Skip to content

Are The Police On Our Side?

27 February 2013 @ 09:35

I can’t blame many people for asking that question these days, what with people like Senator Diane Feinstein claiming:

Our support is very broad. The White House has been very good. They’ve been very clear. I think we’ve got all the police, we have all the mayors virtually.

Who do you and and what should you believe?

I think Jeff Goldstein has the best answer:

…For the political arm of our local police forces, taking away a citizen’s ability to be his own first responder creates a greater need for the police, which in turn leads to bigger budgets, more control, and the increased militarization of their local forces, generally through the largess of a government who joins them in their commitment to move the balance of power away from the individual and toward the state and its policing apparatus. Which makes the political branch of law enforcement a natural ally of the progressive.

Whereas Sheriffs, on the other hand, tend to lean heavily in favor of keeping citizens as first responders, because doing so helps keep their jurisdictions better policed.

So this is not terribly surprising to me, the support of the nation’s police chiefs for strict gun control — though I suspect it’s coming as a shock to a lot of “pro law-enforcement” conservatives.

The ‘political branch of law enforcement’ is made up of police chiefs and often their deputy police chiefs, who owe their positions to their municipalitie’s elected officials. This is as it has always been since police forces were first formed in the 19th Century.

These days, these political cops have been joined in their efforts to control/eliminate private firearm ownership by some members of their forces who have bought into the paramilitary mindset that has invaded a large number of our police organizations.

[As for the sheriffs, in the Comments section of Jeff's post, SBP remarks:

Sheriffs are elected. Chiefs of Police are appointed bureaucrats.

That is the difference in a nutshell.]

Traditionally, the vast majority of the rank and file of police officers have been supporters of the Second Amendment and, therefore, one could safely assume that they were on our side. However, given the para-military mindset that is present and growing in police forces these days [especially when it comes to state police departments], which is partially due to the hundreds of millions of dollars that has been handed-out to police forces by the Department Of Homeland Security, I think we have to realize that we can no longer assume this glass is half-full. It’s sad to have to offer this advice, but these are dangerous times.

It’s awfully hard these days to be a pro-law enforcement conservative.

SIDENOTE: At one point in his post, Jeff comments:

Timid legislators confused about the public mood or terrified about being portrayed [by the pro-gun controllers] as “pro grade-school children slaughtering” may buckle; but in the trenches, there are many who absolutely will not. It’s almost as if the left is looking to create the conditions for a civil rebellion so that they can paint gun owners as potential domestic terrorists, and by so doing move even closer to the goal of all-out confiscation.

Given the age in which we live, I no longer have any doubt that this is exactly what the Left In America is up to. To make matters worse for us, they are pursuing their ends on a double-track: on the other, the Left is seeking to have us labelled mentally ill.

When they kick at your front door
How you gonna come?
With your hands on your head
Or on the trigger of your gun

When the law break in
How you gonna go?
Shot down on the pavement
Or waiting on death row

You can crush us
You can bruise us
But you’ll have to answer to
Oh-oh, the guns of Brixton

  1. 27 February 2013 @ 20:39 20:39

    It’s getting bad. I mean when I go to Yankee stadium to see a ballgame not only do I have to empty my pockets, take my hat off (in case I am hiding a bomb under my cap) and submit to pat downs, but the NYPD dressed in bullet proof vests holding “assault” weapons are everywhere. We live in a permanent police state now.

    Somethings going to give, and it’s going to be ugly.

  2. 27 February 2013 @ 21:43 21:43

    I was a county official in Ohio, and my own experience is the Sheriff is far different from the Police. A few places they are as bad as the Police (the Sheriff in the county next door had a couple SWAT cops kill someone serving a “no knock” warrant at the wrong address when the homeowner armed himself because of the banging on his front door. He didn’t survive the next election, although he wanted to stay around. I was acquainted with him and told him to his face that defending the Deputies was one of the dumbest thing he ever did and advised him to simply retire since he was eligible. Rural counties don’t appreciate it when their Sheriff starts acting like the LAPD, or LVPD.

  3. Roxeanne de Luca permalink
    28 February 2013 @ 11:46 11:46

    The police do not have any legal duty to protect you, or even come to your aid. There are many torts cases in which women were raped, killed, tortured, beaten to death, stalked, harassed, or had acid thrown on their faces, and the police did nothing. When they, or their heirs, sued the police, the police won – simply because courts will not find that the police have any legal responsibility to you.

    Just saying.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: