Re: More Stuff
Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2018 1:01 pm
Re: Intended purpose of the 2nd Amendment: Wasn’t the “duty to throw off such tyrrany and replace it with a better government” technically removed from the people?
There’s a lot of obscure Supreme Court rulings and legislative laws that have really twisted the original spirit of the laws of the land.
I do, however, strongly agree and will always support that function of the right to bear arms - government should be afraid of the people it governs. The other way around is tyrrany.
Another (albeit somewhat outdated) function is to provide the United States with a sort of backup military in case the main one failed to repel a conventional invasion. Nowadays, this is somewhat rendered obsolete by nuclear weaponry, but I would say it’s still something to be concerned about in places like Hawaii, Midway, Alaska, Guam, etc. Basically, it’s the made-up quote advising not to invade the US because you’ll find a rifle behind every blade of grass.
However, there is a little clause right at the beginning that I think we are missing big time: “Well-Regulated” as applied to the militia that is created by arming the civilian population.
I realize there are outliers and such, but in general, the level of training, physical fitness, and certification required to obtain a gun, especially a near-mil-spec weapon, is vastly inferior to our military’s Basic training. I realize there will be exceptions, like people in wheelchairs or something who would like a pistol for defense. That can be accounted for with a bit of extra paperwork.
But overall, I think there would be a dramatic fall in accidental gun deaths (a point of contention among anti-gun people), as well as a reduction in gun violence.
My reasoning here comes from my martial arts training - My senseis made real damned sure everyone they taught understood that the enhanced capabilities they gained through the training were only to be used in defense of yourself or others... and they would refuse to train anyone if they didn’t get this through their skull. A good sensei will not empower a bully with enhanced capabilities to inflict harm or death. First, they would try to get the bully to straighten out their moral compass... and failing that, they send the bully home.
What I’m thinking is everyone, barring those who have a medical or otherwise acceptable excuse, must go pass basic military level training in physical fitness, hand to hand, armed CQC, firearm maintenance, firearm safety and rules of engagement, marksmanship, and situational awareness (both along the lines of “watch out for orphanages behind the thug” as well as “keep your head on a swivel and know an ambush when you see one”)... and their trainers, many of whom I think would probably be veterans (hey, increased employment of vets, that’s good), will be able to decide to refuse to train someone themselves or at the recommendation of a psychologist partnered with them. The individuals refused will be able to appeal just to make sure there’s oversight.
And, to further match the military, I believe there is a thing called “pool functions?” Basically, training sessions that are made to keep non-deployed military personnel in “ready to deploy” condition, I think.
Do something similar - people who have weapons must periodically re-certify. The more advanced and quantitatively-determined-dangerous your weapon is, the stricter the re-certification requirements are. So, a Glock (the McGun) would probably only need renewal every three years or something, while a high-power assault rifle or sniper rifle with nightscope or a high-quality pistol with a suppressor would require renewed certification every six months. Cops with badges are held to the same standards.
This won’t catch every psycho, but it’ll increase chances of catching them, and will ensure lots of others are not only armed, but highly trained and thus far more capable of dealing with the threat. There are cases where concealed carriers don’t actually use their weapon to thwart a shooter or other criminal.
Additional benefits include an enormous damn-near ready-to-deploy population - both a major stopgap against tyranny and a huge deterrent against conventional invasion. You also employ a whole bunch of vets and psychologists, and you instill a much higher level of training into cops, who have a bit of a major problem with “Rules of Engagement.”
There’s a lot of obscure Supreme Court rulings and legislative laws that have really twisted the original spirit of the laws of the land.
I do, however, strongly agree and will always support that function of the right to bear arms - government should be afraid of the people it governs. The other way around is tyrrany.
Another (albeit somewhat outdated) function is to provide the United States with a sort of backup military in case the main one failed to repel a conventional invasion. Nowadays, this is somewhat rendered obsolete by nuclear weaponry, but I would say it’s still something to be concerned about in places like Hawaii, Midway, Alaska, Guam, etc. Basically, it’s the made-up quote advising not to invade the US because you’ll find a rifle behind every blade of grass.
However, there is a little clause right at the beginning that I think we are missing big time: “Well-Regulated” as applied to the militia that is created by arming the civilian population.
I realize there are outliers and such, but in general, the level of training, physical fitness, and certification required to obtain a gun, especially a near-mil-spec weapon, is vastly inferior to our military’s Basic training. I realize there will be exceptions, like people in wheelchairs or something who would like a pistol for defense. That can be accounted for with a bit of extra paperwork.
But overall, I think there would be a dramatic fall in accidental gun deaths (a point of contention among anti-gun people), as well as a reduction in gun violence.
My reasoning here comes from my martial arts training - My senseis made real damned sure everyone they taught understood that the enhanced capabilities they gained through the training were only to be used in defense of yourself or others... and they would refuse to train anyone if they didn’t get this through their skull. A good sensei will not empower a bully with enhanced capabilities to inflict harm or death. First, they would try to get the bully to straighten out their moral compass... and failing that, they send the bully home.
What I’m thinking is everyone, barring those who have a medical or otherwise acceptable excuse, must go pass basic military level training in physical fitness, hand to hand, armed CQC, firearm maintenance, firearm safety and rules of engagement, marksmanship, and situational awareness (both along the lines of “watch out for orphanages behind the thug” as well as “keep your head on a swivel and know an ambush when you see one”)... and their trainers, many of whom I think would probably be veterans (hey, increased employment of vets, that’s good), will be able to decide to refuse to train someone themselves or at the recommendation of a psychologist partnered with them. The individuals refused will be able to appeal just to make sure there’s oversight.
And, to further match the military, I believe there is a thing called “pool functions?” Basically, training sessions that are made to keep non-deployed military personnel in “ready to deploy” condition, I think.
Do something similar - people who have weapons must periodically re-certify. The more advanced and quantitatively-determined-dangerous your weapon is, the stricter the re-certification requirements are. So, a Glock (the McGun) would probably only need renewal every three years or something, while a high-power assault rifle or sniper rifle with nightscope or a high-quality pistol with a suppressor would require renewed certification every six months. Cops with badges are held to the same standards.
This won’t catch every psycho, but it’ll increase chances of catching them, and will ensure lots of others are not only armed, but highly trained and thus far more capable of dealing with the threat. There are cases where concealed carriers don’t actually use their weapon to thwart a shooter or other criminal.
Additional benefits include an enormous damn-near ready-to-deploy population - both a major stopgap against tyranny and a huge deterrent against conventional invasion. You also employ a whole bunch of vets and psychologists, and you instill a much higher level of training into cops, who have a bit of a major problem with “Rules of Engagement.”
