Yes, I did say it wasn't right. I also offered possible reasons why they might have been exempted. I didn't in any way put down non police officers, so I'm having a hard time understanding why you choose to attack with name calling.
You don't want to be a cop, fine, but no need to cast aspersions. You met some you didn't like, well, I've met some I didn't like either, same for some citizens, but I don't think you can rationally say an entire group is bad because of a few miscreants you come in contact with.
Sorry the proposed bill didn't include everyone, but sometimes it helps just to get a foot in the door, with the idea of widening it later.
By the way, I no longer live in NY, so this would not benefit me personally. I'm sure this will be a comfort to you.
You are correct on several things and I do owe you an apology; I do not know you personally and have no idea if you are arrogant or an elitist. Your statement struck me as such and I derived an opinion of you based off of it, something that was not fair and for that I apologize.
Secondly, and perhaps it is simply a product of location, but officers around my neck of the woods as a whole definitely fit a very easily defined template which includes arrogance and elitism so forgive me for "stereotyping" the law enforcement community as a whole (although I still maintain that the average officer fits these two adjectives).
Third, I DID want to be a cop but changed my mind when I realized that I either A) wouldn't fit in or B) didn't want to
become like them. Again, this is a reference to the officers in my area whom can't stand to speak with a peon like myself because, after all, I'm just a lowly citizen. I was disappointed by this realization/decision but hey, that's alright; perhaps it just wasn't meant to be. I have moved on to a different career.
Fourth, I can see where you're coming from concerning this being a step in the right direction and "getting a foot in the door" but I strongly disagree. Rather, I see it as yet another case of government elitists legislating themselves into a superior class than the citizenry is proffered (think Bloomberg - a complete disgrace to the political system but unfortunately the new norm as well). As you (correctly) stated; it's a means to attain votes. It is NOT, however, an example of a legislature's epiphany or changing of it's ways as far as a citizen's right to bear arms is concerned, in my opinion.
Lastly, I find no comfort in knowing that, due to your current location being outside of NY, you won't profit from this bill. I have no problem with retired LEOs carrying a firearm (in fact, I think that they definitely SHOULD carry a firearm). I simply have a problem, and a very large one at that, with a state extending a right as defined by the Constitution of the United States to its retired agents but not to the citizenry as a whole, that is all. Unless you are a violent person or have any felonies, I hope that you CAN carry.
p.s. Perhaps my parting-punch at officers was inappropriate, perhaps not. Either way, it would behoove current officers to hear it and advise that they could be MORE effective (via an increase is citizens help/aid) as well as SAFER if they changed their attitudes and outlook on their position in life versus the common citizen's. That is, they are NOT better than we are. In fact, they are supposed to protect and
serve US. Being a United States citizen is a very special class in and of itself IMO. What more do they need before they regard us with respect?
