Good to see a familiar face......er.....avatar. Just a few thoughts in regards to the points you have related:
Any reason they shouldn't be? After all, EVERYONE (including you and I) is a potential criminal until they break the law. Why shouldn't folks who haven't broken the law not be able to enjoy a God given right?
ccw not a fan, feels they are handed out as simple as one can make the purchase
...I can't quote as I simply do not recall accurately but his comment was to the effect of "anyone can get one as easy as you can go in there and buy a coke" (took place in front of convenience store) I verbally disagreed with him meekly and politely as I did not want to bring the conversation to an end, I said "Well, I am not sure it is quite that easy, still requires the FBI background check and fingerprints and class" to which he concurred.
Probably right. Is he worried about driver's licences as well? Between driver's licences and CCW licences, which do you think more of are given to people who aren't responsible enough? Which is he more worried about?
feels some get ccw whom are not responsible enough
...I can not speak to conversations that did not take place however if he has worked a lot of traffic duty I should imagine he would say "yes" and in fact he might well advocate for re-examination periodically. Without his opinion on the first I can not guess at the second but from his previous responses I think he would find the question antagonistic and markedly different topics which would prevent him from appreciating the point. If he were asked the third question I think he would tell you he feels that driving is significantly more of a worry and far more regulated than firearms.
"Not be allowed" as in felon, or "not be allowed" as in irresponsible? Both can be cured by a call to the issuing sheriff. "All it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." If he's aware of this, isn't letting it continue passive acceptance?
knows a guy who should not be allowed guns but has ccw
I am fairly sure he was indicating someone he knew whom was 100% legal but that in HIS own opinion, despite the fact that they qualify, he has observed behaviors that cause him concern. While a lot of behaviors can and do exist that do not disqualify, they are legitimate concerns for all of us, that or I am the only one here whom has seen stupidity at the range, he has likely seen it elsewhere as well.
My rights don't depend on the comfort of others. I'm uncomfortable with some folks idea of free speech. Makes my life more complex. Should this right be curtailed for my comfort? Why should mine be curtailed for his?
2o + years on force, CCW made job lots more complex and lost tactical edge
... Well I can only offer that you and I are glad we can finally carry our weapons with us without regard for ccw or OC, for many years the BG's had the edge on us and we are glad to have it equaled. If I were charged with the task an officer is, I too would like every advantage I could get myself. I am not sure of his point was aimed the direction of rights in so much as it was a desire to always have the upper hand or better said as often as possible and I agree with that, it is always best to have the upper hand.
Why do police need an "advantage" over folks who obey the law?
feels police need advantage
...Again I think it would be viewed as antagonistic, I think he was speaking directly to the BG/LEO situation. Since his job is to deal primarily with those whom broke the law at some level, I think that is likely the ones he wants the advantage over, I could be wrong.
When has a law abiding citizen ever prevented him from doing so? Shouldn't he be worried about the criminals?
only wants to go home at night
...I think he is.
That's his own personal preference.
moved to late shift due to lower activity and more likely to go home at night
...Based upon his view that less criminal activities occur within his area, a concept which I would agree with 100% just knowing the area.
Yet, he's a police officer. I take it he openly carries with the uniform? Is this a case of "good for him/bad for you"? I wonder: If taking a gun away from its owner and using it against them is so easy, why do the police openly carry them instead of handing them out to the bad guys?
does not like the idea of oc based on retention issues and BG's or mentally unstable gaining more access
...If I were him I would retort the significant amount of training they are required to have regarding weapon retention prior to being authorized/licensed by their department for weapon carry. I did not ask and do not know if his does, but some departments require retention holsters on duty.
After all, since they can be taken away and used against their owners so easily, wouldn't it be more sensible to hand out guns for bad guys to open carry? After all, we could then take them away and use them against their owners, right?
...A certain percentage of LEO's lose their sidearms in struggles, in his shoes I would respond that more folks wearing them statistically means more of them taken away and the blathering would go on and on.
Just a few thoughts. Good to see you again.