CRPA stand on AB 357?

[GuyW]

You asked for info, were given it and even the relevant laws were quoted but you insist on telling people they are wrong in the face of evidence.

And I posted contrary "evidence" from the PC, which I thought (apparently incorrectly) was clearly more pursuasive, in an exchange with _one_ person.

I did that because the offered explanation is a position I've never heard in several years of CCW inquiry, so it seemed important. I was looking for feedback from others to reevaluate my position (as necessary).

....but you insist on telling people they are wrong in the face of evidence.
And doing so like a putz I might add.

I'm not quite clear on what a putz "is" exactly, but its clearly not good.

Worse, it apparently means I don't make my points in a pursuasive manner, and/or I p#$% people off before they even consider my viewpoint.

If you can not learn to express your points and views without being a jerk don't bother posting.

I'm going to ratchet it back, and observe. Do you have a particular Calgunner for me as an example of acceptable but spirited debate?

GuyW, I don't know what your agenda is other then stirring up crap, an agenda i saw in the 2A forum and now here.

Other than a pro-gun viewpoint, I have no agenda here.

I'm not asking for your input nor am I opening this to negotiation.
I am telling you and you will respond. Is this clear.

I have responded, yes?
.

[Kestryll]

You asked for info, were given it and even the relevant laws were quoted but you insist on telling people they are wrong in the face of evidence.

And I posted contrary "evidence" from the PC, which I thought (apparently incorrectly) was clearly more pursuasive, in an exchange with _one_ person.

I did that because the offered explanation is a position I've never heard in several years of CCW inquiry, so it seemed important. I was looking for feedback from others to reevaluate my position (as necessary).
Reread your posts.
Tell me if they sound like discussing the issue or dismissing the poster flippantly with comments like this:
'Wrong!'
'Wrong again!'
etc.
You're not trying to present facts nor are you addressing his.
You are summarily dismissing him and posting as infallible.

....but you insist on telling people they are wrong in the face of evidence.
And doing so like a putz I might add.

I'm not quite clear on what a putz "is" exactly, but its clearly not good.

Worse, it apparently means I don't make my points in a pursuasive manner, and/or I p#$% people off before they even consider my viewpoint.
It means you come off as very offensive and antagonistic.
You are not going to be persuasive when you post in a manner that does not foster discussion but arguing.

If you can not learn to express your points and views without being a jerk don't bother posting.

I'm going to ratchet it back, and observe. Do you have a particular Calgunner for me as an example of acceptable but spirited debate?
If you really must have an example check out Librarian's postings.
He's more often then not calm, civil and informative without being abrasive.

GuyW, I don't know what your agenda is other then stirring up crap, an agenda i saw in the 2A forum and now here.

Other than a pro-gun viewpoint, I have no agenda here.
Based on history you look to have a penchant for pot stirring.
While this just may be your inherent manner of discussion it does lend itself to questions.

I'm not asking for your input nor am I opening this to negotiation.
I am telling you and you will respond. Is this clear.

I have responded, yes?

Yes you have, hopefully it will end up being a beneficial interlude for all.

[rweller]

Gosh, I didn't mean to raise a problem here. I wasn't upset about his questioning. Frankly, Guy raised some good points to his position when I finally got something out of him.

Ralph

[Mstrty]

As to whether CRPA supports this bill as written, of course we do. Why would we not want a shall-issue in counties at least? There is no debate within CRPA as to whether we should support this bill as it is written today. If it changes dramatically, then it will be reviewed.

Glad to hear this. I was worried.