same criminals in the same civilian environment as what civilian law enforcement officers use.

Those weapons are clearly suitable for such use by any person and clearly common and not unusually dangerous-which is proven by widespread use by CIVILIAN law enforcement officers

and having BEEN A CIVILIAN LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER I want you to prove your specious claim that the term does not mean I am (er was) a civilian. I most certainly was

 

[haymarket]

Re: Gun Control: A War Not a Conversation

No they just refer to everyone else as 'civilians'. They are civilians to others doing their job.

When there is a power line down across the road and the electric company say 'civilians should not approach it', do you think they are including or excluding on duty police officers? That is are they authorizing a cop to go up to it or not?

Why is it then that dictionary after dictionary after dictionary leads with the primary definition being that a CIVILIAN IS NOT A MEMBER OF THE MILITARY OR POLICE?

Why is it that this entire issue - never ever reared its head until some people on the far right of the gun issue have tried to hijack it to use as a backdoor way to get their hands on the same weaponry as police in states where they do not like current legal restrictions?

 

[haymarket]

Re: Gun Control: A War Not a Conversation

This is the diversion I was speaking of. For years, your democratic party masters claimed ......

aha - the democratic party - right after you accuse me of using a diversion. Amazing... just simply falling down jaw dropping amazing.

The issue is NOT why Cops have weapons or what law allows that. Its about the suitability of weapons being used by OTHER civilians for use against the same criminals in the same civilian environment as what civilian law enforcement officers use.

Actually, that indeed is one of the issues. The other is your dishonest use of the term civilian applied to the police because you want a backdoor legal reason to claim to use their weapons for the reasons I have already cited.

and having BEEN A CIVILIAN LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER I want you to prove your specious claim that the term does not mean I am (er was) a civilian. I most certainly was

No problem. I said so in an earlier post today. But you were not a cop and cops are not civilians even though some people who work in law enforcement are. An apple and a pear can sit in the same fruit bowl but they are not the same.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Gun Control: A War Not a Conversation

aha - the democratic party - right after you accuse me of using a diversion. Amazing... just simply falling down jaw dropping amazing.




Actually, that indeed is one of the issues. The other is your dishonest use of the term civilian applied to the police because you want a backdoor legal reason to claim to use their weapons for the reasons I have already cited.



No problem. I said so in an earlier post today. But you were not a cop and cops are not civilians even though some people who work in law enforcement are. An apple and a pear can sit in the same fruit bowl but they are not the same.

what makes a cop a non civilian and and FBI special agent or a Deputy US Marshal a civilian?

I love watching you pontificate on subjects you have no training in

 

[haymarket]

Re: Gun Control: A War Not a Conversation

what makes a cop a non civilian and and FBI special agent or a Deputy US Marshal a civilian?

I love watching you pontificate on subjects you have no training in

You were a trained police officer Turtle? I am sorry but I thought you were an attorney. My mistake.

What years were you a professional police officer?

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Gun Control: A War Not a Conversation

You were a trained police officer Turtle? I am sorry but I thought you were an attorney. My mistake.

What years were you a professional police officer?

what relevance does that have. I have been (under Ohio state law) a state law enforcement officer (5 years) then a FEDERAL law enforcement officer (24 years)

and yes I am and was an attorney during those times.

are you claiming FBI special agents, DEA special agents, SS agents are not civilians?

I know a Secret Service agent who was an attorney. He served several years as a Special Assistant United States Attorney. was he a civilian?

I am going to have fun with this argument of yours because this was something I dealt with daily.

 

[haymarket]

Re: Gun Control: A War Not a Conversation

what relevance does that have. I have been (under Ohio state law) a state law enforcement officer (5 years) then a FEDERAL law enforcement officer (24 years)

So you were NOT a trained professional police officer but merely an officer of the court in a suit and tie?

I am going to have fun with this argument of yours because this was something I dealt with daily.

If your idea of FUN is constantly being exposed for failing to provide verifiable evidence supporting your claims - by all means go for it. In a weird way, I guess that is fun for me also so we are on the same page. :2wave:

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Gun Control: A War Not a Conversation

So you were NOT a trained professional police officer but merely an officer of the court in a suit and tie?

I was a federal law enforcement officer. We don't call Federal LEO's cops. I train state police officers BTW on use of force.

BTW most federal law enforcement officers where suits and ties. I guess you haven't met many FBI or IRS CID or Postal Inspection service agents.

rather than fixating on me why don't you tell me what makes a city police officer a non civilian while FBI special agents, DOJ OCTF officers and IRS CID agents are all civilians.

 

[haymarket]

Re: Gun Control: A War Not a Conversation

I was a federal law enforcement officer.

I am sorry but I don't know what that means when you say you were a practicing attorney but a federal law enforcement officer at the same time. Can you explain that so we understand the relevance of it to the discussion?

I guess you haven't met many FBI or IRS CID or Postal Inspection service agents.

Wrong. We have a good friend who was a Postal Inspection agent. When we two couples travel together from time to time he loves to entertain us with his stories. He loved it when the President came to town and he was enlisted to help Secret Service.

But again I have no idea why you would ask me that or what it has to do with the issue?

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Gun Control: A War Not a Conversation

I am sorry but I don't know what that means when you say you were a practicing attorney but a federal law enforcement officer at the same time. Can you explain that so we understand the relevance of it to the discussion?



Wrong. We have a good friend who was a Postal Inspection agent. When we two couples travel together from time to time he loves to entertain us with his stories. He loved it when the President came to town and he was enlisted to help Secret Service.

But again I have no idea why you would ask me that or what it has to do with the issue?

Why won't you answer the question

Federal law enforcement officers are considered civilian employees. They are civilians. I was a civilian employee of the executive branch. why are state cops not civilians while DOJ employees are?

The fact is Haymarket-you want to pretend that cops are not civilians so you can pretend that cops need weapons that other civilians cannot be trusted with
that is another fail on your part-why are doctors, teachers, Dem party operatives not trustworthy enough to own the same weapons that politicians decree are most suitable for civilian law enforcement (not military) agents to use for self defense

And here is the question you have dodged for 3.5 years

what weapons are protected by the 2A?

 

[haymarket]

Re: Gun Control: A War Not a Conversation

Why won't you answer the question

Federal law enforcement officers are considered civilian employees. They are civilians. I was a civilian employee of the executive branch. why are state cops not civilians while DOJ employees are?

The fact is Haymarket-you want to pretend that cops are not civilians so you can pretend that cops need weapons that other civilians cannot be trusted with
that is another fail on your part-why are doctors, teachers, Dem party operatives not trustworthy enough to own the same weapons that politicians decree are most suitable for civilian law enforcement (not military) agents to use for self defense

And here is the question you have dodged for 3.5 years

what weapons are protected by the 2A?

And I have given you a direct answer for 3.5 years.

But you do not like the answer so you reject it and keep asking the same question pretending that I did not answer.

As far as trust being the reason people cannot have police weapons in some states goes - I do not remember ever saying one word about that but feel free to prove me wrong. In my advanced years and one step away from the grave, things slip my mind from time to time. Its a good thing they live here forever since somebody like yourself can now bring up where I may have said otherwise and prove yourself correct.

And I welcome that Turtle. I really do. It keeps me on my toes.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Gun Control: A War Not a Conversation

And I have given you a direct answer for 3.5 years.

But you do not like the answer so you reject it and keep asking the same question pretending that I did not answer.

No you haven't, you have diverted and evaded. YOu claim you support Heller which means that Handguns are protected. Yet you claimed no guns are protected. Your position is contradictory.

Back later

and now, why are FBI SAs civilians but the city cop is not (according to you)

 

[haymarket]

Re: Gun Control: A War Not a Conversation

No you haven't, you have diverted and evaded. YOu claim you support Heller which means that Handguns are protected. Yet you claimed no guns are protected. Your position is contradictory.

Back later

and now, why are FBI SAs civilians but the city cop is not (according to you)

Do you confuse me with an omnipotent GOD who makes these determinations? on the one hand I am flattered. On the other hand, I have not made those determinations so cannot explain to you the reasoning behind them. But I will do this for you Turtle.... tell me who makes these determinations and I will be happy to join with you in finding out their reasoning.

I stand by awaiting service to the cause.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Gun Control: A War Not a Conversation

Do you confuse me with an omnipotent GOD who makes these determinations? on the one hand I am flattered. On the other hand, I have not made those determinations so cannot explain to you the reasoning behind them. But I will do this for you Turtle.... tell me who makes these determinations and I will be happy to join with you in finding out their reasoning.

I stand by awaiting service to the cause.

If you had nothing responsive why such nonsense?

 

[haymarket]

Re: Gun Control: A War Not a Conversation

If you had nothing responsive why such nonsense?

Why does the truth bother you so much?