Jump to content

The NFL comes out of the gun closet...they're "ANTIS"


hgmeyer

Recommended Posts

Just amazing how tight tinfoil can get... Sometimes I am sorry about the company I keep and today is one of those days.

 

The red x in the upper right of your screen will fix the problem of not hearing what you don't want to hear. Follow your oath.

 

Same reason you don't open carry to work and make yourself a poster child for the "movement".... Wife, kids, mortgage.... I was willing to risk my life on a call that I know I had a chance of making a difference but I am not able to deceive myself into acting like Don Quixote just to make a point that would be lost in the wind. And, in addition, you don't know, so do not profess to know, what I did or did not do if I did find a person carrying while not committing any other crime. You paint with what appears to be a prejudiced brush.

 

And, doing the job as directed by my superior officers while also following the law as it was on the books, was exactly what one part of my "Oath" was... No part of any Oath told me I got to sit as my own SCOTUS and make those decisions above my pay grade. Until Heller, McDonald, Shepard/Aguilar; the AUUW and UUW laws were interpreted as Constitutional. I didn't agree and would loudly and often state my opinion.

 

I am curious as to what has happened to some individuals that cause them to hate an entire profession.

 

And, BTW, USMC 67-71, 2 tours...., so do not kick sand in my face about serving like you are some elite kind of person... You have no reason to make this personal, but you have and I won't play anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no problem with off duty police having no special privlages regarding firearms

 

If the world made sense they would have all the same requrements as the rest of us workers and pesants the 128 hours a week they're off the clock

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just don't understand why we are all so divided about something like this. These are more restrictions on gun owners, regardless of their profession. And if an entity as big as the NFL will do this to law enforcement, what will come next. This is death by a thousand cuts...and we have people here who say, "if I can't carry, LEO can't either". That's not really a good argument for our cause. We should be defending the right to carry. How will we ever convince the NFL that we should be allowed to carry at a stadium if we tolerate any restriction on anyone? Do I think firing into a crowd is smart? Of course not, but I don't know anyone who would randomly do that besides the bad guy. Is there a possibility of a bystander getting hit, there always is....but if I happen to be carrying off duty and the bad guy is right next to me, I can now take him down. But instead, we have people here who say, "if I can't carry, neither can an off duty LEO", rather than saying, "I think everyone should carry in case they happen to be the one guy next to the bad guy shooting." We need to defend our rights no matter who they affect...further restrictions will restrict all of us in the long run.

You seemed to have missed the point. No rights are involved here, only a special privilege. Personally, I am all in favor of private property owners having at least some control over their property and who is allowed to be there and under what circumstances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never did like footbal

Me either I watched about 15 minutes with my brother yesterday and realized there are just too many rules. It's a waste of time to watch. Always was in my opinion but it is more now than ever.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob.....I agree with you that stadiums are private property, and it was a privilege for off duty officers to carry, so we agree there and I definitely didn't differentiate those, so thank you. I am here to learn more than anything, because arguments made on this forum are usually sensible and educational IMO. I guess the point I am trying to make, or the question I am asking is, how does restricting any segment of the population further our cause here for everyone to be able to carry? If the argument is simply that it's private property, and no private entity should be forced to allow carrying on their property, I agree with that portion. The problem I am seeing here though, is that most people are not arguing that because it's private property the NFL shouldn't be forced to allow carrying, the arguments being made are, "if I can't carry there, LEO's shouldn't be able to either". And that is a divide and conquer method that is obviously working. I just think that as a group here, we should always be opposed to more restrictions and should always side with more people everywhere being able to carry, regardless of their profession. How much harder will it ever be to justify anyone being able to carry at any stadium sporting event, when they are already in the process of stripping away the little privilege there was...It pushes us further back. IMO, the more people who carry, in plain clothes at any event, regardless of profession, the more normal it will seem to those who see guns as "scary" or "dangerous". So when you or I walk by with a gun on our hip, it won't create hysteria, cause people see it all the time. But the less visible guns are to those who fear guns due to lack of awareness, the less desensitized they are...and the harder it will be to normalize people carrying. I don't think we are in disagreement, I just think the argument being made by some is focused on LEO's versus the point you made about it being private property. That is the division I do not agree with.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And that is a divide and conquer method that is obviously working.

 

The divide is created because some are getting special treatment and granted rights denied to others because of their 9-5, remove that special treatment and there won't be a divide...

 

The solution is simple, treat everyone equally, one law one set of rules for everyone...

 

If there are going to be gun free zones, off duty police should have to abide by the same rules as everyone else, they should not get special treatment because they wear a badge during the day...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And that is a divide and conquer method that is obviously working.

 

The divide is created because some are getting special treatment and granted rights denied to others because of their 9-5, remove that special treatment and there won't be a divide...

 

The solution is simple, treat everyone equally, one law one set of rules for everyone...

 

If there are going to be gun free zones, off duty police should have to abide by the same rules as everyone else, they should not get special treatment because they wear a badge during the day...

 

 

You logic is a little suspect. The LEOs don't make the rules. The Illinois Legislature made the rules a long, long time ago. You idea of punishing LEOs for the circumstance and removing their right to carry is like you getting a vasectomy because your neighbor has too many kids.

 

Change the rules, don't resent the players; they don't make the rules. Shrinking one groups rights does not enhance yours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You logic is a little suspect. The LEOs don't make the rules. The Illinois Legislature made the rules a long, long time ago. You idea of punishing LEOs for the circumstance and removing their right to carry is like you getting a vasectomy because your neighbor has too many kids.

 

Change the rules, don't resent the players; they don't make the rules. Shrinking one groups rights does not enhance yours.

 

You continue to miss the salient point. There is no right involved. it is a special privilege.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You logic is a little suspect. The LEOs don't make the rules. The Illinois Legislature made the rules a long, long time ago. You idea of punishing LEOs for the circumstance and removing their right to carry is like you getting a vasectomy because your neighbor has too many kids.

 

Change the rules, don't resent the players; they don't make the rules. Shrinking one groups rights does not enhance yours.

 

You continue to miss the salient point. There is no right involved. it is a special privilege.

 

 

Fine, tell me how shrinking one groups privilege enhances yours? It is still a flawed argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You logic is a little suspect. The LEOs don't make the rules. The Illinois Legislature made the rules a long, long time ago. You idea of punishing LEOs for the circumstance and removing their right to carry is like you getting a vasectomy because your neighbor has too many kids.

 

Change the rules, don't resent the players; they don't make the rules. Shrinking one groups rights does not enhance yours.

 

You continue to miss the salient point. There is no right involved. it is a special privilege.

 

 

Fine, tell me how shrinking one groups privilege enhances yours? It is still a flawed argument.

it puts them on the same level as everyone else. it doesnt elevate them above anyone. Least Bud understands that and actually fought for it. your argument that leos deserve special treatment isnt going to win any votes here with us sheeples that arent afforded the same privleges.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remind to bow to the almighty Obama who would reduce all to make all equal. Obvious jealousy and resentment are at the forfront of your logic. And, I fought damn hard to stay alive so I guess I fought for my right to my opinion, as well. I am just glad you don't represent anything other than a fringe element.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just don't understand why we are all so divided about something like this. These are more restrictions on gun owners, regardless of their profession. And if an entity as big as the NFL will do this to law enforcement, what will come next. This is death by a thousand cuts...and we have people here who say, "if I can't carry, LEO can't either". That's not really a good argument for our cause. We should be defending the right to carry. How will we ever convince the NFL that we should be allowed to carry at a stadium if we tolerate any restriction on anyone? Do I think firing into a crowd is smart? Of course not, but I don't know anyone who would randomly do that besides the bad guy. Is there a possibility of a bystander getting hit, there always is....but if I happen to be carrying off duty and the bad guy is right next to me, I can now take him down. But instead, we have people here who say, "if I can't carry, neither can an off duty LEO", rather than saying, "I think everyone should carry in case they happen to be the one guy next to the bad guy shooting." We need to defend our rights no matter who they affect...further restrictions will restrict all of us in the long run.

You seemed to have missed the point. No rights are involved here, only a special privilege. Personally, I am all in favor of private property owners having at least some control over their property and who is allowed to be there and under what circumstances.

 

In most cases they are not private property, they are owned and/or funded by the public. No "private property" rights should exist there, unless wholly owned and funded by a private business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shrinking one groups rights does not enhance yours.

 

Their ability to carry while off duty is a privilege provided to them under law because of their specific 9-5 day job, if it was a right, it would not be dependent upon their day job and would be extended to everyone regardless of their 9-5...

 

The courts have clearly ruled that the 2nd is not absolute, and thus any additional privileges granted to someone because of their day job but denied to everyone else is a privilege...

 

Even worse that privilege is forever extended to them not only during employment but after employment as well, and recognized nationally...

 

To deny that LEO are not getting extended 2nd amendment privileges denied to everyone else is denying the facts in front of you...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Finally, we are headed back to the original issue....It is my belief that the NFL is exercising this policy not because of liability, safety or etc. They are anti gun and showing their cards.

I'm pretty sure they've shown their cards all along, but they don't advertise it on a billboard. If I recall the articles that I've read over the last couple of decades correctly, and conversations with a former lineman who is a friend of the family, it's common practice for the league to discourage firearms ownership by its players. I believe it's part of the rookie orientation process/pre-employment counseling, in addition to many other opportunities regularly taken to discourage ownership. Policy changes in an attempt to govern other groups is not surprising. Likewise, I wouldn't be surprised if we were to learn they've been donating revenue dollars to anti-groups behind the scenes for some time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll answer the question that was proposed, "How does restricting one group's privilege benefit getting rights others are denied?"

 

If, as you say, most LEOs are pro carry, but personally have a nationwide carry permit for life, then they hardly need to become activists to help the rest of us unsanctified people get the same. They might agree with us, but they aren't "on our side", because their side is a national lifetime carry permit. Something that does not exist in any way for a mundane.

 

If, however, they were subject to the same laws as the rest of us, you can bet your a** they'd be out in force fighting for the same rights the rest of us are denied.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well that's an entirely different subject, but I have little sympathy, I agree.

 

If one takes a job where, with an ounce of sense, it's known in advance one is going to be repeatedly put in a position where one's personal livelihood and the stability of family depends on a daily devil's choice between violating and abusing others' rights OR keeping your pension and your job....you deserve no sympathy, or excuses. And "just following orders" is not a valid excuse. See Nuremburg.

 

Nobody made anyone put themselves in that position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remind to bow to the almighty Obama who would reduce all to make all equal. Obvious jealousy and resentment are at the forfront of your logic. And, I fought damn hard to stay alive so I guess I fought for my right to my opinion, as well. I am just glad you don't represent anything other than a fringe element.

You mean those fringe elements that aren't LEO's? Yeah we are real fringe elements alright.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Must have been free tinfoil hat day somewhere.... This post was not about your like or dislike (apparent) for LEOs. It was about an (maybe just to a few of us) obvious manifestation of an "anti" attitude by an influential entertainment combine. Restrictions on concealed carry of any kind erode the opportunities we have to make people comfortable with "scarey gun totin' gun nuts". The recent history of states that expanded concealed carry elsewhere is illustrative of what happens. Nothing! The blood in the streets fear never materializes. Kids don't see their mothers shot by "stray" rounds. None of it happens. But, as long as ever tighter GFZs are created the antis can spew their lies and fearmongering. So, I believe welcoming this because it "stings" the "elitists" living among you as you refer to them, is a mistake. It advances an agenda not in the best interests of the broader 2A community. This doesn't directly affect me, I'm not an active serving LEO anymore. And, I don't like football anyway. But, when I see the NFL say they are making the stadium safer by restricting concealed carry, I see them reinforcing an agenda of the antis....simple message...the NFL says guns are dangerous to the public. Embracing THAT is not in the best interest of the common goal of preserving and expanding the 2A rights of all of us. Sometimes the long view, past the short view over one's own nose, is a better idea. This time is one of those issues, IMO. But, for a few YMMV.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that taking the long view is much better than the short view. Which is kind of what I was trying to get at. It's more damaging in the long run for there to be "elite" government employees who are allowed to be armed with special privileges than it is for gun laws not to apply to all equally. Supporting special privileges in order to fight a semi private organization's anti-gun stance is short sighted, imo, and the greater of two evils.

 

I would also say if they took any public money whatsoever they should have no private property rights to do things like ban guns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@hgmeyer

 

I can agree with most of your sentiments about the NFL on their stance. It is most likely due to their inherent dislike of armed people of any sort. But explain something to me. Do you believe that by supporting an off-duty police officer's ability to carry at a NFL game in any way enhances my ability to carry at one as an average citizen? If not, I do not understand my interest in doing so. You simply are put in the same class as the rest of us disarmed serfs. Sorry about that and I know it must pain you but that is that way it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@hgmeyer

 

I can agree with most of your sentiments about the NFL on their stance. It is most likely due to their inherent dislike of armed people of any sort. But explain something to me. Do you believe that by supporting an off-duty police officer's ability to carry at a NFL game in any way enhances my ability to carry at one as an average citizen? If not, I do not understand my interest in doing so. You simply are put in the same class as the rest of us disarmed serfs. Sorry about that and I know it must pain you but that is that way it is.

 

Not everything always has to be about you....(Do you believe that by supporting an off-duty police officer's ability to carry at a NFL game in any way enhances my ability to carry ) the reality is this is about you and other people. Look in the mirror, do you care only about yourself?

 

Get over your dislike or whatever it is for LEOs. Someday one just might resuscitate your kid or grandchild, he might carry a few unconscious third graders out of a burning school, one of them related to you. Maybe one will crawl into a burning wrecked commuter train and provide life saving care to your sister, brother, mother, father, etc. until they can be extricated. I pulled a rapist off a twelve year old girl and may have saved her life. I am anything but embarrassed about the time I spent working as a police officer. I know I made a positive difference in the lives of a lot of people. I was hospitalized 5 times for a day or more with injuries and treated in an ER over 15 times. I never stopped to think about it or what/when it could happen again. I kept doing the job, serving and protecting.

 

There are thousands of good cops out there today doing the job everyday. They certainly do not deserve disrepect from anyone. The best part, right now, I know they do it for you regardless of what you think of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You didn't really answer my question. How does supporting the right of a off duty policeman's ability to carry a gun into a NFL stadium enhance the average citizen's ability to do the same?

 

Explain this to me.

 

I know LEO's do all those wonderful things you have described above. But answer the question that I asked and I'm all about supporting all you off-duty cops who want to have a dog, drink a beer, carry concealed, and enjoy a game.

 

** Edit I mean the dog you eat not the dog you shoot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...