re: #15 Political Atheist

I see our basis for disagreement at it’s root. My presumption for police, ex police, reserve police that have POST training, people of good character and a demonstrable need on the same scale as myself or that guy that has to carry cash is “shall issue”.

Show me why reserve officers with the training should not be allowed to carry. The burden is IMO on you to show why not. The presumption is that good cause, good character and good training means you get to have the permit if you want it.

I already made my argument, you seem to have just skipped it. Reserve cops have less training than regular cops. Even regular cops I’d like to see some sort of review.

Any higher standard implies an ill intent on those people.

No clue what that means.
re: #17 Political Atheist

You may not have understood my stipulations. Where did we establish good character? Show me the link to his convictions. Violent arrests. I presume good character and you presume not.

I don’t presume not, though.

That law is overbroad? Not At All. It confers the respect for service and potential threat as it should. Again we see the fundamental basis for our disagreement. You presume far more irresponsibility on trusted public servants with lots of very special training than I.

Do you know the actual rates of cops committing crimes vs. the regular population?

As to actual harm from denial-In the instance of other civil rights the denial of the right is a harm already. I assert that applies to all these civil rights. They have a merit all their own, and I’ll not be dragged into a false standard of who actually gets hurt in a crime where a gun would have helped them. False standards abound from critics like that. Nope not accepting that as a reasonable premise.

Then you’ll only convince ideological people who share your beliefs, not people who look for some sort of pragmatic approach.