TexasCHLforum.com

Boston mayor opposes police plan to arm officers with AR-15s. The plan would strictly control which officers were allowed to have the weapons and under what circumstances they could be used, but that's not enough for the mayor. This is the next logical step in the liberal plan. First you work to disarm the citizens. Then you question why the police have such evil weapons. Finally, the only people left with the firepower to control the populace is the federal government and its armies.

The liberal police chiefs had better wake up and pay attention, because they're next.

Pretty sure EVERY one of us reading this realizes the complete irony that the disarmament is happening in Boston.

I have a first cousin who is a Cambridge, MA police officer. When he visited Houston last fall for the Houston to Austin charity bike ride, I was shocked to find out he is not allowed to have a long gun -- AR or shotgun -- in his patrol car.

Didn't feel like arguing with him, but internally I was rolling my eyes at more Massachusetts nonsense.

Jumping Frog wrote:I have a first cousin who is a Cambridge, MA police officer. When he visited Houston last fall for the Houston to Austin charity bike ride, I was shocked to find out he is not allowed to have a long gun -- AR or shotgun -- in his patrol car.

Didn't feel like arguing with him, but internally I was rolling my eyes at more Massachusetts nonsense.

In South Texas "Stop Sticks" are the shotguns. Harder for the perp to dodge.

That new mayor has been a union member/leader since he was old enough to buy a gun. He was union president (Laborers Local 223) before being elected mayor.

The Boston PD needs to sic their union on him and explain why what the new mayor thinks "is necessary" is directly related to whether the police union will find his re-election necessary. Also related to how many tickets Laborers 223 members will receive. (This is how things are done in idiotic pro-union libtard states).

BTW, how dumb is the populace of Boston to elect a union president to represent their tax dollars in negotiations with public employee unions?

A-R wrote:That new mayor has been a union member/leader since he was old enough to buy a gun. He was union president (Laborers Local 223) before being elected mayor.

The Boston PD needs to sic their union on him and explain why what the new mayor thinks "is necessary" is directly related to whether the police union will find his re-election necessary. Also related to how many tickets Laborers 223 members will receive. (This is how things are done in idiotic pro-union libtard states).

BTW, how dumb is the populace of Boston to elect a union president to represent their tax dollars in negotiations with public employee unions?

You have to remember that these are the same people who elect Kennedys, Kerrys and Obamas. Next question...anyone?

Good article on history of patrol rifle that was linked from another article about this Boston issue

http://m.lawofficer.com/article/tactics ... reloaded=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

wow....sounds like Cambridge, England, not the US....just, wow

Are there valid reasons for non-SWAT officers to have ARs for on duty use? Is giving ARs to these same officers further militarization of the police forces?

If the BGs got 'em then by all means I say yes, but would like to read some differing opinions.

I don't think it's "further militarization of the police forces". I think it's giving them the right tools for the job.

You wouldn't expect a mechanic to work on your car with nothing but a pair of pliers. You would expect him to have the right tools for the job.

LEOs are paid to go into harms way. A handgun is a poor weapon at best. It's a "gotta have it right this second" tool. Most people who are shot with a handgun not only survive, but often stay in the fight. An officer having a long gun when they know there's a good chance they'll need to shoot is having the right tool for the job.

If it were up to me, there would be a patrol rifle and a shotgun in each patrol car.

scottmeador wrote:Are there valid reasons for non-SWAT officers to have ARs for on duty use?

Yes.

They should probably carry whatever firearms are Legally in the hands of the Citizens in the same State. Including magazine capacities.

scottmeador wrote:Are there valid reasons for non-SWAT officers to have ARs for on duty use? Is giving ARs to these same officers further militarization of the police forces?

If the BGs got 'em then by all means I say yes, but would like to read some differing opinions.

One never knows when they are going to run into the next Michael Platt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_FBI_M ... d_injuries" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

rbwhatever1 wrote:They should probably carry whatever firearms are Legally in the hands of the Citizens in the same State. Including magazine capacities.

this

Massachusetts is a prime example of government of the public employee unions, for the public employee unions by the public employee unions, a hallmark of Democrat liberalism by which they are infatuated. Just remember, they have to live with it.