The Second One
(The Vice President will lead a blue-ribbon panel to figure out gun violence. He is broadly experienced in legislation to control firearms. Photo CNN.)
Yesterday’s rant was toned down considerably for the daily
story but it still irritated some of my readers, one of whom observed
(more in sorrow than anger) about my descent in to querulous geezerhood.
story but it still irritated some of my readers, one of whom observed
(more in sorrow than anger) about my descent in to querulous geezerhood.
“You sound like my 90-year-old father,” she said.
I winced. It is true, I suppose, though my 93-year-old pal Mac was less a geezer than I am these days, and age doesn’t have much to do with it. In my defense, this has been a colorful year with lots of funerals, one of which I attended in a wheelchair, but things have gotten much better, or at least up to the point that madness intruded into the national consciousness last Friday.
I take her point. Life is good, all in all, and we are all above the dirt this morning, driving fancy cars and with a couple bucks in the back. The future is not without its challenges, but that is the very nature of life and one of its constants. So I am boundlessly optimistic, and once I get the dosage right, I am sure everything is going to be just fine.
Anyway,
with that as background, what follows is what I was working on with my Coon-Ass (Louisianan, his term, not mine) pal Boats, the retired Master Chief Bos’uns Mate. We were trying to get to some sort of solution to the proliferation of military-style weapons in an imperfectly trained population that has been endowed by the Creator with the right to stockpile as many weapons as they want. Here are his thoughts about militias, society and guns. I offer it as part of the discussion, since the Vice President is going to be chairing a panel that will produce what everyone expects to be sweeping recommendations about the Second Amendment, and maybe mental health and involuntary commitment to institutional care.
They say that the shooter’s mother was about to file papers to have the young man committed, and that might have been the trigger for the appalling acts that followed. I don’t know. I further don’t know what Smokin’ Joe can do about the vast arsenal that is floating around as it is. There are some common sense things that could be done, certainly, and there are other things that could get us into aluminum-foil helmet country. I don’t have any answers, but here are some general thoughts from Louisiana. We can talk about the implications tomorrow, assuming that the world does not end at midnight, according to the end of the Mayan calendar:
Here is the Texas/Cajun/most of the Deep South perspective on guns, gun ownership, and the role of the Second Amendment. In both Louisiana and Texas we actually have state militias as envisioned in the 2nd amendment. In Texas as you know from our previous discussions of all the problems along the Rio Grande, the Texas State Guard (part of the Texas state military department, not at all part of the Texas National Guard, a military force that answers only to the Governor of Texas and has been around since 1836) is very active. It is a 100 percent volunteer force that is mostly equipped and uniformed at the expense of its members.
They are only paid when involuntarily called out as they were when the state filled up with Louisiana refugees during Katrina and much of the Texas National Guard was in Iraq, federalized. If militarily useful guns were completely banned from private ownership in this country , the few remaining but important state guards would be unable to arm themselves. It is more probable than not that as the budget cuts continue, State Guards largely falling into disuse since the Civil war will increase in utility.
In Louisiana, they are actively assisting state police in counter drug interdiction with surveillance along our coast line which is largely underpopulated with many out of sight and out of mind bays, sounds, and inlets. They also work along our coastal highway system extending the eyes and ears of the state police. They mostly work unarmed and do not make arrests being part of the state military department.
Every state is entitled to a state military department. Even in Texas the State Guard performs mostly unarmed intelligence services, and physical security but to outlaw completely private ownership of militarily useful weapons would render these low cost but highly effective forces to severely limited roles just as the need is rising.
(Colonial militiaman. He is carrying a single-shot, highly accurate rifled firearm quite different than the Brown Bess musket carried by the King’s Troops, enabling him to stand off and harass the Red Coats.)
The Constitution says a “well regulated militia” being necessary to the maintenance of a free state the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed. Few states outside of a tiny minority of states in the Deep South and West have active state guards anymore, but as the federal budget continues to gut the military, the National Guards so useful in every state are going to spend more and more time on Federal service. States will be looking for ways to take up the slack at minimal expense to tax payers.
With a few examples of working state guards still around, the states will look more and more to these types of resources. Private ownership of militarily useful weapons by properly enrolled, vetted, trained, and sworn members of state guards is a key to low costs. The members pay for their own weapons, ammo, uniforms, and most importantly safe storage of their weapon. Like the Swiss Army if called up for armed service they report with their weapon, which is kept secure in a gun safe at home. For us, the second amendment is real, militias are real, and of increasing utility.
Typical democratic-fuzzy headed thinking wants to eliminate all private gun ownership, starting with what they call “assault rifles”. Here in the states where we still understand and live the constitution we don’t object to laws that would restrict the ownership of militarily useful weapons to real members of the “well organized militias.” And yes we do fully understand the difference between our State Guard and these “private militias” that are floating about.
However, even among those so called “private militias” there are a few that actually respond to the county sheriff, in the manner of the original “Posse Comitatus.” We believe these individuals should be allowed to privately hold militarily useful weapons if, and only if, the Sheriff has properly vetted them and actively commands and controls.
The history of the English speaking people clearly indicates organized militias were available for much of our history to county sheriffs. We don’t really believe that any Tom , Dick, or Harry-the-hobby-gunsmith or shooter should be able to own these types of weapons. But all of the proposals of the Democrats would completely eliminate from private ownership all militarily useful weapons, completely eliminating the Second Amendment.
In a heart-beat, the same law would eliminate the arms of all remaining state and county guards and all semblance of military organization outside of the federal government’s direct control and funding.
If we could assume that the federal Government would always be the benign “big brother” this militia idea would not have been thought of by the Founding Fathers. But the Federal Government has always had imperial tendencies, now more so than ever.
The Founding Fathers gave us two assurances of our freedoms: first, they articulated the concept of inalienable rights in the declaration of Independence and ascribed them as coming from God, a power higher that the state. Thus if we ever lost our rights the Founding Fathers pre- articulated the argument for taking them back by force of arms if necessary. Then they gave us the second amendment, our assurance in steel of the ability to take back our rights.
One has to wonder what the Democrats are really up to because sane discussions about the second amendment can not take place around these people who routinely articulate the idea that there are no “militias” anymore. There are plenty members of Congress from states where these are active and needed organizations who would be more than willing to join them in legislation that keeps military weapons out of the hands of casual civilian owners but keeps them in the lock boxes of the very real militias.
Before all of the cuts are over, many a blue state will be looking for solutions to reduced National Guard budgets and availability. An effective resource for such a need has always been with us since colonial times, but the state won’t be able to take advantage if the Democrats can’t be reasonable and stop trying to eliminate all gun private gun ownership in the United States.
All of the states already have hunter gun safety training programs. They use a simple mechanism to get around any second amendment issues about restricting private ownership of guns. In most states you can buy a typical hunting weapon without asking “may I” from anyone if you are not a convicted felon. But you can’t get a hunting license unless you complete the state prescribed firearms safety course. Likewise anyone can buy a pistol but you have to be specially vetted in every state to obtain a concealed carry permit.
The founding fathers really never envisioned that personal or home defense, or hunting weapons would ever be an issue. But they all understood, and many had served in well regulated militias. If we approach the problem with a proper respect and understanding of the second amendment we can quickly come to an agreement and effectively reduce the assault weapons out there in irresponsible hands, and we have already found ways of regulating hand guns and hunting weapons without treading on the second amendment, if these needs tightening up we can do that too. But the Democrats have already turned this into a campaign for the general prohibition of private gun ownership. Basically the democrats really don’t like freedom of speech by anyone who disagrees with them, and they certainly would like a monopoly on the ultimate opinion enforcement hardware. So we are in for a long drawn out ugly fight that will ignore the one thing that we must do and do immediately.
Every school house in the nation needs serious physical security of a deterrent nature. Schools and the children in them are under threat constantly from all sorts of predators including marauding pedophiles who don’t use guns. Children are taken every day but such a singular crime outside of a major media center usually doesn’t get much beyond a milk carton photo on the national consciousness.
Every class room needs stronger, lockable doors. every school needs a serious perimeter fence. Every school district needs a professional school security manager . Every school needs visible uniformed armed security. This could be the local cops appearing at bus time to be present and visible when the kids are transferring from bus or car to school and again when they are embarking in vehicles for the trip home. At recess time this is another good time for the neighborhood cops to show up when the kids are out in the yard. Police reserve and auxiliary volunteers should be solicited to patrol the school, armed during the entire school day if at all possible.
Even the most crazy gunman rarely chooses a site where armed patrols are frequently present. This is what we mean by deterrent security. The bad guys can’t know whether the principal has a gun or not and most are going to be betting against it. But anybody can see an armed uniformed police officer. Better, more innovative community policing is one key to better school security. I don’t often see much of potential utility to America in Europe but they have a concept of community policing that we could learn from.
Many cities there have two types of police fully commissioned and armed police officers, and unarmed or non-firearm carrying “Watchmen”. Many of these watchmen are part time retirees but they are uniformed, carry police radios and can spread the alarm, vector in the armed guys, and their mere uniformed presence is a deterrent to crime.
In America we have a growing need for deterrent physical security but we still feel we can only increase “police presence” but fully commissioned armed police officers on full time employment and twenty year pension systems. We might want to modify the European watchman idea with visibly armed watchmen drawn largely from the retiree community with very limited rules of engagement.
They don’t make arrests, investigate crime, give tickets etc. Stationed around places like schools they are authorized to use their weapon only in self defense or defense of the lives of others but are required in every instance to use their radio and raise the alarm before taking any other action. Used at schools the work would be about six hours a day, the role could be filled by part timers who draw no fringe benefits and whose hourly costs could be well below that of a fully commissioned police officer.
Yet the uniformed armed visible presence of such “watchmen” would make the school grounds uninviting to enter to the typical predator. However we do it, the first discussion that should be taking place should be about physical school security not gun control. Even if the democrats would be successful in banning all guns they won’t go out of circulation over night. Physical security of the school house can’t wait.
What’s needed is common sense, but that is in rare supply the farther one gets from Texas. Here in Louisiana, economically and culturally basically “Greater East Texas,” we think there is far more common sense in Austin and Baton Rouge than there is any hope of there ever being in Washington DC.
Our plan is to address school house physical security first. If the feds don’t preempt us we’ll address control of “assault weapons” in line with the requirements of the second amendment shortly there after. We of course don’t expect the nation to follow our example, we fully expect PC debate as usual with no real attention to the constitution or real facts. This is why there is so much sentiment for succession down here right now. The only reason it isn’t stronger is that the feds don’t react to our “nullification acts” which haven’t been considered constitutional since before the Civil War. Since Washington appears totally ineffective and inconsequential we’ll probably continue to just ignore them, send our reps to Congress and the Senate just to annoy them and continue doing what we think is best ignoring any DC edicts to the contrary.
The South and West (other than the left coast) will probably delay any armed revolt until federal taxes become confiscatory for the majority. But down here the cost of living is lower and so is the median family income. Consequently large numbers of our military age citizens pay no Federal Income tax, but yet also don’t get any federal subsidies and social services, they just aren’t needed.
So basically a large segment of the population looks at federal taxes as “peace money”, its not back-breaking and if it preserves the peace, just pay it and they’ll go away. We are all shocked and saddened by the events in Newtown. But we don’t expect any action that will actually prevent future such events from occurring coming out of Washington or any blue state.
“Boats”
Copyright 2012 Vic Socotra
December 20, 2012
DailySocotra
