If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Orlando Sentinel)   What do Orlando gun owners need? Free shotguns, according to one gun rights group   (orlandosentinel.com) divider line 23
    More: Florida, Orlando, Acp, shotguns, property crime, guns  
•       •       •

2103 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Sep 2013 at 11:44 PM (43 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-09-25 01:17:32 AM
3 votes:
I'd be much happier if they'd give free training to the EXISTING gun owners...


And now time to trot out what may become an obligatory post in gun threads (people have outright told me this should be obligatory, but..)

Pretty much most gun policy seems to be centered around two primary assumptions:

1) (anti-gun) The "Well-regulated militia" in the Constitution is the National Guard and nobody has any business having shooty-things unless they are law enforcement.

2) (hyper-pro-gun) GAWD AND THOMAS JEFFERSON INTENDED US TO HAVE AN ARSENAL GODDAMNIT IN CASE THE GOVERNMENT GOES ROGUE AND WE HAS TO WATER THE TREE OF LIBURTY.

Rather more accurate is Option 3 which NOBODY ever mentions EVAR:

3) The US Army did not exist in peacetime and law enforcement as we know it now did not exist at the time (and would not exist until the 1840s), hence the only way to put down a domestic insurrection or even a criminal gang (much less incursions from First Nations and the like)...was, quite literally, calling up a posse (the "unorganised militia" in question).

3a) The part nobody ever, EVER mentions--this was in fact a neutering of an older provision in the Articles of Confederation (the "First Constitution" that had the US organised in a very European Union-esque confederacy of what amounted to thirteen distinct and separate countries with a currency union and a common defense and foreign policy) that not only mandated that every competent adult male be explicitly trained in the use of firearms at regular intervals but explicitly required the state governments to maintain armories and staff to train men to serve in the state guard should they need to be called up in an emergency.

(Yes, the original policy of the US re the "right to keep and bear arms" from roughly 1779 to 1791 or so was pretty much the same as Switzerland's national defense force; every male was considered a member of his state's (canton's, in the case of Switzerland) defense force, was required to undergo two weeks of mandatory weapons training, and was required to keep weapons issued by the state/canton armory up until the youngest male in the household hit 40 and aged out of the national militia.)

3b) Because the concepts of "state police with shooty weapons" (much less "city police") and "permanent standing armed forces" were Not Yet A Thing during Madison's time, and pretty much everyone assumed that short of frank war with France or the UK or Spain that any war or insurrection to be fought would be either in the form of armed gangs or First Nations uprisings...well, the writers pretty much instantly assumed that anything short of Frank National Emergency status would be handled by calling up the "unorganised militia" to start up a posse.In other words, that whole section should be read as "Since we will need to start up a posse now and again, folks should be allowed to have guns" (as opposed to the Articles of Confederation's "Everyone is a member of their state Army Reserves, and the state must give mandatory military weapons training and maintain a stocked arsenal in case the goddamn Redcoats start marching through from Canada or the Iroquois Confederacy starts getting really pissy about the land we stole").

3c) The "Well regulated militia" bit pretty much is a giveaway (especially in conjunction with the old Articles of Confederation version) that it was assumed by the Founding Fathers that people would be getting regular firearms training--basically the Revolutionary War Era version of CCW and Home Defense courses, provided courtesy of the governor of your state.The concept was far less "Every goddamn yahoo with a gun" and more "We're actually going to teach the guys how NOT to shoot their own peckers off and how to properly point the gun and fire it at the OTHER guy, and also make sure his damn musket that's been in his family since 1589 isn't going to blow the hell up in his face when he tries to fire it".
"Well regulated" in this case meant "Properly trained"--translated to modern English, "A properly trained state defense force being necessary to public safety, people shall be allowed to keep and bear arms for home defense and state defense (and, we assume, the state will keep on training them how to do this without killing themselves)".

3d) Another data point towards "unregulated militia" meaning "draftable individuals with explicit firearms training" are the Militia Acts of 1792 and particularly the Second Militia Act of 1792 (arguably the first law calling for an explicit draft, and the second act passed after full ratification of the present Constitution).It would probably be termed an "unfunded mandate for a Swiss-style state defense force" nowadays; the law called for every man between 18 and 45 years old to be required to purchase a gun and appropriate ammunition (down to specifying the type of weapon and ammo that had to be purchased and maintained at all times) and were required to report twice a year for military training.(Some groups--notably, Congressmen and transportation workers such as ferrymen and stagecoach drivers that were considered essential for national defense--were exempt; otherwise, the law applied for every man in the US able to hold a firearm.)  Basically for a time we went back to the old Articles of Confederation-era standard, if by an act of Congress this time and not a Constitutional amendment.

The Militia Acts of 1792 are notable because it's one of those rare times it's very easy to tell the whole intent of the Founding Fathers towards the Second Amendment--they intended there to be an emergency quickly-musterable state defense force in the event that Shiat Happened and an army couldn't get there in time or was too small of a situation for a full-on army.(The Acts were passed due to the US Army having its arse handed to it by the Western Confederacy (a rather large NATO-of-the-18th-century group of First Nations) in St. Clair's Defeat.)

tl;dr version: Madison never quite anticipated the invention of police departments or permanent armed forces, and people all assumed the state guards would keep going (they do still exist, both in the form of the National Guard and a few non-National Guard state militias in places like Texas and Alaska--and in the more traditional sense of men having to register for Selective Service)--what unfortunately changed is that pretty much the old mechanism where training was MANDATORY went away roughly in 1795 (when the Second Militia Act expired).

The "failure to define what was meant as a well-regulated militia" bug is an easy enough bugfix, and could be done very, very easily in keeping with the spirit of the Founding Fathers:

a) Define "unorganised militia" explicitly as persons who have received training in the use of weapons for defense after an appropriate training period.

b) Establish a national training program for use of firearms and require persons who wish to own a firearm to receive specific training including safety training and target training and to be certified by a trainer as being capable of safe use of a firearm.(There is already precedent for this in two separate programs--CCW courses and hunter safety courses; pretty much all states have required mandatory hunter safety courses for anyone younger than about thirty to get a hunting license for gun season, and some have expanded this to bow and crossbow hunting too.In essence, we're expanding the training programs for CCW and/or hunter safety courses to all firearms use, with an additional psychological screening component and vision check--depression that is controlled would not be disqualifying, whilst severe/profound mental illness would; correctable vision issues would be fine, folks who require prismatic lenses to drive might have more issues :D.(This is also the current definition for whether or not someone is considered 4-F on mental health and visual/physical issues, as an aside.))Provisions can even be made for persons who have passed a hunter safety course or a CCW course or similar training course to be grandfathered in.Persons shall be required to retrain and recertify on a regular basis.

(As an aside--I personally am unaware of any successful legal challenges, or even attempts at legal challenges, to CCW laws and hunter safety courses.The closest I've seen to legal challenges is where states have been reluctant to issue CCW permits when reciprocity agreements exist.This is true even though pretty much all CCW courses and hunter safety courses cost money, and is still applicable even in states where "right to hunt" laws exist.)

c) Explicitly note that firearms sales shall only be made to persons who are eligible to be members of the unorganised militia under law (that is, mentally competent persons whom have completed a firearms safety course of some sort) and that documentation that the person has completed a firearms safety and training course must be provided to complete a sale.Further mandate that states may not prohibit a person who has successfully completed a federally approved firearms safety course from owning a firearm unless a major disqualifying condition occurs such as diagnosis of severe/profound mental illness.

d) In the event that a major disqualifying condition becomes apparent between certification testing periods (such as loss of vision, severe/profound mental illness or intellectual disability, other severe physical handicap that renders use of a firearm unsafe even with assistive technology, domestic violence conviction, or other federally disqualifying condition) then the firearms will be confiscated to be held in trust and permit denied until such time as a hearing can be held whether it is likely the person can be sufficiently trained in the safe use of firearms.If it is likely that the disqualifying condition is permanent or relapsing to such a point as to render their use or possession of firearms unsafe the weapons will be sold at fair market price to an authorised firearms sales agent and the person shall receive full compensation, or may alternatively sell their weapons to a person who successfully has completed a federally approved firearms safety course.

e) Amend the Constitution appropriately with said bugfix (easiest way to get things through).

In the case of kids, I'd be tempted to include:

f) Graduated firearms permits for younguns (this actually exists now at least for hunting)--kids not allowed to use a firearm without adult supervision and adult ability to control the weapon until they hit the age where hunter safety courses are available; kid must complete firearms safety course to be allowed to have firearms.(Again, similar to what is in place now for hunter safety and nobody has yet sued over the whole issue of kids needing hunter safety courses.Hell, in areas where hunting is common it's not all that unusual to see schools offering said hunter safety courses! :D)

Pretty much the only people who would be unhappy are the Gun Owners of America types who even think background checks for gun sales are condensed evil.The NRA et al would be grousy at first but would end up happy (as they could make money from firearms training courses including adaptive firearms training for persons with disabilities--the NRA actually tends to run most of the hunter safety courses nationwide and a goodly chunk of the CCW training courses as well).People wanting to keep weapons out of the hands of the excessively violent and severely mentally ill (and folks who literally can't see to shoot straight) would be happy.Derpy history geeks like me would be happy (as we'd actually have a well-regulated unorganised militia for the first time since 1796 :D).If we can make the training cheap or free with subsidy, even folks worried re the poor and/or folks worried re the constitutionality of charging for a Firearms Safety Training Cert will be happy (though I'd argue anyone who can afford a handgun could afford training courses, and certainly so with long-guns and shotguns).

I would also proffer that if the City of Orlando actually takes up this suggestion (and I have my doubts that it will--the group responsible is definitely on the GOA "OMG EVERYONE MUST HAVE SO MANY WEAPONS THAT THEY SHIAT BULLETS" end of the derp)...that the City of Orlando makes it contingent on the person successfully passing a firearms training course (also free courtesy of the City of Orlando) with a focus on the safe use and storage of a shotgun. :D

/and yes, this is being posted by prior request
//actually found some stuff in the meantime that strongly points to "well regulated" being "trained to actually use a gun for its intended purpose in a safe manner and knowing how to properly and safely store ammo and gun and how to use the damned thing without blowing your pecker and/or your three-year-old kid into bits resembling something almost, but not quite, resembling ground chuck at the Publix"
2013-09-25 01:48:11 AM
2 votes:

Great Porn Dragon: many words


Wow, an actual common sense proposal, that's not something you see every day. I have to say, I agree with you 100%, but here's why it wouldn't work:

R wouldn't support it because it costs money and involves modifying the constitution.
D wouldn't support because the core gun control lobby wouldn't support it because it because it doesn't pave the way toward total civilian disarmament.
2013-09-24 10:38:06 PM
2 votes:
Orlando gun owners need free shotguns like they need a hole in the head.

/it's true
2013-09-24 08:38:50 PM
2 votes:

Godscrack: They tried that here in Arizona. Until smarter people realized gun nuts were hoping minorities and poor people would just kill each other off.

That would have meant good bu$iness for
Police
Prisons
Hospitals
Morgues


How badly did the giveaway cause rates of violent crime to increase in the state?
2013-09-25 10:03:37 AM
1 votes:
i42.tinypic.com

/wouldn't mind a free shotgun.
2013-09-25 09:20:04 AM
1 votes:

hundreddollarman: Thinking about getting a shotgun. The question is a Remington 870 or a Mossberg 500?


They're both good guns.  I would recommend that you either get the 870 Police Magnum (don't let the name fool you, any gun shop can order it) or the Mossberg 590A1, the reason being that both of those shotguns are designed for heavy use and have metal parts where the lower end 870 and 500 models have some plastic. They both have a larger magazine capacity without those stupid plugs (the Mossy comes with the longer tube, IIRC you have to put an extender on the Remington), and they have Parkerized finishes that aren't as pretty as blued finishes, but they last longer without having to re-blue every so often.  I [heart] my 590A1.  Oh, the 590A1 also comes with ghost-ring sights - dunno about the 870 PM since I don't own one.

Regardless of which gun you get, I'd also recommend a Knoxx Spec-Ops stock for it.  This is a sprung stock that reduces recoil to almost nothing, even with full power 3" shells.  I did a shotgun training course a few years back where we ran through about 600 rounds of a combination of buck, bird, and slugs, and my shoulder felt like I hadn't shot at all.
2013-09-25 08:06:00 AM
1 votes:

ChaosStar: hundreddollarman: Thinking about getting a shotgun. The question is a Remington 870 or a Mossberg 500?

Hawk IAC 982
A 870 clone that's actually superior in manufacture, $100-$200 cheaper, and comes with ghost ring sights.


Pretty much any Chinese import is a gamble to some extent. The same goes for Turkish shotguns, including even CZ 720. QC is spotty at best, some of the guns are good, others get hopelessly broken really quick. A better choice would be to find an old used 870 Wingmaster (late 80s models are good) or a police surplus 870 Police Magnum. They are great guns, far superior new off-the-shelf 870 Express, and it shouldn't cost you much more than $300. They have superb fit, high quality durable finish, and no cheap plastic parts. They just don't make them like that anymore.
2013-09-25 04:36:52 AM
1 votes:
Jim_Callahan:

//Really, we need to make rifle team a standard sport in US high schools again just so that people can't get away with fearmongering in either direction... handle a gun once a week for a couple months and you'll basically end up thinking of it like a vehicle... useful but also fun, dangerous but well within the capacity of even stupid people to manage the danger.  Neither sacred nor profane, as it were.  They're just tools, like any power tool you need to not be stupid with 'em but they're not something intensely vital to every life either.

We need firearm training to reduce violence, but we have to protect kids by not giving them firearm training, cause training teaches them how to kill. Of course, needing to pass a test to drive doesn't prevent people from causing accidents.

Not that I disagree, I think marksmanship should be part of school, much like swimming was.
2013-09-25 03:16:47 AM
1 votes:

ansius: The problem, politically, will be the transition. What to do with gun owners who refuse to become 'well-maintained'?


Draft 'em into the Militia like we did in 1792.
2013-09-25 03:11:17 AM
1 votes:
Great Porn Dragon: lots of words.

That was a good read, and a great deal of common sense.

And the thing I like about your proposal to make sure that people are regularly trained and assessed for competency is that it will change the culture of gun use. For instance, the USA is not alone in having high gun ownership, but it is alone in how often these guns are used to kill people, or people are accidentally killed by guns.

Your proposal is a way to make sure that people who own and use guns are kept in contact with other responsible gun owners, and their approaches to gun use can become entrenched. And, hopefully, the hillbilly/ghetto approach to gun use might just be educated out.

The problem, politically, will be the transition. What to do with gun owners who refuse to become 'well-maintained'?
2013-09-25 02:56:05 AM
1 votes:
This would be interesting if it were part of a huge experiment.

Several areas of similar demographics are paired off. One half given shotguns, the other left 'untreated' as a control.

Then, sit back and watch crime rates, death by gun rates, suicide rates, etc, to test the hypotheses that guns increase or decrease crime, home invasions, etc.

As it is, it's more than likely just a pro-guns group pushing an agenda.
2013-09-25 02:12:28 AM
1 votes:
Imma let y'all finish belittling anyone that wants to own a gun but first:
i.qkme.me
2013-09-25 01:11:06 AM
1 votes:
The last gunshop I went too had an over under 'home defense' shotgun with rails everywhere. And I thought how silly it was, cause how can you call it home defense without a bayonet lug? It also cost more than a pump, which baffles me.
2013-09-25 01:08:47 AM
1 votes:
Does Orlando have any gun buyback programs?  If so, why not profit off the gun nuts.
2013-09-25 12:50:16 AM
1 votes:
If they are giving away free shotguns, I will take one of these:

www.activeresponsetraining.net
2013-09-24 11:58:19 PM
1 votes:
Thinking about getting a shotgun. The question is a Remington 870 or a Mossberg 500?
2013-09-24 11:56:42 PM
1 votes:
25.media.tumblr.com
2013-09-24 11:49:56 PM
1 votes:

jaytkay: Why do gun owners need another gun?


To guard their other gun. Duh!
2013-09-24 11:47:33 PM
1 votes:
Darwin's little helpers.
2013-09-24 11:47:19 PM
1 votes:
I think this is kinda stupid. The free training is pretty cool, but it is a cheap garbage shotgun and if someone really wants one they can probably find a way to afford it. Any money would be better spent giving free safety and training classes to prospective firearms buyers in troubled areas, and then helping them pick the appropriate firearm (if after the training they still decide a firearm is appropriate in their home) for their situation.
2013-09-24 11:47:06 PM
1 votes:
Why do gun owners need another gun?
2013-09-24 09:40:09 PM
1 votes:

fusillade762: ACP of Florida has not given away a single shotgun since being founded about six months ago in the Tampa area, said state director Ron Ritter.

Sounds like a fundraising scam to me.


Alternatively, the shotguns being offered are of such low quality that they are not worth the price asked.
2013-09-24 09:33:44 PM
1 votes:
ACP of Florida has not given away a single shotgun since being founded about six months ago in the Tampa area, said state director Ron Ritter.

Sounds like a fundraising scam to me.
 
Displayed 23 of 23 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report