A Letter From The Special Forces Community Concerning The Second Amendment
Jared Sperli stashed this in politics
Throughout history, disarming the populace has always preceded tyrants’ accession of power. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao all disarmed their citizens prior to installing their murderous regimes. At the beginning of our own nation’s revolution, one of the first moves made by the British government was an attempt to disarm our citizens. When our Founding Fathers ensured that the 2nd Amendment was made a part of our Constitution, they were not just wasting ink. They were acting to ensure our present security was never forcibly endangered by tyrants, foreign or domestic. If there is a staggering legal precedent to protect our 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms and if stricter gun control laws are not likely to reduce gun related crime, why are we having this debate? Other than making us and our elected representatives feel better because we think that we are doing something to protect our children, these actions will have no effect and will only provide us with a false sense of security.
So, what do we believe will be effective? First, it is important that we recognize that this is not a gun control problem; it is a complex sociological problem. No single course of action will solve the problem. Therefore, it is our recommendation that a series of diverse steps be undertaken, the implementation of which will require patience and diligence to realize an effect. These are as follows:
Right, we're not trying to get rid of guns.
We're trying to get guns out of the hands out of criminals and people with mental health issues.
First and foremost we support our Second Amendment right in that “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.
We support State and Local School Boards in their efforts to establish security protocols in whatever manner and form that they deem necessary and adequate. One of the great strengths of our Republic is that State and Local governments can be creative in solving problems. Things that work can be shared. Our point is that no one knows what will work and there is no one single solution, so let’s allow the State and Local governments with the input of the citizens to make the decisions. Most recently the Cleburne Independent School District will become the first district in North Texas to consider allowing some teachers to carry concealed guns. We do not opine as to the appropriateness of this decision, but we do support their right to make this decision for themselves.
We recommend that Assisted Outpatient Treatment (AOT) laws be passed in every State. AOT is formerly known as Involuntary Outpatient Commitment (IOC) and allows the courts to order certain individuals with mental disorders to comply with treatment while living in the community. In each of the mass shooting incidents the perpetrator was mentally unstable. We also believe that people who have been adjudicated as incompetent should be simultaneously examined to determine whether they should be allowed the right to retain/purchase firearms.
We support the return of firearm safety programs to schools along the lines of the successful “Eddie the Eagle” program, which can be taught in schools by Peace Officers or other trained professionals.
Recent social psychology research clearly indicates that there is a direct relationship between gratuitously violent movies/video games and desensitization to real violence and increased aggressive behavior particularly in children and young adults (See Nicholas L. Carnagey, et al. 2007. “The effect of video game violence on physiological desensitization to real-life violence” and the references therein. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 43:489-496). Therefore, we strongly recommend that gratuitous violence in movies and video games be discouraged. War and war-like behavior should not be glorified. Hollywood and video game producers are exploiting something they know nothing about. General Sherman famously said “War is Hell!” Leave war to the Professionals. War is not a game and should not be “sold” as entertainment to our children.
We support repeal of the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. This may sound counter-intuitive, but it obviously isn’t working. It is our opinion that “Gun-Free Zones” anywhere are too tempting of an environment for the mentally disturbed individual to inflict their brand of horror with little fear of interference. While governmental and non-governmental organizations, businesses, and individuals should be free to implement a Gun-Free Zone if they so choose, they should also assume Tort liability for that decision.
We believe that border states should take responsibility for implementation of border control laws to prevent illegal shipments of firearms and drugs. Drugs have been illegal in this country for a long, long time yet the Federal Government manages to seize only an estimated 10% of this contraband at our borders. Given this dismal performance record that is misguided and inept (“Fast and Furious”), we believe that border States will be far more competent at this mission.
This is our country, these are our rights. We believe that it is time that we take personal responsibility for our choices and actions rather than abdicate that responsibility to someone else under the illusion that we have done something that will make us all safer. We have a responsibility to stand by our principles and act in accordance with them. Our children are watching and they will follow the example we set.
The undersigned Quiet Professionals hereby humbly stand ever present, ever ready, and ever vigilant.
This is a great line:
"Hollywood and video game producers are exploiting something they know nothing about."
So many good thoughts here. I don't know if I'd burden the border states with what is, in effect, a national problem, but I certainly agree that adult mental health is of the utmost importance--in many cases you couldn't get an involuntary commitment until after the person has already entered the system, probably as it should be to avoid indiscriminate abuse of personal liberties, but still, that's often too late.
If you study the text of the Amendment, it's so vague--when brought forth in courts, it's almost always punted as a states' rights issue.
I'm in agreement that screen time influences this issue greatly. We have detached from violence as a society, and the temperature of the press/docudramas increases--I often times cannot watch this level of violence. So, until the media agrees to reprogram society with positive loops and images (hate to go all NLP here, but I think it applies) and until society decides to focus on grassroots compassion, it's going to be a tough paradigm to change. I'm not sure regulating weapons is the issue. I don't think compulsory mental health will solve the problem--I think our entire thinking process as a society must change or we're spinning our wheels here. In a big way--and the surest way to get people to the extremes is to back them into a corner, which I think the press is doing nicely as well.
I guess I haven't really chosen sides here...
It's factually inaccurate that Hitler attempted to disarm German citizens. It's also the case that many (possibly most) progressive democracies have done this, and they haven't turned into tyrannies as a result. Finally, look at the number of revolutions that have occurred in the past 30 years -- The Phillipines, East Germany, Egypt, Libya. None of these required guns.
Tyranny? Really? How much more paranoid, far-fetched and self-aggrandizing an argument can you make?
I am tired of hearing about how complicated this problem is. Other countries have violent movies and video games and mentally ill people. What they don't have is our attitude towards guns.
Studies have shown that if you have a gun at home or carry a gun, you are much more likely to die from a gun. It's not about good guys versus bad guys. Every occasional self-defense is far outnumbered by the tragedies. Guns are designed to kill people and they are very effective.
If we want to reduce the number of people killed by guns from 30,000 a year, we have to deal with the actual cause of the problem.