Congressmen want to carry guns:
“I’m going to be introducing legislation this week … to allow congressmen to carry a sidearm, should they so desire,” Rep. Mo Brooks said in an interview with Maria Bartiromo on Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures.”
Members of Congress are “high-profile targets,” the congressman said, adding that they have “absolutely no way to defend ourselves because of Washington, D.C.’s rather restrictive gun laws,” the Alabama congressman said.
“I want congressmen to be treated as if they were law enforcement,” Brooks said, “given that we are high-profile targets for the bad guys, the lone wolves, the terrorists.”
I like the idea, because it is a foot in the door to something bigger. I have always felt that individuals who wanted to carry anywhere for purposes of protection of themselves and their loved ones should be able to apply to their local Police Department, take classes, and if they qualify be deputized as volunteer law enforcement, with all the carry privileges of law enforcement.
They wouldn’t investigate, or arrest, or interfere with regular law enforcement operations. Their training would just be for emergency direct action, First Aid/CPR, and observation/communications. Their main Law Enforcement function would be radioing in to full time LE anything they saw that required the immediate attention of Law Enforcement. But they would be armed, they would have enough training to act in a situation like an active shooter or a kidnapping in progress, and they would be given LE authority and training with respect to carrying and using firearms to protect life in extreme circumstances.
The nation would get better trained citizen carriers, law enforcement would get millions of eyes on the street wired right into uniformed patrol’s radios, and the left would have no ability to argue against any of it.
Given how things are going with the K-shift, if Congressmen can be simply declared Federal Law Enforcement for purposes of carry, then it is a small step to do that with regular citizens who choose to undergo some training, and once you get it done with regular citizens, it is a small step to simply returning to the days of the founding, when the militia consisted of the whole of the citizenry.
Spread r/K Theory, because in the Apocalypse we will all have to be our own police force
[…] Congressmen Want To Be Classified As Law Enforcement […]
I had a question about r/K selection.
I’ve noticed a lot of r-selected psychology in people I’ve known, but there’s one thing that seems like a contradiction. One of the tenets of r-selection is low-effort child rearing, but a lot of the leftists I’ve seen exhibit the exact opposite — they coddle their children to the point of “bubble wrapping” them. They don’t let their kids play sports because they might get hurt. They don’t let them go out, even when they’re in their late teens, because they’re afraid they’ll get into trouble. They even accompany their kids to job interviews all the way into their late 20s. All of this seems like high-effort parenting. Sure, it might produce useless, dependent semi-adults that have to go to “adulting” classes to figure out how to file taxes, but it’s still high-effort regardless of the success of the outcome. How do you think this kind of misdirected effort fits into the r-selected psychology?
I definitely see the general r-selection in the parents’ mindset. They’re preparing them to have no self-sufficiency and always expect free resources instead of learning how to provision for themselves. I just don’t see how “low-effort parenting” fits in.
I think with little kids, what you describe is low effort to the extent it is avoiding expenditure of major effort through minor investments like, “Go to your room,” or “Don’t risk making me take you to the hospital by having fun or playing sports.” Real K-parenting is about enduring whatever you must in the course of doing what is best for your kids, regardless of the effect on yourself. I see what you describe as half a step away from chaining the kid to a wall so they won’t be a problem, and the effect shows that.
As a general rule, wherever you see “white left” investment in children, as the Chinese call it, it will be investment which is of minimal practical cost, and of some benefit to the parent’s ease, status, or happiness. (A nanny is not, from an emotional standpoint, investing in a child, especially as it frees up the parents to have fun and travel. Especially when you have enough money you don’t even notice the cost. Nor is a tutor, a boarding school, demanding they get into an exclusive school parents use as a mark of social status, or a demand of the child to not be a child for the ease of a parent’s happiness.)
I can’t speak to accompanying young adults to job interviews. That feels more like a narcissist’s need to exert control, which is it’s own amygdala dysfunction and inability to tolerate stress.
The job interview hovering may also be more about the parents’ status than it is about the child’s success.
This is a good question that I’ve also thought about a lot. In addition to what AC said, I see the helicopter parenting as being more about the parents’ social status than anything else. They don’t want the social criticism if their child gets hurt, lost, or killed.
Another aspect of it is they can’t deal with their own emotional pain (weak amygdala) if something happens to their child. It’s all about them, not the child so much. Of course they would all deny that, but it’s apparent to me when I see this behavior.
By the way I see this same exact thing in these people regarding their pets. The tendency to restrict them to the house under the premise that the world is dangerous and it would be irresponsible to let them see the blue sky and green grass. But it’s really about them not wanting the judgment of their peers if something happens. Which is on full display when a pet is lost and it wasn’t basically chained to the house.
I am a staunch Second Amendment supporter, but I am in favor of mandatory training for carry permits.
I agree, but then I think government schools should be required to teach safe and effective firearms use. Pistol and rifle. Bring back on campus firing ranges.
Mandatory training is an infringement, just as are license fees. “Shall no be infringed.”
Congress has exclusive jurisdiction over D.C., the local government is merely a courtesy. So no, if they want concealed carry let them enact a concealed carry regime for the District and fire anyone who throws up roadblocks, up to and including Federal Judges. If they want to carry when they travel enact reciprocal carry laws for everyone. If they actually care about their own butts that is. It is always a bad idea to let them exempt themselves the laws everyone else must suffer.
I know exactly what should happen. Trump should make Republicans, and only Republicans, Deputy Marshals with a limited mandate to protect themselves only. He could probably just sign a paper and issue them badges to get this done.
As for the Democrats their the ones always wanting to take away guns. Probably because the people they hang around with are bat-shit crazy and no one wants them to have guns. They can do without as they say no one needs them. It would make them furious.
Beautiful.