NFOA MEMBERS FORUM
General Categories => Newsworthy => Topic started by: unfy on July 19, 2013, 03:49:18 PM
-
http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/07/19/3041852/commission-allows-omaha-mayors.html (http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/07/19/3041852/commission-allows-omaha-mayors.html)
The administrator of the Omaha Douglas Public Building Commission granted the request for Chief of Staff Marty Bilek, who served for 38 years with the Douglas County Sheriff's Office. He retired from his position as chief deputy to accept the position with Stothert.
I approve. Baby steps.
Also, recently spiff with fire fighter's stuff is also a thumbs up in my book so far.
-
:thumbs up:
-
Isn't it nice she has special security that the common citizen can not get? And security that our children can not have in schools.
-
I'll give her/them a thumbs up myself. This slight change of course in direction is a lot more optimistic than the path we've been on.
-
I like the fact that the method to provide her added protection is by simply arming a current employee. And even better that this particular employee has so much experience in law enforcement and correspondingly firearms. That is what I call not only a step in the right direction but knowing and using your resources.
-
The only thing that that I see that could be a better story, is Mayor Stothert arming herself. ;) A pistol totin' lady mayor- now wouldn't that send a message?
-
And even better that this particular employee has so much experience in law enforcement and correspondingly firearms.
If you are saying he had a specialized job as a Sheriff, such as weapons instructor, then I would agree with that statement.
If you are saying he has a lot of experience with firearms simply because he was a Sheriff's deputy, then I would say that is not always true.
The Sheriffs may have more weapons training than other police departments, but unless they were specialized in their job which required more than average use of firearms, then Sheriff does not necessarily equal experienced in firearms.
Not trying to insult any officers of the peace here, but I know a LOT of people who put more rounds downrange than most LEOs. I've also met some officers who didn't know the model of firearm they were issued. When i asked one officer what they carried, they said "Beretta". When I asked what model, they said "Beretta 40".
ETA: Overall, I think this staff member carrying is a good thing. However, the ignorance of the non-gunners is that the police are "highly" trained and us people on the street are just morons that are going to soot themselves or an innocent bystander. This is the bigger hurdle we need to overcome. The elite (Politicians, celebs, etc.) will always be granted these benefits, and all they have to do is give a person the right to carry a gun just because they had a badge in a prior job. Even though they may have barely passed the shooting requirements each year.
Fly
-
Fly,
Yeah, I agree with that. Just because someone is a LEO doesn't mean their a weapons expert and also just because a person wasn't in the service or a LEO doesn't mean that they're incapable or less than capable of their counterparts. I don't like the idea that LEOs automatically get special "rights and privileges" because of their badge even when they're off duty or retired.
A gun-toting lady mayor would be in stark contrast to mayors elsewhere. A woman taking her own protection into her hands instead of the **** eating grin fake empty suits that of other big cities. :)
-
A gun-toting lady mayor would be in stark contrast to mayors elsewhere. A woman taking her own protection into her hands instead of the **** eating grin fake empty suits that of other big cities. :)
If one of these elites actually took responsibility for their own personal protection, then THAT would be the best thing for our cause.
Fly
-
I believe it is only right that even though the "building" didn't allow concealed weapons Marty Belik be allowed an exception while working for the mayor simply because as a LEO for 38 years he probably has put away a few bad guys. No doubt there are a couple among that number who would love to "get even" and aren't concerned about gun laws and gun free zones. What better place would there be to ambush someone than a "gun free" zone?
I'm in exactly the same situation, which is the reason why I got my CCW. I make it a point to stay out of GFZ's as much as possible, and never advertise where I'll be at any given time.
-
This is not really in the "right direction"... politicians have no problem making exceptions for themselves or those they can benefit from....this has never changed and never will (just look how they like to exempt themselves from Obamacare and gun control).
So, nothing new here and nothing has moved anywhere....this decision means nothing.
LEO = woopy doo-da when it comes to firearms....they are nothing special.
-
I would rather read in the news that our new Mayor is requesting a concealed gun be allowed versus reading that our ex-Mayor is focusing his campaign on gun control. That is the change in direction I referred to.
-
I would rather read in the news that our new Mayor is requesting a concealed gun be allowed versus reading that our ex-Mayor is focusing his campaign on gun control. That is the change in direction I referred to.
I'm sorry, but what's new? What's good for us?
So, the politicians and those close to them continue to have armed protection while the rest of us are left defenseless...what's new?
And again, this is to "protect the mayor"...nothing new that they will arm those around them to safeguard themselves.
http://www.omaha.com/article/20130719/NEWS/130719192 (http://www.omaha.com/article/20130719/NEWS/130719192)
And this isn't the first time this kind of "exception" has been made.
When they disband registration, purchase permits, CCW permits, killing zones ("gun free zones"), and realize that public property (including that city building, courts, etc.) is owned by the populace (including those that exercise their rights and arm themselves) and not the government...
Then there will be something to cheer about.
-
You do realize we are of the same mind here, right? :)
I'm not cheering by any means, my reply was a simple "thumbs up". I agree with you on where we should be, where we need to be. This is all only a step in the right direction for a change.
-
You do realize we are of the same mind here, right? :)
I'm not cheering by any means, my reply was a simple "thumbs up". I agree with you on where we should be, where we need to be. This is all only a step in the right direction for a change.
Yes, I do...
But I am just trying to figure out what this "change" is that you are talking about...
A politician has armed someone to protect them (the politician) while leaving the rest of us defenseless... nothing new..."exceptions" like this occur all the time.
Is it just that it was in the "news"? Because I really don't find this "news"...stuff like this makes the news from time to time...
I have question for the mayor though....if they need the increased protection...what do they have planned? and for which cause does their plan benefit?
I know they also claim it's for his protection...but what about our protection?
"Cohen said this is the first concealed-carry request from the Mayor's Office in his 13 years at the commission, but he said he would approve other requests if applicants could prove they needed to carry a gun as part of their job."
So, government officials/representatives lives are more important than our lives? We have to justify why we want to be able to defend ourselves?
The police get to carry their guns into banks and other "restricted" places all the time...their lives are somehow more important?
The sheriffs carry in the courts and such...their lives are somehow more important?
Secret Service carries everywhere...their lives are somehow more important?
Who is going to protect us from the LEOs?
LEOs are not there for our protection (even our corrupt courts recognized that)...that is just an inadvertent side-effect that may occur from time to time...and sure some may actually put their life on the for someone else...but most of the time the officer is merely defending themselves as an attacker is going to target the biggest threat first and that would be the officer.
I know ....preaching to the quire....I am just saying this to illustrate there is nothing new here.
(BTW...Nothing against the good LEOs out there, they are few...but just recognizing the reality of things...though I don't agree with anything more than a small sheriffs office and maybe the secret service...no city/state/etc. police... sheriffs once enlisted the populace in the enforcement of law directly as needed (i.e. manhunts), we should do that again...not to mention the sheriffs are elected, they have the final say on law enforcement in their county, even over the state and feds.)
-
I like it. Anything that desensitizes the general populace to the idea of concealed carry is a good thing.
-
You are making some very good, very strong points. And like I eluded to, I can't argue with you.
I may be the black sheep here, but to be honest, I don't mind a lot of the current gun control laws we have. I know without a doubt I would never fire a firearm at anyone ever unless it was literally a life or death situation. I can't even imagine it to be honest. I know a very large portion of the member's of this forum are the same way. Even a large portion of our society fits this description. I'd be just fine knowing you are armed and I am not while we're hanging out together.
I don't mind having a background check ran on me if I buy a firearm. I don't mind having to wait a few hours/days for the Sheriff to run a background check before allowing me to freely purchase firearms. I don't mind having to go to a class before I can legally conceal carry. I don't mind...because I know others are doing it too. I am adamant about not giving up any more freedoms, but our current "inconveniences" do not permit me from buying any firearm I would ever want. I grew up with my rifle in the rack behind the seat of my truck. No one ever discussed gun safety because we lived it. We respected firearms, but viewed them only as tools. I guess you could say I was raised responsibly and expect the same from my fellow citizens.
In essence, the Sheriffs, Deputies, Police Officers, etc are YOUR paid, armed protective service. Us everyday people don't have the means (or necessity thank God) to hire a paid gun man to accompany us on our routine through out the day. Granted, if I am caught speeding, I am going to pay a fine. But, I also know these same law enforcement officers wouldn't hesitate to draw and fire on anyone who threatened me if I am unable to defend myself.
Why is our Mayor allowed an exception or say someone like me? Well, for one thing, nearly everyone in this city knows her, very, very few people here know me. There isn't a thing I do that will ever cause someone to lose their property, make their taxes go up or cause their children to have to go to a different school. Our Mayor is at a lot higher risk of offending someone than I am.
As confirmed earlier, this recent allowance is not earth shattering news, its not reason to celebrate and claim victory. It is merely a positive bit of news in what has been months of anti gun discussions and actions. Per the organized effort of our Board Members and others here in the Association, I wrote a LOT of emails and made a LOT of phone calls several months ago. I voted for a Mayor that I felt was a positive change for us all. I am an advocate of legal gun ownership and promote gun safety any time I discuss firearms. I am member of the NRA and I freely donate finances to this Association. I don't mind at all that our Mayor understands and accepts firearms.
The most important thing though that I want to say...is after reading your signature, I want to thank you for your Service :)
-
I like it. Anything that desensitizes the general populace to the idea of concealed carry is a good thing.
This is a big one. I have some very liberal anti gun friends that actually agree and are comfortable with CC. This is a news article that gets broadcast that puts CC in a positive light and that's what we need more of. It's hard to get changes for the better when we lose the propaganda battle on a nightly basis when they cover the near daily shooting in Omaha. Those shootings are almost all gang, drug, or illegal activity involved but people don't connect the dots that they broke tons of laws to even obtain those firearms.
-
Having spoke to the new Mayor numerous times, and knowing that she is a huge supporter of the NFOA (in the past, was pretty much the only person on the city council that listened to what we had to say and and reiterated it to the council- almost to the point of - "Hey, listen to what Andy and the boys are telling us. Maybe we have this wrong and what do we need to do to make it right. " )
I believe this my be a little wink in our direction to let us know she hasn't forgotten us. ;) At least I hope so.
I truly think, with Mayor Stothert in place and some work, we may be able to remove Omaha's handgun registration, which would be a huge step.
-
Having spoke to the new Mayor numerous times, and knowing that she is a huge supporter of the NFOA
If this is true, great...but never should a politician, they should be watched over with a magnifying glass.
There are many examples of politicians doing things to placate (or play off people's emotions for what they want....Johnson, Bush(jr), etc.) people while behind the scenes they move to destroy them.
I like it. Anything that desensitizes the general populace to the idea of concealed carry is a good thing.
Yes and no...it shouldn't be desensitizing, it should be about educating them to realize what the real problems are. That objects are not the problem and that the so called controls on the objects are actually controls on people.
Not desensitize, but knowledge that someone with an object is not the problem, that it is the person they must look at. It should be the norm to see weapons. Basically to where they want to see people armed.
Desensitizing is very bad thing for any purpose.
(Though, I do suppose that is what you are actually meaning.)
In essence, the Sheriffs, Deputies, Police Officers, etc are YOUR paid, armed protective service.
Not so actually. They are paid to enforce laws, but they supposed to enforce certain laws over others when there are conflicts in the law (i.e. Constitution enforced over all other laws). They are not paid to protect us, nor would it be a good idea for us to do so or think so. When you outsource your personal safety and protection to someone else, you have just given that person control over you.
The individual is the ONLY one that can protect themselves, no one else can or be required to do so (btw - requiring someone to do so would be a violation of that persons rights...if that person chooses to do so, that is their choice...and no one has any right to put someone else in danger for their sake).
After all, for a crime to occur at all, there has to be 2 individuals involved (property is an extension of the individual). Who is already at the scene from the very beginning? The victim. Law enforcement are never and can never be there, except of course on the off chance they are the victim or randomly walk onto the scene as things kick off.
Law enforcement (and government in general) are pure reactionary, as it should be. They can only get involved after the fact. Giving them pro-active powers would mean we no longer or soon will no longer have any rights at all.
"Security/Safety provided by another, is nothing more than tyranny breaking in through the back door."
Remember: Governments loves crime, it gives them a way to push laws/regulations to take control over the people. It is in government's best interest to keep crime levels high and people in fear. That is yet another reason why the better armed the populace is, the safer the populace is.
-
Two of the first thing the new pro-gun mayor has done is have a city sponsored firearms turn in no questions asked to the Omaha PD. Now she has gotten special permission for herself to have added armed security for her and her staff.
Time will tell as she goes down a path, which one she has chosen.
-
For those of you from outside Omaha...... Thank you to those who support the new mayor and what she is about. The ones who don't...... What buisness is of yours anyway? She has only been in office for a month. Do you expect these changes to happen overnight? I think more change needs to happen but at least I know it doesn't happen overnight.
As the new mayor of a city that was rapidly going downhill I am sure she has a lot on her plate. I voted for her because I thought she was the right person for the job. I'm willing to give her the chance and the time to make these changes. If you don't live here and aren't willing to give her the chance take your comments elsewhere.
If I have offended anyone good. I am just getting tired of people who don't live here bad mouthing her. It's not just on this forum it's everywhere.
-
+1 Mike M.
I live outside of Omaha but work there and I completely agree with that. I took every opportunity I could to talk her up to Omaha residents at my work because I felt like she had the best chance of making changes to our benefit. Not only with firearms but with taxes and business decisions as well. Even though they are elected by a majority they always walk a fine line with governing over the whole populace.
-
I spent an hour with our new mayor in a social, private friendly setting this past Friday night, I learned a lot and if, which I believe that she is, is true to her word, we are in good hands. There may in the very near future be an announcement that will be heartwarming to us all and a huge step in the right direction!
-
There may in the very near future be an announcement that will be heartwarming to us all and a huge step in the right direction!
I hope so.
Those of us who are Nebraska citizens but live outside of Omaha have a vested interest in Omaha politics, especially those that relate to the 2nd Amendment. The population of Nebraska is, as of 2012, a total of 1,855,525 people. Greater Omaha had a 2012 population of about 750,000 people, which is about 40% of Nebraska's population. Omaha can have a significant effect on Nebraska politics. Just one example is Cobra.
-
Don't take me wrong...I am very happy to see the last Mayor gone...they were trying damned hard to turn Omaha into another Chicago, New York, or DC.
But how many times has a politician claimed to be "pro-gun" (horrible term, pro-armament or pro-rights, because there are more rights at stake and the 2nd amendment doesn't only apply to firearms, it applies to ALL weapons of the modern infantry; meaning full-autos, anti-tank, grenades, knives, etc.) and then helped pass a law damaging the people's rights?
I was just saying that this is nothing new, meaning no change is being found in either the media or government.
No, nothing is expected over night, that is unrealistic.
Just can't say "I support them" necessarily.
If she moves to repeal, not just amend/alter, the current laws completely...I will do what I can to help her.
Simply, NEVER trust a politician, even if they claim to be on your side.
-
Judging someone before they as an individual has done harm is abhorrent to being free
Those are your words on another thread. Give her a chance to surprise you if that's what it takes.
-
Those are your words on another thread. Give her a chance to surprise you if that's what it takes.
Did I say I was judging her? Did I say I wouldn't have voted for her? No, but that doesn't mean I trust her or support her without questioning her motives and possible hidden plans.
I also said:
If she moves to repeal, not just amend/alter, the current laws completely...I will do what I can to help her.
That is "giving her a chance"...that doesn't mean I'm going to just jump on board and go a long with whatever she does/says. That's like all those idiots that vote based on party or recognition instead of character, quality, and moral structure of the individual person and then on top of that, cease to be involved.
I base people on what actions they make, not what they say.
And just because she appears or claims to be on the side of securing/protecting individual's rights, doesn't mean that we shouldn't be watching her with a microscope.
Every single move and word said, either private, personally, or professionally by a government official/representative is the people's business, because as long as they are a government official/representative, every single thing they do and every single word they say is said/done in our name.
-
I spent an hour with our new mayor in a social, private friendly setting this past Friday night, I learned a lot and if, which I believe that she is, is true to her word, we are in good hands. There may in the very near future be an announcement that will be heartwarming to us all and a huge step in the right direction!
Fairly soon, anyway...
;)
-
/me looks at the thread
What have I done ? :-\
Good to see some debate though ;D
-
What have I done ? :-\
We didn't say it was your fault. We said we were going to blame you! :P :D :laugh: