Printable View
To me this is a simple issue. There should be just as much regulation for concealed carry as there is for open carry. How much should anyone need to pay the government to put a jacket on?
Constitutional Carry is the solution to the issue. Sadly, our Democratically controlled state legislature will never be able to see the logic to this position any more than they can bring themselves to accept 16+ round magazines or unsupervised private sales of private property.
To me this is a simple issue. There should be just as much regulation for concealed carry as there is for open carry. How much should anyone need to pay the government to put a jacket on?
Constitutional Carry is the solution to the issue. Sadly, our Democratically controlled state legislature will never be able to see the logic to this position any more than they can bring themselves to accept 16+ round magazines or unsupervised private sales of private property.
indeedQuote:
Originally Posted by cstone
Not to trump your former E-7 with a current E-9 in the US Army, however, my longest (by elapsed time) friend happens to be a SGM. His beliefs align with mine.Quote:
Originally Posted by CavSct1983
The reality is that it requires absolutely no military background to have an educated position on 18 years olds being trusted to carry concealed. As an American, I'm entitled to my point of view which is that all 18 years olds that can be trusted to purchase a firearm should be allowed to conceal a firearm. There is really no point, in my opinion, of talking about the relationship to military small arms qualification and anyone's ability to legally carry a concealed weapon because I've made it clear my position is that there should be no qualifier.
You've also stated that you feel the same way in regards to no qualifier, which is why I can't understand your desire to expend so much energy convincing us that military training does not qualify you. My read on your posts in this and a couple other conversations is that you have a strong passion to be right, and to disagree with people who agree with you, because they came to the same place as you but taking a different path.
I get that you don't agree with the law, and that's where you and I seem to diverge I our beliefs. Like some others have stated, I'll take every single small win that we can get, even if it means we don't get it all right now. Much like the erosion of our rights has occurred, incremental battles won can lead to winning the war. Most wars worth fighting won't be won in a day.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (meaning my post is likely full of poor typing and autocorrects using wrong words)
There was a time when the drinking age in CO was 18 (and many years before that, not specified), until the Federal government extorted the state into raising it. I'm of the mind that ANYONE deemed to be an adult(of the age of majority, deemed able to vote, drive, sign contracts, enlist in the military, etc.) that meets the requirements under the law, should be able to carry a firearm for self defense. Along with that right goes the responsibility to exercise it responsibly, and makes one subject to the consequences of failing to do so. The Left will never allow this, as the concept of consequences for irresponsible behavior is foreign to their ideology. Military service, while admirable, should not convey any special privileges in this context. Military training may in fact instill a level of discipline not ordinarily found in young adults, but training for the battlefield probably won't translate to civilian self defense scenarios well, as the rules of engagement are dramatically different in a civilian context.
Yeah, could see that coming from a million miles away.Quote:
Originally Posted by mtnrider
Do you disagree with the facts I presented re: the impact or lack thereof on the military? Does your current SGM friend? They're not opinion based, but last I checked, Division, Brigade, and Company policies and the logical progression to the position I took: the bill is largely pointless.Quote:
Originally Posted by ColoradoMinuteMan
The point of talking about the relationship of military training vs what every random Civilian would have, is that the bill only names Military members and Honorably Discharged members in light of that training. I cannot see why else they would single out the military otherwise. In short, the bill's logic is quite skewed. That's perhaps arguable, but to argue against it would be to undercut your own position I believe, since you would have to argue they are more suited than someone else without that training -- you actually did that earlier before you decided to stick to the idea of constitutionality.
I do have a desire to be right, when I have the right position. I'd expect nothing less of anyone else. And yes, how one gets to that position is important. Just like one's math isn't worth a crap if they got to a right answer by an incorrect method -- it might work for that problem, but it doesn't work when rhetorical wrenches are thrown into its mechanism. It's like how everyone rah-rah's over the repealing of Obamacare, but doesn't realize that the Insurance scam which drives up prices to instill a desire for a Socialist Solution is still in place... hello? Donald McFly Trump?(cf. Karl Denninger on Market Watch for background on this example). But it seems to me that those disagreeing with me aren't looking at the practical application of this law, rather the ideal behind it. I don't give much of a hoot for idealism. Sorry.
I'm not against this law for the sake of being contradictory, but because I'm tired of dumb, ineffective laws; from an emotional standpoint, I'm sick of Republicans riding the yellow-ribbon coattails of jingoistic vote currying. Make no mistake, if this passes, the first time (and there will be a first, probably more soon than preferred) some PV2 jackass does the dumb it's gonna be the following kick in the nuts to this larger fight:
Dem: "How, when our best and brightest, highly trained soldiers cannot be trusted with such a privilege as concealed carrying of a firearm away from the watchful eye of his superiors, can we trust an untrained 18 year old?"
Stupid citizen: *nods in agreement*
There are already states that allow military members under 21 to carry concealed.
States currently allow law enforcement under 21 to carry concealed off duty.
The left pointing to statistical anomalies and saying "see this is what we warned would happen" does occur, do I care? Should you? Nope. That's just acknowledging that straw men exsist and pedantic leftists will use them.
My argument in favor of supporting this law and others similar is two fold. If they are mature enough to sign a Military contract,- especially during wartime, then they should be treated as the legal equal to any pathetic Millennial 21 year old lesbian art degree graduate that's carrying in Boulder right now.
Saying that Military training is only applicable to Warfighting, is like arguing Cops shouldn't be able to carry concealed off duty because POST training is different than the NRA classes 75% of CCW'ers are using to mall cop ninja their smoke poles with in their Uncle Mikes holster.
If the law passes and Pvt. Stuffy starts shooting people in the mall, or draws on someone because they invade his personal space, or cracks an Army joke that's on him, and him alone, legally, morrally, ethically, and practically.
Travis Haley, Mike Pannone, Mike Lamb, Larry Vickers, Kyle Lamb these are all top notch, highly sought CCW instructors that present theory, tactics, weapons manipulations and safety after decades of exstensive Military careers that are somehow able to differentiate between a gun battle in Somalia, or Afghanistan and the punk asking for your wallet at the 7/11.
Recognizing a threat, eliminating said threat, conducting a post engagement check of downed threat,
checking my six, team mates, my weapon, ammo, person, and bystanders, controlling onlookers verbally and physically. These are all things I learned in the Military. Is the application of force a bit different? The legal consequences different? Scenarios different? You bet, but that's not a whole lot different than sending a three time deployed to Iraq guy to Afghanistan. The military is used to change, improvisation, training for a new mission, understanding or at least coping with different environments and standards.
If people really don't believe there's much crossover from the Military to civilian life, consider the following, we let Tankers drive cars on the freeway, C-130 crew members fly on civilian airliners, former Military fighter pilots fly 767's, reserve MP'S serve as civilian law enforcement and many more examples of overlap that exsist without blood in the streets and weeping and gnashing of teeth that occur when we suggest a Ranger, Grunt, SF, Recon, MP, or Tanker be able to apply what applies and adapt to the rest. But I'm just a dumb Marine Grunt so what do I know.
Velocitas, Opprimere,
Violentia Operandi
I don't think we have much disagreement on the impact although I have to admit it's sometimes hard for me to follow the long threads when I'm reading between other activities.Quote:
Originally Posted by CavSct1983
Math is (mostly) a finite science and isn't analogous to opinions. There are only a finite number of ways to get the the right answer. Coming to an opinion based on values, beliefs and understandings is a path that may have an infinite number of solutions. While I may be a constitutionalist and all of my opinions may be driven by my knowledge of the intent of the constitution, Im happy to ally myself with those who come to support the second amendment through a strong belief in self defense, survivalism, service in the military, etc. I can then use that common bond to foster a better understanding in how I came to my conclusions. If I immediacy start telling them they lack comprehension because they don't agree with my nuanced perspective it may even push them farther away from the same decent place we ended up together.
In the same vain, if someone wants to say military training allows someone more exposure to using handguns in a civilian context, I'm supporting of it. Again, I'd rather it was blanket for everyone, but I'll take it. I don't need to throw the baby out with the bath water and say "well I believe in constitutional carry so I refuse to vote to enable permitted CCW because I'll only accept complete victory."
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (meaning my post is likely full of poor typing and autocorrects using wrong words)