Armed Females of America Pro Gun Women on Full Auto

"No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's
permission when we require him to obey it." Theodore Roosevelt, Message 1904

A few days ago, Armed Females of America leadership asked me to reply to an inquiry by someone using the handle of "Ranger" and purporting to be a police officer asking why AFA does not support H.R. 218.(the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act) As National Spokesperson for this organization, I formulated a reply to this inquiry. What transpired can only be called ludicrous and, to an extent, frightening.

It’s true police officers put their lives on the line. They face dangers. Many of them are at risk every time they put on a uniform. I have nothing but respect for the law enforcement community. The numerous letters of support Armed Females of America has received from peace officers around the country are gratifying and duly appreciated.

But there are some out there who soil the very badge they wear. They are oath-breakers. They are petty tyrants, traitors to the US Constitution, irrational, illogical, immature, self-absorbed children who chose this noble profession in order to wield their power over the “little folk.” These are the police officers to be feared. These are the police officers who foster distrust and discord between the police and the people they have sworn to protect and serve. These are miserable mediocrities who engage in vain chest-pounding about how brave, how heroic and how special they are, while they exert their considerable force over the people who they believe are less deserving, less special and less brave than they are.

I urge you to decide for yourself which type of cop engaged in the following exchange.

AFA leadership wanted me to reply not only in my capacity as National Spokesperson, but also as the wife of a police officer, who fully supports our right to keep and bear arms. My reply is below in full:

The next morning I had two emails in my Inbox - one from AFA leadership and one from this alleged “police officer.” Ranger’s response made me laugh at its pretentiousness, arrogance and lack of logic. The AFA message frightened me. Apparently Mr. Police Officer emailed AFA leadership his justification for why he believes special treatment for police officers is a good idea, and they were appalled and revolted at this man’s gall - much like I was when I read his mail. AFA leadership wrote, “Holy crap, Nicki is this guy for real? Or am I missing something here? Police officers are above the law!” What followed was the message below:

So let’s get this straight. Ranger thinks he deserves special privileges because of the job he chose. He believes he is above the very law he is sworn to enforce and believes he’s somehow special for choosing a profession that purports to hold him to a higher standard than most of us “mortals.” Because he believes that he faces grave danger during the performance of the duties he voluntarily accepted as part of his job, he believes he is more entitled than the rest of us to defend himself. And he believes his job entitles him to receive special dispensation in not being subject to the same laws as the rest of us.

I was repulsed by the very nature of what he wrote, and I decided to include a reply to this bit of Orwellian rhetoric in a later reply.

The second message of the day -- the one from Ranger -- came in the form of rambling self-aggrandizement and conceited, vituperative slams.

Again, note the “I’m not only better than you, more privileged than you and more entitled than you to exercise my rights, but I’m also better than your husband, because I’m a New York police officer and he’s a lowly fed!” attitude that permeates this ramble. I also copied these exchanges to several Second Amendment rights activists, to keep them apprised of this dialogue. My replies below in blue to each of his points:

His next message told me how sorry he was - as if his sympathy somehow could save me (or any other disarmed victim) from rape or violence - but he informed me once again how much better and more deserving he is to exercise his rights. He asserted that the reason he’s more privileged is because it was his job and had the temerity to compare a fundamental right to making a car purchase! Notice also the smarmy and supercilious show of sympathy and braggadocio all in one rambling message. My emphasis added.

Not understanding the subtle hint that I considered this conversation over, Ranger followed up with the typical playground slam of someone incapable of rational debate.

At this point I realized that conversation with this person was useless, so I did the only thing that was in my power to do. I told him this conversation was over and provided a definition of “elitist” for him, so he could consider what I said:

Now, if you recall, I mentioned earlier in this essay that I copied a few Second Amendment rights activists to keep them in the loop about this exchange. I will not mention the name of the correspondent who was so appalled by this discourse, that he felt compelled to write Ranger and tell him that he had lost this debate. The name of the activist is not important, but the essence of his message was: Ranger’s position is elitist and disgusting. Intellectually and logically he has no leg to stand on.

Apparently, Ranger didn’t appreciate being informed of his fascist ways. So he lobbed the following (confirming in the process that government decisions are rarely based in intelligence and logic), even though I had already asked him to stop emailing me:

Here you have a typical tool of tyranny spouting the same tired and well-beaten platitudes Sarah Brady and crew spew on a daily basis. We disagree with him and his ilk, ergo, we must be dangerous. We are passionate about our cause, so we must be mentally disturbed. And if we’re dangerous and mentally disturbed, we must be disarmed. And like all would-be armed oppressors and ignorant imbeciles, he has the gall to claim that rights are GRANTED to us peons by the likes of him and his statist compadres.

This was not a rational human being with whom I wanted to continue the conversation. So once again I attempted to end the exchange. But to no avail.

I had hinted at my desire to end the conversations, and told him directly to stop writing me on another.

And yet, Ranger emailed me again. But this time, he reverted to playing the victim. He assumed the role of the wronged, hurt party by implying that I would somehow attempt to harm his property, that I was irrational, and dangerous and asserting his anxiety at my attitude. Here, again, we see typical emotionalist rhetoric and attempts to paint gun owners as dangerous and irrational for asserting our rights. He can’t win with logic, so he reverted to the “I’m making sense and you’re an irrational bully” routine.

I was gratified to note that ranger did not contact me again. He did, however, contact AFA leadership and accuse them of “harassing” him, after his name and badge number were requested in order to report him and his statements to his superiors:

This man is an embarrassment. He is an embarrassment to his profession and he shames the very badge he claims as a source of pride and privilege. He’s irrational, elitist and dangerous. He does not understand the importance of the position he holds (or held, as he claims to be retired) or its true meaning. He simply holds his power posture as a perk which he can exploit. He attempts to force the badge to make him honorable, instead of doing honor to the badge.

His assertion that he and his brethren are ABOVE THE LAW should be a clarion call to every patriot, every lover of freedom and every American to be vigilant and be wary. These are the types of petty, power-hungry tools tyrants use to oppress their subjects and ultimately destroy their freedom.

And this is the type of person who has a monopoly on force in New York City - a man who claims he is above the law.

MESSAGE TO THE READERS: I have not included any email addresses, except my own and that of AFA in this article. Despite my contention that my correspondent is a repugnant human being, I don’t want his Inbox littered with hate mail or admonishments. If you have a comment to make, please either send it to me, or directly to AFA. We will publish it. This man obviously visits and reads the material published on our website. He will get your message loud and clear.

Nicki is a US Army veteran, who spent nearly four years in Frankfurt, Germany on active duty at the American Forces Network. She is a former radio DJ and news anchor and a Featured Writer and Newslinks Director for Keepandbeararms.com. She is also a former contributing editor to the National Rifle Association's newest monthly magazine, Women's Outlook and she is currently the contributing editor to Concealed Carry Magazine and writes occasionally for the Libertarian Party. She resides in Virginia with her family. We are also proud to have Nicki as regular contributor to Armed Females of America and to speak for Armed Females on our position against gun control and freedom issues.

Copyright © 2004 by Armed Females of America. All rights reserved. Permission to redistribute this article for noncommercial purposes is hereby granted, provided that it is reproduced unedited, in its entirety and appropriate credit given.

I read your history of correspondence with Ranger.

I'm equally apalled at this attitude by a serving or retired police officer, but I can't say I am really surprised. I'd like to believe that this kind of man is a very small minority in police work.... but I don't.

I believe police are indoctinated with an "us vs them" mentality, and to an increasing degree they are predisposed to treat us all like we are just "uncaught criminals".

Police are conditioned to dominate, they have a NEED to dominate. It is a short step from dominating to intimidating, another short step to bullying.

I do not think that any police officer, chosen at random, is ever very far away from shooting any citizen, and planting a drop gun in his hand.

T. L.
Albuquerque

Nicki.

I just read your dialog with “Ranger”. It is indeed frightening, but it also accurately reflects the position most of the antigun lobby, that the Second Amendment applies only to the Government and Law Enforcement. I just visited the Brady Campaign website where their latest press release is

TO RESTORE SANITY ON GUN ISSUE,
BRADY CAMPAIGN, MILLION MOM MARCH
ENDORSE JOHN KERRY FOR PRESIDENT

Their chief indictment of President Bush is, “ ... President Bush. Every time he’s had a choice, he has sided with the gun lobby and against law enforcement and the victims of gun violence.”

Their reason for endorsing John Kerry is ,” Senator John Kerry has consistently supported sensible gun laws throughout his career in public service. As a prosecutor and as a legislator he has been a leader, working with law enforcement officials on efforts to reduce gun violence.”

They are consistently careful leave rights American Citizens out of the dialog. They frequently include “Law Enforcement Officials” or “Police Chiefs” as supporters of Gun Bans. It seems to me that the push is for a “Classical Police State” in the worst sense.

Thanks for Keeping Up the Fight for Freedom

Paul H.

nicki: Thank you for making your correspondence with this guy available to us "little people". Loved your answerss and the way you kept your cool. mark

Mrs. Fellenzer,
I read your article describing your exchange with "Ranger". I was not at all surprised by his attitude. I work for A major Sheriff's Department in southern California. I am a non-sworn public officer, which means I carry a gun on duty and perform most of the same tasks that sworn deputies do. I am supervised by and work closely with police officers from my own department and other agencies in the L.A. area. You must understand that there is definitely an elitist attitude amongst many police officers. While I share your sentiments regarding my respect for police and the tough job they (we) do, I can provide a unique perspective on the us vs. them mind-set which most police share.

I have been trained to the exact same level as sworn personnel when it comes to arrest and firearms. I have to qualify and maintain proficiency with my weapons just like the sworn personnel. I have been in many situations where I have had to use my weapon to affect an arrest. I have been in fights and I have taken many felony suspects to jail. However I am considered a wanna-be, rent-a-cop in my department. The average citizen does not realize just how low they are in the food chain in the mind of many cops. Almost every agency looks at other agencies as inferior. Hell, even in my own department, if a deputy did field training at a slow station they are immediately dismissed as inexperienced and sub-standard. If your a federal police officer, a county safety police officer, or any one of the many police designations in L.A County which are not working the mean streets, you are nothing in the eyes of the elite cops. If the cops think other cops are losers, how do you think they see you?

Although I and many of my fellow officers have used our departmentally issued firearms in the line of duty to effect arrests of violent felons, we are required to lock-up our weapons every night before going home. I and my partners are prohibited from carrying concealed weapons off-duty. Most of my fellow officers work in extremely violent neighborhoods, yet we are forced to travel home unprotected. I know exactly how the average citizen in California feels.

Although we have fought for the right to carry concealed we are always denied on the basis that we are not sworn and really have no need to be armed. No different from the accountant or the cook in the eyes of the law. Yet politicians, judges, attorneys and the high profile people somehow merit the protection of a CCW.

I know that police officers have to maintain a level of awareness and suspicion when encountering the public during the course of their duty. But I also know first-hand that cops see you and even me, as the enemy. I have even heard officers say that they are glad that the general public can't carry guns, because what fun would it be if everyone could carry. It truly saddens me when I see a police officer confiscate and either arrest or cite-out for a misdemeanor an otherwise law abiding citizen, caught with a handgun in their vehicle or on their person. To be put through the legal system just for wanting to make it home safely every night is immoral. My Sheriff's department badge and civilian I.D. won't get me a cup of coffee at local police station let alone out of trouble if I attempted to carry off-duty. The attitude in CA law enforcement is that only (sworn) police carry guns. Everyone else needs to dial 911.

Now I'm certainly not accusing every police officer of this attitude. And there is a percentage who are pro-CCW for civilians. But I am pointing out that it permeates the majority of the law enforcement community here. And is not helped by the liberal political hacks.

In my opinion law enforcement suffers from the mis-conception that they are truly protectors of the public. While most would like this to be true, it just isn't. We will only rarely stop a crime in progress. Anti-gun elitist politicians prop-up law enforcement officers as god-like heroes who are so well trained, that the average citizen could never hope to match their ability to thwart criminal attack. You must be joking! The average police officer can barely re-qualify each tri-mester at my department. I know private security guards who are more proficient and train harder with their firearms than veteran cops. And I'm not exaggerating. People need to speak-up and take back their right to self-defense through the second amendment. Until then we are all at the mercy of the criminals who are enabled by the out of touch members of our legislature.

I am requesting that my name and department be kept confidential for obvious reasons. Thank you Ma'am.

Sincerely,

******************

Hi Nicki,

Boy, this is wonderful stuff. And I especially like this conclusion of yours …

“And like all would-be armed oppressors and ignorant imbeciles, he has the gall to claim that rights are GRANTED to us peons by the likes of him and his statist compadres.”

Of course the @#$ do grant us the right to carry. Where I live (PA) I had to beg the local county sheriff for a permit to carry. His job, according to PA law, was to make sure I was of sound character (he calls you into his office for a one on one interview.) It’s sole a judgement call.

Keep up the great work and keep your powder dry,

Bob L.

from Hermitage, PA

Dear Armed Females:

I just finished reading Nicki's exchange Ranger. I feel that Nikki was correct in almost every respect. I believe everyone who has not surrendered his or her constitutional rights should be allowed to
carry a weapon anywhere in the United States.

There are 2 points not (or lightly) considered here.

1) If as an off duty police officer early in my life I had not been carring a firearm I would not
be writing this I would be DEAD! Along with this I have encountered people I have arrested 4 states away form home or anywhere I have been a police officer over the last 30 years.

2) This law is one little dent in the gun control and they have for many years took little bites out of our freedom in attempt at a total ban through so many little bites that it becomes total. We need to do the same and anyone we can get exempted needs that exemption until everyone falls under one.
Roger

We have learned that the nobility -- that is, Congress and other high officials -- are exempt from gun control laws they impose on us.
We have seen argument that no one below the rank of knight -- Blue Knight, that is: police officer -- should be allowed to own guns, period, much less have the right to carry them in public.

If there was ever any doubt that we are returning to a feudal society in which peons have only the rights their lords grant them, this should remove it.

A culture in which only the government and its employees are allowed to own weapons is a police state. Whether that police state is right-wing Fascist or left-wing Communist does not matter at all. Indeed, that's a scale that circles around to meet itself in a place as far opposite as possible from human and civil rights. People who put forth that view are brothers and sisters of Hitler, Stalin and Osama bin Ladin.

They agree with human monsters like Hitler's right hand man:

"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA. Ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State." - Heinrich Himmler

"All military type firearms are to be handed in immediately. . . The SS, SA, and Stahlhelm give every respectable German man the opportunity of campaigning with them. Therefore anyone who does not belong to one of the above named organizations and who unjustifiably nevertheless keeps his weapon. . . must be regarded as an enemy of the national government." - SA oberfuhrer of Bad Tolz, March, 1933

Stahlhelm. German for "Steel Helmet," referring to the coal-scuttle, Darth Vader helmet Nazi soldiers wore. Those who used the iron fist to lower everyone else besides the inner Nazi Party to slavery or, at best, fearful survival. Those who personally executed hundreds of people not deemed worthy to breathe air. There was the Master Race, and then there were the "Untermenschen," the subhumans, who existed only to serve. When their usefulness was exhausted, they were executed and cremated along with any record of their having existed.

The Nazis were so sure history would approve that they documented it all. They really expected to be the victors who would write those history books. They thought they were doing the world a favor.

Apparently they are still with us in spirit, even among our self-styled protectors. Who will protect us from them?

The letter writers Nicki Fellenzer tried to reason with are examples of the thugs the Nazis and others valued so highly. The "us vs. them" mentality; being designated "elite:" Those are tools oppressors use to influence the weak-willed and easily led. That's the wolves whispering to the sheepdogs: "You want to be like me."

No offense meant to wolves, who after all have been the victims of lots of bad press -- much like gun owners -- or to the many police officers and government officials who recognize and value, and work to preserve, our rights.

J.C.
Free America

Nicki:

I admire you for your straightforwardness on this subject. Let me say right off that I don't like cops. I am not a criminal but a retired military man who has worked with and around cops all over the world, including INTERPOL, and I have never seen an honest one - not one. Now get mad at me if you will, but I am 74 years of age, been all over the world with the military, served throug four or five wars and have never asked for any special priviliges of government.

First and foremost, Article I, Section 9 of the U. S. Constitution strictly forbids the granting of "titles of nobility" by government. If one doesn't know what a title of nobility is, and relatively few do, it means to grant privileges to one person, or a group of persons, that are not shared by the common citizens. In the case of "peace" officers they have no more authority or due any more respect than the citizen, who can also arrest and detain any law breaker - including cops - under the power of citizen's arrest.

This had to be in order to be excluded from the title of nobility clause of the Constitution. I put my butt on the line by volunteering for the military. My enlistment oath did not give me any special privileges nor guarantee me any special protection laws, and I did not expect any, as I thought I was doing a duty for the country. I have known many, many cops, of near all nationalities, and I can {again} vouch that I have never see an honest one. A cop nine times out of ten "volunteer" for their positions so that they can wear a gun, lord it over the citizens at large, and expect favoritism because of their new positions. The police, of whatever status, are a national army for the protection of the citizens. They know the hazards of their game just as I did when I joined the military. When a soldier gets killed he can be given a military funeral, from his own kind, and the thing is forgotten. The cop expects all citizens to bow down, grieve over the thieving bastard, and enact special laws to keep him from getting killed. It takes a special breed of crud to expect this, and, unfortunately, only the crud volunteer for this "service," and the hiring authorities know this, expect it, and make special considerations to compensate for this.

Now, this army of ingrates expect special laws to add to its status as titles of nobility. In 1818, the state of Virginia was the last needed state
to ratify the original 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which automatically made it a law of the land. That amendment, which now has been "lost" to history, made those accepting titles of nobility subject to loss of American citizenship. Now, lawfully, we have a quarter of the population who are eligible for this loss, including judges, lawyers, and all others who have snubbed their noses at the Constitution to line their own pockets.

Take my word for it, although I won't live to see it, but in the not too far future citizens will be at war with these would be "elite" nobility, and
their masters, and will be hanging from every public utility pole and tree. The attempted disarming of this nation proves beyond any doubt what
the elite have in mind for us. Their ends are near.

R. E.

Hi Nicki,
After reading your "Above the law" article posted in the Sierra Times, you can believe you have a new fan. I don't know how often I've heard a Law Officer reply that he "was the law" when challenged about the legality of his actions. Please keep up the good work. It always pleases me to see another thorn in Big Brothers side.

T. L.
Nakina,NC

PS
Since I'm a male I don't think I can join yoiur organization, but let me know how I can help...

I am active in many police fraternal organizations, some as follows: Past Trustee of New York State Fraternal Order of Police, current Area Representative of the Law Enforcement Alliance of America and the National Police Defense Foundation as a Regional Delegate.

Please know I spoke at the first Mother's Day SAS rally in Washington DC.

As a decorated 20 year law enforcement officer from New York City, I too know the dangers each officer faces on the streets plus the hostile liberal political atmosphere each of us face here in New York, citizens as well as police officers. In 1968 thanks to a national gun control law passed by the house then, all of us lost our basic freedom to purchase and carry firearms intrastate. Especially airline pilots and as you know highjackings on American airlines became commonplace until the devastation of 9/11. A a law enabling pilots to carry hanguns on board airlines has become the law of the land since this horrific event to which I have lost personal friends both police officers and civlians. I am so tired of the anti-gunners and their spin.

I and many law enforcement officers I know have risked our careers coming forward testifying on the behalf of law-abiding gun owners Nationwide as the farce of gun control being effective in curtailing crime, reducing domestic violence and youth violence. The correlation of reducing terrorism or even the thought of international public safety based on gun control is even more ludicrous crime as well as gun crime is way up in Europe. I have published many articles on our behalf, addressed legislators in three states, even been invited to colleges and universities as a guest speaker on the issue of the Second Amendment.

Law enforcement in general had a golden opportunity to install at least our Second Amendment rights as HR 218 was signed into law this past June. Liberal anti gunners were crying the same old battle cry of "Innocent bystanders being shot or cries of cops not meeting various state criteria's on the use of deadly physical force will cause unfair hardship on the officers and their departments due to frivolous law suits and prosecution based on excessive use of force while off duty in another state."

I say lets see in the next several years how 218 impacts society in general, I and other cops who have been there supporting Second Amendment rights will always remain doing so. I cannot speak for the elitist value of 218 other being critical of it on face value may anger some law enforcement officers and that in itself accomplishes nothing at all.

At some point along with states which have CCW laws will clearly define gun control as a complete failure ... I look forward one day soon, all law abiding citizens/government will once again embrace the Second Amendment as clearly defined by this nation's founding fathers.

Lets not let this divide as we move to become closer, gaining ground is our main objective.

R. J. R.
Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge 149