From my experience, this officer is part of a distinct minority of LEOs. His attitude is condescending and patronizing at best. He is part of the problem.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61 next last
To: Orangedog; TonyRo76; flutters; midwestmidnight
Ping...
To: buccaneer81
If banning firearms is the solution to crime and violence, then banning word processors is the solution to stupid articles like this one.
3 posted on
12/26/2003 5:25:56 PM PST by
bcoffey
To: buccaneer81
What a load!
To: buccaneer81
A few years ago two police officers were debating gun control on a short lived show hosted by Ron Reagan Jr.
The White officer was against control and the Black one was for it. When Ron mentioned that overwhelmingly police were in favor of gun control, the Black officer had enough integrity to tell him that no, in a nationwide survey of street cops by a police supply company, they were about 90% against more gun controls.
7 posted on
12/26/2003 5:31:41 PM PST by
yarddog
To: buccaneer81; *bang_list
Well, its my right, should this bill ever pass, God forbid, to know who they are!If the sentence that includes "Shall not infringe" isn't taken seriously, why should we think he has any Rights?
8 posted on
12/26/2003 5:32:07 PM PST by
Shooter 2.5
(Don't punch holes in the lifeboat)
To: buccaneer81
There have been about 105 homicides in just Columbus this year, many of them involving firearms. Without looking at the statistics, Ill bet not one of the firearms used was a weapon registered to the suspect, purchased legally or that the suspect completed any firearms training. He's an idiot. He just said criminals don't obey gun laws so let's punish the stand up citizens. He's an idiot. He should be fired on the general principle that he's probably a danger to society since his thought processes are in the retarded range.
To: buccaneer81
He even admits that the majority of guns used in crime are
illegal to begin with, yet he wants those who own legal guns to not be able to defend themselves.
Baaah.
11 posted on
12/26/2003 5:34:03 PM PST by
tet68
To: buccaneer81
From my experience, this officer is part of a distinct minority of LEOs. His attitude is condescending and patronizing at best. He is part of the problemThis is not a guy that wants to be a cop. This is a guy that wants to be the chief of police.
To: buccaneer81
Well, where to start.... Lets see... a 24 year LE veteran that is still an "officer" Not detective, not invetsigator, not sergeant, Lieutenant or Captain. Just Officer. That alone speaks volumes. I cannot get over the "blue madness" that seems to overcome cops. They feel that because they carry a badge and gun, that they have been imbued with jedi-like knowledge far beyond mere mortals. I saw it while I was in LE and even more now that I am a PI. But, Officer Barr represents the WORST of the worst.
Semper Fi
13 posted on
12/26/2003 5:36:02 PM PST by
Trident/Delta
(Free Republic....where information is the ULTIMATE weapon)
To: buccaneer81
I am baffled that any law-enforcement officer or agency would come out in favor of the bill. Probably because most have wives/girlfriends/children/neighbors that they can't be around 24 hours a day to protect, and because as "first responders" they get to see the worst of the worst when it comes to predators attacking sheep.
I applaud Gov. Bob Taft; obviously, he is a man of conviction and common sense.
Yeah, just like Adolf Hitler, who also favored gun control.
I have yet to hear the pro-carry people explain why putting several thousand more guns out on the street is a good idea and how that would make us all safer.
Well, it makes *me* safer. Anyway, if this jackboot really wanted to get guns off the street, maybe he should start by turning his in.
There have been about 105 homicides in just Columbus this year, many of them involving firearms
So what. ALL of the rapes in Columbus involved penises. Don't you understand the difference between causation and correlation?
Without looking at the statistics, Ill bet not one of the firearms used was a weapon registered to the suspect, purchased legally or that the suspect completed any firearms training.
Exactly right. And they all carried without a CCW law in place.
Folks, I have a newsflash for you: Most of the firearms used in shooting and homicide incidents are stolen during burglaries or from automobiles. Very rarely are they legitimately owned.
Right again.
I watched the TV coverage of the "peaceful" pro-carry rally at the Statehouse by those who claim it is their right to carry a firearm
Gee, is it also "peaceful" when a bunch of uniformed cops stand around munching donuts while carrying openly?
One man was wearing a pearl-handled .44 Magnum in a Western-style holster. Hes just what we need standing in line next to a family while they wait to get into a Blue Jackets game
Actually, the last thing, We the People need, is some rotten SOB like you carrying a taxpayer-funded gun telling the rest of us that we can't carry ours.
And these same people are fighting public access to records of the people issued permits to carry concealed firearms.
Let's see... first you say most firearms used in crimes are stolen (which is correct), then you suggest publishing the names and addresses of gun owners. Do you see an inherent contradiction there?
Well, its my right, should this bill ever pass, God forbid, to know who they are!
Since you're so eager to learn about people exercising their Rights, why don't you make your name and address public information? Or are you "too important" for that?
14 posted on
12/26/2003 5:36:11 PM PST by
Mulder
(Fight the future)
To: buccaneer81
..more Firearms Equal More Grief, Loss of Life...That's a lie.
Tell this LEO to visit Downunder, and see how crime has exploded since the introduction of our harsh gun laws.
15 posted on
12/26/2003 5:38:14 PM PST by
Byron_the_Aussie
(http://www.theinterviewwithgod.com/popup2.html)
To: buccaneer81; NRA2BFree
"I am baffled that any law-enforcement officer or agency would come out in favor of the bill." - officer Pat Barr
One of the new breed who's been completely brainwashed by the leftist-socialist agenda.
16 posted on
12/26/2003 5:38:24 PM PST by
Mr. Mojo
To: buccaneer81
Officer Barr can set the example by leaving his gun in his locker when he goes off-shift.
To: buccaneer81
And these same people are fighting public access to records of the people issued permits to carry concealed firearms. Well, its my right, should this bill ever pass, God forbid, to know who they are! And just where is the "right" cited by this donut-choking fool enumerated?
20 posted on
12/26/2003 5:43:35 PM PST by
Orangedog
(Remain calm...all is well! [/sarcasm])
To: buccaneer81
There have been about 105 homicides in just Columbus this year...
------------------------
The reason for this is the thugs know nobody will fight back in a city of disarmed wimps. When there were few antigun laws in the '50s the amount of criminality was one tenth of what it is today.
------------------------
"about 105 homicides in just Columbus this year, many of them involving firearms."
--------------------
And many not involving firearms. Banning firearms would only mean the thugs would find a second weapon ot technique of convenience while leaving victims completely unprotected.
21 posted on
12/26/2003 5:44:36 PM PST by
RLK
To: buccaneer81
"I watched the TV coverage of the "peaceful" pro-carry rally at the Statehouse by those who claim it is their right to carry a firearm."The Constitution affirms our right to be armed.
To: buccaneer81
Folks, I have a newsflash for you: Most of the firearms used in shooting and homicide incidents are stolen during burglaries or from automobiles. Very rarely are they legitimately owned
well, talk about defeating your own arguments
28 posted on
12/26/2003 5:51:42 PM PST by
GeronL
(The Revolution should be televised! Imagine the ratings!)
To: buccaneer81
"Most of the firearms used in shooting and homicide incidents are stolen during burglaries or from automobiles. Very rarely are they legitimately owned."If this is true, what then is the problem with CCW?
This cop is totally ignorant and uninformed, not to mention illogical.
To: buccaneer81
Well, its my right, should this bill ever pass, God forbid, to know who they are! I just checked my copy of the Consitution, but I just couldn't find this right you claim to have.
However, while reading through the same Constitution, I found this right, which we all have ("civilians" as well as law enforcement)...
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
If you were an honest man, this subject would be settled in your mind. Any questions?
30 posted on
12/26/2003 5:53:13 PM PST by
Gritty
("The Constitution shall never prevent peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms"-Samuel Adams)
To: buccaneer81
These dweebs need to answer a couple questions.
How many murders are committed by people with a license to carry?
Where it is known that a wide percentage of people do carry, how many murders and armed robberies were prevented?
It's a bit like the phony semi-automatic assault rifle (with background checks) issue. Like with FULL automatic rifles, there is not one known case where people who own fully automatic rifles (WITH the background check and license required) have EVER committed a murder.
Fully automatic weapons ARE legal in 35 states. As long the receiver was produced before 1986 it can be owned by a private citizen.
There are 10s of thosuands of "AUTOs" that are legally owned in the US and NOT ONE LEGAL FULL AUTOMATIC WEAPON HAS BEEN INVOLVED IN A CRIME SINCE 1930's.
People who are willing to have the background checks required to get a legal right to carry -- under present laws -- do NOT commit murder...but they often PREVENT IT!
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson