cvfd1399

I know a guy who addresses people like then when discussing something. "Now sir, let me get this one point straight" then he goes on to speak his mind. The sir is overly emphasized for verbal judo domination, at least in his mind.

Hi Wendy, I never said it was passive aggressive did I? It doesn't matter, and as you stated to me in the other thread "there are other opinions". Sincerely, Cvfd1399

I am not angry at all just perplexed at how a person could flip their stated beliefs just to argue with someone for the other side who is posting for INCREASED measures of gun safety. This dude is posting against them just to argue! The same dude who any other day is crying about gun deaths and shootings.

It irks the shit out of me too, this is not a formal letter or email he is typing, it's fucking wierd.

You still miss the fucking point that no matter the level of training someone may have had decades ago people's dexterity, eyesight, reaction time, mental capacity, saneness, and other things relevant to the safety of the carrying and using a firearm could have degraded past the point of being reasonably safe. A doccument(dd214) at this time is currently allowing this to happen. And you are fucking arguing for its existence because I said it. Had Kallend or someone else been posting this you would be shouting touché or some other add on comment as if it were your own stating it was unsafe for us not to have an updated test of these individuals skills. SMH

Either you do not own any, or you are one of the "out of my cold dead hands type".

I bet you would if the fish jumped out of the water, starting fighting, attacking, and shooting at the fishermen just to name a few things. I rest my case, please stick to teaching kids who don't know any better........... Cops are only #15 on the list of risky jobs, yet seem to be the ONLY ones using risk as an excuse for bad behavior. PS I was a cop in England until 1977, so f**k off with the snide comments. (And we were expected to keep the peace without carrying guns). Well that escalated quickly. If you were in California someone could potentially have all your guns taken away for an outburst like that.

I agree and that is a completely different argument.

Did you even read?? I don't support the dd214 route because it allows a potentially 30-40 year old doccument to satisfy the "can you shoot" competency portion of a CCW course. I do support the retired and active law enforcement commission CCW law brcause it goes above and beyond the dd214 and regular CCW requirements in that the federal law says they have to qualify annually. So let's see. A CCW permit requires you to attend a refresher and shoot an undefined but satisfactory number of holes on a target at short range while standing under no duress every 4-5 years. The law enforcement federal law says you have to shoot the POST ANNUALLY a course that is more demanding from 50ft to 6ft distance in different positions, barricades, draw types, and under time with forced reloads. You are essentially arguing against a higher level of qualification for someone to carry a gun near you in public just to argue with me. You are ignoring and abandoning your liberal ideas for the sake of an arguement and its funny as hell. Smh

What about the independent third party research done through official, and unofficial channels including web based media searches. This reporter(iirc)did an investigation and went for an entire year searching for any shootings reports by police and media. They investigated the shootings, and found the same thing that the OP linked. Search for it here or simply Google it. How many times do you need to be shown something before you think hey it might not be officially reported but we have logically concluded on our own something is a particular way and true instead of sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming lalalalalalalalalalal

That truth already been shown to them in the past years. The circlejerkers here did not listen to facts, and kept on with the blind ignorance and consumption of their choice media pumping them up to believe cops are the anti christ. This forum is almost over. Even the old regulars are leaving.

SMH

A bullet trap for some old man with dementia that got a CCW with his dd214 and is blind with cataracts trying to shoot at something he is hallucinating about. Don't come at me with that who are you to judge mess. We all have the right to request reasonable qualification limits for those who are licensed by the state to carry a firearm for the safety of us and our families. Allowing some document that said you were good to go from 20-30 years ago is ignorant no matter who trained you.

My issue isn't how good you were 20 years ago. It's how good are you are today. A lot can happen in 20+ years mentally, physically etc. I want an updated demonstration of your skills to see if your dexterity, eyesight, and judgement is still at a safe level. I'm never going to argue against more CCW training time or higher requirements. Anyways back to the OP's point about law enforcement retirement commissions. In Louisiana at least with the departments in EBRP with a retirement commission to use it for CCW and not just a keepsake of your time served you still have to go the range and qualify once a year. It is not a set it and forget it piece of paper.

Louisiana requires a "small arms" qualification endorsement on the DD 214. During Vietnam, military firearms training was aimed at training for basic rifle marksmanship. Military handgun training was largely non-existent. Whatever call it desert storm, that was 20+ years ago when they did have handguns. The point being was he was shitting on CCW training but implied a dd214 was proof enough of training to be accepted over a current CCW proof of competency shooting course. When I pointed out that it could have been decades ago he got all butthurt, and started with the PA.

Don't be butthurt when you don't cover all your bases and a flaw is exposed in your thoughts. Just be honest.

Your bolded part implies the government training is sufficient to replace the CCW class, and even exceeds it. Does this not include the Vietnam vet?? You now know your comment was not well thought out, quit squirming and accept it.. Smh

So you are fine with someone with a dd214 after leaving nam in 69' and never picking up a weapon since then to get a CCW in 2016 because they had "weapons training" 40+ years ago??

Yea I looked it up after I posted. I bet that is a considerable increase in cost over the old single plane visual technique by some old barnstormer.

I'm impressed with the writing. It has to be some gps program going on there with automated spray nozzles.

It's not a badge it is a retirement commission and is labeled as such. It is a piece of paper that allows you reciprocity for CCW. You still can't carry in places like New York so it's not some super special thing that allows you to do anything. So what it allows all 50 states, if you live in my state you get somewhere like 40/50 already due to existing public CCW reciprocity agreements already Another note is Louisiana CCW accepts a dd214 to exempt prior military from qualifying at the range no matter how long they have been out. This is just as bad and no different than your gripe above and already is law in many states. It seems you just caught wind of something that ruffeled your feathers before you did some research.

Can you cite some of these "exemptions"? I am not sure what you are talking about.

What would you know? Out chief writes us tickets. No shit if he catches us breaking laws he will write us a ticket. He already got one this year for a seatbelt.

How did they know they were not on an emergency? We routinely head towards a scene that sounds like it will require the need for more than a single officer to back up the officer that was dispatched. Take a witnessed forced entry into a house for instance. They will dispatch one officer. There is the likelyhood of catching someone inside a house. We will respond until the scene is "code 4" either by the caller stating it was a false call it was the homeowner, the person leaves the area in which case we will set up a perimeter, or enough officers get on scene and cancel any others. -You wont find us on a report unless we actually make it there. -Once we get close to the scene you wont see blue lights on the camera because we dont run blue lights and sirens to alert the criminal we are about to confront him. Another instance is catching up to someone while running radar. If it is a 55 mph road and someone passes you at 75 by the time you pull out he is a ways away from you, and it is going to take you a few to catch up to him. Most officers wont immediately flip on the lights until they get closer to the car. This prevents someone who is going to run from getting a further head start, and it also allows you to get close enough to grab a plate number to radio in so before you get out of your car the dispatcher has had time to run the car for its stolen status and possibly a dangerous wanted person. These are but a few reason where you will see officers speeding but on an legit emergency or possibly dangerous scene. Disclaimer cops do speed im not ignorant to that fact, but know some of those times its not just them being above the law is all.

Any one of us who did not comply would be in serious trouble or in jail! WASHINGTON — The State Department fell short of a court order requiring the release of the vast bulk of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails by the end of 2015 but promised on Thursday to catch up early in the new year. Just hours before the year ended, the department disclosed another 5,500 pages of Mrs. Clinton’s messages in its latest monthly release. But it acknowledged that it would not meet the target set by a federal judge of producing 82 percent of her emails by the end of December. “We have worked diligently to come as close to the goal as possible, but with the large number of documents involved and the holiday schedule, we have not met the goal this month,” the department said in a statement. “To narrow that gap, the State Department will make another production of former Secretary Clinton’s email sometime next week.” Continue reading the main story Related Coverage http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/01/us/politics/state-department-hillary-clinton-email.html?_r=0