Anonymous
Message from a State Trooper
I am a state trooper in a midwestern state. I graduated from a Big 10 school, then enlisted in the army to see the world. I could make more money in the civilian world, but I like solving crimes and (believe it or not) helping my fellow man. I enjoy shooting all forms of firearms, from machine guns to pistols to BB guns. I consider myself pro-second
amendment, with three exceptions, which are:
1. Teflon coated bullets - or copkiller bullets as they are sometimes called. I was having a discussion with a friend of mine who most LEO's would probably call an extremist. He was for the legalization of these bullets. My belief is that if these were made legal and easily available, it would not be the good citizens of America that we would have to fear. It would be the criminals hiding a small weapon with these bullets under their leg in a car that would cause all of us to lose sleep. Our vests provide little enough protection from an assassin's bullet, and it would be much worse if that bullet would go right through. A rifle bullet will puncture my vest easily, so I don't buy the
argument that it's for the good people to keep the police honest. I fear for the life of my fellow LEO's just walking up on a "routine" traffic stop to be shot by some wanted felon or drug courier who doesn't want to be caught.
2. Domestic Violence - Those convicted of domestic violence should not be allowed to have firearms. Too many times, someone's mother is murdered by their father in a fit of rage or
jealousy. It is bad enough that defenseless women are beaten by their drunked up counterparts. LEO's convicted of Domestic Violence should be stripped of their weapons and told to find another job.
3. Those convicted of Violent felonies - I don't think it too much to ask of society to preclude those convicted of robbery, felonious assault, murder, its attempt, arson, and so on from their well regulated militia. These people should not be allowed to buy or own firearms. They are dangerous creatures. And no, I don't think they should be given a second chance in this matter. When and if they get out of prison, that is their second chance at life, not at owning a firearm.
I don't know if these views hold with you or not, and really I don't much care. These are my opinions, and I stick to my guns. I like shooting firearms, and would like for my son to be an avid outdoorsman like I am. If more dads would take their sons hunting, the world would be a better place and I wouldn't have to take so many car/deer accidents.
Dear State Trooper,
Thank you for taking the time to write and
allow us to publish your words. It's always nice to know there are more
pro 2nd amendment law enforcement officers on the streets.
A couple of quickies you might consider...
Like many gun-related issues, the "cop
killer" bullets issue has been overblown by the media. You might
appreciate the following in your consideration of the "cop killer"
bullet charade:
Regarding the issue of domestic violence,
there are two edges to this sword. On one hand, yes, we heartily agree that a
violent person behaving in violent ways is a problem to be dealt with swiftly
and severely, especially in a domestic setting where such occurrences typically
go unchecked for prolonged periods of time. On the other hand, there have been
cases where men were stripped of their rights simply because a neighbor heard a
loud argument and called the police. No evidence of violence, no charges
filed, nobody in the household even made the call, but guns were confiscated and
not returned - followed by court orders removing firearm rights. In short,
there needs to be a due process and a trial by jury for a removal of rights to
be permanent. (This is not a notion, it is a constitutional right.) Leaving such
an encompassing decision to the whim of a potentially anti-gun judge is
dangerous business.
We will shortly have a detailed article
covering the topic of domestic violence and "restraining orders";
perhaps we will all find new awarenesses around the topic at that time. The
author is going to great lengths to stress the finer points of "restraining
orders" in order to provide a broader perspective for gun owners to
consider.
Finally, on the issue of violent felons,
yes, their guns should be stripped away from them - at the very least until they
have proven themselves to be productive members of society again - and we
understand the "forever" concept: "Commit a violent crime, no
more firearms rights, too bad." While there are those who believe that a
free person should have full right or simply shouldn't be free, the stripping of
rights of someone who, for example, shot someone in a holdup isn't a hard
argument to rationalize, even among many of the heartiest gun activists. We
could debate and explore that whole topic and eventually will, but one thing on
the "violent felon means no guns forever" issue is worth bringing to
your attention for consideration...
There are now places in America where it is
deemed a "violent felony" simply to carry a concealed self-defense
firearm down your own street as you walk your dog at night. In situations like
these, where no violence has occurred, not only do we find the stripping of gun
rights away abhorrent, we see a striking similarity between such laws (and their
enforcement) and identical anti-gun laws seen during the period in history which
led up to the pivotal battle at Lexington and Concord. The British stripped the
colonists of their weapons - with stiff penalties in some instances - simply for
carrying or even possessing them. Today, the socialists in at least two states
in America can (and have done so) slap a felony on someone, call it a
"violent" felony and get away with it. There is one such city where a
mandatory prison term of one year exists - for the "violent" act of
simply carrying (or possessing: SKS in California) a firearm.
That is wrong, both from a constitutional
perspective and a moral one, as well. The right of the people to keep and bear
arms shall not be infringed.
In closing, you said, "I don't know if these views hold with you or not, and really I don't much care."
You cared enough to share your thoughts, we
appreciate it, and we do care, or we wouldn't be doing what we're doing here.
May your son find his way into the sport you love, and may he pass on the fine
traditions of hunting and shooting, wherever he may go, uninfringed upon by the
people who would like to melt down every last privately-owned firearm in
America.
And we would like to hear from you again.
Respectfully,
KeepAndBearArms.com
