Trained, armed citizens as part of Homeland Security?

[Guy B. Meredith]

Okay, no complete plan here so I'm assuming this is not yet activism.

Rather than being on the defense, maybe a call to action for our congresscritters et al should be mapped out.

Given that victims are the first First Responders (intentional emphasis on the sequence of response) maybe we should push for a Department of Homeland Security sponsored move to enable training and arming citizens to provide quick response.

I'm thinking of those people trapped up close and personal with the killer in classrooms and the restrooms of the Orlando night club. If just a couple of those 30 people trapped in the restrooms were prepared to strike back when there was no way out...

 

[Carne Frio]

So, you trust and have faith in DHS ?

 

[Tommygunn]

Used to be called "militia." Try saying that to your kongresskritters today.
Good luck.

 

[Guy B. Meredith]

No I don't have any faith in them, but I'm thinking they'd be a useful tool.

Tommygunn, militia implies organized groups and organized confrontation. I'm thinking individuals acting as individuals reacting to situations.

In any event, putting a new twist on the paradigm might jolt some people to reality of what is happening by creating victims.

 

[Jim Watson]

Jerry P. proposes arming military officers all the time, on duty or off.

 

[Sergei Mosin]

The current administration is not going to do anything to encourage an armed citizenry. We, the unorganized militia, are responsible for arming and training ourselves.

 

[Guy B. Meredith]

The current administration might not do anything, but a massive number of phone calls or emails to Congress critters pushing the idea might shake things up a bit.

Worst case is that we get no more than some anti gun folk wetting their pants at the thought, best case is subsidized firearms and training.

 

[BigBore44]

I think people should... 1) Avoid gun free zones. 2) WANT to arm and protect themselves instead of relying on someone else to do it for them.

I understand your premise. But the fact is people have lives and families that require time. I'll risk my life if I'm involved in a situation. But I'm not charging in to a night club or mall.

 

[Tommygunn]

No I don't have any faith in them, but I'm thinking they'd be a useful tool.

Tommygunn, militia implies organized groups and organized confrontation. I'm thinking individuals acting as individuals reacting to situations.

In any event, putting a new twist on the paradigm might jolt some people to reality of what is happening by creating victims.

Sorry I misunderstood your post.
You need to get rid of "gun free zones" to make your idea anywhere near feasable. A few armed people ---even maybe one ----- could make a difference. How to assure that there will always be that many around?
In some states it will be easier than others San Francisco and New York City? Hard.
Texas? Doable for sure.
In a lot of areas where ccw or even OC is common, it would be quit possible now, and maybe already being done.

 

[Guy B. Meredith]

I'd like to see the onus put on the government to bless it.

Here is Oregon carry is prohibited only in courts and Federal property--Social Security office, USPS property, etc. It would be great if we could force an inspection of Oregon CHL and states with similar rules as a basis for what restrictions are needed and not just bigoted bias.

I do understand that some amped up situations like parties with alcohol and bars need some real maturity on the part of CHL holders, but it can be done. At least one state has recently ended restriction on carry in places serving alcohol.

 

[MedWheeler]

Guy B. Merdedith writes:

Tommygunn, militia implies organized groups and organized confrontation.

Actually, as spelled out in the Florida Constitution, the "militia" is comprised of all ablebodied inhabitants of the State who are, or who have declared their intent to become, citizens of the US.

It's a shame that this view no longer stands, neither within our "leaders", nor within the last couple of generations of our citizenry. I cannot imagine some of these younger people actually hefting a rifle, let alone fighting. It's no wonder the armed forces are struggling to keep the rank-and-files filled.

I've entertained the idea myself a few years back, after Virginia Tech. Something along the lines of a "carry-anywhere" pass available to those citizens among "the cleanest of the clean", who demonstrate willingness to participate through enhanced training they acquire on their own, or have acquired through time in the armed forces or law enforcement. True, this type of program would still be a government-sanctioned pass, but it could be a start..

 

[Iggy]

If some of this new generation strained enough to pick up a rifle, their pants would fall down.

 

[bearcreek]

Given that victims are the first First Responders (intentional emphasis on the sequence of response) maybe we should push for a Department of Homeland Security sponsored move to enable training and arming citizens to provide quick response.

The DHS has straight up said that it considers people like most of those on this forum to be at high risk for being/becoming domestic terrorists. (That's one of the huge problems with putting those on "terrorist watch" or "no fly" lists into the prohibited persons category, as Trump and the NRA have suggested) The DHS doesn't trust us even a little bit. There's not a snowballs chance in a blast furnace that they'd go for something like that. That being said, what you suggest is a significant part of the basic premise of the 2A. Every able bodied American citizen is part of the militia. They don't have to "join" it. Since they're automatically part of it, it would be good if they were a useful part, which requires training and equipment. I'd be all for coordination and even some level of funding for that on the local level but IMO it'd be a mistake to put control of such a thing in the hands of an organization like the DHS.

 

[OldMac]

Simply leave dhs or govt out of the equation. This is a God given right. As soon as you drag the government into bless, permit, train, or participate, they will start to take control of your right and you. Before you know it, the government educated droolers will clearly understand that the Second Ammendment means guns are outlawed unless you are part of the selected citizens in the DHS militia. Every one arm yourself, work together with your fellow citizens, and stop depending on uncle sam to help.

 

[thump_rrr]

If some of this new generation strained enough to pick up a rifle, their pants would fall down.

The big problem is not that the new generation will not strain enough to pick up a rifle.
It is that CCW laws are such that in many states young people are not allowed to carry in places they frequent such as schools, bars/nightclubs.
Allowing firearms into bars/nightclubs poses an altogether different set of problems just ask Denver cornerback Aqib Talib.
The Orlando shooter also cased Disney World.
Disney has no armed security and is exempt from Florida law which allows employees to carry weapons in their cars if they have a concealed weapons permit.

 

[AirForceShooter]

If I'm in a mall and CCWing and some clown pulls out a gun and shouts Allah Arkba I'm taking the shot.
I don't need authorization from Homeland Security

AFS

 

[Deaf Smith]

DHS? Might as well join the brown shirts.

Maybe the local sheriffs office, but no DHS.

Deaf

 

[Old Guy]

I am a volunteer with Orange County Sheriffs Dept. I being accepted as a Volunteer, I had to be run through the exact same background check that a Deputy went through. But when I was asked to ride along?

"Can I carry my Glock 19?" No!! Absolutely no! I did not ride along either. So I would imagine if we were to try to use the Sherriff's Dept. In that way, even run us through a shooting test, I know I could pass it, plus a bunch of other members here could do so.

Not like the Old Days, grab your Horse and Rifle, then off chasing the Bank Robber.

We would end with a Volunteer Badge. Only able to attend an emergency. And take a test twice a year.
But I could not see it happening.

 

[Rock185]

There is no way such a thing would occur under this administration. Or, in the succeeding Clinton administration. Their mindset is just the opposite. Disarm as many Americans as possible in any way "legally" possible. An Obama or Clinton does not change it's spots.......

PS, Old Guy, we have Police Volunteers locally too. While they are background checked, that process is no where as detailed and rigorous as the background done on officer applicants. Volunteers perform many important functions here but are not certified police officers, receive no firearms training, and cannot be armed while volunteering at the PD.

 

[barnbwt]

Every American a Militia

Eh? Eh?

I'd be very skeptical of any type of organized scheme at this point because;
1) If organized at the federal level --"DHS? Might as well join the brown shirts."-- yeah, pretty much Brown Shirts. Obama said early on he dreamed of a national police force (usually called Military Police in other nations, btw) under the purview of DHS (i.e. him) intended for domestic missions (posse comitatus)
2) If organized at the state level, would almost instantly become subverted to federal rule, through appropriate application of block grants & political appointments (17th amendment removed the only check/balance on this trend). See also National Guard
3) If organized at the local level, are instantly defined as radical patriot groups, demonized nationally, and ultimately killed with fire by the BATFE

TCB

 

[Warp]

Sorry I misunderstood your post.
You need to get rid of "gun free zones" to make your idea anywhere near feasable. A few armed people ---even maybe one ----- could make a difference. How to assure that there will always be that many around?
In some states it will be easier than others San Francisco and New York City? Hard.
Texas? Doable for sure.
In a lot of areas where ccw or even OC is common, it would be quit possible now, and maybe already being done.

Texas actually has a pretty low % of the population licensed to carry.

Try Indiana, South Dakota, Georgia, maybe Vermont, states like that

 

[herkyguy]

The current administration might not do anything, but a massive number of phone calls or emails to Congress critters pushing the idea might shake things up a bit.

Worst case is that we get no more than some anti gun folk wetting their pants at the thought, best case is subsidized firearms and training.

Subsidized training, you say? I can all but guarantee that 'training' will consist of hours upon hours of mindless powerpoint on such things as the toxicity of lead, the potential for hearing loss, and some use of force continuum concocted by folks who know nothing about guns.

Believe me, it is best to leave the federal government out of it and take responsibility for your own proficiency. Be your own judge as to how far you want to go with it.

 

[Guy B. Meredith]

I would not go for an organization under DHS. Considering their problems I don't want their finger in it. Just the money.

My thought is more to get financial subsidies for individual training and purchases. Suggesting the DHS as the tool is to put in mind the idea that self defense against terrorists is a part of overall homeland security. Who cares who offs the terrorist, in the end it's all homeland secured.

Just need to do something to change the national discussion from the same old hackneyed political talking points to something more constructive.

 

[1911 guy]

The idea is sound, but only at the personal level. Make efforts to both protect and defend yourself and your loved ones. Stay out of dumb places and get out quickly if overtaken by circumstance.

However, there can be no organization under any level or agency of the federal government. Simply theory of government will not allow it. They ("they" representing the policies and policy makers of governmental power) have a monopoly on force. Nurturing the idea that mere mortals like us could possibly make a difference in either stopping an attack or get a jump on dealing with the aftermath is contrary to current political theory.

I could write a rather lengthy essay explaining this, but there are too many people who don't even understand the history of our own country and government, who will simply deny facts that they have not previously been spoon fed by their intellectual handlers and masters.

Suffice it to say that any organized effort, at any level or degree of organization, will not be tolerated by any agency or branch of the federal government. State and local may be another issue, but that depends entirely on where you live and who you have voted into those offices.

 

[Old Guy]

I would not dream of asking for any kind of Hook Up with any Federal Agency, but the Orange County Sheriffs Office I would have no problem working with.

For instance, as OCSO carry .45ACP Glocks, we would be held to 9mm, to show the difference. In case of a shooting.

Back in 1987 I ran a training program for 6 Firearms Instructors for a Tactical team in Quebec, Revolver to Glock 17 Pistols.

This program was a transitional Training Program, I left 6 Training manuals, I designed, so each Instructor could look back on the written program, it went well. There was 30 total compliment.