Is Our Liberty at Risk?

by January 10, 2013 01/10/13

For the most part, we’ve kept fairly quiet on the current issues facing our nation and for a good reason. While there’s no denying that ITS has a presence on the internet that can be used to spread a message, we want it to be one that’s educated, informed and accurate.

There are so many inconsistencies flying around right now from all corners of the Internet; from pro 2nd Amendment groups, anti-gun groups and everything in-between. Many things are on the table right now that will affect our industry, our way of life and our children’s futures.  I feel like those that visit ITS are all concerned citizens that want to better themselves through the skill-set building articles we write, the reviews we produce or the general principles that ITS was founded on. Whether they be active-duty Military, Law Enforcement, Veterans or First Responders, we’re all in this together as a country. A country with tough decisions ahead.

When I first started ITS back in 2009, I had no idea what it would become, but I had one goal in mind. Community. I wanted to create a resource where everyone could share information openly to better their lives and to become more self sufficient. A place that cultivated little known or forgotten skill-sets, yet also provided well-researched and documented reviews on equipment to support those skills.

That aside, I’ve made some life-long friends along the way, which have helped to reinforce the “good judge of character” I’ve personally always felt I’ve had. Those that I consider my friends have many traits I respect and work hard to project in my own life. Honesty, integrity, passion and service towards something bigger than myself. Right now, what scares me the most about what’s on the table is how this is all going to affect my friends and their families.

Current Political Climate

Today finds us in a difficult situation as an industry. Potentially having our rights stripped away directly impacts businesses and decades of combined output and innovation. At what benefit? It seems that those making decisions haven’t really seen factual crime statistics and feel that by restricting our rights, the criminals will be equally affected. When did a criminal, intent on doing harm, ever play by the rules? They don’t, they live outside the laws.

The current legislation on the table is purely for those that live inside the law. This goes for more government intervention in general and a topic for another day. One question I keep asking myself, is when are those that are seeking to restrict our rights, even going to properly research the  difference between a clip and a magazine? One reason that I’ve personally tried to remain quiet on these issues, is to ensure that I’ve done my due diligence in research before making a public statement, waiting until some of the noise died down and actual actions from the government were imminent.

All those have now been met. As of yesterday, Vice-President Biden was quoted during meetings with victims’ groups and gun safety organizations as saying,  ”The president is going to act. There are executive orders, there’s executive action that can be taken. We haven’t decided what that is yet.” If you’re familiar with how bills become law, this should cause the hair on the back of your neck to stand up. This is essentially stating that if the result of the current talks and subsequent legislation proposals don’t yield the results the President is looking for, he’ll act as he feels the American people would want him to.

Trust me, I’m trying to stay as optimistic and positive as possible. The fact remains that the President has publicly stated what his agenda is. That’s been made clear through his public statements a few weeks ago. Here’s a link to a YouTube video produced by the White House, if you’d like more background into what I’m mentioning.

I’d encourage you to do your own research into both what’s on the table right now with current legislation and what we’re really looking at in terms of the crime our government is now trying to prevent. A good place to start is with the FBI Crime Statistics. I can’t argue with the fact that what’s happened recently in Newtown and Aurora are tragedies, but will restricting our rights help to prevent more of these incidents from occurring? That’s the real question here. In another video released today by the White House, Vice-President Biden can be heard stating that if just one additional life can be saved, it’s worth it. I personally feel that limiting the legal rights of everyone will not produce the intended outcome of actually saving more lives.

The question I keep asking myself is how much more of our rights being stripped away will America be willing to take? I’m not trying to incite a riot or even state that this is something new, it’s been occurring for much longer than our current administration has been in office. In my personal opinion, we’re reminded time and time again of our current government needing serious reform and I’ll just leave it at that.

At the end of the day we’re all responsible for the country we live in, we all have a duty to make it a better place and one we want our children to grow up in. What can you do? Write your elected officials, be respectful, but remember that they work for us. Support the organizations you believe in, whether that’s  joining the NRA,  the Gun Owners of America  or another organization you firmly believe in.


Are you getting more than 14¢ of value per day from ITS Tactical?

Please consider joining our Crew Leader Membership and our growing community of supporters.

At ITS Tactical we’re working hard every day to provide different methods, ideas and knowledge that could one day save your life. Instead of simply asking for your support with donations, we’ve developed a membership to allow our readers to support what we do and allow us to give you back something in return.

For less than 14¢ a day you can help contribute directly to our content, and join our growing community of supporters who have directly influenced what we’ve been able to accomplish and where we’re headed.

Click here to learn about all the benefits and Join!


spuppets4
spuppets4

Thanks Bryan for your insight, it's intelligent, thoughtful, responsible and I believe sincere. I think and feel "The American Manifesto" that you have here on your website says all the things that people living here in America need to know. This is the greatest country on the planet and we all need to know what it means to be an American and have the freedoms we have, the American Manifesto says it all in my opinion and needs to be spread and read. I personally link that to everything I can and have made all my family and friends read it, it says so much about what we are and how we should be conducting ourselves for our own betterment as a whole. Our way of life is absolutely worth fighting for and dying in the fight if necessary.

C/od
C/od

Question to all: You know where you live, but do you know your LAW?

Read eveything that this man, Dr. Edwin Vieira PhD has written including his new book (finally)" The Sword and Sovereignty".

We have been overrun with damnable lies. It is our fault! I do not like whiners and fools that give in and up! .

C/od

C/od
C/od

Question to all: You know where you live, but do you know your LAW? Read eveything that this man, Dr. Edwin Vieira PhD has written including his new book (finally)" The Sword and Sovereignty". We have been overrun with damnable lies. It is our fault! I do not like whiners and fools that give in and up! . C/od

Mark Alan
Mark Alan

Since we all know that everybody else knows (including Joe Biden himself) that nothing currently being proposed would have prevented any of the tragedies of last year, the only conclusion we can come to is the current administration wants our guns out of our hands.

This is not new as the State Dept published a memo in the '60s outlining the process for disarming Americans under a United Nations Plan to disarm the entire planet, with the exception of the UN "Peacekeepers" who obviously need weapons to fight against whatever "rogue" nation has the gumption to fight back.

Since the war on terror started we've seen many of our legal protections disappear, some of the most recent being indefinite detention and the killing of American citizens at the whim of the President. We've also seen a huge increase in Federal Law Enforcement, primarily Homeland Security. Which makes sense if you're wanting to control the population and you're prevented from using your military against against your citizens.

As seen during Katrina governments will declare martial law at the slightest provacation which enables them, among other things, to confiscate our weapons. With the Patriot Act along with executive orders the President has made sure he has given himself the capability to confiscate weapons if he wants to.

So don't call me paranoid or radical if I scream about government infringing on my 2nd amendment rights. That right was given to us for a very good reason and it is not to be restricted (infringed). I personally will resist any and all efforts to limit what firearms I can purchase or how large a magazine I can have and my vote will always go to the candidate who most strongly supports the Bill of Rights and the sovereignty of the United States.

Mark Alan
Mark Alan

Since we all know that everybody else knows (including Joe Biden himself) that nothing currently being proposed would have prevented any of the tragedies of last year, the only conclusion we can come to is the current administration wants our guns out of our hands. This is not new as the State Dept published a memo in the '60s outlining the process for disarming Americans under a United Nations Plan to disarm the entire planet, with the exception of the UN "Peacekeepers" who obviously need weapons to fight against whatever "rogue" nation has the gumption to fight back. Since the war on terror started we've seen many of our legal protections disappear, some of the most recent being indefinite detention and the killing of American citizens at the whim of the President. We've also seen a huge increase in Federal Law Enforcement, primarily Homeland Security. Which makes sense if you're wanting to control the population and you're prevented from using your military against against your citizens. As seen during Katrina governments will declare martial law at the slightest provacation which enables them, among other things, to confiscate our weapons. With the Patriot Act along with executive orders the President has made sure he has given himself the capability to confiscate weapons if he wants to. So don't call me paranoid or radical if I scream about government infringing on my 2nd amendment rights. That right was given to us for a very good reason and it is not to be restricted (infringed). I personally will resist any and all efforts to limit what firearms I can purchase or how large a magazine I can have and my vote will always go to the candidate who most strongly supports the Bill of Rights and the sovereignty of the United States.

Michael O'connor
Michael O'connor

The night I heard the current VP utter those word I immediately rose from my chair and stated to my wife that this was outrageous and that if the current President tried to act in this manner then I would go to war. If that is my fate then so be it. I refuse to live under a dictatorship and I am willing to go to the front in place of my younger sons, my grand children and my God children.

I have lived a good life and if sacrificing it at my age to preserve the freedom of the younger generation is the only thing left then I am prepared. Older but never the less prepared.

Michael O'connor
Michael O'connor

The night I heard the current VP utter those word I immediately rose from my chair and stated to my wife that this was outrageous and that if the current President tried to act in this manner then I would go to war. If that is my fate then so be it. I refuse to live under a dictatorship and I am willing to go to the front in place of my younger sons, my grand children and my God children. I have lived a good life and if sacrificing it at my age to preserve the freedom of the younger generation is the only thing left then I am prepared. Older but never the less prepared.

Austin
Austin

"Those that are willing to give up liberties for security will lose both, and deserve neither."

~Ben Franklin

Austin
Austin

"Those that are willing to give up liberties for security will lose both, and deserve neither." ~Ben Franklin

Skip Van Hook
Skip Van Hook

I’d like to first say that I really enjoy your site and will continue to do so.

As proponent of the 2nd Amendment the current issue is really troubling often because of unreasoning and ignorant positions on both sides.

On the one side you have a majority of supporters who would be lucky to get past the Fifth Amendment in naming and understanding just the Bill of Rights, much less the other seventeen. Worse still their misguided notions of American history stand as tragic examples in the failure of the American education system.

On the other side you have individuals advocating a utopian fantasy of perfect safety and security; all built around the premise of unilateral individual disarmament in that a firearm is both the cause and effect of today’s problems.

There is no liberty without responsibility. We owe it to ourselves and each other as Americans to be active, reasoned and educated participants in the determining how to preserve our Rights and safeguard our communities. This is what will separate the Citizen and Veteran from those out there who are little better than a thug with a gun.

Skip Van Hook
Skip Van Hook

I’d like to first say that I really enjoy your site and will continue to do so. As proponent of the 2nd Amendment the current issue is really troubling often because of unreasoning and ignorant positions on both sides. On the one side you have a majority of supporters who would be lucky to get past the Fifth Amendment in naming and understanding just the Bill of Rights, much less the other seventeen. Worse still their misguided notions of American history stand as tragic examples in the failure of the American education system. On the other side you have individuals advocating a utopian fantasy of perfect safety and security; all built around the premise of unilateral individual disarmament in that a firearm is both the cause and effect of today’s problems. There is no liberty without responsibility. We owe it to ourselves and each other as Americans to be active, reasoned and educated participants in the determining how to preserve our Rights and safeguard our communities. This is what will separate the Citizen and Veteran from those out there who are little better than a thug with a gun.

Scott Sideleau
Scott Sideleau

It saddens me to see you, too, fall into the mire of hinting at "revolution" -- violent or otherwise -- as we explore this particular political discourse. I think there are some concessions that can be made that will not, ultimately infringe upon the basic American right to bear arms, but that -- ultimately -- has the potential to protect others. The funny thing about prevention is that there is always very few statistics to support it: it's either (a) working or (b) not working. Look at fire prevention, for example.

JayfromVA
JayfromVA

Rick, for some reason I couldn't reply to your post, so my reply ended up here. You asked what I thought, so I figured I would run down the President's proposals and give my two cents. Since I think everyone knows I disagree with the proposed firearm and magazine ban, I'll stick with the Executive Actions that were proposed.

1. Federal agencies must make relevant info available to the background check system - agree. The background check can't do its job if it is being fed bad info. Garbage in, garbage out as they say.

2. Address barriers in regards to HIPAA and making info available to the background check system - mostly agree. I'm a very private person and don't like guys digging in my medical records, even though I have nothing to hide. On the other hand, if HIPAA is being used as a shield to not report violent/threatening behaviour or conditions, then I see the issue.

3. Improve incentives for states to share info with background checks - agree.

4. Review categories of prohibited individuals - unsure. The list of prohibited individuals is already pretty thorough, and it seems like most of our recent problems stem from not knowing "who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution". I tend not to like making additional laws when we haven't made sure we're enforcing the ones we already have.

5. Run a full background check before returning a seized gun - mostly agree. I think my sticking point here is what they mean by "full background check." If a gun gets seized for a valid reason, a NICS check before its return seems reasonable. However, if they mean people visiting the house and interviewing neighbors, digging into financial records, etc, that can easily become an issue.

6. Provide guidance on how to run private seller background checks - agree. I actually prefer to sell my guns through an FFL, as it gives me a CYA feeling. This doesn't require that it happens, just lets FFLs know the procedures if they are asked to conduct one.

7. Launch a safe gun ownership campaign - agree. I think its a little ironic that the government now wants in on what the NRA has been doing for years, but whatever...

8. Review safety standards for gun locks and safes - mostly agree. I'm not really sure what this accomplishes. If they intend a requirement for everyone to have their guns locked up, then I see where this could be useful. I actually don't have a problem with a requirement to keep guns locked up, but there needs to be a recognition that a "ready service gun" can be left loaded if secured. To go DC style and require that every gun be completely unloaded and looked down is not realistic for home defense.

9. Require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations - agree. Data on where people get their illegal guns can help to combat specific problem areas instead of blanket targeting all gun owners.

10. Analyze stolen gun info and make it available to local LE - agree. Once again, info to specifically target problem areas, and increase public awareness of the need for properly securing firearms.

11. Nominate ATF director - ambivalent.

12. Provide proper training for active shooter situations - wholeheartedly agree. There needs to be a well-thought out solution that includes lockdown procedures, orderly evacuations, armed response (police or otherwise), and post-incident procedures.

13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun crime and prosecute gun crime - agree. Gee, it starts to sound a little like the NRA theme of enforcing laws already on the books, doesn't it?

14. Research causes and prevention of gun violence - mostly agree. This needs to be full and impartial, not a "study" that cherry picks info for a already developed conclusion.

15. Issue a report on gun safety technology - ambivalent. Sounds like another reason to push for expensive technologies that aren't proven (except in the most recent 007), but its a report, not a rule.

16. Clarify that doctors can ask about guns in the home - somewhat agree. I don't have a problem with them asking, but it should be an information only question, not a diagnostic question. IE, they ask if I drink so that they can tell me the risks associated, fine, but don't report me because I legally indulge in a pastime, make sense? Anyway, if you don't want to tell them, don't, it's not like your doctor can check...

17. Clarify that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence - agree. I'm not sure why this is an issue, I have been told by mental health professionals that what I tell them is in confidence unless it indicates that I may harm myself or others (I had to get a screening for my current job, don't let your imaginations go crazy). If it is already a policy, then getting the word out is a positive.

18. Provide incentives to hire school resource officers - agree.

19. Develop model emergency response plans - agree.

20. Clarify the scope of mental health care that Medicaid must cover - agree. Getting people the help they need is imperative.

21-22. I'm not even gonna pretend I know what those mean, athough I assume they deal with paying for mental health treatment. In that case, see 20.

23. National dialogue by HHS and Education about mental illness - agree, although I think the best work would be done by grassroots education campaigns.

So anyway, there are my thoughts on the President's proposals. On the surface at least, most of these actions address the problem (people), and not the tool (firearms), which is where I think we need to be looking. If done right, I could easily get behind his proposals, assuming the politicians don't turn them into some Frankenmonster of regulatory hell, which they are prone to do. I'm not going to pretend I know everything about mental illness, but I think that there needs to be serious dialogue among professionals (not the media and politicians) to address the issue. I have plenty more thoughts, but I think this post is long enough.

JayfromVA
JayfromVA

Rick, for some reason I couldn't reply to your post, so my reply ended up here. You asked what I thought, so I figured I would run down the President's proposals and give my two cents. Since I think everyone knows I disagree with the proposed firearm and magazine ban, I'll stick with the Executive Actions that were proposed. 1. Federal agencies must make relevant info available to the background check system - agree. The background check can't do its job if it is being fed bad info. Garbage in, garbage out as they say. 2. Address barriers in regards to HIPAA and making info available to the background check system - mostly agree. I'm a very private person and don't like guys digging in my medical records, even though I have nothing to hide. On the other hand, if HIPAA is being used as a shield to not report violent/threatening behaviour or conditions, then I see the issue. 3. Improve incentives for states to share info with background checks - agree. 4. Review categories of prohibited individuals - unsure. The list of prohibited individuals is already pretty thorough, and it seems like most of our recent problems stem from not knowing "who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution". I tend not to like making additional laws when we haven't made sure we're enforcing the ones we already have. 5. Run a full background check before returning a seized gun - mostly agree. I think my sticking point here is what they mean by "full background check." If a gun gets seized for a valid reason, a NICS check before its return seems reasonable. However, if they mean people visiting the house and interviewing neighbors, digging into financial records, etc, that can easily become an issue. 6. Provide guidance on how to run private seller background checks - agree. I actually prefer to sell my guns through an FFL, as it gives me a CYA feeling. This doesn't require that it happens, just lets FFLs know the procedures if they are asked to conduct one. 7. Launch a safe gun ownership campaign - agree. I think its a little ironic that the government now wants in on what the NRA has been doing for years, but whatever... 8. Review safety standards for gun locks and safes - mostly agree. I'm not really sure what this accomplishes. If they intend a requirement for everyone to have their guns locked up, then I see where this could be useful. I actually don't have a problem with a requirement to keep guns locked up, but there needs to be a recognition that a "ready service gun" can be left loaded if secured. To go DC style and require that every gun be completely unloaded and looked down is not realistic for home defense. 9. Require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations - agree. Data on where people get their illegal guns can help to combat specific problem areas instead of blanket targeting all gun owners. 10. Analyze stolen gun info and make it available to local LE - agree. Once again, info to specifically target problem areas, and increase public awareness of the need for properly securing firearms. 11. Nominate ATF director - ambivalent. 12. Provide proper training for active shooter situations - wholeheartedly agree. There needs to be a well-thought out solution that includes lockdown procedures, orderly evacuations, armed response (police or otherwise), and post-incident procedures. 13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun crime and prosecute gun crime - agree. Gee, it starts to sound a little like the NRA theme of enforcing laws already on the books, doesn't it? 14. Research causes and prevention of gun violence - mostly agree. This needs to be full and impartial, not a "study" that cherry picks info for a already developed conclusion. 15. Issue a report on gun safety technology - ambivalent. Sounds like another reason to push for expensive technologies that aren't proven (except in the most recent 007), but its a report, not a rule. 16. Clarify that doctors can ask about guns in the home - somewhat agree. I don't have a problem with them asking, but it should be an information only question, not a diagnostic question. IE, they ask if I drink so that they can tell me the risks associated, fine, but don't report me because I legally indulge in a pastime, make sense? Anyway, if you don't want to tell them, don't, it's not like your doctor can check... 17. Clarify that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence - agree. I'm not sure why this is an issue, I have been told by mental health professionals that what I tell them is in confidence unless it indicates that I may harm myself or others (I had to get a screening for my current job, don't let your imaginations go crazy). If it is already a policy, then getting the word out is a positive. 18. Provide incentives to hire school resource officers - agree. 19. Develop model emergency response plans - agree. 20. Clarify the scope of mental health care that Medicaid must cover - agree. Getting people the help they need is imperative. 21-22. I'm not even gonna pretend I know what those mean, athough I assume they deal with paying for mental health treatment. In that case, see 20. 23. National dialogue by HHS and Education about mental illness - agree, although I think the best work would be done by grassroots education campaigns. So anyway, there are my thoughts on the President's proposals. On the surface at least, most of these actions address the problem (people), and not the tool (firearms), which is where I think we need to be looking. If done right, I could easily get behind his proposals, assuming the politicians don't turn them into some Frankenmonster of regulatory hell, which they are prone to do. I'm not going to pretend I know everything about mental illness, but I think that there needs to be serious dialogue among professionals (not the media and politicians) to address the issue. I have plenty more thoughts, but I think this post is long enough.

Brian C
Brian C

I see many well thought out arguments and comments here. Too bad the NRA, can't seem to make the same arguments as clearly as some of you have. In hindsight, it appears that paranoia from some might come back to cause problems for us all.

We all can see that any talk of of an AWB is ridiculous. Rifles account for less than 1% of deaths by firearm in this country, so why not look at handguns if serious about ending gun violence. Not scary, not sensational enough I guess. Crime rates have more to do with the economy than anything else, so attempts to restrict or remove weapons, especially rifles, will not eliminate this problem.

From my POV, it seems that all of the recent mass shooters obtained their weapons "legally". It seems to me that the system we use is broken, and what is worse, maybe the NRA broke it. We talk about the criminals ignoring the laws, but then support or fight to remove controls that could help keep guns off the street. What I say next may anger some, but that doesn't change the fact. Nothing in the Bill of Rights, including the 2nd Amendment is absolute. Acting like it is and being overly paranoid about confiscating arms has resulted in the current situation. Reducing or eliminating background checks, stopping research on gun violence, making it more difficult to track sales of weapons......these aren't the actions of people trying to be part of the solution. You can tell me I am wrong, but sometimes it is not about right and wrong....it is about perception, and I am not feeling to good about the NRA at this point. I hope I am wrong, but it appears that their overzealousness may have found a limit.

Before you start trying to lecture me about defending rights, etc..let me first say that I agree with you. Secondly, let me ask you what rights you want to defend? What about the 1st amendment? What about the 4rh? What amazes me is the number of people ready to fight for weapons to preserve freedom, but the lack of protest to things like the Patriot Act where the freedom we claim to love so dearly is under direct assault.

Not sure where to go next. Just wish the NRA would stick to relevant facts.

Brian C
Brian C

I see many well thought out arguments and comments here. Too bad the NRA, can't seem to make the same arguments as clearly as some of you have. In hindsight, it appears that paranoia from some might come back to cause problems for us all. We all can see that any talk of of an AWB is ridiculous. Rifles account for less than 1% of deaths by firearm in this country, so why not look at handguns if serious about ending gun violence. Not scary, not sensational enough I guess. Crime rates have more to do with the economy than anything else, so attempts to restrict or remove weapons, especially rifles, will not eliminate this problem. From my POV, it seems that all of the recent mass shooters obtained their weapons "legally". It seems to me that the system we use is broken, and what is worse, maybe the NRA broke it. We talk about the criminals ignoring the laws, but then support or fight to remove controls that could help keep guns off the street. What I say next may anger some, but that doesn't change the fact. Nothing in the Bill of Rights, including the 2nd Amendment is absolute. Acting like it is and being overly paranoid about confiscating arms has resulted in the current situation. Reducing or eliminating background checks, stopping research on gun violence, making it more difficult to track sales of weapons......these aren't the actions of people trying to be part of the solution. You can tell me I am wrong, but sometimes it is not about right and wrong....it is about perception, and I am not feeling to good about the NRA at this point. I hope I am wrong, but it appears that their overzealousness may have found a limit. Before you start trying to lecture me about defending rights, etc..let me first say that I agree with you. Secondly, let me ask you what rights you want to defend? What about the 1st amendment? What about the 4rh? What amazes me is the number of people ready to fight for weapons to preserve freedom, but the lack of protest to things like the Patriot Act where the freedom we claim to love so dearly is under direct assault. Not sure where to go next. Just wish the NRA would stick to relevant facts.

WIlliam Higgins
WIlliam Higgins

I hope all of your customers and readers ar coming out this Saturday 19 January to protest. There is a rally at every state capitol across the country. Please look up Guns Across America on Facebook. If you can't make it to the capitol there is Gun Appreciation Day. It is the same say at local gunshops. I think they also have a age on Facebook. If there is a huge turnout the politicians may start to have second thoughts.

Hope to see you there

Bill Higgins

Honolulu HI.

WIlliam Higgins
WIlliam Higgins

I hope all of your customers and readers ar coming out this Saturday 19 January to protest. There is a rally at every state capitol across the country. Please look up Guns Across America on Facebook. If you can't make it to the capitol there is Gun Appreciation Day. It is the same say at local gunshops. I think they also have a age on Facebook. If there is a huge turnout the politicians may start to have second thoughts. Hope to see you there Bill Higgins Honolulu HI.

Jordan Mauriello
Jordan Mauriello

Bryan,

Thanks for your very well thought out words. I couldn't agree more and I appreciate the time that ITS Tactical has taken to follow things methodically and respond when necessary; encouraging it's readers and members to get involved. Well done.

R/

Jordan

Jordan Mauriello
Jordan Mauriello

Bryan, Thanks for your very well thought out words. I couldn't agree more and I appreciate the time that ITS Tactical has taken to follow things methodically and respond when necessary; encouraging it's readers and members to get involved. Well done. R/ Jordan

Mark
Mark

Chris, he can't use an EO to ban "assault weapons" (such an arbitrary designation, isn't it?) or high capacity mags - this would require Congressional action and that's why I believe it won't happen. The funny thing is, if you look at the previous federal assault weapons ban, which is the one Feinstein has been pushing for years to bring back, it ended up that gun manufacturers were able to come up with ways around it simply by making modifications which didn't fall within the definition. For example, the Ruger Mini 14 ranch model didn't fall under the ban, yet as a matter of function there is no difference between the Mini, which I happen to own, and your average AR variant. Seriously, is a pistol grip that important? So the Mini doesn't look as cool as the AR, are it's function over form, right?

Rick
Rick

Hi Chris,

You are 100% right saying that the mental health system is in disarray and that has contributed to this problem as much or more than the accessibility of guns has. But it is the hardest part of the problem to solve. You have to define mental illness - because like I've said before: you don't get diagnosed as "mentally ill" you get diagnosed with a specific mental illness, or mental disorder. Some of these are treatable wit medication, some with therapy, some with a combination. You'd need to decide whether head injuries like concussions would be included. So you'd need to define what gets a person disqualified from gun ownership and what steps they can take to have their right reinstated. It is a very very complex problem. It's also the part of the problem that needs to be addressed the most, but will take the longest.

As far as what you've said about "gun free zones" - I'd like to remind you that Columbine had an armed security guard on duty the morning of that disaster. I'd also say: who would YOU hire to be an armed guard in a school? A retired cop? A retired SOF operator? How do we pay for armed security when the state of our education system is already in disarray? If you are going to hire armed security for EVERY school, do you think that a retired cop or SOF operator is going to work for minimum wage searching backpacks? The idea makes no sense. How can you have a low paid security guard who you expect to take a bullet for your kid and who you expect to feed bullets back at the threat without hitting your kid? In order to do it, you'd need for train the person, maintain their training, pay them well, supervise them, and arm them appropriately. Then you'd have to define their duties in a clear way so that they go shooting some kid's dad because he's upset that little Johnny got a D in social studies. And you'd have to do it in every school in the nation.

I agree with you, wholeheartedly that the vast majority of what was done yesterday is going to have little or no effect. But if some of it works and some of it doesn't at least we'll know, right.?

I want to just touch on a couple things that you said about citizens engaging threats. In 13 years as a cop, I have never seen a case where a law abiding citizen has shot and killed someone who had shot and killed someone. Based on what you've said, I'm thinking that you are young, and have not served in the military or as an LEO. There is a level of chaos and fear inherent in any gun fight (I don't know if you've ever been in one) or high risk crime scene. Police and military train for it. It enables us to operate effectively under conditions that would send an untrained person running. The idea that a citizen or group of citizens would engage an active shooter is erroneous. There is simply too much chaos to even think about engaging the threat. There are people screaming, running everywhere, bleeding etc. you as an untrained citizen can't shoot through that. Hell, I'm trained and I don't know if I could shoot through it or if I would even try. In fact, as a gun owner, if you have never heard of the concept of "target, backstop and beyond" I recommend that you turn your guns in immediately. When a gun goes off and people start to panic and scream and run is certainly not a situation where your CCW is going to help you. Like I said, police train for that scenario. I'd be willing to bet that you don't train for it. So you can't imagine what it would be like and you can't predict what you'd do. I'm comfortable saying that you'd hastily find an exit, try to account for your friends and find some safety. In all of the mass shootings that we have experienced no citizen has ever engaged an active shooter with fire. In fact, I can only think of one situation where citizens mobilized to prevent mass murder, and that would be the heroes of United 93 on 9/11, not a gun to be seen.

I'd like to talk about your mention of the Fort Hood incident. This really convinces me that you've never served in the military. Troops in garrison, that is to say, not deployed, do not walk around with loaded rifles. At least they didn't when I served (if that has changed, then by all means flame me up). So when somebody started shooting in Fort Hood, they were, for all intents and purposes, firing at defenseless people.

I also think that you have little understanding about PTSD because it would seem that you think that veteran suicide is a little more than a training issue. It is a legitimate and treatable mental illness that many Americans don't understand because you don't get it from playing Call of Duty. And that's not to make light of PTSD, or the contributions that 99.55 % of the population who don't serve. It's more to illustrate that most Americans get their impression of combat from movies or video games. And they decide what they think they'd do based their impressions. But like General Powell once said "no plan survives initial contact with the enemy." Nobody who hasn't been there, knows how they'll react when lead starts flying.

As far as road rage shootings and bar fight shootings - how do you know there aren't on the rise? The sad thing is that unless it is a very slow news day, single victim shootings seldom make the news. You'd probably need access to actual police stats to know whether what you're saying is true. I mean, 900 Americans met their end at the business end of a gun in the month since Sandy Hook, and the the only ones who made the national news were 2 firefighters (also heroes in my opinion) in Webster, NY.

I'm not anti-self defense. I'm not anti gun. I'm not anti-gun control. I'm a husband, a father, a gun owner, a veteran, a cop and most of all a concerned citizen who would love to live the rest of my days never having to hear about another mass shooting on US soil. Unfortunately I know that I will hear about more.

tragicview
tragicview

Thanks for the great piece Bryan. Spoken like a real pro.

Cheers,

Tim

tragicview
tragicview

Thanks for the great piece Bryan. Spoken like a real pro. Cheers, Tim

CAMPBELL
CAMPBELL

Smells like troll in here.

Christian Nadeau
Christian Nadeau

Leo,

I understand that you feel the president, as a public official, is a more visible target. However, most people already know, and if they didn't they are know aware based on the attention the issue has been getting, that the president and his family are protected 24 hours a day by ARMED guards. With that in mind, how many times has he or his family been in actual physical danger because of a mugger, home invader, mass murderer, etc. since he took office and became a so called "target"? According to the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports 2008 had about 1,420,000 reported violent crimes, 2009 had 1,330,000 reported, 2010 had 1,240,000 reported, and 2011 had 1,200,000 violent crimes reported (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/violent-crime/violent-crime). With so many violent crimes don't you think we would have heard if even one of them had been against our own president? It seems to me that none of these violent crimes were committed against the people you claim as more likely to be targeted, but instead were committed against everyday citizens (apparently law abiding citizens to boot because they actually reported the crimes instead of doing drive-by's in retaliation). So, do you still think someone who is quite obviously surrounded 24 hours per day by armed guards is really at a higher risk than an average citizen being stalked by a mugger or rapist, or the single mother in Georgia a few days ago hiding in a crawl space with her two children as a home invader comes after them?

Chris

p.s. Skip & Leo, I'm commenting here because there is no "reply" button under Leo's original RSVP comment.

Ken
Ken

I'm just pointing out the fallacy of pointing at registering cars as a reason to register firearms. If there wasn't a property tax and safety inspection then there probably wouldn't be a need to register cars.

There IS a real danger of being lulled into "just" registering firearms. The biggest question is why? Why register a firearm? Why would the government want to know the location of every firearm?

I've posed that to others and the answers generally given is to keep them out of the hands of those who shouldn't have one. Yet, today, it's already illegal for broad groups of people to possess a firearm or ammunition--yet they still do.

One of the biggest fears is being lulled into "just" registering your firearms is allowing the Government know where all of the firearms are and then in similarly " New York swift" enactment a new restriction force folks to turn in those registered firearms.

JayfromVA
JayfromVA

Mark,

Actually, there has been talk of taking away firearms, NY was actually discussing that exact thing. It died in secret negotiations because I think they realize that the practicality of attempting to enforce such a proposition was beyond their capabilities. The funny part about the whole speech yesterday is that I actually have no problem with most of his executive actions. He could have left it at that and most likely garnered bi-partisan, and even NRA support (a safe gun ownership campaign? Who owns that exactly?). Instead, he chose to push ahead with what he knew would be controversial legislation to ban mags and "assault weapons".

And yes, I do think that they are taking advantage of the fact that children were killed. Feinstein has had this bill drafted for quite some time, and various gun control measures have been submitted for the last several years, but let's be honest, a bunch of adults dying never creates the same emotional response as one child dying. These measures have been defeated because there wasn't a full-blown outcry to exploit. Now there is. Realistically, I don't think a firearms ban will pass, a mag ban I am not so sure about. But NY is a great example of a politician pushing even further restrictions with no basis in research or fact and affecting a large number of law-abiding citizens with an arbitrary numbers game because of a tragedy. Am I hunkering down in my bunker like a Nat Geo reality show star? No. But governments rarely take drastic action, they realize that gradual is much more effective, and they have plenty of time, so I attempt to stay vigilant and contact my elected representatives when I feel it is necessary, not on the orders of some manufacturer.

I personally hope that some time in the next 3 or so months, things calm down so I can finally find some .308 to zero my Scout with, and we can all go back to debating which pistol design is the finest in history...

Mark
Mark

Chris, so if I’m understanding your theory, you think Obama held back on gun control to lull voters into a false sense of security so they could re-elect him without fear of restrictions on gun rights in the second term? This theory is premised on the assumption that Obama voters were people who cared about whether they would be able, in the future, to buy an assault weapon (whatever that means – if you are New York any long gun with a detachable magazine is an assault weapon which is ridiculous as far as I’m concerned) or a high capacity magazine. I don’t have any data to prove this, but I have a pretty strong gut feeling that gun rights advocates were not a strong demographic for him in either of his elections. As far as a lack of gun tragedy to play on, here is the list: 3/29/09, Carthage, NC, 11 killed/injured; 4/3/09, Binghamton, NY, 18 killed/injured; 11/5/09, Ft. Hood, TX, 43 killed/injured; 8/3/10, Manchester, CT, 11 killed/injured; 1/8/11, Tucson, AZ, 19 killed/injured; 9/6/11, Carson City, NV, 12 killed/injured; 10/14/11, Seal Beach, CA, 9 killed/injured; 4/2/12, Oakland, CA, 10 killed/injured; 7/20/12, Aurora, CO, 70 killed/injured; 8/5/12, Oak Creek, WI, 10 killed/injured. Several of these captured national attention, yet the administration did nothing to limit gun rights. Maybe he was waiting for elementary school kids to reveal his surprise tyrannical nature. I have a friend who is a liberal Democrat and, trust me, the left thinks this guy is way too moderate for their taste. And what did he do with his extraordinary executive powers today? He tightened background checks, which I happen to agree with. I want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. They tend to give us a bad name. Other stuff he did with executive orders today will do absolutely nothing to make it harder for us to legitimately purchase firearms or ammunition. Look, I don’t like the guy. I didn’t vote for him and agree with him on almost nothing. I own three firearms and believe very strongly in gun rights. But I think all this talk about the big bad government coming to take our guns is a bunch of overblown hype. I wish everyone would just take a deep breath and look at this whole thing in a clear headed way. I don’t want them to re-impose the assault weapons ban and I want to be able to choose a 20 round mag if I want one. Realistically, the chances of the House passing a bill banning either of these is roughly equivalent to me growing utters that give chocolate milk. The GOP has a majority there for pete’s sake. The Dems had their chance to tighten gun laws when they owned the whole ball game, House, Senate and White House, for two years at the beginning of Obama’s first term and they took a pass. It’s obviously not that big of a priority to them. We all just need to calm down because I’m sick of paying $1 per round for 5.56 ammo. I just wish I owned stock in Armalite, Glock, Colt, Remington, Bushmaster, you name it, because they are raking in the bucks like nobody’s business right now.

Rick
Rick

Sorry, Ken, I just re-read my reply to you and it kinda looks like I'm jumping down your throat a bit. That wasn't my intention. I'm off today so I've been following the story pretty closely...listening to the NRA dummies has me wound a bit tight...I certainly don't think that you personally dress up like a SEAL in your basement...hopefully I'm right about that at least.

Mark
Mark

Personally I believe the NY gun law recently passed was over-broad. It defines an "assault weapon" as any long gun with a flash suppressor or detachable magazine. A single characteristic such as the ones I mentioned would bring the weapon under the law. As such, if I'm reading this right, a bolt-action rifle with a detachable magazine would be banned and even the folks in Washington aren't looking to go after those types of guns. The other draconian measure is that any magazine with more than 7 rounds is not just banned for sale, it's banned for possession. In other words, if you have one now there's no grandfathering it in, you have to just get rid of it. I will be interested to see what happens to this law in the courts which is where I am 100% certain it will land.

Rick
Rick

Hey Ken,

I'm not gonna tell you what to do or that you're wrong, but I think if you re-read On Killing it might be of some benefit to your argument.

I find it hard to figure out why any person involved in law enforcement would think that fewer gun laws and more guns on the street are the answer. That said, that's one of the things that makes this country great...we get to disagree.

I will say this, I haven't spent my adult life defending the constitution so that some damned fool could enjoy his right to bear arms and celebrate it by executing 6 year olds. I don't do it so that some loony can walk into a theater and celebrate HIS 2A rights by blowing away a dozen people who just wanted to watch a movie. I fully understand the "well regulated militia" in it's spirit and definition and I think that if a reasonable American can't see that the 2A is being exploited at the cost of the lives of our sons and daughters, then something is very wrong.

I'll just jump down off the soapbox and reiterate something I said before: this isn't an issue about magazine capacity, muzzle velocity, auto vs semi-auto...none of those things are responsible for the violence of the past 30 years. This is about keeping guns out of the hands of people who perpetrate this type of violence. I personally feel that ANYTHING done to that end, is better than nothing done. It may not work, but I agree with the Pres on this one...that shouldn't mean it ain't worth trying. And as far as I'm concerned, if the average American feels persecuted by the fact that they will have to have a background check before buying an AR-15, but that same check prevents some psycho from getting the same gun to commit an unspeakable act, then too F'ing bad. Your right to dress up and pretend to be a Navy SEAL in your basement should not supersede the right of every other American to enjoy their life to the fullest, free of fear and paranoia.

Ken, you've probably been to a few shootings...so you know firsthand how bad the problem is. You also should be aware of the principle of de-escalation as opposed to the philosophy of escalation. As law enforcers, we should probably preach de-escalation and not perpetuate the idea of immediately going to guns. Also you are probably keenly aware that you and I have to qualify with our use of force options but obviously there is no provision of accountability, qualification or competency within 2A. We can't ask the same of the average gun owner because obviously, that would be an infringement.

Last thing, I saw this thing on twitter where a comedian said something like "it's amazing how fast a law abiding gun owner can go all "I'm gonna kill you with my gun"..." It's kinda funny, but it's also kinda true. One bad day, one catalyst is all it takes and like they say - you can't put that bullet back in the gun.

Rick
Rick

A valid argument, Ken, if we were talking about 88.8% of the population driving race cars. But I think the demand for race cars and their impact on the lives of Amercians is significantly less than the impact of guns, don't you?

Ken
Ken

I feel sorry for you folks who live in New York!

Note the 7rd limit. They were pretty slick in effectively banning nearly all pistols considering few are available with 7 round or less magazines. They probably looked on the Glock website, saw that the smallest magazine available was 8 rounds and made the limit 7.

Ken
Ken

I feel sorry for you folks who live in New York! Note the 7rd limit. They were pretty slick in effectively banning nearly all pistols considering few are available with 7 round or less magazines. They probably looked on the Glock website, saw that the smallest magazine available was 8 rounds and made the limit 7.

Ken
Ken

You have to be licensed to drive a car, register the car, and insure the car ONLY if you're going to drive the car on public roads. You can have any car you want without registering or insuring if it is never driven on the road--a race car is a perfect example.

Leo
Leo

I know there is plenty of talk about "fearing the government" and "keeping it in check," but let's face it. We wouldn't be able to overthrow our government if we wanted to, and that is not even factoring in the possibility of allies assisting. There is the argument made that the Taliban have been able to hold onto certain parts of Afghanistan while only lightly armed like our average gun owner. That is with less than a tenth of our total national military force, and they certainly do not have "control." It is not realistic. And about your first sentence, it does no such thing. It also does not say that you cannot have a 2,000 round magazine; it addresses neither. Our weapon restriction laws are almost entirely of our own interpretation, which is why the "How dare you step on my 2nd amendment rights!" argument does nothing for me. The government could take away everything except the one shot small caliber rifles, and it would still be "constitutional" thanks to the vagueness of its language. Sure, they could let you have whatever military tech you wanted. It is all about our interpretation of the constitution.

spuppets4
spuppets4

@Scott Sideleau  Despite what your momma told you, violence does solve problems and if your not part of the solution then your part of the problem. I live in new york and what the governor did here with the safe act is just plain treason. What the president wants to do is just plain treason. I suggest you read "The American Manifesto". Every single american citizen has the right and duty to protect himself, his family and his property. weather or not they are mentally disturbed, handicapped, a felon ect dont matter. EVERYONE has that right and it's their responsibility to do so. Period. 

Incognito
Incognito

Personally I'm tired of the NRA getting a bad rap for everything that goes on with regard to guns. I have guns.. I grew up with guns.. I was hunting at 8 years old.. Was taught to carry my own rifle.. clean my own kills and care for my own guns.. and heaven forbid if I 'in a moment of not paying attention', pointed my gun toward anyone whether loaded or unloaded.. the smack I would get up side the head would have my feet off the ground.. My brother, who taught his 'baby sis' to hunt and shoot was a demolitions expert in WWII and he took a no nonsense approach to gun safety.. His kids and myself were taught proper handling and safety..The majority of gun owners, especially those in the NRA have been trained as well and I don't see any of those nut jobs shooting up schools and theaters and what not that are members of the NRA. So why do you have to 'down' the NRA? Why is it that our guns are in jeopardy now? Is it because you think we don't know how to use them? We're better trained than the average person. And what would give you the right in the first place to make any decision regarding our/my gun rights? I'm thankful for the NRA and their stand and fight attitude.. Were it not for them we would have lost these rights a long time ago. And yes, I'm a staunch patriot and will victoriously defend the Constitution and yes it is...'set in stone' leave it alone.. If you want to register your firearms and tell big brother everything you own..then go for it.. but not mine. It's my business and the government needs to stay out of it. I've committed no crimes therefore no one has any business IN my business. And believe me, the criminals that do the bad stuff don't have background checks.. and most don't obtain their firearms legally..Background checks outside those you get when you purchase a gun are nothing more than an invasion of privacy and most certainly the registering of your firearms.. That just sets us all up for a tyrannical government to confiscate your guns! Leave the law abiding people alone.. this is not Russia or China..This is America! an armed man/woman is a citizen. An unarmed man/woman is a subject. "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." (Benjamin Franklin).

Chance Eary
Chance Eary

The NRA has to push "the line" back as far as possible so that there is ground to lose before critically important things are threatened. I often don't agree with them myself, but you have to remember: the anti-gunners are never going away. Ever.

Anti-gunners are going to demand some sort of concession to mollify them, however symbolic or frivolous that concession may be. They're not really concerned about pragmatic solutions anyways, only with what makes them feel better about themselves or provides them with a false sense of security.

So I, personally, want the NRA fighting for stupid things. The war on guns is never going to end, and battles will definitely be lost. I'd rather lose battles over bad ideas than lose battles over things that affect the core of the Second Amendment.

Chance Eary
Chance Eary

The NRA has to push "the line" back as far as possible so that there is ground to lose before critically important things are threatened. I often don't agree with them myself, but you have to remember: the anti-gunners are never going away. Ever. Anti-gunners are going to demand some sort of concession to mollify them, however symbolic or frivolous that concession may be. They're not really concerned about pragmatic solutions anyways, only with what makes them feel better about themselves or provides them with a false sense of security. So I, personally, want the NRA fighting for stupid things. The war on guns is never going to end, and battles will definitely be lost. I'd rather lose battles over bad ideas than lose battles over things that affect the core of the Second Amendment.

Christian Nadeau
Christian Nadeau

Mark,

Purportedly a large number of democrats (even those who do not own guns) feel that the president's EO's on gun control are a bit far-reaching, and as such might not have been as supportive of him during his first term or during elections. As I recall, the president downplayed the Fort Hood shooting and it occurred on a military base, which are mandated as "gun free" zones, the Tucson shooting had limited body count, and the Aurora shooting occurred in a "gun free" zone, which likely would have raised questions about increased gun laws when that gun control law did not work. As for the others you list, I cannot say with certainty that I saw them receive national attention but I can say that none had nearly the same emotional effect as 20 dead children. With the president's EO about tightening background checks it seems to me that they are saying, "Criminals (i.e. law breakers) did something bad so lets look harder at law abiding citizens because they might one day do something bad". As a Criminal Justice student this seems to go against our systems "innocent until proven guilty" model and prejudges citizens without any proof. Next, can you tell me with 100% certainty that the president will not push to ban big bad AR-15-like rifles and that such a ban will not make it harder for me (a law abiding citizen) to legitimately purchase one? Why not actually focus on keeping guns out of criminals hands by cracking down on black markets rather than on what things can sold by legitimate gun dealers who keep records, inform legislatures of gun purchases, and are already completely abiding by the government's laws and restrictions? Additionally, why is it that people keep stating that proposed gun control legislation "will not pass in the House" when the president is using Executive Order to push them through, which by Cornell Law's definition, "have the force of law but do not have to be approved by congress."

Chris

Christian Nadeau
Christian Nadeau

Mark, Purportedly a large number of democrats (even those who do not own guns) feel that the president's EO's on gun control are a bit far-reaching, and as such might not have been as supportive of him during his first term or during elections. As I recall, the president downplayed the Fort Hood shooting and it occurred on a military base, which are mandated as "gun free" zones, the Tucson shooting had limited body count, and the Aurora shooting occurred in a "gun free" zone, which likely would have raised questions about increased gun laws when that gun control law did not work. As for the others you list, I cannot say with certainty that I saw them receive national attention but I can say that none had nearly the same emotional effect as 20 dead children. With the president's EO about tightening background checks it seems to me that they are saying, "Criminals (i.e. law breakers) did something bad so lets look harder at law abiding citizens because they might one day do something bad". As a Criminal Justice student this seems to go against our systems "innocent until proven guilty" model and prejudges citizens without any proof. Next, can you tell me with 100% certainty that the president will not push to ban big bad AR-15-like rifles and that such a ban will not make it harder for me (a law abiding citizen) to legitimately purchase one? Why not actually focus on keeping guns out of criminals hands by cracking down on black markets rather than on what things can sold by legitimate gun dealers who keep records, inform legislatures of gun purchases, and are already completely abiding by the government's laws and restrictions? Additionally, why is it that people keep stating that proposed gun control legislation "will not pass in the House" when the president is using Executive Order to push them through, which by Cornell Law's definition, "have the force of law but do not have to be approved by congress." Chris

JayfromVA
JayfromVA

Mark, Actually, there has been talk of taking away firearms, NY was actually discussing that exact thing. It died in secret negotiations because I think they realize that the practicality of attempting to enforce such a proposition was beyond their capabilities. The funny part about the whole speech yesterday is that I actually have no problem with most of his executive actions. He could have left it at that and most likely garnered bi-partisan, and even NRA support (a safe gun ownership campaign? Who owns that exactly?). Instead, he chose to push ahead with what he knew would be controversial legislation to ban mags and "assault weapons". And yes, I do think that they are taking advantage of the fact that children were killed. Feinstein has had this bill drafted for quite some time, and various gun control measures have been submitted for the last several years, but let's be honest, a bunch of adults dying never creates the same emotional response as one child dying. These measures have been defeated because there wasn't a full-blown outcry to exploit. Now there is. Realistically, I don't think a firearms ban will pass, a mag ban I am not so sure about. But NY is a great example of a politician pushing even further restrictions with no basis in research or fact and affecting a large number of law-abiding citizens with an arbitrary numbers game because of a tragedy. Am I hunkering down in my bunker like a Nat Geo reality show star? No. But governments rarely take drastic action, they realize that gradual is much more effective, and they have plenty of time, so I attempt to stay vigilant and contact my elected representatives when I feel it is necessary, not on the orders of some manufacturer. I personally hope that some time in the next 3 or so months, things calm down so I can finally find some .308 to zero my Scout with, and we can all go back to debating which pistol design is the finest in history...

Christian Nadeau
Christian Nadeau

Rick,

I completely understand that it will take time to figure out how to define, diagnose, and treat the mentally ill and that there will be an abundance of debate on what mental illness constitutes a potential threat or is likely to cause criminal tendencies. What I don't like is when such issues as these cause people to postpone working on solving them in favor of pushing through more emotionally-driven knee-jerk legislation.

For Columbine having an armed guard, all I can think of is that the AWB at the very least contributed to lulling everyone into a sense of security, thinking ,"Oh, that could never happen because we've got a law against it." Also, if I'm not mistaken one of the president's 23 Executive Orders was to provide funding for hiring and training more school resource officers. Admittedly they won't be able to hire nearly enough for all the schools in the country, but I feel there would be plenty of tax revenue available if not for wasteful government spending. Maybe some funding should come out of teacher's paychecks. After all, there are a plethora of examples of overpaid teachers who do absolutely nothing to teach the kids in their class, and for the good teachers out there the new resource officers would be protecting them in addition to the children so why not have them share some of the financial burden. The idea of using former military and law enforcement makes sense to me because they have already had more training that the average citizen, which means they will probably have little trouble distinguishing angry Johnny Sr. from an actual threat, and being retired would mean that even minimum wage would merely be supplemental income for them. Further, police and military personnel throughout the country are already being trained, paid, trained some more, and supervised, so why is it so difficult to conceive that the same could be done for resource officers?

Next, if you re-read the second paragraph of my first reply you should be able to see that I specifically point out that I am not military or law enforcement and as such have no real-world experience. I cannot begin to comprehend what goes through your mind when it hits the fan, I do understand the concept of target, backstop and beyond, but if something were to happen I want more options than "A. hide or B. kiss your ass goodbye". I don't doubt your description of the chaos but it seems to put forth the idea that the CCW holder is responding to the shooting from another part of the scene as opposed to actually taking rounds. Given the fact that I have no experience or training in such situation, maybe you can clarify; if you are actively taking rounds are you going to return fire or will you sit there taking hits while waiting for the "perfect shot"? As for United 93, guns were banned from planes prior to 9/11, so there is a reasons nobody had any weapons to fight back with. Much like "fun free" zones have done to schools, the government set the stage for those passengers to be defenseless. Why do you think the hijackers had to use box cutters instead of combat knives, machetes, or guns?

Again, I've already specified that I have not served. I must ask, though, why don't troops in garrison have their weapons? They have been trained to handle them safely (and not all have PTSD) so why are they forced by federal mandate to be as defenseless as every single school child in Sandy Hook was in their "gun free" zone? Again why are we focusing on taking away citizens ability to purchase guns and gun accessories than on trying to fix the mental issues that we know exist?

Aside from my interpretation of the FBI's Uniform Crime Report data, I have no data to support my position on road rage and bar shootings. However, it seems to me that at least somebody would be talking about it if road rage and bar shootings were becoming more frequent, especially given the current focus on gun related issues.

Chris

Christian Nadeau
Christian Nadeau

Rick, I completely understand that it will take time to figure out how to define, diagnose, and treat the mentally ill and that there will be an abundance of debate on what mental illness constitutes a potential threat or is likely to cause criminal tendencies. What I don't like is when such issues as these cause people to postpone working on solving them in favor of pushing through more emotionally-driven knee-jerk legislation. For Columbine having an armed guard, all I can think of is that the AWB at the very least contributed to lulling everyone into a sense of security, thinking ,"Oh, that could never happen because we've got a law against it." Also, if I'm not mistaken one of the president's 23 Executive Orders was to provide funding for hiring and training more school resource officers. Admittedly they won't be able to hire nearly enough for all the schools in the country, but I feel there would be plenty of tax revenue available if not for wasteful government spending. Maybe some funding should come out of teacher's paychecks. After all, there are a plethora of examples of overpaid teachers who do absolutely nothing to teach the kids in their class, and for the good teachers out there the new resource officers would be protecting them in addition to the children so why not have them share some of the financial burden. The idea of using former military and law enforcement makes sense to me because they have already had more training that the average citizen, which means they will probably have little trouble distinguishing angry Johnny Sr. from an actual threat, and being retired would mean that even minimum wage would merely be supplemental income for them. Further, police and military personnel throughout the country are already being trained, paid, trained some more, and supervised, so why is it so difficult to conceive that the same could be done for resource officers? Next, if you re-read the second paragraph of my first reply you should be able to see that I specifically point out that I am not military or law enforcement and as such have no real-world experience. I cannot begin to comprehend what goes through your mind when it hits the fan, I do understand the concept of target, backstop and beyond, but if something were to happen I want more options than "A. hide or B. kiss your ass goodbye". I don't doubt your description of the chaos but it seems to put forth the idea that the CCW holder is responding to the shooting from another part of the scene as opposed to actually taking rounds. Given the fact that I have no experience or training in such situation, maybe you can clarify; if you are actively taking rounds are you going to return fire or will you sit there taking hits while waiting for the "perfect shot"? As for United 93, guns were banned from planes prior to 9/11, so there is a reasons nobody had any weapons to fight back with. Much like "fun free" zones have done to schools, the government set the stage for those passengers to be defenseless. Why do you think the hijackers had to use box cutters instead of combat knives, machetes, or guns? Again, I've already specified that I have not served. I must ask, though, why don't troops in garrison have their weapons? They have been trained to handle them safely (and not all have PTSD) so why are they forced by federal mandate to be as defenseless as every single school child in Sandy Hook was in their "gun free" zone? Again why are we focusing on taking away citizens ability to purchase guns and gun accessories than on trying to fix the mental issues that we know exist? Aside from my interpretation of the FBI's Uniform Crime Report data, I have no data to support my position on road rage and bar shootings. However, it seems to me that at least somebody would be talking about it if road rage and bar shootings were becoming more frequent, especially given the current focus on gun related issues. Chris

Christian Nadeau
Christian Nadeau

Mark,

The law does seem quite absurd in its reach and I am also interested in what the courts will say. Even if they strike it down, though, will it happen before or after the law takes full effect? By that I mean, is it going to take the courts longer than a year to strike it down, thus ensuring that anyone in the state who complied with the law has already long since gotten rid of their mags? I'm willing to bet the law exempt law enforcement, certain politicians, and those who protect the politicians.

Chris

Christian Nadeau
Christian Nadeau

Mark, The law does seem quite absurd in its reach and I am also interested in what the courts will say. Even if they strike it down, though, will it happen before or after the law takes full effect? By that I mean, is it going to take the courts longer than a year to strike it down, thus ensuring that anyone in the state who complied with the law has already long since gotten rid of their mags? I'm willing to bet the law exempt law enforcement, certain politicians, and those who protect the politicians. Chris

Christian Nadeau
Christian Nadeau

Rick,

From my perspective it seems more like the lack of adequate mental health care is being abused more than the 2nd Amendment. After all, it was a psychopath who pulled the trigger in Sandy Hook and Aurora, so why are we trying to place blame on sane gun owners? In addition, both shootings occurred in "gun free" zones; do you think that might be a factor? A few reports I've heard state that the Aurora shooter specifically targeted it instead of closer theaters because he knew nobody would be able to fight back. To that end, every school shooting since 1990 has been in a "gun free" zone, so I would question why the Gun Free Zone Act of 1990 has not yet been repealed before I would jump on the bandwagon saying we need more ineffective laws. Now I now this probably sounds like I am just another anti-gun control person telling you what will not work rather than presenting actual ideas for a solution, but does it really make sense to ignore logical arguments and clear evidence simply on the basis of "We need to do this even if it's wrong because it at least shows we're doing something"? I am all for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill but the proposed gun control legislation, I feel, will simply do absolutely nothing to accomplish that goal.

As for your point about teaching de-escalation of the use of force continuum, I am not a police officer and still have 2 more year before I graduate with a Criminal Justice degree, and I do agree that not every situation warrants an all-out armed response with bullets flying everywhere. However, in situations like Sandy Hook and Aurora bullets from armed law abiding citizens flying back at the shooters would have been more than appropriate whereas decisions about use of force ( "What's the bare minimum I should use to try to stop him because I really don't want to hurt this guy that just shot four people next to me" ) should be left to sworn officers who have brothers and sisters in arms who can watch their 6 in case they make the wrong decision. After all, yesterday (at the risk of sounding corny) thousands of legal gun owners hurt nobody.

In regards to the last part about the comedian, replace "law abiding gun owner" with "cop" and see if it is nearly as funny a statement. I'm sure you will agree that police officers often face much more challenging situations and have many more "bad days" than most law abiding gun owners have in their entire lives, so what makes us so much more dangerous? It can't be level of training otherwise Fort Hood (the deadliest mass shooting on a military base in the U.S.) would not have happened, and none of our military personnel returning from overseas would ever commit suicide since they are trained specifically for combat. So again, why do anti-self defense folks feel that we are so dangerous? Why aren't there more road-rage and bar-fight induced shootings in Florida since they eased up on their gun control laws?

Chris

Ken
Ken

I'm just pointing out the fallacy of pointing at registering cars as a reason to register firearms. If there wasn't a property tax and safety inspection then there probably wouldn't be a need to register cars. There IS a real danger of being lulled into "just" registering firearms. The biggest question is why? Why register a firearm? Why would the government want to know the location of every firearm? I've posed that to others and the answers generally given is to keep them out of the hands of those who shouldn't have one. Yet, today, it's already illegal for broad groups of people to possess a firearm or ammunition--yet they still do. One of the biggest fears is being lulled into "just" registering your firearms is allowing the Government know where all of the firearms are and then in similarly " New York swift" enactment a new restriction force folks to turn in those registered firearms.

Christian Nadeau
Christian Nadeau

Leo,

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" leaves little room for "interpretation" as far as I am concerned. Common citizens (aka militia) used "military grade" weapons to fight the British for Independence and to fight the Confederates to keep this country intact (and to abolish slavery). Who's to say common citizens won't one day need "military grade" weapons again to stand up against a tyrannical, dictatorial administration, or other threat to our way of life, regardless of how impossible you think it might seem? Just as an example, the Viet Cong seemed to do pretty well despite being heavily outnumbered by our military, and if my knowledge of history is correct the South Vietnamese government fell in 1976. The ability of overthrowing our government is not the resounding issue, though; the issue is of whether our Constitutional rights, the rights this country was founded on, should be stripped from us on a whim because of the actions of one or two lunatics, particularly when stripping us of our rights will do nothing to prevent further tragedies. History has shown how well disarming the population has worked for citizens in the former Soviet Union, communist China, Cambodia, Serbia, and Iraq, right? Also delving into history, go research how the Nazi's used national gun registration lists to confiscate weapons and execute their owners. I support your choice to give up your rights, but don't try to force me to give up mine.

Chris

Christian Nadeau
Christian Nadeau

Leo, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" leaves little room for "interpretation" as far as I am concerned. Common citizens (aka militia) used "military grade" weapons to fight the British for Independence and to fight the Confederates to keep this country intact (and to abolish slavery). Who's to say common citizens won't one day need "military grade" weapons again to stand up against a tyrannical, dictatorial administration, or other threat to our way of life, regardless of how impossible you think it might seem? Just as an example, the Viet Cong seemed to do pretty well despite being heavily outnumbered by our military, and if my knowledge of history is correct the South Vietnamese government fell in 1976. The ability of overthrowing our government is not the resounding issue, though; the issue is of whether our Constitutional rights, the rights this country was founded on, should be stripped from us on a whim because of the actions of one or two lunatics, particularly when stripping us of our rights will do nothing to prevent further tragedies. History has shown how well disarming the population has worked for citizens in the former Soviet Union, communist China, Cambodia, Serbia, and Iraq, right? Also delving into history, go research how the Nazi's used national gun registration lists to confiscate weapons and execute their owners. I support your choice to give up your rights, but don't try to force me to give up mine. Chris

The Latest
Squawk Box

If you’re looking for a great lock picking toolset that’s perfect for any skill level, be sure to check out our Bogota Titanium Flats 4-Piece. This toolset includes three straight picks and one tension wrench. Together the Titanium set weighs just 0.3 ounces and their inherently “flat” shape make them easy to store.

4 hours ago
Leave a Comment

We’ve just restocked the ITS Skeletonized Bottle Holder in Black but it’s also available in Coyote and MultiCam too! This lightweight and minimalist design can hold anything from a plastic water bottle to a Jetboil and is handmade in the USA with American materials and labor. Using the included MOLLE/PALS attachment system, it can be mounted virtually anywhere, including most belt sizes with a simple configuration of the mounting strap.

8 hours ago
Leave a Comment