This is the MSNBC question of the day.  I thought you all could provide some very insightful feedback:

[url]http://www.msnbc.com/news/MSNBCCABLE_Front.asp?0cm=c32[/url]

I don't know if I would support armed patrols. Judging from some of the fuckwits I've seen at the range, I am convinced that some folks shouldn't have firearms.

You must know my neighbors.

Most of my neighbors are city raised yuppies.  The thought of them walking around armed scares me.

Aren't armed citizen patrols the whole point of the Second Amendement?

everyone in VT that carries, unknowingly, already is on patrol.

If this was handled the way the Swiss army used to be...Id say fine
Although what good patrols would be ..without the power to arrest or detain..and without some serious training and discipline..
Id say just allow all honest citizens to carry concealed to own assault rifles and hi cap mags and ammo..and encourage locals to build and staff shooting ranges..& kicking back some of their hard earn tax money to provide for this

armed patrols that were created as another facet of state or federal government?  hell no.

armed patrols of people going about their lives who happen to carry and are willing to step in when needed?  sure.  but isn't that what we do everyday?  like monkeyman said, isn't that the point of the 2A?

I think this is covered by the Second Amendment, don't y'all?

If a group of citizens feel threatened, it is not only their right, but their duty to protect themselves '[b]by all means necessary[/b].'

And to say that they need to be trained, puts the government back in charge of saying what kind of training, who can train them, how long the training will last, what types of arms may be trained with, etc., etc., etc., [i][b]ad nauseum[/b][/i]!

The members of the group may determine all those questions for themselves, can they not?

Have you seen the Texas ranchers, armed, down in the Valley?

Well, check it out.

Eric The(2ndAmendmentPurist)Hun[>]:)]

So SOME people should have the right to carry and participate in neighborhood defense and OTHERS should not?

How do you square that with the 2nd Amendment?

Who makes that determination?

Training is the key (and NO not Government sponsored training, but more of a community training effort), not arbitrary exclusion.

i think citizens who have ccw are good enough.  if more people do it and are keeping aware of their suroundings then "armed patrols"  maybe creating situations which are uncalled for.  they look might aggressive and criminals looking for a fight may infact try to ambush these ordinary citizens who prob. are not trained. therefor i would say it is wise enough to just keep aware and have ccw.  agree?

For those who may be mildly interested, this is what I sent to MSNBC:

I support the concept enthusiastically.

We Americans must realize that the police cannot be everywhere at the same time.  When did we lose the concept of self-reliance?  How many times have people died waiting  for police to respond to a domestic disturbance?

Armed citizen patrols provide a more localized, more community oriented crime deterrent, that will certainly be more able to respond in a local crisis than would a cop stationed several miles away.

Think of crime and its response this way, would a 911 call have helped the passengers of any of the hijacked planes on September 11th?  Clearly not.  They acted out of their own courage, and in once case (Flight 93) were able to prevent an even greater disaster.

The US Government must stop looking at its citizens as adversaries to be feared and more as allies in the war against crime and terrorism.

so you think that an sks isn't a gun, i think if you give a experienced shooter a sks there will be little difference if he had a high tech superior AR.

Only if I was included and only if I got to shoot something. Would I qualify?

The real question is "What does an armed citizen patrol do"?

Do they have powers to arrest?  To detain?  To stop and question?  What if a citizen going about his business (perhaps a CCW holder) declines to be stopped and questioned?

The answers to the above determine who gets to participate in citizen patrols.

Just about everyone has the right to have a firearm, etc. But based upon what I've seen at various ranges, not enough people take seriously the commensurate responsibilities in having a firearm.

IMHO, to suggest that some kind of training be prudent before having any weapon is not antithetical to the notion of RKBA -- it's an exercise in the responsibilities that go along with that right. Yes, I'd prefer that whoever designs said training is [b]not[/b] another tax draining government agency but rather a body of people who actually know something about firearms. But do you really want somebody who knows absolutely nothing about firearms safety and operation with absolutely no training whatsoever to be carrying a firearm, taking part in an armed citizen patrol?

So back to the original question, do I support armed citizen patrols? Yes -- but not in any organized sense but rather, as others have suggested, in a broader right to CCW. I'd rather keep the bad guys guessing as to who might be armed.

I agree, here in sunny AZ you can carry open or CCW if you get the permit. Other states, even California(that will be the day) should just emulate VT, or at least AZ and permit open and concealed carry. As far as the government organizing the thing, fat chance. Guns are evil unless you are a leo or in the military. We should all take responsability for protecting our country and our homes. Like what was said before, the leos have there hands full. I just got contacted by a detective in Dallas about an internet fraud that stung us from last November. He's just getting around to the case. Frankly, I would not live in a state that prohibits me from protecting my family. Luckilly I have the luxury of living and working here.

Here's my letter.  While I did not clarify the point for MSNBC, I do speak as a Range Safety Official and a trainer...

Sirs -
       I do enthusiastically support the concept of Armed Citizen Patrols - this was part of the impetus behind the Second Amendment as envisioned over 200 years ago.

       There were no provisions for a standing army, nor an overlarge police force, as each citizen was granted the ability to defend himself and family against miscreants.  Moreover, when people were allowed the means to defend themselves, crime was overall either greatly reduced or nonexistant - as anyone aspiring to a criminal bent was unsure of who would comprise a "safe" target to strike or not.

       Returning to the principle of allowing citizens to defend themselves would re-create an environment that is hazardous to the criminal element.  I feel confident in predicting that within, say, five years of re-instituting Armed Citizen Patrols, most crimes of person or property would disappear almost in entirety.  As aspiring criminals see more and more news items headed with the halting of crimes by armed citizens, fewer people would be attracted to the idea of criminal enterprise.
       
       As far as training requirements for Armed Citizenry, I have found that many public ranges offer knowledgable people who are ready, willing, and able to educate the populace in the proper and effective use of firearms.  Government involvement should be limited to teaching effective use of the Citizen's Arrest, and methods of detention, control, and preserving "crime scenes" for investigations by Law Enforcement professionals.  I would not force training in firearms upon people as developed by governmental agencies   However, advance training (as offered in Law Enforcement Academies and the like) should be made available for citizens who feel that such training could be useful.  Allowing the public to attend Law Enforcement Academies would also create a rapport between the truly serious citizen and Law Enforcement personnel, which could be useful in future dealings (and would help to create nuclei for Neighborhood Watch-style teams.)

       In short, Armed Citizen Patrols will make much simpler the job of Law Enforcement, while moving us faster tward an America where we can once again feel safe in our homes and neighborhoods!

       Points for research -

Kennesaw, GA (Enactment of law requiring ownership of firearms in home and concurrent decrese in crime rate, ca. 1999)
Vermont, State of (Lack of formalized requirement for CCW licensing, and concurrent low overall crime rate)
"Shall Issue States" (States mandating issue of CCW to otherwise qualified citizens, and concurrent decrease in crime rates.)
"Guns and Ammo" Magazine, Armed Response column (monthly column detailing use of firearms in personal, home, and business defense.  Note frequency of instances where shots fired do not take place.)

FFZ