Families’ Bush and bin Laden Hashed Secret Agreement

It’s not anything new, really, so why am I even flustered by the anti-obama-ists plunging forward with a conspiracy theory about obama somehow being tied to the boston bombings?

Most moderate republicans suggest that obama’s security policies are the basis for these accusations, but extremist republicans are suggesting an actual direct link: that obama ushered out a guilty saudi kid and then scapegoated the whole thing on the chechnyan boyz.

OK, screw it! If you pinheads want to play that way then here you go:

After Sept. 11 the Bush Family got together with the Bin Laden Family and worked out a deal: “keep Al Qaeda away from America and we will let Osama run free”.

Well, this explains why we failed to find obama hiding in our ally’s back yard and that there were no more terrorist attacks during the Bush years, huh!

Justifying Lynching

It has really been a phenomenal 4 years. Over and over again the republicans/FOX Country/conservatives have relentlessly blamed Obama for everything, and when there was nothing to blame him for, they created a mountain out of some irrelevant mole hill and then blamed him for that. But their real guilt comes in their guise to justify the blame.

A Solution to the Gay Marriage Question

In America our fundamental spousal construct is the marriage. The problem is that marriage is a religious concept, not a civil concept. And because our Civil State has adopted a Religious Ceremony as its fundamental spousal construct, other spousal-wannabe’s are running into hurdles.

The solution: remove Marriage as the fundamental spousal construct, and replace it with the Civil Union.

——————————————————-
This opens the door for many types of Civil Unions.

Indeed, “marriage” is actually a type of a Civil Union itself, owned, operated, and defined by the churches (going back to the BC religions I think).

Other possible types of Civil Unions:

• the las-vegas-elvis Civil Union
• the bungee-jumping Civil Union
• the captain-of-a-ship Civil Union
• the gay Civil Union
• the human-mannequin Civil Union

Think about each of these: each is questionable in light of religious doctrines, but yet most are acceptable in our civil environment.

——————————————————-
County-by-county democracy should be the mechanism that decides what types are -or are not- recognized by the government for purposes of … what is the purpose of registering our marriages with the government?

Weapon Certification Programs

To me, Weapon Certification Programs are the solution that should make both sides happy:
- they would enable weapon ownership for the Law-Abiding people, but
- they would remove weapons from the Non-Law-Abiding and non-qualified people.

How would a Weapon Certification Program work?
If you want a pistol for home protection, you will need Level 1 Certification. It might require A) 10hours of classroom training, B) 10 hours of supervised firing range training, and C) bi-annual renewals.
If you want a pistol for CWP, you will need Level 4 Certification, etc …
There can even be a Certification Program for military-grade weapons, say, maybe, Level 7 Certification?

Anyone caught without the appropriate Certification for their particular weapon will lose their weapon, and have up to 6 months, say, to complete an appropriate Certification Program to get their weapon back.

———————————————————
What is interesting about Certification, is you can be certified without being “registered” … which a lot of the Tyranny-people are concerned about.

Here is a funny, but poignant, example of how you could be certified for something, but NOT registered: I can very easily train you for 2 weeks on Vulgar-Burping, then give you the Certification to prove you are qualified, but never submit it to any national database of burpers. I, the Certifier, keep a record, of course. Now, sometime later in the future, when you are accosted in a McDonalds for burping vulgarly, you can show the cops your Vulgar-Burping Certificate, and they will say, ‘ok’ to you … your Certification is all you need (yes yes, people will try to counter fit them … can’t we cross that bridge when we get to it).

———————————————————
Here’s a little bit more about the Weapon’s Certification idea:

- the Certification programs could be run by the NRA,
- but be liable to the people through our judicial system (civil and maybe even criminal).

So, suppose the NRA is the Certifying agency, and suppose that over the years they slowly relax their Certification Programs standards, certifying basically anyone and everyone, and then Bad Guys start exploiting the lax certification programs and begin mass murdering, the NRA would be liable in the courts to lawsuits from victim’s families. We all tout our judicial system as being the greatest in the world, so can’t we trust it to handle this particular aspect?

This judicial liability would keep the NRA in balance between:
- their desire to sell guns at k-mart, and
- civil people’s desire to have a sane experiences when they venture outside.

———————————————————
Share with your friends if you feel these ideas have merit.

Donal Trump has complex enemies

I have a couple of enemies: the guy whose parking space I took, and the occasional random mugger. But these enemies are simple. I can take care of them with a few shots into their guts. Easy.

Donald Trump, on the other hand, has complex enemies due to his fame and fortune. Anyone in his family would be a valuable ransom to well organized kidnappers, such as those damn mexican cartels who have demonstrated time and time again that they can organize and penetrate an enemy encampment, pulling off any number of different types of insurgency’s.

And because of this Donald Trump cannot resolve to a simple pistol for his protection, or even an assault rifle (which does no good when 20 armed mexicans come jumping over your fence). Fortunately he has the 2nd amendment giving him the right to arm himself accordingly, with rocket launchers probably and Black Hawks.

Wait … he can’t have these?! His rights are being infringed. We need to stop all this simple talk about assault rifles, and start focusing on the bigger picture. Donald I am with you: build your personal IED’s, and defend what is yours.

The C’s accuse me of being an A

There seem to be 3 different arguments in regards to the gun issue:

A – get rid of all guns (I have never actually heard anyone say this)
B – regulate guns (the ‘how to’ is up for debate)
C – sell guns like bubble gum: anytime, anywhere, anybody

————————————————————-
The C’s are accusing everybody else of being an A.

Dumb image has been fixed!

the NEW fixed version:

the original:

would you accept Constitutional Rape

Here is a thought experiment …

We probably all agree that the bill of rights (as well as a good bit of the constitution) is supposed to embody the idea of ensuring the protection of people’s natural will (as opposed to suppression). I suppose most Americans will agree with this.

Here is another example of natural will: my natural reproductive drive.

So imagine if the bill of rights included an amendment to protect my right to fulfill my natural reproductive drive … would you support it?

In the hands of ‘common sense’ this clause might work without disrupting a civil society. But as soon as someone starts twisting that clause, interpreting it to suit their own agenda, you could effectively end up with constitutional-rape.

The 2nd amendment has similarly been twisted.

the NRA inhibits healthy discussion … day 26 of 26

Please consider sharing this message with your friends if you agree.

If I say “gun regulation should be discussed”, more than likely an NRA person will vehemently say to me, “you’re not American, you’re against freedom” and “you’re stupid!”

So to avoid being yelled at by my family and friends I, like millions of other people, just keep quiet. And consequently our country has not had a real, healthy democratic discussion about guns and the 2nd Amendment.

Healthy discussions usually produce good answers; the NRA culture should not be afraid of the discussion if they believe that their approach is the right approach.

healthy discussions lead to good things

But if I could have a reasonable discussion with an NRA person, this is what I would want to discuss with them:

• the various uses for guns … in a categorical way;
• a comparison between the 18th century point of view vs. our modern era;
• most importantly: comprehensive training for each type of gun ownership.

———————————————————
There are 5 potential reasons for guns:
#1 – the Foreign Invaders argument – guns for militia members for protecting the homeland.
#2 – the Tyrannical Government argument – guns for the people to thwart tyranny.
#3 – the Self-Defense argument – guns for individuals protecting themselves against each other.
#4 – the I Need Meat argument – guns for hunters.
#5 – the It’s Nice and Shiny argument – guns for sportsmen and collectors.
(Maybe there are more, but this is a start.)

———————————————————
We should discuss all 5, independently, from both a constitution-era point of view and from a modern-era point of view.

From a CONSTITUTION-era point of view:
#1 – is what is ‘written’ in the 2nd Amendment.
#1 & #2 – were both contextually relevant in 18th c., and both were discussed.
#3 – was neither relevant nor discussed in 18th c.
#4 – was relevant but not discussed in 18th c.
#5 – was neither relevant nor discussed in 18th c.

From a MODERN-era point of view:
#1 – we do not need anymore (our military is solid).
#2 – we have other mechanisms to prevent tyrannical governments.
#3 – fair enough, but only if we thoroughly analyze our entire society to understand why we have so many criminals in the first place, because possibly they are a byproduct of some sickness in our society, and maybe they are fixable … maybe.
#4 – fair enough, but only with the right comprehensive training.
#5 – fair enough, but only with the right comprehensive training.

———————————————————
Comprehensive Training & Certification for gun ownership.

• If you simply want a pistol for home protection, you need a Level 1 training/certificate;
• If you want to hunt with a shotgun, you need Level 4 (or whatever);
• If you want to operate an assault weapon for sportsmanship, you need Level 7 (or whatever);
• If you want to carry a concealed weapon, you need Level 2 (would include in-action training);
• etc.

CTC should make both liberals and conservatives happy:
- the liberals want a sensible, civil society;
- the conservatives want guns, and they say responsible gun owners are safe.

CTC legislation would create many jobs in the firearms training sector; and it would weed out a large percentage of irresponsible people, as well as incompetent people.

Read more: Re-defining the Term ‘Gun Control’.

the NRA: a lobby that profits from selling guns … day 25 of 26

Please consider sharing this message with your friends if you agree.

If I say “gun regulation should be discussed”, more than likely an NRA person will vehemently say to me, “you’re not American, you’re against freedom” and “you’re stupid!”

So to avoid being yelled at by my family and friends I, like millions of other people, just keep quiet. And consequently our country has not had a real, healthy democratic discussion about guns and the 2nd Amendment.

Healthy discussions usually produce good answers; the NRA culture should not be afraid of the discussion if they believe that their approach is the right approach.

healthy discussions lead to good things

But if I could have a reasonable discussion with an NRA person, this is what I would want to discuss with them:

• the various uses for guns … in a categorical way;
• a comparison between the 18th century point of view vs. our modern era;
• most importantly: comprehensive training for each type of gun ownership.

———————————————————
There are 5 potential reasons for guns:
#1 – the Foreign Invaders argument – guns for militia members for protecting the homeland.
#2 – the Tyrannical Government argument – guns for the people to thwart tyranny.
#3 – the Self-Defense argument – guns for individuals protecting themselves against each other.
#4 – the I Need Meat argument – guns for hunters.
#5 – the It’s Nice and Shiny argument – guns for sportsmen and collectors.
(Maybe there are more, but this is a start.)

———————————————————
We should discuss all 5, independently, from both a constitution-era point of view and from a modern-era point of view.

From a CONSTITUTION-era point of view:
#1 – is what is ‘written’ in the 2nd Amendment.
#1 & #2 – were both contextually relevant in 18th c., and both were discussed.
#3 – was neither relevant nor discussed in 18th c.
#4 – was relevant but not discussed in 18th c.
#5 – was neither relevant nor discussed in 18th c.

From a MODERN-era point of view:
#1 – we do not need anymore (our military is solid).
#2 – we have other mechanisms to prevent tyrannical governments.
#3 – fair enough, but only if we thoroughly analyze our entire society to understand why we have so many criminals in the first place, because possibly they are a byproduct of some sickness in our society, and maybe they are fixable … maybe.
#4 – fair enough, but only with the right comprehensive training.
#5 – fair enough, but only with the right comprehensive training.

———————————————————
Comprehensive Training & Certification for gun ownership.

• If you simply want a pistol for home protection, you need a Level 1 training/certificate;
• If you want to hunt with a shotgun, you need Level 4 (or whatever);
• If you want to operate an assault weapon for sportsmanship, you need Level 7 (or whatever);
• If you want to carry a concealed weapon, you need Level 2 (would include in-action training);
• etc.

CTC should make both liberals and conservatives happy:
- the liberals want a sensible, civil society;
- the conservatives want guns, and they say responsible gun owners are safe.

CTC legislation would create many jobs in the firearms training sector; and it would weed out a large percentage of irresponsible people, as well as incompetent people.

Read more: Re-defining the Term ‘Gun Control’.

Does the NRA Culture hinder healthy discussion … day 24 of 26 … almost done

Please consider sharing this message with your friends if you agree.

If I say “gun regulation should be discussed”, more than likely an NRA person will vehemently say to me, “you’re not American, you’re against freedom” and “you’re stupid!”

So to avoid being yelled at by my family and friends I, like millions of other people, just keep quiet. And consequently our country has not had a real, healthy democratic discussion about guns and the 2nd Amendment.

Healthy discussions usually produce good answers; the NRA culture should not be afraid of the discussion if they believe that their approach is the right approach.

healthy discussions lead to good things

But if I could have a reasonable discussion with an NRA person, this is what I would want to discuss with them:

• the various uses for guns … in a categorical way;
• a comparison between the 18th century point of view vs. our modern era;
• most importantly: comprehensive training for each type of gun ownership.

———————————————————
There are 5 potential reasons for guns:
#1 – the Foreign Invaders argument – guns for militia members for protecting the homeland.
#2 – the Tyrannical Government argument – guns for the people to thwart tyranny.
#3 – the Self-Defense argument – guns for individuals protecting themselves against each other.
#4 – the I Need Meat argument – guns for hunters.
#5 – the It’s Nice and Shiny argument – guns for sportsmen and collectors.
(Maybe there are more, but this is a start.)

———————————————————
We should discuss all 5, independently, from both a constitution-era point of view and from a modern-era point of view.

From a CONSTITUTION-era point of view:
#1 – is what is ‘written’ in the 2nd Amendment.
#1 & #2 – were both contextually relevant in 18th c., and both were discussed.
#3 – was neither relevant nor discussed in 18th c.
#4 – was relevant but not discussed in 18th c.
#5 – was neither relevant nor discussed in 18th c.

From a MODERN-era point of view:
#1 – we do not need anymore (our military is solid).
#2 – we have other mechanisms to prevent tyrannical governments.
#3 – fair enough, but only if we thoroughly analyze our entire society to understand why we have so many criminals in the first place, because possibly they are a byproduct of some sickness in our society, and maybe they are fixable … maybe.
#4 – fair enough, but only with the right comprehensive training.
#5 – fair enough, but only with the right comprehensive training.

———————————————————
Comprehensive Training & Certification for gun ownership.

• If you simply want a pistol for home protection, you need a Level 1 training/certificate;
• If you want to hunt with a shotgun, you need Level 4 (or whatever);
• If you want to operate an assault weapon for sportsmanship, you need Level 7 (or whatever);
• If you want to carry a concealed weapon, you need Level 2 (would include in-action training);
• etc.

CTC should make both liberals and conservatives happy:
- the liberals want a sensible, civil society;
- the conservatives want guns, and they say responsible gun owners are safe.

CTC legislation would create many jobs in the firearms training sector; and it would weed out a large percentage of irresponsible people, as well as incompetent people.

Read more: Re-defining the Term ‘Gun Control’.

Does the NRA Culture hinder healthy discussion … day 23 of 26

Please consider sharing this message with your friends if you agree.

If I say “gun regulation should be discussed”, more than likely an NRA person will vehemently say to me, “you’re not American, you’re against freedom” and “you’re stupid!”

So to avoid being yelled at by my family and friends I, like millions of other people, just keep quiet. And consequently our country has not had a real, healthy democratic discussion about guns and the 2nd Amendment.

Healthy discussions usually produce good answers; the NRA culture should not be afraid of the discussion if they believe that their approach is the right approach.

healthy discussions lead to good things

But if I could have a reasonable discussion with an NRA person, this is what I would want to discuss with them:

• the various uses for guns … in a categorical way;
• a comparison between the 18th century point of view vs. our modern era;
• most importantly: comprehensive training for each type of gun ownership.

———————————————————
There are 5 potential reasons for guns:
#1 – the Foreign Invaders argument – guns for militia members for protecting the homeland.
#2 – the Tyrannical Government argument – guns for the people to thwart tyranny.
#3 – the Self-Defense argument – guns for individuals protecting themselves against each other.
#4 – the I Need Meat argument – guns for hunters.
#5 – the It’s Nice and Shiny argument – guns for sportsmen and collectors.
(Maybe there are more, but this is a start.)

———————————————————
We should discuss all 5, independently, from both a constitution-era point of view and from a modern-era point of view.

From a CONSTITUTION-era point of view:
#1 – is what is ‘written’ in the 2nd Amendment.
#1 & #2 – were both contextually relevant in 18th c., and both were discussed.
#3 – was neither relevant nor discussed in 18th c.
#4 – was relevant but not discussed in 18th c.
#5 – was neither relevant nor discussed in 18th c.

From a MODERN-era point of view:
#1 – we do not need anymore (our military is solid).
#2 – we have other mechanisms to prevent tyrannical governments.
#3 – fair enough, but only if we thoroughly analyze our entire society to understand why we have so many criminals in the first place, because possibly they are a byproduct of some sickness in our society, and maybe they are fixable … maybe.
#4 – fair enough, but only with the right comprehensive training.
#5 – fair enough, but only with the right comprehensive training.

———————————————————
Comprehensive Training & Certification for gun ownership.

• If you simply want a pistol for home protection, you need a Level 1 training/certificate;
• If you want to hunt with a shotgun, you need Level 4 (or whatever);
• If you want to operate an assault weapon for sportsmanship, you need Level 7 (or whatever);
• If you want to carry a concealed weapon, you need Level 2 (would include in-action training);
• etc.

CTC should make both liberals and conservatives happy:
- the liberals want a sensible, civil society;
- the conservatives want guns, and they say responsible gun owners are safe.

CTC legislation would create many jobs in the firearms training sector; and it would weed out a large percentage of irresponsible people, as well as incompetent people.

Read more: Re-defining the Term ‘Gun Control’.

Does the NRA Culture hinder healthy discussion … day 22 of 26

Please consider sharing this message with your friends if you agree.

If I say “gun regulation should be discussed”, more than likely an NRA person will vehemently say to me, “you’re not American, you’re against freedom” and “you’re stupid!”

So to avoid being yelled at by my family and friends I, like millions of other people, just keep quiet. And consequently our country has not had a real, healthy democratic discussion about guns and the 2nd Amendment.

Healthy discussions usually produce good answers; the NRA culture should not be afraid of the discussion if they believe that their approach is the right approach.

healthy discussions lead to good things

But if I could have a reasonable discussion with an NRA person, this is what I would want to discuss with them:

• the various uses for guns … in a categorical way;
• a comparison between the 18th century point of view vs. our modern era;
• most importantly: comprehensive training for each type of gun ownership.

———————————————————
There are 5 potential reasons for guns:
#1 – the Foreign Invaders argument – guns for militia members for protecting the homeland.
#2 – the Tyrannical Government argument – guns for the people to thwart tyranny.
#3 – the Self-Defense argument – guns for individuals protecting themselves against each other.
#4 – the I Need Meat argument – guns for hunters.
#5 – the It’s Nice and Shiny argument – guns for sportsmen and collectors.
(Maybe there are more, but this is a start.)

———————————————————
We should discuss all 5, independently, from both a constitution-era point of view and from a modern-era point of view.

From a CONSTITUTION-era point of view:
#1 – is what is ‘written’ in the 2nd Amendment.
#1 & #2 – were both contextually relevant in 18th c., and both were discussed.
#3 – was neither relevant nor discussed in 18th c.
#4 – was relevant but not discussed in 18th c.
#5 – was neither relevant nor discussed in 18th c.

From a MODERN-era point of view:
#1 – we do not need anymore (our military is solid).
#2 – we have other mechanisms to prevent tyrannical governments.
#3 – fair enough, but only if we thoroughly analyze our entire society to understand why we have so many criminals in the first place, because possibly they are a byproduct of some sickness in our society, and maybe they are fixable … maybe.
#4 – fair enough, but only with the right comprehensive training.
#5 – fair enough, but only with the right comprehensive training.

———————————————————
Comprehensive Training & Certification for gun ownership.

• If you simply want a pistol for home protection, you need a Level 1 training/certificate;
• If you want to hunt with a shotgun, you need Level 4 (or whatever);
• If you want to operate an assault weapon for sportsmanship, you need Level 7 (or whatever);
• If you want to carry a concealed weapon, you need Level 2 (would include in-action training);
• etc.

CTC should make both liberals and conservatives happy:
- the liberals want a sensible, civil society;
- the conservatives want guns, and they say responsible gun owners are safe.

CTC legislation would create many jobs in the firearms training sector; and it would weed out a large percentage of irresponsible people, as well as incompetent people.

Read more: Re-defining the Term ‘Gun Control’.

Does the NRA Culture hinder healthy discussion … day 21 of 26

If I say “gun regulation should be discussed”, more than likely an NRA person will vehemently say to me, “you’re not American, you’re against freedom” and “you’re stupid!”

So to avoid being yelled at by my family and friends I, like millions of other people, just keep quiet. And consequently our country has not had a real, healthy democratic discussion about guns and the 2nd Amendment.

Healthy discussions usually produce good answers; the NRA culture should not be afraid of the discussion if they believe that their approach is the right approach.

healthy discussions lead to good things

But if I could have a reasonable discussion with an NRA person, this is what I would want to discuss with them:

• the various uses for guns … in a categorical way;
• a comparison between the 18th century point of view vs. our modern era;
• most importantly: comprehensive training for each type of gun ownership.

———————————————————
There are 5 potential reasons for guns:
#1 – the Foreign Invaders argument – guns for militia members for protecting the homeland.
#2 – the Tyrannical Government argument – guns for the people to thwart tyranny.
#3 – the Self-Defense argument – guns for individuals protecting themselves against each other.
#4 – the I Need Meat argument – guns for hunters.
#5 – the It’s Nice and Shiny argument – guns for sportsmen and collectors.
(Maybe there are more, but this is a start.)

———————————————————
We should discuss all 5, independently, from both a constitution-era point of view and from a modern-era point of view.

From a CONSTITUTION-era point of view:
#1 – is what is ‘written’ in the 2nd Amendment.
#1 & #2 – were both contextually relevant in 18th c., and both were discussed.
#3 – was neither relevant nor discussed in 18th c.
#4 – was relevant but not discussed in 18th c.
#5 – was neither relevant nor discussed in 18th c.

From a MODERN-era point of view:
#1 – we do not need anymore (our military is solid).
#2 – we have other mechanisms to prevent tyrannical governments.
#3 – fair enough, but only if we thoroughly analyze our entire society to understand why we have so many criminals in the first place, because possibly they are a byproduct of some sickness in our society, and maybe they are fixable … maybe.
#4 – fair enough, but only with the right comprehensive training.
#5 – fair enough, but only with the right comprehensive training.

———————————————————
Comprehensive Training & Certification for gun ownership.

• If you simply want a pistol for home protection, you need a Level 1 training/certificate;
• If you want to hunt with a shotgun, you need Level 4 (or whatever);
• If you want to operate an assault weapon for sportsmanship, you need Level 7 (or whatever);
• If you want to carry a concealed weapon, you need Level 2 (would include in-action training);
• etc.

CTC should make both liberals and conservatives happy:
- the liberals want a sensible, civil society;
- the conservatives want guns, and they say responsible gun owners are safe.

CTC legislation would create many jobs in the firearms training sector; and it would weed out a large percentage of irresponsible people, as well as incompetent people.

Read more: Re-defining the Term ‘Gun Control’.

Does the NRA Culture hinder healthy discussion … day 20 of 26 … I could use some help

If I say “gun regulation should be discussed”, more than likely an NRA person will vehemently say to me, “you’re not American, you’re against freedom” and “you’re stupid!”

So to avoid being yelled at by my family and friends I, like millions of other people, just keep quiet. And consequently our country has not had a real, healthy democratic discussion about guns and the 2nd Amendment.

Healthy discussions usually produce good answers; the NRA culture should not be afraid of the discussion if they believe that their approach is the right approach.

healthy discussions lead to good things

But if I could have a reasonable discussion with an NRA person, this is what I would want to discuss with them:

• the various uses for guns … in a categorical way;
• a comparison between the 18th century point of view vs. our modern era;
• most importantly: comprehensive training for each type of gun ownership.

———————————————————
There are 5 potential reasons for guns:
#1 – the Foreign Invaders argument – guns for militia members for protecting the homeland.
#2 – the Tyrannical Government argument – guns for the people to thwart tyranny.
#3 – the Self-Defense argument – guns for individuals protecting themselves against each other.
#4 – the I Need Meat argument – guns for hunters.
#5 – the It’s Nice and Shiny argument – guns for sportsmen and collectors.
(Maybe there are more, but this is a start.)

———————————————————
We should discuss all 5, independently, from both a constitution-era point of view and from a modern-era point of view.

From a CONSTITUTION-era point of view:
#1 – is what is ‘written’ in the 2nd Amendment.
#1 & #2 – were both contextually relevant in 18th c., and both were discussed.
#3 – was neither relevant nor discussed in 18th c.
#4 – was relevant but not discussed in 18th c.
#5 – was neither relevant nor discussed in 18th c.

From a MODERN-era point of view:
#1 – we do not need anymore (our military is solid).
#2 – we have other mechanisms to prevent tyrannical governments.
#3 – fair enough, but only if we thoroughly analyze our entire society to understand why we have so many criminals in the first place, because possibly they are a byproduct of some sickness in our society, and maybe they are fixable … maybe.
#4 – fair enough, but only with the right comprehensive training.
#5 – fair enough, but only with the right comprehensive training.

———————————————————
Comprehensive Training & Certification for gun ownership.

• If you simply want a pistol for home protection, you need a Level 1 training/certificate;
• If you want to hunt with a shotgun, you need Level 4 (or whatever);
• If you want to operate an assault weapon for sportsmanship, you need Level 7 (or whatever);
• If you want to carry a concealed weapon, you need Level 2 (would include in-action training);
• etc.

CTC should make both liberals and conservatives happy:
- the liberals want a sensible, civil society;
- the conservatives want guns, and they say responsible gun owners are safe.

CTC legislation would create many jobs in the firearms training sector; and it would weed out a large percentage of irresponsible people, as well as incompetent people.

Read more: Re-defining the Term ‘Gun Control’.

Does the NRA Culture hinder healthy discussion … day 19 of 26

If I say “gun regulation should be discussed”, more than likely an NRA person will vehemently say to me, “you’re not American, you’re against freedom” and “you’re stupid!”

So to avoid being yelled at by my family and friends I, like millions of other people, just keep quiet. And consequently our country has not had a real, healthy democratic discussion about guns and the 2nd Amendment.

Healthy discussions usually produce good answers; the NRA culture should not be afraid of the discussion if they believe that their approach is the right approach.

healthy discussions lead to good things

But if I could have a reasonable discussion with an NRA person, this is what I would want to discuss with them:

• the various uses for guns … in a categorical way;
• a comparison between the 18th century point of view vs. our modern era;
• most importantly: comprehensive training for each type of gun ownership.

———————————————————
There are 5 potential reasons for guns:
#1 – the Foreign Invaders argument – guns for militia members for protecting the homeland.
#2 – the Tyrannical Government argument – guns for the people to thwart tyranny.
#3 – the Self-Defense argument – guns for individuals protecting themselves against each other.
#4 – the I Need Meat argument – guns for hunters.
#5 – the It’s Nice and Shiny argument – guns for sportsmen and collectors.
(Maybe there are more, but this is a start.)

———————————————————
We should discuss all 5, independently, from both a constitution-era point of view and from a modern-era point of view.

From a CONSTITUTION-era point of view:
#1 – is what is ‘written’ in the 2nd Amendment.
#1 & #2 – were both contextually relevant in 18th c., and both were discussed.
#3 – was neither relevant nor discussed in 18th c.
#4 – was relevant but not discussed in 18th c.
#5 – was neither relevant nor discussed in 18th c.

From a MODERN-era point of view:
#1 – we do not need anymore (our military is solid).
#2 – we have other mechanisms to prevent tyrannical governments.
#3 – fair enough, but only if we thoroughly analyze our entire society to understand why we have so many criminals in the first place, because possibly they are a byproduct of some sickness in our society, and maybe they are fixable … maybe.
#4 – fair enough, but only with the right comprehensive training.
#5 – fair enough, but only with the right comprehensive training.

———————————————————
Comprehensive Training & Certification for gun ownership.

• If you simply want a pistol for home protection, you need a Level 1 training/certificate;
• If you want to hunt with a shotgun, you need Level 4 (or whatever);
• If you want to operate an assault weapon for sportsmanship, you need Level 7 (or whatever);
• If you want to carry a concealed weapon, you need Level 2 (would include in-action training);
• etc.

CTC should make both liberals and conservatives happy:
- the liberals want a sensible, civil society;
- the conservatives want guns, and they say responsible gun owners are safe.

CTC legislation would create many jobs in the firearms training sector; and it would weed out a large percentage of irresponsible people, as well as incompetent people.

Read more: Re-defining the Term ‘Gun Control’.

the NRA obstructs good debate … day 18 of 26 … 26 days is a long time

If I say “gun regulation should be discussed”, more than likely an NRA person will vehemently say to me, “you’re not American, you’re against freedom” and “you’re stupid!”

So to avoid being yelled at by my family and friends I, like millions of other people, just keep quiet. And consequently our country has not had a real, healthy democratic discussion about guns and the 2nd Amendment.

Healthy discussions usually produce good answers; the NRA culture should not be afraid of the discussion if they believe that their approach is the right approach.

healthy discussions lead to good things

But if I could have a reasonable discussion with an NRA person, this is what I would want to discuss with them:

• the various uses for guns … in a categorical way;
• a comparison between the 18th century point of view vs. our modern era;
• most importantly: comprehensive training for each type of gun ownership.

———————————————————
There are 5 potential reasons for guns:
#1 – the Foreign Invaders argument – guns for militia members for protecting the homeland.
#2 – the Tyrannical Government argument – guns for the people to thwart tyranny.
#3 – the Self-Defense argument – guns for individuals protecting themselves against each other.
#4 – the I Need Meat argument – guns for hunters.
#5 – the It’s Nice and Shiny argument – guns for sportsmen and collectors.
(Maybe there are more, but this is a start.)

———————————————————
We should discuss all 5, independently, from both a constitution-era point of view and from a modern-era point of view.

From a CONSTITUTION-era point of view:
#1 – is what is ‘written’ in the 2nd Amendment.
#1 & #2 – were both contextually relevant in 18th c., and both were discussed.
#3 – was neither relevant nor discussed in 18th c.
#4 – was relevant but not discussed in 18th c.
#5 – was neither relevant nor discussed in 18th c.

From a MODERN-era point of view:
#1 – we do not need anymore (our military is solid).
#2 – we have other mechanisms to prevent tyrannical governments.
#3 – fair enough, but only if we thoroughly analyze our entire society to understand why we have so many criminals in the first place, because possibly they are a byproduct of some sickness in our society, and maybe they are fixable … maybe.
#4 – fair enough, but only with the right comprehensive training.
#5 – fair enough, but only with the right comprehensive training.

———————————————————
Comprehensive Training & Certification for gun ownership.

• If you simply want a pistol for home protection, you need a Level 1 training/certificate;
• If you want to hunt with a shotgun, you need Level 4 (or whatever);
• If you want to operate an assault weapon for sportsmanship, you need Level 7 (or whatever);
• If you want to carry a concealed weapon, you need Level 2 (would include in-action training);
• etc.

CTC should make both liberals and conservatives happy:
- the liberals want a sensible, civil society;
- the conservatives want guns, and they say responsible gun owners are safe.

CTC legislation would create many jobs in the firearms training sector; and it would weed out a large percentage of irresponsible people, as well as incompetent people.

Read more: Re-defining the Term ‘Gun Control’.

the NRA obstructs healthy discussion … day 17 of 26 (26 Sandy Hook victims)

If I say “gun regulation should be discussed”, more than likely an NRA person will vehemently say to me, “you’re not American, you’re against freedom” and “you’re stupid!”

So to avoid being yelled at by my family and friends I, like millions of other people, just keep quiet. And consequently our country has not had a real, healthy democratic discussion about guns and the 2nd Amendment.

Healthy discussions usually produce good answers; the NRA culture should not be afraid of the discussion if they believe that their approach is the right approach.

healthy discussions lead to good things

But if I could have a reasonable discussion with an NRA person, this is what I would want to discuss with them:

• the various uses for guns … in a categorical way;
• a comparison between the 18th century point of view vs. our modern era;
• most importantly: comprehensive training for each type of gun ownership.

———————————————————
There are 5 potential reasons for guns:
#1 – the Foreign Invaders argument – guns for militia members for protecting the homeland.
#2 – the Tyrannical Government argument – guns for the people to thwart tyranny.
#3 – the Self-Defense argument – guns for individuals protecting themselves against each other.
#4 – the I Need Meat argument – guns for hunters.
#5 – the It’s Nice and Shiny argument – guns for sportsmen and collectors.
(Maybe there are more, but this is a start.)

———————————————————
We should discuss all 5, independently, from both a constitution-era point of view and from a modern-era point of view.

From a CONSTITUTION-era point of view:
#1 – is what is ‘written’ in the 2nd Amendment.
#1 & #2 – were both contextually relevant in 18th c., and both were discussed.
#3 – was neither relevant nor discussed in 18th c.
#4 – was relevant but not discussed in 18th c.
#5 – was neither relevant nor discussed in 18th c.

From a MODERN-era point of view:
#1 – we do not need anymore (our military is solid).
#2 – we have other mechanisms to prevent tyrannical governments.
#3 – fair enough, but only if we thoroughly analyze our entire society to understand why we have so many criminals in the first place, because possibly they are a byproduct of some sickness in our society, and maybe they are fixable … maybe.
#4 – fair enough, but only with the right comprehensive training.
#5 – fair enough, but only with the right comprehensive training.

———————————————————
Gun Ownership Only With Qualified Training
Any reasonable person should be ok being required to be trained to own a weapon.

Basic gun ownership would require Level 1 training.
Level 1 training would be geared toward the most fundamental of gun claims: protecting the home.
Included in Level 1 firearms training should be psych evaluations and proper training about storing the gun in the home.
Level 1 might require 3 months of weekly sessions. Trainers would be certified by the NRA, but liable to civil and criminal courts for failure to uphold high standards (now you have a check & balance between the NRA’s desire to spread guns, and the public’s desire to have safe, qualified gun owners).

Level 1 would probably only cover low-shot hand guns, which are appropriate for home protection.

A Concealed Weapons Permit would require Level 2 training, specifically some type of Action-based Training (something that probably only military, police, and the most hardcore gun sportsmen ever get). Ab-T would last probably 20 hours, I don’t know, maybe 100.

Why should CWP owners be required to satisfy Level 2 requirements … because a CWP holder is implicitly saying, “I am taking my gun into the public, where all the action is, and if there is trouble I’m going to pull my weapon out into the public space with the intent to pull the trigger.” Therefore that person should have to prove that he/she can handle that action: people running, screaming, shots already being fired from some undetermined direction.

Level 2 would probably also only cover low-shot hand guns.

For hunters they would need a Level 3 certificate. For sportsmen, a Level 4 certificate. Etc.

What do you think about the idea of appropriate training for weapons permits?

the NRA obstructs healthy discussion … day 16 of 26 (26 Sandy Hook victims)

If I say “gun regulation should be discussed”, more than likely an NRA person will vehemently say to me, “you’re not American, you’re against freedom” and “you’re stupid!”

So to avoid being yelled at by my family and friends I, like millions of other people, just keep quiet. And consequently our country has not had a real democratic discussion about guns and the 2nd Amendment. Healthy discussions usually produce good answers. The NRA culture should not be afraid of the discussion if they believe that their approach is the right approach.

healthy discussions lead to good things

If I could have a reasonable discussion with an NRA person I would want to discuss:
- the various uses for guns in a categorical way,
- the point of view in terms of 18th century life vs our modern era, and
- adequate comprehensive training for the various types of gun ownerships.

———————————————————
There are 5 potential reasons for guns:
#1 – the Foreign Invaders argument – guns for militia members for protecting the homeland.
#2 – the Tyrannical Government argument – guns for a populace to thwart tyranny.
#3 – the Self-Defense argument – guns for individuals protecting themselves against each other.
#4 – the I Need Meat argument – guns for individuals that hunt.
#5 – the It’s Nice and Shiny argument – guns for sportsmen and collectors.
(Maybe there are more, but this is a start.)

We should discuss all 5, independently, from both a constitution-era point of view and from a modern-era point of view.

From a CONSTITUTION-era point of view:
#1 – is what is ‘written’ in the 2nd Amendment.
#1 & #2 – were both contextually relevant in 18th c., and both were discussed.
#3 – was neither relevant nor discussed in 18th c.
#4 – was relevant but not discussed in 18th c.
#5 – was neither relevant nor discussed in 18th c.

From a MODERN-era point of view:
#1 – we do not need anymore (our military is solid).
#2 – we have other mechanisms to prevent tyrannical governments.
#3 – fair enough, but only if we thoroughly analyze our entire society to understand why we have so many criminals in the first place, because possibly they are a byproduct of some sickness in our society, and maybe they are fixable … maybe.
#4 – fair enough, but only with the right comprehensive training.
#5 – fair enough, but only with the right comprehensive training.

———————————————————
Gun Ownership Only With Qualified Training
Any reasonable person should be ok being required to be trained to own a weapon.

Basic gun ownership would require Level 1 training.
Level 1 training would be geared toward the most fundamental of gun claims: protecting the home.
Included in Level 1 firearms training should be psych evaluations and proper training about storing the gun in the home.
Level 1 might require 3 months of weekly sessions. Trainers would be certified by the NRA, but liable to civil and criminal courts for failure to uphold high standards (now you have a check & balance between the NRA’s desire to spread guns, and the public’s desire to have safe, qualified gun owners).

Level 1 would probably only cover low-shot hand guns, which are appropriate for home protection.

A Concealed Weapons Permit would require Level 2 training, specifically some type of Action-based Training (something that probably only military, police, and the most hardcore gun sportsmen ever get). Ab-T would last probably 20 hours, I don’t know, maybe 100.

Why should CWP owners be required to satisfy Level 2 requirements … because a CWP holder is implicitly saying, “I am taking my gun into the public, where all the action is, and if there is trouble I’m going to pull my weapon out into the public space with the intent to pull the trigger.” Therefore that person should have to prove that he/she can handle that action: people running, screaming, shots already being fired from some undetermined direction.

Level 2 would probably also only cover low-shot hand guns.

For hunters they would need a Level 3 certificate. For sportsmen, a Level 4 certificate. Etc.

What do you think about the idea of appropriate training for weapons permits?

the NRA obstructs healthy discussion … day 15 of 26 (26 Sandy Hook victims)

If I say “gun regulation should be discussed”, more than likely an NRA person will vehemently say to me, “you’re not American, you’re against freedom, you’re stupid!”

So to avoid being yelled at by my family and friends I, like millions of other people, just keep quiet. And consequently our country has not had a real democratic discussion about guns and the 2nd Amendment. Healthy discussions usually produce good answers. The NRA culture should not be afraid of the discussion if they believe that their approach is the right approach.

healthy discussions lead to good things

If I could have a reasonable discussion with an NRA person I would want to discuss:
- the various uses for guns in a categorical way,
- the point of view in terms of 18th century life vs our modern era, and
- adequate comprehensive training for the various types of gun ownerships.

———————————————————
There are 5 potential reasons for guns:
#1 – the Foreign Invaders argument – guns for militia members for protecting the homeland.
#2 – the Tyrannical Government argument – guns for a populace to thwart tyranny.
#3 – the Self-Defense argument – guns for individuals protecting themselves against each other.
#4 – the I Need Meat argument – guns for individuals that hunt.
#5 – the It’s Nice and Shiny argument – guns for sportsmen and collectors.
(Maybe there are more, but this is a start.)

We should discuss all 5, independently, from both a constitution-era point of view and from a modern-era point of view.

From a CONSTITUTION-era point of view:
#1 – is what is ‘written’ in the 2nd Amendment.
#1 & #2 – were both contextually relevant in 18th c., and both were discussed.
#3 – was neither relevant nor discussed in 18th c.
#4 – was relevant but not discussed in 18th c.
#5 – was neither relevant nor discussed in 18th c.

From a MODERN-era point of view:
#1 – we do not need anymore (our military is solid).
#2 – we have other mechanisms to prevent tyrannical governments.
#3 – fair enough, but only if we thoroughly analyze our entire society to understand why we have so many criminals in the first place, because possibly they are a byproduct of some sickness in our society, and maybe they are fixable … maybe.
#4 – fair enough, but only with the right comprehensive training.
#5 – fair enough, but only with the right comprehensive training.

———————————————————
Gun Ownership Only With Qualified Training
Any reasonable person should be ok being required to be trained to own a weapon.

Basic gun ownership would require Level 1 training.
Level 1 training would be geared toward the most fundamental of gun claims: protecting the home.
Included in Level 1 firearms training should be psych evaluations and proper training about storing the gun in the home.
Level 1 might require 3 months of weekly sessions. Trainers would be certified by the NRA, but liable to civil and criminal courts for failure to uphold high standards (now you have a check & balance between the NRA’s desire to spread guns, and the public’s desire to have safe, qualified gun owners).

Level 1 would probably only cover low-shot hand guns, which are appropriate for home protection.

A Concealed Weapons Permit would require Level 2 training, specifically some type of Action-based Training (something that probably only military, police, and the most hardcore gun sportsmen ever get). Ab-T would last probably 20 hours, I don’t know, maybe 100.

Why should CWP owners be required to satisfy Level 2 requirements … because a CWP holder is implicitly saying, “I am taking my gun into the public, where all the action is, and if there is trouble I’m going to pull my weapon out into the public space with the intent to pull the trigger.” Therefore that person should have to prove that he/she can handle that action: people running, screaming, shots already being fired from some undetermined direction.

Level 2 would probably also only cover low-shot hand guns.

For hunters they would need a Level 3 certificate. For sportsmen, a Level 4 certificate. Etc.

What do you think about the idea of appropriate training for weapons permits?