canasia.org

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0429/p09s02-coop.html What the gun industry can learn from scuba divers Private regulation is a win-win, so it should certify gun owners By Peter A. Gudmundsson April 29, 2008 Dallas - The Supreme Court will issue a major interpretation of the Second Amendment in coming weeks. But even as both sides in the gun debate await the D.C. v. Heller ruling, the gun industry should set its sights on a different target: certification. It should develop and adopt a private licensing and certification program fashioned on the highly successful scuba diving industry model to provide safety, legal, and marksmanship training to all gun owners and users. Such a private mandate will ensure a _base_ of safer and more knowledgeable gun users and develop a fresh and lucrative revenue source for the whole industry. For decades, the debate on gun control in America has been defined by polar opposite political positions. On the left, gun ownership abolitionists seek the intervention of government to severely restrict or outlaw firearms possession and use. With strong support among coastal urban populations and high-income elites, these gun-control advocates appeal to the inherent evil of gun violence as proof of the desirability of severely restricting access to guns. Their argument is moralistic and practical, if altogether naive given the millions of firearms already present in American homes - and the ease of obtaining guns for criminal purposes. On the other side, defiant gun owners and libertarians cite constitutional justification - and anachronistic biblical and patriotic frontier mythological imagery - to bolster their possession of an immutable right to keep and bear arms. With such a political impasse of instinctive and deep mistrust, there is no wonder that little progress had been made in making our homes, streets, and fields safer from the real dangers of legal and illegal firearms use. The core of this problem derives from the absolutist nature of both camps. It is simple No restrictions versus complete regulation or abolition. Enter the scuba model. For decades, the international Scuba diving community has required all divers to obtain certifications from one of two private associations, the National Association of Underwater Instructors and the Professional Association of Diving Instructors. No diver may fill their tanks or take part in recreational or professional diving trips without first obtaining a certification card from one of these private organizations. For their part, dive shops and schools generate significant portions of their revenue from the tuition that would-be divers pay to obtain their certifications at basic to advanced levels. Undergoing class-room instruction, pool lessons, and open water testing, graduates of these programs are thoroughly trained in all aspects of safety and proper procedure in what would otherwise be an inherently dangerous pastime. The gun industry, perhaps led by the National Rifle Association, should develop a curriculum of training and education leading to firearms certification. All retailers of guns and or ammunition would require the provision of such private certification by the consumer before consenting to the sale of any of those items. Background checks should be included in the certification process as well as periodic refresher courses. The federal and state governments would not be involved. Records of gun ownership would be available to government or law-enforcement officials only with the written consent of the certified owner or a warrant provided by proper authority. Nonconsenting retailers would be blackballed by industry leaders and cut off from supplies of goods and services. The firearms industry has an unprecedented opportunity to show leadership and creativity at this time when the debate is otherwise deadlocked. More safety and additional revenue for gun ranges and stores makes for a healthier industry that will have better success at attracting new sportsmen and customers.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0429/p09s02-coop.html What the gun industry can learn from scuba divers Private regulation is a win-win, so it should certify gun owners By Peter A. Gudmundsson April 29, 2008 Dallas - The Supreme Court will issue a major interpretation of the Second Amendment in coming weeks. But even as both sides in the gun debate await the D.C. v. Heller ruling, the gun industry should set its sights on a different target: certification. It should develop and adopt a private licensing and certification program fashioned on the highly successful scuba diving industry model to provide safety, legal, and marksmanship training to all gun owners and users. Sure, right after they institute a privat lecensing and certification program for speech, religion, and every other right recognized by the Bill of Rights. After all, speech is a dangerous thing.  It should be regulated.  By adopting private training, licensing and certification for speech, we'll have a lot less 'stupid' speech cluttering up our lives. btw...please point out the portion of the Bill of Rights that deals, specifically, with Scuba diving. Fool. Yol Bolsun, Grendel. I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let's start with typewriters. -Solomon Short

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0429/p09s02-coop.html What the gun industry can learn from scuba divers Private regulation is a win-win, so it should certify gun owners By Peter A. Gudmundsson April 29, 2008 Dallas - The Supreme Court will issue a major interpretation of the Second Amendment in coming weeks. But even as both sides in the gun debate await the D.C. v. Heller ruling, the gun industry should set its sights on a different target: certification. It should develop and adopt a private licensing and certification program fashioned on the highly successful scuba diving industry model to provide safety, legal, and marksmanship training to all gun owners and users. Sure, right after they institute a privat lecensing and certification program for speech, religion, and every other right recognized by the Bill of Rights. After all, speech is a dangerous thing.  It should be regulated.  By adopting private training, licensing and certification for speech, we'll have a lot less 'stupid' speech cluttering up our lives. btw...please point out the portion of the Bill of Rights that deals, specifically, with Scuba diving. Fool. This is not about what we'd like to see, but what is politically workable. If you want the right to bear arms, then join a well regulated militia .

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0429/p09s02-coop.html What the gun industry can learn from scuba divers Private regulation is a win-win, so it should certify gun owners By Peter A. Gudmundsson April 29, 2008 Dallas - The Supreme Court will issue a major interpretation of the Second Amendment in coming weeks. But even as both sides in the gun debate await the D.C. v. Heller ruling, the gun industry should set its sights on a different target: certification. It should develop and adopt a private licensing and certification program fashioned on the highly successful scuba diving industry model to provide safety, legal, and marksmanship training to all gun owners and users. Sure, right after they institute a privat lecensing and certification program for speech, religion, and every other right recognized by the Bill of Rights. After all, speech is a dangerous thing.  It should be regulated.  By adopting private training, licensing and certification for speech, we'll have a lot less 'stupid' speech cluttering up our lives. btw...please point out the portion of the Bill of Rights that deals, specifically, with Scuba diving. Fool. This is not about what we'd like to see, but what is politically workable. If you want the right to bear arms, then join a well regulated militia .- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Why would I need to do that?  The right, that shall not be infringed, to keep and bear arms is, as recognized by the Second Amendment, is 'of the people'. And, according to _title_ 10, sub_title_ A, part I, Chapter 13, § 311, sub- paragraph (a) of the U.S. Code, I am a member of the militia. But the rights recognized by the Second Amendment are not dependent on anyone being part of an organized militia. Try again, sparky. Yol Bolsun, Grendel. No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms. -Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.

This is not about what we'd like to see, but what is politically workable. If you want the right to bear arms, then join a well regulated militia .- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Why would I need to do that?  The right, that shall not be infringed, to keep and bear arms is, as recognized by the Second Amendment, is 'of the people'. And, according to _title_ 10, sub_title_ A, part I, Chapter 13, § 311, sub- paragraph (a) of the U.S. Code, I am a member of the militia. But the rights recognized by the Second Amendment are not dependent on anyone being part of an organized militia. Try again, sparky. If the people at Waco, who had guns, also had a well regulated militia in the area, they'd still be in business. Forget the Constitution; its still what Gen Sherman said it was: the firstest with the mostest. I dont care if you own guns. the US military has tanks, cannons, and missiles. Lotsa fucking luck.

This is not about what we'd like to see, but what is politically workable. If you want the right to bear arms, then join a well regulated militia .- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Why would I need to do that?  The right, that shall not be infringed, to keep and bear arms is, as recognized by the Second Amendment, is 'of the people'. And, according to _title_ 10, sub_title_ A, part I, Chapter 13, § 311, sub- paragraph (a) of the U.S. Code, I am a member of the militia. But the rights recognized by the Second Amendment are not dependent on anyone being part of an organized militia. Try again, sparky. If the people at Waco, who had guns, also had a well regulated militia in the area, they'd still be in business. Forget the Constitution; its still what Gen Sherman said it was: the firstest with the mostest. I dont care if you own guns. the US military has tanks, cannons, and missiles. Lotsa fucking luck. I'm not worried about the US military.  I was a member once, myself. I don't have a problem with them and they don't have a problem with me. An ignorant, useless criminal who may decide to break into my house....HE may have a problem with me.  YOU, on the other hand, he would have no problem with. We tend to shoot intruders in these parts. Yol Bolsun, Grendel. Forever I walk among he ignorant.