Are Weapon-Certification programs the solution


Are Weapon-Certification programs the solution that should make both sides happy:

  • they would enable weapon ownership for the respectful and law-abiding people … republicans smile
  • they would prevent weapon ownership for the reckless and unqualified people … democrats smile.

———————————————————
How would a Weapon Certification Program work?

Suppose you want a pistol for home protection, a Level 1 Certification would probably be the appropriate certificate. It might require A) 10hours of classroom training, B) 10 hours of supervised firing range training, and C) bi-annual renewals.

Suppose you want a pistol for CWP, a higher level of certification would surely be required, such as, say, Level 4. And this certification would probably require a higher level of maturity, a higher level of skill, and a higher level of in-action experience.

And in theory, 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 at least temporarily 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-paranoids 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, only keep a record in my file cabinet. Now, at some time later in the future, when you are in a McDonalds burping vulgarly, and then you get accosted, you can show the cops your Vulgar-Burping Certificate, and they will say ‘ok’ to you … your Certification is all you need.

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

  • the Certification programs could be run by the NRA,
  • but the NRA would 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. 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.



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!

ooh_conspiracy_theory

Re-defining the term Gun Control

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.

————————————————————
Further Reading
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). The Ab-T portion of CTC Level 2 would demand probably 30 hours, maybe much more.

Why should CWP holders be required to satisfy Level 2‘s Ab-T requirement … 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.” With that being said, I believe that CWP holder should have to prove that he/she can handle the action: people running, screaming, shots already being fired from some undetermined direction, maybe darkness, wounded on the ground. 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 Comprehensive Training & Certification for gun ownership?

The NRA inhibits meaningful discussion … day 3 of 26

If someone like me says, “gun regulation should be discussed”, some NRA person will respond, “you’re not american, you’re against freedom, you’re stupid, you think hugging criminals will work.” So to avoid being yelled at by my family and friends I, like millions of other people, just keep quiet! 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

———————————————————
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:
#1is what is ‘written’ in the 2nd Amendment.
#1 & #2were both contextually relevant in 18th c., and both were discussed.
#3was neither relevant nor discussed in 18th c.
#4was relevant but not discussed in 18th c.
#5was neither relevant nor discussed in 18th c.

From a MODERN-era point of view:
#1we do not need anymore (our military is solid).
#2we have other mechanisms to prevent tyrannical governments.
#3fair 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.
#4fair enough, but only with the right comprehensive training.
#5fair 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?

Republicans want their trees … and they want them now !

The Republican position in the oil discussion has got me thinking: republicans are only seeing one point of view, and they want it adhered to now.

There are many trees in the forest. Ignoring the many for the benefit of a single is a form of falsity. And if your one particular tree happens to causes damage to the others, then, well, you become liable yourself for your approach.

Furthermore, and more complicating, you must consider each and all trees over the long-term. Defending your tree today (or denying someone else’s today) without understanding the projected behavior of those trees is potentially dangerous to the forest as a whole even generations from now. Consider a tree that may eventually grow to overshadow all the rest, killing them off.

But this has made me wonder if Republicans deal with all of their issues with a similar stance: single point-of-view focus, and only respective to the immediate term?

It took Reagan 5-1/2 years to get unemployment under control

It took Reagan 5-1/2 years to get unemployment under control.

He began with about a 7.5% unemployment (seasonably adjusted), and 4 years later it was roughly the same, but only after a huge spike. Then it was about level for another 1.5 years, and finally it starting coming down.

Most of what the republicans say is true … but there’s a twist

Here’s the thing: most of what the Republicans say is true.

The problem is that usually:
– their truths are not the only truths (on many political and social issues multiple sides of the coin can land face up simultaneously),
– their truths are often only true if other important considerations are not considered.

If you are a Republican repeating the Republican mantra, you are Wrong, even though most everything you say is true.

Pretend it’s Jan. 2009

Pretend it’s Jan. 2009 … what would you choose?

  • A – Great Depression.
  • B – Great Debt.
  • C – Great Fix.

Sure, everybody will say ‘C’. But think … what does it take to actually accomplish ‘C’? And here is an even more important question: how many years will a Great Fix take?

Suppose that in January 2009, our government was functioning like an efficient machine, both parties working together, and immediately it began working on a solution that required 3-5 years to accomplish. 3-5 years I said, because there would not be a way to fix our problems any quicker. Complete domestic and foreign policy changes were needed. So until those 3-5 years (or maybe even 7-10 years) were completed, what should the government have done? Should it have stranded people (that would equate to a Great Depression)?

To Have Guns, Freedom, and Safety Too

I’m a fan of qualified training. Any legitimate person should be ok being required to be trained … I would be fine with it.

healthy discussions lead to good things


Trainers would be certified by the NRA, but liable to civil and criminal courts for failure to uphold the appropriate standards set by legislatures as wanted by the voters. This is important because it establishes a check & balance between:

  • the NRA’s desire to spread guns, and
  • the public’s desire to have safe, qualified, responsible gun owners.


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 psychological evaluations and proper training about periphery issues such as storing the gun in the home. Level 1 might require 3 months of weekly sessions.


Concealed Weapons Permits (CWP) would require a higher level of training, specifically some type of Action-based Training, something that probably only military, police, and high end gun sportsmen ever get. Action-based Training might last another 1-3 months.

I feel this way about CWP because a CWP holder is implicitly saying, “I am taking my gun into the public, where all the action’s at, and if there’s action I’m going to pull my loaded 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.

The NRA inhibits meaningful discussion

I am not sure what the right answer is about gun possession. What I do know is that anyone who attempts to discuss the issue will more than likely be reprimanded by either a family member, co-worker, etc. 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

There are 5 potential reasons for guns:
#1 – the Foreign Invaders argument – militias for the sake of protecting the homeland.
#2 – the Tyrannical Government argument – collective citizenship to prevent tyrant governments.
#3 – the Self-Defense argument – individuals protecting themselves against each other.
#4 – the I Want Meat argument – individuals that hunt.
#5 – the It’s Nice and Shiny argument – individual sportsmen and collectors.

Maybe there are more, but this is a start.

We should discuss them each, independent of one another:
from a CONSTITUTION-era POINT OF VIEW
#1 – is what is ‘written’ in the 2nd.
#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.

How the BB-LiA targeted American conservatives … and won

In the beginning the BB-LiA was just another lobby in Washington DC, plowing through congressmen to get policies that favored its existence (Big Business Lobby in America).

The organization got its trickle-down favoritism, and then got its NAFTA-type agreements (imbalanced foreign business relationships). It put a lot of effort into these campaigns, working the congressmen at golf courses, ski resorts, social affairs, and then selling these ideas to people.

But in the 90’s the BB-LiA realized something: why waste our time on the congressmen … we should lobby the people.

At this point all Americans were fair game. But any good strategy team will analyze cost/return equations. They realized that highly-educated, secular-leaning people (typically these are democrats) were too pragmatic to influence easily; but that the conservatives, who were gullible (gullibility is a by-product of trusting, which is a by-product of faith … the gullibility of conservatives is a sacred feature and should not be exploited), would be easier to influence.

Of course you can’t call up 100 million conservatives and invite them to a vacation retreat in the Hamptons to make your case. What you need is a large scale marketing component, such as a media source or two. Rush Limbaugh was hired; FOX News was put together.

Rush Limbaugh and FOX News are merely the media component of the BB-LiA’s campaign to lobby America’s simple folk, to get them to do the BB-LiA’s bidding in DC through democracy channels. And now you have religious conservatives teaming up with fiscal conservatives, two sub-groups that should be polar opposites.

Is it ok to protest military funerals?

The first amendment establishes “the right of the people (to) peaceably … assemble” … yeah yeah we already know that.

When dealing with any law, especially constitutional law, it is important to consider the spirit of the law, which can often be somewhat different from the verbatim reading ( see Letter and spirit of the law ).

This difference between spirit of the law and letter of the law is sometimes due to the difficulty of expressing a complicated thought with words, or other times due to the lawmakers desire to keep a written law vague, thus opening the door for many ambiguous interpretations.

If we trust only in the literal written words of a law we may misunderstand the purpose, the intent, of the law.


So now we have people protesting at soldiers funerals


So now we have people protesting at soldiers funerals, and they feel that it is ok to do so because the first amendment says, in words, that they can. But somehow it just doesn’t seem right … is it?

PRAGMATIC ANALYSIS – we can summarize the variables involved in this discussion and determine how they all stack up ( here’s a quick qualitative summary ) …

  • what was the intention, the concern, of the ‘freedom to assemble’ clause?
  • Soldiers are political figures, but they are also people; thus when protesting the politic of the soldier’s position, protesters are also disturbing a family’s most painful and personal grieving moment – did the authors intend on assemblage being used in such a way?
  • assemblage is intended to enable people to voice an opinion, and to enable the building of idea-momentum of some common belief, but certainly the location of the assembly is questionable: at the local courthouse to protest property taxes, in front of a restaurant that uses child labor, at a soldiers funeral ( which of these is different from the others ).
  • the property outside of a cemetery is public property, but undoubtedly the boisterous attitudes of the protesters are carried into the funeral service by the unsuspecting funeral attendees as they pass by the protest area when entering the cemetery.
  • what is meant by ‘peaceably’?
  • the protesters have clearly been given the right to protest, but that protest, or the carrying out of it, must not pose wrongs against others.
  • what else?

COMMON SENSE ANALYSIS – protesting a person’s funeral service just doesn’t seem right, and I’m sure this is NOT what the authors had in mind when they wrote the first amendment. If you want to protest, do so; but there are plenty of locations where you can do so without being cruel and inconsiderate, and still effectively be heard.


Is it a bad idea to talk politics with neighbors and co-workers?

What happens if at a neighborhood cookout someone starts talking politics? Usually the conversation spirals out of control, and the fun of the cookout is affected by two angry people, each passionate about their point of view regarding some political issue.


Politics at Thanksgiving dinner? Don’t.


But are we being anti-patriotic by avoiding these conversations?

Freedom of Speech basically says that we are allowed to tell others of our concerns … but why are we allowed? The answer is in the implication of Freedom of Speech: the health of our democracy needs these conversations. Our democracy cannot live up to its potential if we don’t each share our political ideas and insights with our friends, co-workers, family members, neighbors.

Being allowed to say what we want is a real sweet gesture, but meaningless if not actuated by you and I, and of course we are going to argue and spit on each other. And afterward we need to show the world that we are the #1 democracy by each objectively considering all the points that our adversary made … and that’s democracy.



…………………………………………………………………………………………………..
………………… our social buttons are below ……………………………………………..