Posted on 12/07/2015 8:13:16 AM PST by Sean_Anthony
No, left, you're not getting gun control. Instead, we offer crime control via good guys (and girls) with guns
Every time a crime is committed with a gun - especially when the crime in question happens to capture the media’s attention - the left wants to know, “When will enough be enough?†That is to say: When will you conservatives finally stop resisting and support gun control?
The New York Times over the weekend even basked in its own self-importance by publishing a pro-gun control editorial on its front page.
So when will enough be enough such that we will finally support gun control? The answer is: Never. Because gun control is not the answer. Even if there were 100,000 mass shootings that killed a million people, I (only presuming to speak for myself here, although I suspect I’ve got plenty of company) will never support gun control because I am convinced it would not only fail to solve the problem but would make the problem worse.
More police is not the answer. Enforcing laws we have and deporting all illegal immigrants and stop immigration from ME countries.
FTFY.
I could go for this, I think. Think of it as light-weight deputization by your local sheriff dept. Training and certification required. Folks would be part of the well-regulated xxxx county militia, with reserve deputy credentials.
Doesn’t interfere with my personal carry rights, but adds a layer of commitment and training - and the ability to respond effectively.
Attractive at face value. Interesting.
The militia was devised for just such an occasion. Raise it up.
:: Think of it as light-weight deputization by your local sheriff dept. Training and certification required ::
Gotta say that what you outline above is exactly the reasoning behind Concealed and Open Carry. If the Sheriff vets your application, you have a duty to be involved when a shooting occurs in your home and/or local neighborhood.
We have this or at least a version of this in Colorado call the Colorado Mounted Rangers. All volunteer, POST certified, state law authorized organization that can and does support local law enforcement.
The best gun control is a steady arm backed by practice at the range.
Seeing that a military officer has the arresting authority of a US Marshal, why not appoint them as such after they retire and allow them to C&C with some authority? I’m sure many would do it as volunteer work. It may be too much for the liberals to handle, their brains would squirt out of their ears if it came into play.
This would need to be a state thing, keeping the fed’s out of this entirely. I could see twenty hours of training, maybe over four weekends....with the mandatory requirement of no criminal episodes and a current license to carry. Just in the state of Alabama....we could probably raise 1,000,000 people in a matter of a hundred days. Just make it another addition on top of the hunting license element.
Training in the care, feeding, correct and proper grooming and operation of light sidearms should be a high school-level educational course, much like drivers’ education now is. Not all students will take it, of course, but either that course or a similar adult-education course should be a REQUIREMENT for the purchase and possession of firearms of deadly power.
Junior ROTC was a sort of idea that unfortunately is now in decline almost everywhere, the more so in those very areas where it may be more needed. Just the daily discipline of being able to face inspection, and the drilling in the various aspects of military customs and responsibilities, does much to form character, an aspect of education that is so sadly neglected today.
"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."
I don't see anything in there authorizing your "REQUIREMENT". Quite the contrary, in fact. You're part of the problem.
I completely agree. We teach English and sometime civics. High School should be to teach rights and responsibilities.
Read very carefully the very words you posted.
“A well regulated militia....”
Would not, a trained and schooled cadre of graduates of just such a program, meet every definition of “a well regulated militia”?
How am I wrong in that interpretation?
Look up the dictionary meaning of “regulated”. To regulate is to require, is it not?
Yeah, notice how the cowards refuse to even touch immigration
Besides, No Mas . .we’re full
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
You're proposing an anti-constitutional infringement.
To "regulate", in the 18th Century, meant to "ensure proper functioning". It doesn't mean what you claim it means.
You're arguing against the constitution from the left, using Chuck Schumer's logic.
You're part of the problem.
I had “criminal episodes” way back when. It didn’t prevent me from obtaining two honorable discharges and it doesn’t prevent me from holding an RN license and it doesn’t prevent me from possessing a firearm and it doesn’t prevent me from possessing a legal concealed carry permit. Would I be unfit for duty then? I would refer you to the scene in the movie “the Patriot” when Benjamin Martin and his son were raising up the South Carolina militia. Martin’s son says of some of the soldiers, “these men, they aren’t the sort we need”. To which Benjamin Martin replies “these are exactly the sort we need”.
as it should be ...
local LE should support their brothers in armed protection
"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."
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" means that the State(s) will have to have armed security. They recognized that the state will form what they called militias and we would call police and/or national guard and/or the military in general. Just coming out from under a tyrannical military occupation they were not happy with an armed government, but they understood it would be a necessary evil.
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The first part of the Amendment references the State, the second part conversely references the People. It is very clear that the people have the right to bear arms, but it is the "why" that is most interesting. Taken together, and put in more modern English, the Second Amendment says "Because we recognize that the government will have to have guns, the people will also have the right to have guns."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.