The Thought Police are coming

| June 7, 2011 | 14 Comments

Maybe I should say Here Come The Thought Police AGAIN?

A Second Amendment related decal is causing a bit of an uproar in Baltimore.

“….while the individual who is displaying the symbol may not be armed, the presence of the symbol provides an early warning indicator that you MAY be about to encounter an armed individual.”

I’ll posit that common sense should dictate that ALL LEOs should be careful in ALL circumstances?

It was about a year or so ago when Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano suggested that combat vets ‘might’ become a threat.

Seems it’s okay to profile gun owners and vets, but not certain others?

Category: Gun Grabbing Fascists, Guns, Politics

Loading Facebook Comments ...

Comments (14)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Old Trooper says:

    Ok, here’s the problem I have with the mindset forwarded by “intelligence analysts” and other anti-gun types (you know, the ones that wet their pants when they see someone that is LEGALLY carrying a firearm); do criminals advertise for legal carry? Do criminals walk around open carrying? Do criminals put pro-second Amendment stickers on their vehicles? Answer those questions honestly and you will find that the law abiding, freedom loving types aren’t the ones that the general bed-wetting public and cops have to worry about.

  2. NotSoOldMarine says:

    Seems like a reasonable heads up to me. If I were still an MP or was a civilian cop on patrol and found out that my intel section didn’t forward that info because they were afraid of hurting someone’s feelings I’d be pretty pissed.

    It’s like the chick who wears the low cut top with her boobs falling out that gets gets pissed at people who look at them. If it wasn’t an advertisement then what was it?

  3. NSOM #2: Although I kinda like yer second paragraph (you said boobs) I disagree overall.

    This decal poses no threat at all. Now gang signs, and perhaps certain garb that can conceal identity or firearms are another matter.

  4. redc1c4 says:

    i’d say off hand that the “Criminal Intelligence” section is aptly named.

  5. Doc Bailey says:

    I would think that we could talk to some Russian immigrants that lived through the Soviet era. We can ask them about the dangers of Political Correctness.

  6. UpNorth says:

    Usually, if a cop is making a traffic stop, he/she should probably, at the least, keep it in mind that the driver and/or passenger(s) may be armed. Not saying that the occupants should be proned out, just saying that caution is certainly better than walking up, standing even with the driver’s window, presenting a perfect target if the driver is so inclined.
    That said, if this is the best their “intelligence” unit can come up with, maybe they ought to be spending that money on more crossing guards, or warnings that looking at the sun can be hazardous for your eyes.

  7. NotSoOldMarine says:

    re #3

    I don’t think they were saying the sticker itself was indicative of any sort of threat. It seems to me they were letting their cops know what the stickers mean (I didn’t know) and making the obvious connection that those who are advertising Second Amendment Rights are more likely to be carrying a firearm. I don’t see what controversial or illogical about that.

  8. OldSoldier54 says:

    #7 NSOM,

    “I don’t think they were saying the sticker itself was indicative of any sort of threat.”

    Hmmmmm … really??

    It was the CRIMINAL Intelligence Section, aided and encouraged by the Napolitanista’s of DHS in the Washington Regional Threat Analysis Center, that put out that bulletin. Why should they be concerned if a law abiding, tax payer has a gun? Oh, he/she MIGHT be having a bad hair day so the cop might suddenly get one through the brain housing group?

    Seems to me that the Criminal Intel Section of Anywhere, USA PD should be trying to figure out where/what the drug dealers, human traffickers, terrorists, murderers, pedophiles, etc, etc, etc are up to.

  9. NotSoOldMarine says:

    re #8

    That cops don’t get killed by legally purchased guns carried by 2nd Amendment supporters is a myth. In the past decade over a 100 police officers have been killed by people who legally purchased the firearm used in the killing. As a matter of fact, depending on which data sets you look at, some studies cite legal purchase as the leading source of firearms used in police deaths. It’s simple math, with that many legal guns floating around you only need .001% of them to be used in attacks on the police to start racking up real numbers.

    With that said I’ll say that the intelligence section of the BPD being named the “Baltimore Police Criminal Intelligence Section” kind of logically follows but I’ll agree that it’s not a particularly suave name to be giving to an agency that simply does SA intel work for cops on a beat. I can understand ruffled feathers about that.

  10. OldSoldier54 says:

    #9

    Any links for that data? Any data for how many killed by every body else?

    That’s an average of 10 per year. I wonder how many legally purchased firearms per year over the last decade? 50,000? 100,000? 1,000,000?

  11. Jonn Lilyea says:

    I ordered one of the stickers for my truck…I can’t think of any situation that I wouldn’t want to warn a cop that I’m armed. I don’t think that I’d drive through Pima County, AZ with the sticker, however.

  12. Anonymous says:

    Those damn civilian gun owners– we’ll get them as enemies of human right once the almighty UN’s small arms treaty is ratified and we can enforce social justice!

  13. Anonymous says:

    Baltimore– socialist leftard hellhole anyway, damn shame the cops there will sell out for doughnuts and job security.

  14. NotSoOldMarine says:

    re #10,

    WaPo did a big thing on it a couple years back so its a bit old but the trends are still about the same:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/20/AR2010112002865.html

    calguns.net also had some data but I can’t find the link. When I do I’ll put it up.

    About the number of legal guns though, that was part of my point. There’s simply so many legal gun sales in the US every year that only a tiny fraction of them have to be used in assaults against police officers for it to become a huge number. You also have to keep in mind, that’s 10 deaths a year, not just attacks; bad shooting and ballistic vests save a lot of lives every year in shootings.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *