As another forum member, it seems to me that the staff has been pretty patient, cordial and even congenial in their efforts to try and help point out some things in some of your postings that might benefit from some re-examination. Isn't this the point of engaging in polite discussion?
Nobody has cast 'aspersions', thinly veiled or otherwise, when it comes to your choice of weapons, but they've seemingly tried to point out that you may be making unwarranted assumptions about what the appearance of your choice of weapons ought to communicate to someone else, from your perspective.
How can any of us guarantee that everyone else is going to see such things the way we like to see them? When the S&W M10 was
the most commonly used and recovered crime firearm used by criminals (of the Top Ten firearms of that period, used and recovered from criminals, nationally), that obviously didn't mean anyone police saw carrying one was presumed to be a criminal. Didn't mean they weren't, though, either. If a lever rifle is among the type of firearms sometimes stolen in some geographical area, guess what might be found in the hands of some criminal at some point?
Don't take umbrage at me asking about your length and type of LE service. It's common (and common sense) that one retired cop would ask someone else who mentions they're former LE about their type of service. It's typically one of the first things asked and shared among retired and/or former cops. I'm asked about my length of service all the time when meeting other retired and former cops. For that matter it's been one of the first questions I've been asked by non-LE people who meet me, if they find out I'm a retired cop. (Since some of the guys & gals at my cigar club know me from my LE days, they often introduce me to new members or guests as a retired cop, dammit.)
All of us who have served in LE realize that our familiarity with tactics, procedures and techniques (to say the least) can eventually become out-of-date over time. (Sure, some are essentially 'timeless', but politics, a changing society and evolving tactics to meet newly evolved threats can also impose changes.) Also, some former LE may have had a longer time in the field than some others, which common sense indicates may have allowed for more experience and knowledge to have been made available to us. The type of agency (urban or rural) and location in the country where we served might have had a significant impact on our breadth of knowledge and accrued experience, too. Common sense.
If I'd not continued serving as a firearms instructor and armorer after I'd retired from my regular career, I'd not have been able to keep my training and familiarity updated and current. As it is, since I've taken a sabbatical from teaching and haven't actively updated some of my own training for the last couple of years, unless I decide to return to serving as a trainer next year (I've been asked), and continue to keep abreast of things and return to staying current on training and events in the LE training field, my own knowledge is going to begin to go out-of-date as training evolves in the field. Not my personal skills, so much, as I invested too many years learning and refining them to ignore them and allow them to totally deteriorate. (I hope, at any rate
)
Naturally, nobody is asking (I'm definitely not) for the specifics of where you served, but some general idea of the length and depth might make it easier to discuss things. I did 27 years full-time and 8 years of subsequent reserve time in a medium-size agency (less than 600 back before I retired) that saw a wide variety of enforcement activities. My 19 years of serving as a firearms instructor before retirement was an additional responsibility outside of my primary assignments. (We didn't have the budget for an exclusive full-time training staff, as is often the case with agencies of a thousand or less members.) After retirement I continued to serve in a reserve capacity as an instructor and armorer for another 8 years. I was fortunate that I managed to attend my fair share of training for a variety of things in my primary and secondary assignments, including serving on a state committee for one of my interests and responsibilities.
I'm certainly not anybody's 'expert', by any stretch of the imagination, but I've had some opportunity to gain some small amount of knowledge and experience.
In the meantime, why not lighten up and sit back and expect some general questions from members (and staff, no doubt) so other members may better decide how they wish to engage you in discussion? It's human nature. Nobody is asking for specific details about anyone's personal life (nor should they), but a little insight into someone's general life experience and familiarity with some topic of discussion can help foster a better discussion.