If an LEO asks why you carry...

[brolin1911a1]

I honestly can't remember any LEO asking *why* I carry. I can remember several conversations after being asked *what* I carry. The responses generally run along the lines of "good choice. I carry ____ myself when off duty and my wife carries a _____ ."

[Dave Nowlin]

If an LEO asked me, I would ask him, "are you willing to follow me around every minute of every day to protect me and my family?" I would then tell him,"if you aren't, then I suppose it's my responsibility." I would also tell him, "I don't carry with a desire to hurt anyone. I carry to prevent someone from hurting me or a family member."

[Detroit 45 acp]

It's Detroit they understand why I carry LMAO!!!!!

[WB9IIE]

...my humble opinion may not carry much weight but...

Regardless of your tenure on the forum, Your opinion does matter. It may be exactly what someone needs to answer his/her question. Keep on making comments. If you are off base, I'm sure someone will point you in the right direction.

[WB9IIE]

Hey Barnwell: Good reply--you said it all in a few sentences. Having ridden along with an LEO on traffic patrol (in our town you can do this to your heart's content just by asking), particularly at night or watching Cops on TV, it becomes obvious that stopping a car can be a very dangerous experience and the LEO has got to be very wary and cautious at all times if he wants to go home after a shift. Put in his shoes, I wonder how some of these more vocal "constitutionalists" on this forum would react if confronted by a motorist who has already,from their perspective and evidence, committed a traffic infraction, and is now showing reluctance and some opposition to him when it comes to a firearm? I cannot believe that they would find that to be a fine example of our democratic system--they would be suspicious as all get out and would probably go the extra yard to ensure their safety and not the "constitutional rights" of the traffic violator.

A LEO's main objective on the job is to get home for dinner. If can do that, it was a successful day.

[brolin1911a1]

Hey Barnwell: Good reply--you said it all in a few sentences. Having ridden along with an LEO on traffic patrol (in our town you can do this to your heart's content just by asking), particularly at night or watching Cops on TV, it becomes obvious that stopping a car can be a very dangerous experience and the LEO has got to be very wary and cautious at all times if he wants to go home after a shift. Put in his shoes, I wonder how some of these more vocal "constitutionalists" on this forum would react if confronted by a motorist who has already,from their perspective and evidence, committed a traffic infraction, and is now showing reluctance and some opposition to him when it comes to a firearm? I cannot believe that they would find that to be a fine example of our democratic system--they would be suspicious as all get out and would probably go the extra yard to ensure their safety and not the "constitutional rights" of the traffic violator.

I've found myself agreeing with most of what kecarry has said during the year-and-a-half this thread has managed to stay active. But when WB9IIE cited the above quote, I found myself repelled by the underlying assumption that it is reasonable for cops to abuse and/or ignore basic Constitutional rights if they feel their safety comes first.

Like most government employees and officials, police officers take an oath to defend and protect the Constitution. Period. His oath is not to honor that Constitution except when it causes him problems, is inconvenient, or puts him personally at risk. Quite a few patriots and soldiers have experienced risk and even death to uphold that Constitution so casually dismissed in the above statement.

The Constitution is not, as one Liberal college student with whom I once talked called it, a "nice sounding document that cannot be allowed to stand in the way of a good idea or the will of the people." The Constitution is, rather, the fundamental document expressly laying out what government (and government agents) may legitimately do. More important, it states what said government and agents, including police officers, may NOT do.

Any LEO who feels that those limitations are optional and may be violated if he (or she) feels safer doing so has no business wearing a badge. Doing that job is voluntary. There are other, safer jobs if they feel that they can't do that one without violating the Constitutional rights of the member of the public with whom they come in contact. The Constitutional rights of each individual member of the public come first and hundreds of thousands of Americans have paid the ultimate price down through the last two hundred-plus centuries to assure that remains true.

[jsimmons]

My answer: "Because cops are too heavy."

[fullofdays]

OP here -- This thread has really grown over the last year and a half. It has been great to hear others opinions on why we carry and I have learned a ton from this discussion. Thanks to all who have replied.

[Treo]

OP here -- This thread has really grown over the last year and a half. It has been great to hear others opinions on why we carry and I have learned a ton from this discussion. Thanks to all who have replied.

Wow you came back after all this time to check on your thread?

[BravoSierra2012]

I'm new to the forum so this thread is new to me. When citizens ask me if I carry "a" gun off duty I say no. Funny they never ask me if I carry 2 or 3. Funnier than that is when Leo's ask me why I carry 2 or 3. Murphy's law and the 12/6 rule will never change