1 - 10 Next
All spot on. And there's a reason Cooper has *4* rules and not just 1 "don't shoot someone by accident." I've seen experienced shooters slip or start to slip on one. Actually, I'll correct that... every experienced shooter has violated at least one of the 4 rules at some point. Likewise with the NRA's 3. Each rule reinforces the other, and as a result, accidents are typically cascade failures not point failures.. It becomes much more important when you get to handguns, particularly since it is so easy to sweep the muzzle unintentionally - again, even with experience. That's why you have range officers and why everyone looks out for each other at the range. As far as single shots? I was going to note that I taught both wife and son with the 10 round mags of my Ruger 10/22, but then I realized that wasn't really true. They had both already learned good trigger and muzzle discipline with BB guns - which work exactly by your "load one, shoot one" principle. Plus when each went to the Ruger, it was a few hours training with it just learning the gun and practicing both safety and operation with snap caps. In fact, I had my son teach my wife (under my supervision). The best way to learn something is to teach someone else. If I didn't have that many hours to put in with a person, though, then yes; it would be single shots.
The AP story is actually fair, but the KGUN video is rather biased. There's a rather big difference between an Uzi SMG pistol and a full sized Uzi carbine as shown in video. Most notably, the sub-machine gun the girl had did not have a 16" barrel and would be much harder to control. That "instructor" pretty much threw the safety rules out the window. Not only did he pay with his life, that poor girl is going to have to life with this for the rest of hers.
I do think Andrea needs to apologize. Her failure to include beheadings or crucifixion shows a serious lack of understanding about these jihadis.
Now hold on. The "in the home" idea is certainly in the Constitution. It is called "keeping arms." It would be just as much a violation to try and require me to keep my arms in a government run or approved "armory" as it is to tell me that I cannot bear arms outside my property. The 2nd Amendment says "keep *and* bear." Let's not forget that (pesky to progressives) conjunction. And yes, one of the core ideas is defense. But not of home and hearth. And not just for the prevention of tyranny, either - though that is a key concept. But that's just one aspect of the civil defense concept of the militia. Another, of course, is the defense of the nation, which the progressives and many liberals like to focus on to implement gun control. But there's a 3rd aspect that is often forgotten today with regard to the 2nd Amendment, I've discovered recently. The responsibility of the able-bodied to answer the call of the posse comitatus. It's an aspect that I'm new to studying, but it is very interesting. From what I've learned, while not explicitly in the amendment, the Common Law idea of the posse comitatus is intimately intertwined. The posse ins't just relegated to old Westerns and sovereignty anarchists, either. Nor does the creation of police departments eliminate the posse. Apparently it still gets use at need. David Kopel has a good recent paper on it (search his name with posse comitatus). The implications of the posse is also discussed in Federalist 29. The reason this matters to this story is that when you include the Founders perspective of this in the 2nd Amendment equation, there's are strong implication that we not only have a right to own guns, but a duty to do so.
Exactly!!
And sorry folks... don't know why it double-posted. %@$#^ technology!
Even though a police force may not be better armed the general public, they certainly outgun individuals. That is one area where “militarization” is often seen. A SWAT no-knock raid with overwhelming force on an unconfirmed report is a military response, not a police response. “SWATing” someone has become a deadly means of revenge. Unapologetic shooting of a family pet when it is the officer moving into family property is seen as unacceptably authoritarian. An expectation of unquestioned and abject obedience will be seen as the actions of a police state. While most Americans are unwilling to submit, you’ll find almost all of us quite cooperative when asked respectfully. Especially here in (most of) the U.S. where rugged individualism is still the norm. Or to put it another way, “militarization” is a matter of attitude, not equipment. In the military, you are conditioned to not ask “Why?” when told to jump. In most civilian life, the person who doesn't ask “Why?” is considered unthinking. My point in this? The reality is that their authority is granted the police by the public they serve. The effectiveness of police as peace officers is proportional to the trust the public is willing to give them. Militarization is more of an attitude. If you don’t understand the difference between cooperation and obedience, then you will have problems with the public. If you don’t understand the difference between being in control of the situation versus being in control of the people, well actually, I’d say you’re foolish. The differences are extremely subtle but also extremely important to maintaining the peace. This is significantly different than policing in much of the rest of the world. In much of my world travels, the police really are a para-military organization. They often have a power and authority that goes far beyond anything that would be acceptable here in the U.S. In contrast, American police are – or should be – the most direct reflection of the concept of government with the consent of the governed most citizens will encounter. While a well-equipped police force isn't a threat to an organized community in most of the US, excessive militarization undermines that confidence and trust by the community. The result is disrespect and contempt on both sides. Once all of that is truly gone, the only result will be chaos. (this is excerpted from what I wrote at conservativelefty.blogspot.com, but really applies to this discussion)
I have huge a problem where police militarization is concerned, but the gear we saw in Ferguson certainly is NOT that. Militarization is a matter of attitude, not the equipment. BearCats are as much police vehicles as military. Heck of a lot better than a converted bank armored car. And frankly, unless you are an idiot, you only use them for transport to the location to protect the officers. Let’s be honest, it only takes a couple of SUV’s to neutralize them. M4's? Select fire or semi-auto? Word on the ground here in St. Louis is that they were semi’s. In other words the very same “modern rifles with standard capacity magazines” that we pro-2A have been defending for years. It’s the most popular firearm model in the country. Why should they not have the same rifles that any Joe on the street can get down the road at Cabelas? (And yes, Cabelas really is just a few minutes down I270 from Ferguson.) Even if they were military select fire, you’re going to select semi-auto. Select fire is hugely over-rated for an LAR. My suspicious side cannot help but wonder if the Progressives are simply trying to use this as another means to ban the AR15/M4 platform from civilian use. Ok… UCP pattern battledress? There, you might be able to make an argument. But even then it’s a matter of the attitude it projects. And like I said in opening, it's all in attitude. There are important differences between cooperation and submission. There’s an important difference between being in control of a situation and being in control of the people. No-knock SWAT raids are matters of attitude, not procedure. You want to do something about militarization, focus on the attitude. I've written more on this at www.conservativelefty.wordpress.com.
There are two groups leaving. The first groups are certainly the ones who have screwed up their state with their hairbrained policies and stupid votes. They are certainly bringing their poison with them and proving insanity by expecting the same actions will bring a different result. However, there are plenty of others that are solidly conservative and have been fighting the good fight and are forced into retreat. Those are people you would want in your state. They're productive contributors not takers. They will also increase your voting based against the liberal incursion in the future as Democrats continue to undermine so much of the education system. You also want them for when these progressive systems implode. At that point, you'll need every conservative vote you can get to keep those states from robbing you to keep the handouts going to their mobs. For some states, the battle is still raging. My homestate of Illinois is a good example. In that case, we need to keep the conservatives here. Fact is, we're slowly winning. Chicago is becoming more isolated and even downstate Democrats (who tend to be quite a Blue Dog group) are abandoning them. Too many forget about us downstate and make the mistake of judging us solely by Cook county.
There are two groups leaving. The first groups are certainly the ones who have screwed up their state with their hairbrained policies and stupid votes. They are certainly bringing their poison with them and proving insanity by expecting the same actions will bring a different result. However, there are plenty of others that are solidly conservative and have been fighting the good fight and are forced into retreat. Those are people you would want in your state. They're productive contributors not takers. They will also increase your voting based against the liberal incursion in the future as Democrats continue to undermine so much of the education system. You also want them for when these progressive systems implode. At that point, you'll need every conservative vote you can get to keep those states from robbing you to keep the handouts going to their mobs. For some states, the battle is still raging. My homestate of Illinois is a good example. In that case, we need to keep the conservatives here. Fact is, we're slowly winning. Chicago is becoming more isolated and even downstate Democrats (who tend to be quite a Blue Dog group) are abandoning them. Too many forget about us downstate and make the mistake of judging us solely by Cook county.
1 - 10 Next