Feinsteins Gun Control Bill

[Razor]

Originally Posted by WCH

It's not rocket science....if they were secured ...her mentally ill son wouldn't have been able to use them to commit the horrendous acts he carried out.

It's not rocket science...if no one ever drank and drove...far fewer people would be dead each year.

Sad thing is, life doesn't work in the fluffy cloud/unicorns and rainbows mode you want to put forth as a foundation to your argument. Last I checked, those horrendous acts occured in a gun-free zone. In your perfect world, that should have been enough to stop Lanza, shouldn't it have?

[Razor]

Originally Posted by ZonieDiver

If we stick to ONLY the words in the Constitution, these other references become moot.

Except for the decisions of the governmental body whose job it is to interpret the Constitution--the Supreme Court. Last I checked, they said the 2nd Ammendment provided an individual right (in BOTH Heller and McDonald). Therefore, the 'militia' wording in the Constitution has also become moot.

[Jersey Dirtbag]

Please pardon the long post (as well as what may be perceived as my "preaching to the choir"), but I'd like to throw something out there which I haven't seen articulated explicitly anywhere just yet.

If we're interested in determining Nancy Lanza's degree of moral culpability for this atrocity, then given the presence of her mentally unstable son (I'm assuming she had prior knowledge of his illness or at least suspected it based on some of her statements to friends published by the MSM), then I think it's worthwhile to ask how she secured her weapons. For example, if Adam was known to be mentally ill, then I would say she is morally responsible for securing those weapons in a safe whose combination was not known to him.

Then again, her moral culpability isn't all that interesting -- even if everyone "perfectly" secured their weapons, eventually some similarly deranged individual will use a cutting torch to defeat the security measures on a safe and proceed to kill a classroom or two full of schoolchildren.

That brings us to an important point. As we all know, for any given level of preparation, there exists a combination of maneuvers the enemy can make that you will be unprepared to deal with. That's why defensive positions are not just statically established but instead are perpetually improved, right?

So we have to give up on the binary concept of something being either "secure" or "unsecure." What we have instead is a spectrum of security -- given a particular scenario, a combination of security measures has X% chance of successfully defeating the enemy. The Newtown atrocity consisted of a suicidal man with some degree of firearms training wearing a ballistic vest and carrying a semiautomatic, magazine fed rifle (as well as the details of the school/terrain, which are just as relevant). If this is the enemy we want to have, say, a 75% chance of being able to defeat with zero casualties, I think that's going to require a lot more than a few teachers/administrators carrying handguns which they train with infrequently and are not expecting to have to use.

But then again, what are the chances of another Newtown style shooting in the next 10 years at any one particular school? How about 100 years? Is it reasonable to expect that every school is 99% secure against such an attacker? How about a platoon sized element of jihadists, such as the force that attacked the Beslan school? I think it's clear that we can't make our schools impenetrable in a general sense.

Anyway, my point is just that there are plenty of "solutions" being floated around by both sides without anyone first identifying the problem we seek to solve. Wouldn't it make more sense to first decide what sort of attack we want to have some specified chance of being able to defeat and then figure out what measures need to be taken to reach that level of security?

[Peregrino]

Originally Posted by Jersey Dirtbag

Anyway, my point is just that there are plenty of "solutions" being floated around by both sides without anyone first identifying the problem we seek to solve. Wouldn't it make more sense to first decide what sort of attack we want to have some specified chance of being able to defeat and then figure out what measures need to be taken to reach that level of security?

I'm sorry, you must have missed that part of the discussion. Knee-jerk feel-goods want a panacea. 100% foolproof security against every conceivable threat that doesn't cost anything and will make them feel warm and fuzzy all under. Unfortunately, the answer to your question requires lots of work and a proportioned response that accepts that it's impossible to prepare for every eventuality in a real world. Kind of like the Corps of Engineers building a levee system around New Orleans designed to withstand a Cat III hurricane - because thats what the available resources and political will would allow. Course we all know how that one turned out. The CofE is still being pilloried for having failed to meet the delusional expectations of people stupid enough to build below sea-level in a hurricane prone area. The same people who today expect the rest of us to pay for rebuilding their cesspool and demanding that we provide "perfect protection" against the inevitable repeat.

Despite appearances I'm not mocking you. What you're asking is simple common sense. It's basic risk management planning and the way the military (usually) does business. What are the most likely threats (surprisingly, shooters aren't very high on the list) and what's it going to cost (direct/indirect) to address them? Local school systems develop most plans internally though since 9/11 it has become fashionable to use government grants and pay contractors (talk about the full range from frauds to genuine experts all with their hand out to earn a buck or 250K) to develop contingency plans. Then it's up to the local district to decide how they're going to implement them and whether it is about lip-service or actually providing security. There is no one-size-fits-all solution. And as long as the underlying social problems (defective mental health programs, revolving door criminal justice system, and amoral/socially underdeveloped thugs) exist and everybody continues to ignore them, these types of tragedies will continue. School systems that are serious and present "hard targets" will have fewer incidents, those who fail to take the threat seriously become targets of choice. Even psychopaths are smart enough to take the path of least resistance.

My point from the very begining of this discussion has been that it isn't a problem that can be solved by the federal government - despite the fantasies of the sheeple and the statists who manipulate them. Unfortunately nobody seems willing to address the real issues - the aforementioned defective mental health programs, revolving door criminal justice system, and amoral/socially underdeveloped thugs wandering the streets today. The leftists want the appearance of "doing something about the problem" so it's easier for them to attack the inanimate object and deprive law-abiding citizens of a tool necessary for the exercise of a fundamental right.

[Pete]

Gun Restrictions Have Always Bred Defiance, Black Markets

http://reason.com/archives/2012/12/2...ys-bred-defian

"I doubt I ever would have gone to the black market to purchase an illegal assault weapon if it wasn’t for New York’s annoyingly restrictive gun control laws. Wait. Let me back up a bit. New York State passed the Sullivan Act back in 1911. The law required people to get a government permit to own or carry any weapon small enough to be concealed—handguns, in particular. Issuing the permit would be a matter of official discretion, which is a policy continued to the present day..........."

An interesting read. Ropes together a number of issues.

[Pete]

When ‘assault weapons’ saved Koreatown

http://www.humanevents.com/2012/12/2...ved-koreatown/

"This year marked the 20th anniversary of the Los Angeles riots, sparked by the acquittal of four Los Angeles Police Department officers accused of beating the now-deceased Rodney King. During the five days, mobs around Los Angeles looted stores, burnt 3,767 buildings, caused more than $1 billion in property damage, and led to the deaths of more than 50 people and left another 4,000 injured. A story that has been forgotten since then is that of the brave storeowners in Koreatown who fended off mobs with handguns, rifles and assault weapons.................."

A point made in this story is that the police abandoned the area. In any large scale civil disturbance the average citizen has no right to protection from the local police force. You're on your own folks.

Oh, and it uses that nasty militia word.

[ZonieDiver]

Originally Posted by Destrier

A militia of freemen cannot be formed at all unless they are already armed, in order to be well regulated (trained).

My little village here readied themselves and marched West to fight in 1812 in under 12 hours, they became a militia, all already had arms. Would have been difficult to accomplish if they had not had arms already available.

The Militia is the People.

Historically in the US, how well have militias performed on the field of battle against professional soldiers, or for that matter, Native Americans?

To say "the village" is all armed, and when the call comes out - we all just march out and answer it with no prior organization, training, or leadership seems to fly in the face of what SF teaches... doesn't it?

Be in the militia - you can have any arms you want. Not in - not 'qualified' to be in (mental, physical, emotional issues) - tough shit... "No guns for you!"

What I'm saying is that we can redefine these terms in for a modern society in a way that will allow the bulk of responsible, rational citizens who wish to possess such arms to do so, and keep them from the hands (to the extent possible) from those who are not.

Relying on the "same-old, same-old" is not going to work out well for us, I fear.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by ZonieDiver

Historically in the US, how well have militias performed on the field of battle against professional soldiers, or for that matter, Native Americans?..............

Well, the "Militia" appeared to work 20 years ago in Koreatown.

The "Militia" an armed body from the local population banding together to protect the area from a threat.

[Pete]

The "Militia" comcept also appeared to work well in the suburban neighborhoods located outside downtown NOLA. Armed neighbors banding together to protect their property.

Well, that is until they were disarmed by authorities - so all animals could be equal.

[BOfH]

Originally Posted by Peregrino

Entire post.

Bingo! Risk management 101: You cannot eliminate risk, but you can mitigate it to an acceptable level, and that acceptable level depends on how you define it and how much you are willing to spend in time, money and other resources to get there. Or, do you just need to be a little more "secure" than the guy down the street, and hope that the malicious actor(s) move on.

If I may add, the human mind is not a binary state machine: impulse, whim, emotion etc. make the most difficult task in risk management that of securing the human, not inanimate objects. Mental illness that shorts the rational thought circuit(s) only makes it that much more unpredictable.

My .02

[Peregrino]

Originally Posted by ZonieDiver

Historically in the US, how well have militias performed on the field of battle against professional soldiers, or for that matter, Native Americans?

To say "the village" is all armed, and when the call comes out - we all just march out and answer it with no prior organization, training, or leadership seems to fly in the face of what SF teaches... doesn't it?

Be in the militia - you can have any arms you want. Not in - not 'qualified' to be in (mental, physical, emotional issues) - tough shit... "No guns for you!"

What I'm saying is that we can redefine these terms in for a modern society in a way that will allow the bulk of responsible, rational citizens who wish to possess such arms to do so, and keep them from the hands (to the extent possible) from those who are not.

Relying on the "same-old, same-old" is not going to work out well for us, I fear.

Everything "reasonable people" (your definition, not mine) are asking for already exists in some form - and it's all proven to be ineffective. The "20,000 gun laws on the books" isn't hyperbole. The only people who obey them are the law abiding citizens - the ones who aren't prone to shooting up schools, malls, and churches anyway. As an example NC already has a safe storage law. The CCW permit process requires training, a criminal and mental health background check, and approval of the local Sheriff. Non-CCW undergo an NICS check for all purchases and handguns require a special permit - only available from the local Sheriff. What more do you want?

None of this has anything to do with what SF teaches. By doctrine SF doesn't even get to the conflicted area until late Phase II. The locals are already in armed rebellion and the US makes the decision to improve their chances of success (actually to improve our chances of forcing a negotiated settlement that serves US interests but who cares about the fine print?). Bottom line - I'm perfectly happy with the traditional definitions of militia and the concept of the "unorganized militia".

Side note - Your apparent contempt for the "unorganized" militia belies my personal experience. If conflicts endure long enough, militias eventually become something more "formal". FWIW - I worked with the Salvadoran military against the FMLN (a militia) (a mission that also included training and equipping village defense "militias"), on the periphery of the Sandinistas (a militia) against the Nicaraguan military, observed at first hand the auto-defensas (a militia) and the Colombian military against the FARC and friends (also started as militias), got to see the results of the Sendero Luminoso (real bastards) vs. the Peruvian govt, and can list a dozen more fairly recent examples from studies or (distant) observations where the "armed rabble" caused organized forces significant PITA. All of these movements got their start from the "unorganized militia" - most of them in places where civilians had limited access to any weapons, let alone militarilly significant ones. Many of them were even able to achieve negotiated concessions addressing their grievances. As a result, I personally have considerable professional respect for anyone who is willing to take up arms in support of a grievance (and that respect isn't limited to friends - opponents are just as worthy). As the saying goes - "beware the wrath of a righteous man". Not everybody on the other side is an "evil bastard". Anyone willing to take up arms will learn by doing; survivors of the initial learning curve will eventually get pretty good within the constraints of their logistics and coordination capabilities. Ask any of the guys here with experience in the current conflicts (I'm not one of them) what happens when you spend 12 years killing the stupid ones. Then ask yourself why the survivors are still fighting. You don't have to like them but anyone still fighting/joining the fight after 35+ years of conflict has enough motivation to be treated with respect.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Brush Okie

Years ago the politicians figured out it is cheaper to let these people out, allow a certain amount of loss in civilians in order to save money.

YGBSM!

Richard

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by Pete

Well, the "Militia" appeared to work 20 years ago in Koreatown.

The "Militia" an armed body from the local population banding together to protect the area from a threat.

I think your examples fit rather well. In the '65 version the neighboring valley residents were ready if it "spilled over." There was no Gov-sanctioned program to determine if we were responsible or not, and the word 'militia' was a long way from its current perjorative use. To our minds the militia was... us. But we weren't using that term either. We were just a community protecting ourselves, our children (I were a bulletproof teen at the time) and our stuff.

Failing to contest the improper use of that word, even in daily conversation, has yielded much ground to those who've been successful in history at painting with a very broad brush. The expert users of media have the majority of the public well-educated as to what a militia is - it's some overweight, OPSEC-stupid, BDU-clad yay-hoos being paraded in a perp walk. But I won't stop using the word because of someone else's ignorant attempt to define it for me.

It also leads to proposing "reasonable" solutions for the sake of not being painted with that broad brush. Again, the worry about how something plays vs. what it might (or might not) accomplish.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Pete

The "Militia" an armed body from the local population banding together to protect the area from a threat.

Residents also have to understand that there's a 'fine line to be walked' between how such activities may be viewed after-the-fact - a necessary local 'militia' action or an act of vigilantism?

Richard

[Peregrino]

Originally Posted by Pete

Gun Restrictions Have Always Bred Defiance, Black Markets

http://reason.com/archives/2012/12/2...ys-bred-defian

"I doubt I ever would have gone to the black market to purchase an illegal assault weapon if it wasn’t for New York’s annoyingly restrictive gun control laws. Wait. Let me back up a bit. New York State passed the Sullivan Act back in 1911. The law required people to get a government permit to own or carry any weapon small enough to be concealed—handguns, in particular. Issuing the permit would be a matter of official discretion, which is a policy continued to the present day..........."

An interesting read. Ropes together a number of issues.

Not just interesting; fascinating! Falls right in line with personal experiences in several LATAM countries that had/have restrictive gun laws. Seems that when some of the animals are more equal than the others, some of the others will take steps to redress the imbalance.