2017 Gun bills in the Colorado Legislature

[ColoradoMinuteMan]

...Thinking, "maybe I'm crazy...", I talked with a former E-7(p)/SFC(p) who retired after 21 years, with time in a 1SG slot as his final position...

He was in agreement with my all points, except...

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.

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)

[TFOGGER]

[CS1983]

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.

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)

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.

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*

[ColoradoMinuteMan]

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.

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*

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.

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)