Thursday, October 3, 2013

Training Has Not Made Police Safer with a Weapon

      What happened at the White House today with the chase, shooting and killing of a woman who slammed her car into the White House barricades is instructive for several reasons. It seems senseless to try to ram a car through barricades designed to repel just such an act, for one. Go around, idiot. Go around, to borrow from B. Cosby. When the cops decide to shoot they exercise that military cliche', kill 'em all. Let God sort 'em out. Check lockers for that T-shirt. Firearms training for cops either doesn't stick, isn't very good or unintentionally enables the gunslinger found in some cops.
      In D.C., L.A., N.Y., and who knows how many other towns and cities cops can't hit what they're shooting at, don't care what they might and do hit and seem to think the badge gives them the power and right to spray and pray out in a very public place.
       It seems that the one correct move the cops made today was that this car had to be stopped. A speeding car, possibly loaded with explosives, chemical or biological weapons leaves No time to assess the situation for purposes of bringing a dangerous situation to a peaceful conclusion. Even though the cops handled their weapons very poorly, the judgement to use them in the heat of the moment was more than likely the correct one.
        If the numerous examples of police mishandling of firearms is an indication of the resulting safety, then formal training will not make the private bearing of firearms any safer. I contend that the training, badge, uniform and attending authority brings out the gunslinger in most cops. Instead of making them more careful, it makes them go a bit wild. Why would that be? Because the consequences of a legal but wholly unsafe use of a firearm has only minor repercussions.
    Unlike the repercussions of a private citizen who, for perfectly defensible reasons, brandishes and fires even one shot, even finding its mark, God help you if you miss and hit an innocent, a cop who shoots an innocent during a legal use of his weapon is usually immune to any criminal prosecution or civil liability.
      What then prompts a rare post from Naut Right? The gun grabbers persistent demands that private gun owners must undergo training to a level somewhat like the police, that's what prompts this post. The liability of private citizens acts as a brake on gunslinger attitudes. Maybe even the relative legal safety of an attacker is a factor in prompting a considerable reluctance of the private citizen to use firearms in self defense. The Martin-Zimmerman case reflects that phenomena. A cop is not immune to human impulses because of firearms training. As previously stated, a set of circumstances unique to police work seem to prompt quite an opposite effect once a justifiable use of a weapon is decided upon, than the training intends, which is a careful use of firearms. 
      Therefore firearms training isn't the panacea for the safety concerns of the gun grabbers. It only acts as a screening device, taking put those who can't afford the money or time to get the training. The cops prove it more than occasionally. 
       Let's push back on their demands for training that doesn't impact the problem. Let's flesh out and refine the narrative that the present legal environment supplies the private citizen with the necessary brake upon any tendencies to go all gunslinger and tame the wild west. 

Wednesday, February 20, 2013

The One Reason for the Second

The Second Amendment reads: 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.

The security of a free state is often found with State capitalized in older references and in the original.

The special purpose of the Second is to guarantee to the citizenry, each in his or her own capacity the right to fend off armies both foreign amd domestic. You see a direct refernce to that another place in the constitution, in the original Article I. The famous gun case called Miller had court dicta that said arms used for military purposes were protected. 

The other rights under the umbrella of the Second; the right to hunt, to a personal form of self-defense, to collect firearms, to engage in shooting sports are also covered, quite adequately, under the Ninth Amendment. Even if the Second did not exist, these ancillary rights under the Second would be covered. 

To make a special emphasis, the Second guarantees the citizens the right to maintain war making powers. It is only by that ability can a free State be secure. Do not be misled, duped or worse become an unwitting dupe of the anti-gunners or the well meaning but timid gun supporters who rest their case on self-defense or hunting. 

Saturday, February 16, 2013

Don't Fix Obamacare

   The howls of protest are coming in about the law nobody read. Here are two links about that:
Key Democrats Turn on Obamacare and this one, New Taxes Bourne by Small Business;Legislation to Repeal

Republicans should spurn efforts to tweak Obamacare. This was the bill that had to be passed, that nobody read and now nobody wants. Republicans should not lend the bill the slightest shade of merit by tweaking it, as though there is an overarching merit in it, in the main.

Let the whole weight of what Obama and the Democrats and Chief Justice Roberts has wrought fall on the country. It will only be through the pain of their mistakes that Republicans will have a chance at complete repeal.

Republicans need to say it clearly and without apology that this law will go into full force, as written, without amendment OR it will be repealed. The all or nothing at all approach is what the Democrats offered. Let them live with it.

The Glue that Holds Establishment Republicans and Democrats Together

The Tea Party is to establishment Republicans and Democrats alike what Michael Milliken and other hostile takeover artist were/are to bloated businesses. Politics is the business. To stoke business the pendulum of public opinion has to be shoved from time to time. That happens by taking government to the extremes. The Tea Party would severely dampen the swaying to extremes by limiting the movement of government. Can't have that. Money would flow out of the business of politics.