Blogs regarding the Gunnery Sergeant Organization!

"And all you have to do
Is move your little finger,
Move your little finger and-
You can change the world.
...
What a wonder is a gun!
...
What a versatile invention!
First of all, when you've a gun-
Everybody pays attention.
...
...where is it?"

Lyrics excerpted from The Gun Song by Stephen Sondheim
Album: Sondheim on Sondheim (2013) Artists: Tom Wopat, Matthew Scott, Euan Morton, Leslie Kritzer (Judy Collins also has her version)

GunnerySergeant.org welcomes topic suggestions for our blog. Simply email your ideas to gunnerysergeant@collogistics.com. Remember - we depend on you as our adopted motto is "We Do Our Part". This means your submitted ideas imply that you're doing your part to help with our "groundswell regulated militia"!

This blog topic is titled "Where is it?". We agree that every gun owner should always have an answer to this question whenever it is posed. Members of our site, on occasion, are contacted with their GS (Gunnery Sergeant). If this question is posed, will they always have a ready answer?

The remainder of this blog post will reinforce the appropriateness and importance of this simple question. Furthermore, while doing this, the reader should be able to understand how our web site could be useful in preventing tragedies.

News report: "Nursing home resident shoots, kills self" (dated August 31, 2016 B1 Boston Globe). During the investigation a police captain remarked: "One of the big questions is, what's a gun doing in a nursing home?" (remarking on the fact that the nursing home bans guns on the property).

Could this tragic event been avoided? We cannot guarantee avoiding every gun-related tragedy. However we hope and believe that our "groundswell managed militia" approach can mitigate or minimize incidents such as the one headlined. To see why read on.

Our members consist primarily of gun owners (we call them privates). These modern day militia members are periodically contacted by someone who never really knows their name (salutations are handled by so-called 'handles' - see FAQs for more detail). The contact initiator is possibly another gun owner (or not). Since the initiator contacts the actual gun owner we call the initiator role a "Gunnery Sergeant" (aka GS or sergeant) role. It is important to note that a third-party role exists. Every private member (gun owner) has a sponsor. The GS knows nothing about this sponsor. The sponsor knows, is related to, or is somehow acquainted with the private gun owner (e.g. a close friend). A final element in this equation is this: time. Over time a GS is expected to contact members in his or her 'platoon of privates'. You now have enough details to speculate on how the above event may have been avoided. Let's give it a try!

An elderly man gets admitted to a nursing home. None of us know all the details but it should't matter. We will postulate some details as scenarios and see what happens.

Scenario one. He owns a gun and is a private member. The GS tries to contact him but he has 'moved' and can't be reached (in this case he was signed in the nursing home by someone such as his wife or a child, etc.). Although the GS knows nothing about the private (save his or her handle) the GS can "trigger" a message to the private's sponsor such as this: "Dear sponsor of <handle>, I have not been able to reach <handle>. Just checking in. Please let us know if anything has changed."

A responsible sponsor (e.g. this fellow's wife) could reply that he has been placed into a nursing home facility. This obviously establishes a dialog outside of the private's ken. The ensuing dialog, we have to presume, would include the fundamental question posed in this post: "Where is it?" (i.e. the gun). The scenario can diverge in several ways such as 'oops - I don't see it where he usually keeps it!', 'oops - he must have packed it and taken it with him. I'll inform the nursing home!'.

There are too many possibilities to list them all. There's even more scenarios such as Scenario two. A son owns the gun and is the registered private. In that case the GS may have contacted the son and asked the proverbial question. This may result in the son being alerted that the gun is missing. Could dad have taken it? Why?

The reader should now be able to understand the positive impact of our "groundswell managed militia" approach. Over a period of weeks or months (the time factor) some hiccup could be noticed by a vigilant sergeant. If a simple question such as "where is it?" can't be satisfactorily answered, that dilemma is likely to trigger some research resulting in preventative action (such as returning the gun from a nursing home).

In this tragic case, the gun owner was not a private. There was no sergeant to check in occasionally. We'd like to assume there were loved ones however (the sponsor role). A sponsor might have thought through ramifications of the "where is it?" question and prevented the event (even without the prompting of a sergeant's query). A sponsor might have noticed depression settling in over time. With suitable prompting via regular contact maybe, we think, this suicidal spiral:

"And all you have to do
Is move your little finger,
Move your little finger and-
You can change the world."

wouldn't have occurred!

AP news release - mid March 2016. "...Florida woman whose 4-year-old son accidentally shot her in the back..." and more detail a few days later (via AP): "The mother...put a loaded .45 caliber handgun underneath the front seat of her pickup...and the weapon slid into the back seat..." continuing "The boy got out of his seat and picked up the gun. He fired through the front seat, hitting his mother in the back. The bullet exited through her chest and through the windshield."

This blog topic is titled "Is it secure?". Members of our site, on occasion, are contacted with their GS (Gunnery Sergeant). If this question is posed, will they always have a ready answer?

The remainder of this blog post will reinforce the appropriateness and importance of this simple question. But first, what about this comment? "My right to protect my child with my gun trumps your fear of my gun" - source anonymous.

Before discussing the motivating AP news release, let's talk about "My right to protect my child with my gun...". In other words lets talk about the law. The same press release leads us to believe this woman is aware of some laws but ignores others. Lets start with what she knows:

It's clear she knows the rights spelled out in the Second Amendment: "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms...". Unfortunately there exists other propositions, other laws that she either didn't know about or forgot. What follows are examples of relevant theories and facts.

According to Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget (1896-1980) a child's Concrete Operational Stage occurs between the ages of 7 and 11, and [this stage] illustrates logical thought processes.

"Just a single little finger
Can change the world."
- Stephan Sondheim (from The Gun Song - see "Where is it?" post)

A four year old child is simply too young to understand the full consequences when handling a gun. But, we admit, this is just theory. Next let's discuss law

There happens to be a law about guns that every member of Congress is in complete agreement! It will never be abrogated, infringed or otherwise changed! That's nice to know isn't it? Agreement at last (regarding at least one aspect of "gun control")!

The law is of course: The tendency of objects to resist changes in motion was what Galileo called inertia. This insight was refined by Newton, who made it into his first law, also known as the "law of inertia". Source: Wikipedia

This "law" of physics known for centuries is what caused this: "the weapon slid into the back seat" (quote from above AP release). The fundemental question of this blog, "is it secure?" The answer, sadly, in this specific instance was clearly no!

The explanation is that a metal gun, for example, is a lot heavier than a toy plastic gun. When a truck is quickly accelerated, the heavier object (e.g. the .45 caliber handgun) resists moving with the truck. Hence it "slides" backwards.

In this case the gun wasn't physically 'secure'. Based on other recent news reports such as this: "Accidental shooting leaves boy badly hurt" (Boston Globe Sept. 1st, 2016) we need to broaden the definition of the word 'secure'. The prior case was clearly one related to the physical security of the gun. This headline, or many like it, are the result of clear negligence of adults not ensuring a gun is secured (out of reach by children). An 11 year old boy was shot in the face while visiting a friend. The answer to our question: "Is it secure?" Sadly, again was no!

This blog topic is titled "Is it registered?". Members of our site, on occasion, are contacted with their GS (Gunnery Sergeant). If this question is posed, they should always say yes and no!

The remainder of this blog post will reinforce the appropriateness and importance of this simple question (even though the answer will always be both yes and no).

Many citizens assume that a properly owned firearm can and should be registered. A car can kill or injure and is required to be registered. Indeed insured as well so that damages can be paid to whomever is injured (or killed). There is no registration database for guns.

The more proper phrasing of the question on hand is perhaps this: "Is it permitted?" (i.e. has the gun owner filled out a form such as an FA-10 permit). Gun permits simply track transactions that are legal. In a special report (North Shore Sunday March 18, 2016 written by Al Gentile) headlined: "State tracks gun sales, not owners" Mr. Gentile describes any database as strictly transactional. The article points out that it is useless to go in and say, "This is who owns this firearm right now."

So let's get back to the question and the not so easy answer: YES AND NO! There is (and evidently never will be) a registration database for firearms that is as robust as, for example, automobiles or trucks. From Mr Gentile's article we have this quote:

"Quite frankly, the entire system is a mess," said Jim Wallace, executive director of the Gun Owners Action League. "The system is designed to register and watch good guys, but not designed to watch bad guys."

Later on Mr Gentile's article has another quote of interest. An excerpt from the article:

Pay special attention towards the end of Mr. Dalseide's remarks: "...use that list as guidelines for enforcing future bans or confiscation..." The greatest fear held by gun rights advocates is the establishment of some central "database" of all gun owners. Why? because it would include law-abiding owners as well as (hopefully) crooks. The former group lives in fear that in some future time, perhaps in a crisis or sorts, the so-called 'list' could be used to actually remove firearms! This may, or may not be a well-founded fear. However it looms VERY big and any mention of a database (especially a Federal one) will be forever fought tooth and nail. That explains why one answer to this blog's question will always be no.

Does that mean the question should never be asked? Should there be some form of registration? This web site provides a suitable answer to the latter question, implying a possible yes. Understanding this web site should settle any qualms about a scary "list" whose potential is to take away firearms. The Second Amendment is never threatened. Owners still have the right to "keep and bear Arms."

So how does this site manage to corral bad guys (you know - the ones with guns without permits)? The mechanism is somewhat described by taking a tour through the site's FAQs. However we summarize it here:

In effect we substitute this post's fundamental question: "Is it registered?" with a more benign and discreet question: "Who is your gunnery sergeant?" The "groundswell managed militia" approach depends on each and every concerned person to accept our approach: "We Do Our Part". By asking this question to anyone who has a gun (permitted or not) the response is very telling. We invented a very discreet "handle" that identifies all enlisted members (we call them enlistees not registrants). The gun owner is assigned a sergeant who also has a handle. Some 'privates' (as we call them - but they're really gun owners) never have their personal information (e.g. first and last name, address, etc.) listed in any database we have. The only identification we have is their handle (and zip code) and their gun specifics. Such a list could never be used to confiscate anyones guns! Why? The list (i.e. database) has the what (gun information) but not necessarily the who (gun owner information). There are protective mechanisms in place, such as maintaining information on a private's sponsor. This leads to a very credible (though private and discreet) tracking system. We admit somewhat complex until thought out and understood...

So why do we use this approach and how will it help identify malcontent gun owners? There are several reasons:

• The site doesn't "culture-bundle" (as defined by Ken White - OP ED via Tribune Content Agency, LLC Dec. 16th, 2015). What is that, you say? Mr White says: "Our unproductive talk about guns is rife with this. Gun control advocate don't just attack support for guns; they attack conservative, Republican, rural and religious values." He goes on: "Second Amendment advocates don't just attack gun control advocates; they attack liberal, Democratic, urban and secular values." Our site, a "groundswell managed militia" cannot threaten KABA rights (Keep And Bear Arms) if we don't necessarily know who owns them! We are apolitical and therefore acceptable to gun rights advocates and we represent a plausible solution to gun control advocates that doesn't require overcoming the hurdle of contentious legislation.
• Being apolitical the site doesn't take a formal position on the topic of "gun control". Mr White points out folks who, for example, push for a ban of "semiautomatic weapons", use improper terminology. He says theses weapons: "actually refer to nearly every modern day weapons other than bolt-action rifles and shotguns." Instead we have a clever mechanism to track guns (outside of any weak gun-permit system). The FAQs help explain this as do our parlor presentations as cited in another web site (NRA.rip). Our strength depends on a groundswell movement where everyone knows this: "We Do Our Part."
• We do not insult the KABA rights folks. We understand that they are as passionate as, for example, speech rights advocates. (Mr. White's third point). Indeed, we hope and expect Dalseide's "law-abiding" gun owners will regularly exchange sergeant handles as a way of doing their part to expose others with guns held under everyone's radar!
• We are not in any way, mean or form related to government at any level. We are a nonprofit that simply maintains a site with minimum staffing and a dedicated cadre of volunteer collaborators.

This blog topic is titled "Is it accurate enough?". Members of our site, on occasion, are contacted with their GS (Gunnery Sergeant). If this question is posed, we can't say (accurately) if the answer is yes or no!

The remainder of this blog post will reinforce the appropriateness and importance of this simple question (even though the answer will perhaps be some version of maybe).

At the time words were crafted for the Second Amendment ("A well regulated Militia..."), muskets were the Arms du jour. We'd have to speculate that the answer to this question, if posed in the late 1700's, would have been NO!

No! (to this blog's question) was the likely acceptable answer as evidenced by gun owners' dissatisfaction with firearms during the pre-federalist period. Dissatisfaction spawns innovation: firearms' technology has evolved dramatically since the days of yore...

What about modern times? First: accuracy (as measured for example by hitting a target's bull's-eye predictably) seems to depend on three factors: (1) the shooter's skills, (2) the firearm being used and (3) external factors (e.g. wind, visibility of target, distance to target).

Let's start with factor #1 regarding accuracy criteria (shooter's skills). You probably have heard of a firearm called a "Blunderbuss": Wikipedia describes it as "The blunderbuss could be considered to be an early form of shotgun, which was often adapted to military and defensive use." Shotguns tend to forgive human ineptitude by virtue of spraying a wide range of lead shot. The modern shotgun almost allows a "Blundering Fool" the ability to snag a covey of birds. This wider spray, however can pose hazards (a celebrated example being Vice President Dick Cheney's mishap in Texas). The term "Blundering Fool" was used purposely here as the root "Blunder": means "to mismanage; botch ... (...compare Old Norse blunda to close one's eyes ...) (Source: English Collins Dictionary). One can almost imagine hitting a target straight on with one's eyes closed using today's weapons!

Again, to make up for substandard human skills, additional modern enhancements to firearms re-enforces casual users being able to wreak havoc after maybe a few minutes of becoming familiar with a modern day weapon such as an AR-15.

The June 16th, 2016 editorial opinion piece that appeared in the Boston Globe printed two graphic images: (1) A life-size entry opening measured about 1/4" in diameter. (2) The "life-size outline of a lower leg exit wound caused by an AR-15" that measured about 6 3/4" high and 2 1/2" wide. The editorial goes on to state: "Bullets shot by assault weapons are designed to wobble upon entering the body to maximize damage. The bullet in this case obliterated the tibia and surrounding muscles before exit."

So-called assault weapons help the gun "operator" blunder on by raking (or stitching) a line of wobbly bullets through a target. Who cares if the first few miss the target completely? Just one (see dimensions cited above) could be enough to cause severe damage.

Conclusion? The human skill level "barrier" required to operate a firearm has been drastically lowered. (The same can be said for many other modern items such as cameras).

This is why we phrase this blog's question with the adverb: enough. The answer today is probably yes. Most firearms seem to be accurate enough.

There are several powerful firearms advocate groups in the USA today. This blog will continue with dealing with the same question: are they "accurate enough"? These groups have immense clout. Unfortunately we have observed a pattern of behavior that leads us to believe that they're all-too-often "off-target". Here we'll cite examples where they missed the target. They're simply not accurate enough for our tastes.

"Target urges customers to leave guns at home" (Article page B8, 7/3/2014 Boston Globe). We quote:

We feel that the NRA, in this instance, missed the target (figuratively and literally). Are we now supposed to shop comfortably next to folks armed with AR-15s?

"Doctors should ask about guns" (Editorial, 4/3/2016 Boston Globe). We quote:

Again we feel that the NRA, in this instance, missed the target. Ironically the toddler cited in the prior blog ("Is it secure?") lives in Florida.

This blog topic is titled "Is it appropriate?". Members of our site, on occasion, are contacted with their GS (Gunnery Sergeant). If this question is posed, we have to presume the answer is yes!

The remainder of this blog post will reinforce the appropriateness (pun here?) and importance of this simple question.

Since it is a constitutional right to keep and bear Arms, it must be appropriate to acquire one. So do we have to assume that 'blundering fools' (see prior blog) are Ok to have their own arms? Do we look the other way when it would seem the NRA, for example, is 'off target' (see prior blog) at times?

What does appropriate really mean? Revisiting the prior blog, one salient point made is that gun owners can still 'wreak havoc' with minimal human skills. This is because the weapons are so advanced they're 'accurate enough' for novices to operate.

This might not sit well with some readers, but for some it would seem quite appropriate for a skilled marksman to bag a deer during hunting season. The tradition of a Native Reverent American (a different sort of NRA) blessing a dead animal for giving up his spirit continues today with skilled marksmen. One who, we would presume, not use a firearm that is simply "accurate enough" such as an AR-15 (that would spray multiple bullets in our forests).

"US appeals court rules lead bullets can't be regulated" (Page A9 Dec 24th 2014 Boston Globe). Excerpts:

It would seem inappropriate (and somewhat unsporting) to use a virtual machine gun to mow down a deer. We would hope that organized gun enthusiasts would frown on crude, unskilled hunting. A suggested compromise: perhaps a regulation to allow it with non-leaded bullets? (The cited article states that "there are many effective alternatives, such as substituting copper for lead bullets and lead shot." The lawsuit that lost was brought on by "101 environmental organizations." The NRA ("and much of the pro-gun lobby") urged to uphold the dismissal.

For years there have been reasonable proposals and suggestions (e.g. limiting magazine sizes for semi-automatic weapons and the aforementioned bro-haha regarding lead and the environment). Some strident folks still lobby for a total ban of certain categories of firearms. This site tries to remove political stands and avoid lobbying or taking sides. Having said that we feel that the inflexible stands that some groups take (we call it being "off target") actually may be hurting their purpose as public opinion could change.

The Second Amendment is a national treasure. Permitting firearms such as the AR-15s will probably continue (despite gun lobby groups that are starting to sway public opinion against them through taking 'off target' stances). One, perhaps valid reason for keeping the status quo, is the so-called MAD culture spawned during the cold war. MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) was a somewhat successful deterrent. The feeling was (on both sides) that if one side launched a nuclear attack, the other would respond in equal fashion resulting in a very unfortunate state of mass destruction. MAD applies to firearms today. Thousands of very powerful guns exist that are certainly 'accurate enough' (with bullets that wobble) to create an entry hole of about five hundredths square inches, wobble, and then exit making about a thirteen square inch wound! Insane as it sounds, if an intruder has such a weapon, then any defender would argue for the same. MAD as it sounds, we chooses to 'nuke' one another!

This web site is trying to counter groups taking 'off target', non-compromising positions in the name of gun rights. We don't envision ever changing the Second Amendment. We especially don't expect much in the order of further regulations or restrictions. We think the MAD mentality will survive even the swings of public opinion. So how is it that we can bring value to the table? How can we make the world loaded with the gun-MAD culture a safer world? Read on.

We quote directly from an Op Ed by Farah Pandith (Boston Globe Dec. 17th, 2015): "Recruitment depends on one-to-one engagement. For this reason, inoculation of millennials against extremism must begin at the local level, outside of government."

Mr. Pandith was writing about the relative ease ISIS has in getting younger folks attention (often via social media). His suggestion is to combat the ISIS strategy using the technique we quote - of importance to our site's parallel focus are his words: outside of government. Before explaining this he describes a "digital army" using a mellennial's words:

Our web site is becoming a digital army. We aim to thwart would-be-terrorists, gang punks, and other malcontents that possess guns and are dangerous. Our techniques are varied and many. There are too many to enumerate here. We collaborate with other web sites such as NRA.rip whose purpose is to introduce our "We Do Our Part" army as well as to invite folks to our parlor presentations (Mr. Pandith's "local level" approach).

Some attributes of our workings are described in the FAQs. Here we present a sample mechanism used to collect illegal firearms.

We have numerous (but behind-the-scenes) heuristics that help us make decisions. Our sponsor role (see FAQs) is background checked in order to block folks with, for example, criminal records. We are building a reliable database of gun manufacturers and especially makes, models and serial numbers of guns produced. If someone tries to claim they have a gun with a serial number that matches someone else's we know immediately. If someone has a gun with a missing serial number (perhaps filed off illegally) we work with them to handle that case. Possibly we would swap the same make/model and get the unidentifiable gun off the streets. There are many possibilities.

In summary, our approach, if anything, is to emulate the NRA and other groups. By this we mean we hold reverent the Second Amendment, but we hope to remain on target and focused. By promoting our "groundswell managed militia" we hope to make the MAD world safer!

This blog topic is titled "Is it a prop?". Members of our site, on occasion, are contacted with their GS (Gunnery Sergeant). If this question is posed, we have to presume the answer is almost always NO!

The remainder of this blog post will reinforce the appropriateness and importance of this simple question. And, by the way, contradict the presumed answer. Our answer is always YES no matter what.

We respectfully disagree with our numerous private enlistees who might vociferously claim that their firearm is not, nor never will be, used as a stage prop! Indeed they will rightfully point out the real use cases for keeping and bearing their arms: home security, recreational (sporting, target shooting), treasured collection item(s), etc.

So why are we so bold as to claim that every gun is, indeed, a prop? Let's start by returning to more lyrics from Stephen Sondheim's The Gun Song (cited in prior blog "Where is it?"):

Folks really pay attention when they take witness to being (or seeing) someone at "death's door". Harry Houdini knew this. His act included "escaping from a locked, water-filled milk can. The possibility of failure and death thrilled his audiences." A gun can cause instantaneous death, quicker than drowning in a milk can. A gun has 'ausbrecher" (magic) in that respect. Like Houdini's milk can, a gun is a prop. A young boy liked "to watch the old pros [magicians] brandish the puzzling flowers of their art". (Quote from The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay, by Michael Chabon - Random House). We include this quote to amplify that a gun is indeed a prop. The word (borrowed from magical arts) "brandish" has a carry-over (even technical/legal interpretation in firearms discussions - see copyrighted article: Brandishing and Improper Exhibition of a Firearm for example).

What follows in this blog is a series of, what we call, "gunplays". You may be familiar with "Gunplay" (etymology gun + play) as perhaps a movie, a comic, a song or even a rap artist. We'll put our own twist on this word. Our "gunplays" are based on real events. But we intend to take a playwright's prerogative and maybe speculate or alter the actual events for didactic reasons. And, by the way, in each "play", a would-be gun is a prop.

Gunplay - titled "Road Rage Incident". An older brother was teaching his younger sibling how to drive. The road was narrow with no passing lanes. An impatient driver appeared from behind and became frustrated with the newbie's slow speed and the inability to pass the car. Eventually the road widened enough to squeeze by the two brothers' vehicle. In a fit of road rage the impatient passing vehicle operator brandished a gun, pointing it directly at the learner-permitted newbie. The two brothers' car swerved off the road and crashed. [End of play.]

Gunplay - titled "Yet Another (Maybe Unnecessary) Killing of a Black Person by Police (Act I)". A popular video shows the man with hands held high. The video has no audio (but we presume a proper inquiry would try to hear it or take testimony). Did the police officer say "freeze! raise your hands! don't move!". We don't know. The video shows the supposedly held at gun-point person continuing to backup towards his vehicle. [The vehicle may, or may not, have our 'prop' (a gun) therein]. Upon reaching the vehicle the hands go down as if trying to reach inside. Some say that would have been impossible. But this is a 'play' - actions speak louder than words. As the hands went down (and in proximity to the vehicle) shots were fired. You can guess the result. [End of act.]

Gunplay - (Act II)". A boy (no less) has a toy gun (the prop in this act) in his waist. The video shows a police cruiser approaches, the toy brandished, the boy killed (all in less then ten seconds). Again this is a 'play' - actions speak louder than words... [End of act.]

Gunplay - (Act III)". A woman shouts "he has no gun". But he assumes a provocative stance holding "something" with two extended hands as if he's ready to "fire" (whatever he holds - the prop). Again this is a 'play' - actions speak louder than words... [End of act.]

A celebrated basketball star, Dwayne Wade, has been quoted saying: "someday maybe we can start a conversation and maybe put a stop to it." The "it" he refers to is the three "act" gunplay above with additional acts we haven't detailed here.

We believe that this blog presents part of the "conversation" he called for. To understand this we'll try to focus the discussion vis-a-vis gunnerysergeant.org.

If you have read prior blogs you may already have surmised whatever role the GS web site could play to mitigate the tragic events described in these two "gunplays".

Let's describe the GS role nevertheless. The "Road Rage" gunplay is perhaps easiest. Our privates (gun owner enlistees) are periodically contacted by a GS. The result is a free-form discussion about gun ownership responsibilities. If a lull occurs with our conversations (Dwayne Wade's request), our GS folks resort to current events and/or these blogs to stimulate thoughtful verbal exchanges. We would like to think that the "Road Rage" play would shed some light on the notion of "brandishing" a firearm! It's as simple as that.

The three act gunplay "Yet Another..." presents more challenges to foster a discusion. In act I we never see or hear about the 'prop' (i.e. gun). So we focus on "what if" scenarios. Start with "what if the fellow was told to stop or freeze?" If so, and he obeyed, we daresay he'd be alive today. The GS (when discussing this act with a private) could reenforce the magic notion "First of all, when you've a gun- Everybody pays attention" - actions dictate that a gun could exist in this act. The advice here is to refrain from actions that could be misinterpreted and have tragic consequences.

In acts II, and III it turns out that, in both cases, the persons holding the 'prop' would have never been enlisted in our organization (as owners of guns)! So how can GS possibly help? Recall that our movement is termed a "groundswell" managed militia movement. Our borrowed motto, "We Do Our Part" depends on everyday citizens (mostly non-gun owners) vigilance. Chicago has a group of "moms" called "MOP" (Moms On Patrol). This group, tired of tragedies and violence of all kinds, is another groundswell movement. Our movement includes education outside the range of just gun owners. For example, we solicit and educate so-called "sponsors" (see FAQs). In these two acts, our hope is to enlighten the population with the concept that any real or illusionary gun threat is to be considered when taking actions. For example, keeping a toy gun under a belt is not a best practice. Especially removing it provocatively (brandishing the so-called 'toy' gun) as police arrive.

There's too many gunplays titled "Yet Another..." (see three acts above). For example, in a forth episode (act if you will), we have yet another confrontation. It turned out the person shot at did have a concealed ankle hoster. We would hope that our periodic communication with the evidently unstable owner would have averted this incident (especially since we also have a means to communicate confidentially with the person's sponsor).

In this blog's introduction we said "we have to presume the answer is almost always no." We meant that. On rare occasions however, a gun really does serve as a 'prop' (e.g. theater productions, simulations of real events). For completeness we have some advice (for this use case). A good US Army airborne rule is to have every soldier 'fold their own chute.' That way, if it doesn't unfurl, no one is to blame but the soldier himself. When using a real gun as a prop we suggest whomever might be the intended target acquaint themselves with the firearm and load it with blanks on their own. This may have avoided a few additional 'gunplays' such as the reported accident while filming recently as well as the retired libraian inadvertently killed during a police-sponsored 'demostration' in handling 'active shooter scenrarios.'

This blog topic is titled "Is it time?". Members of our site, on occasion, are contacted with their GS (Gunnery Sergeant). If this question is posed, we have to presume the answer is unknown, simply because the question is non specific!

The remainder of this blog post will reinforce the appropriateness and importance of this simple question. And, by the way, clarify the ambiguos (though loaded) question.

Maybe the question is answerable if phrased more specifically such as "is it time to perhaps sell the gun I possess?" That makes it easy to respond with either a 'yes' or 'no.'

We purposely left the question as non-specific in order to confront the blog reader with an imponderable dilemma. Let us explain. In the previous 'blog' (Is is a prop?) we introduced the notion of small made-up 'gunplays' (based on real news events). This blog will provide additional gunplays that have a common theme. One of the most salient (but least understood) feature of the GS approach is the element of time. Our fundamental time-based premise is that privates are contacted regularly. This implies, since it recurs, time durations (even up to a year) between contacts. The following gunplays speculate on real events that may have been averted due to the time factor.

Before presenting these gunplays, a word on so-called 'background-checks' that some gun-control advocates believe should exist. For example they argue: "we should deny mentally unstable folks from acquiring a firearm". The GS organization tries to not take sides when conflicts arise between gun-control advocates and Second Amendment folks. However, in this case, we have concerns about this seemingly common sense proposal. Why? Time. A perfectly sane person can acquire a gun and then, after some duration in time (maybe years), they could become unstable. These folks would fall through the 'cracks' of the well-meaning proposal. Moreover, folks who were once deemed mentally unfit could be cured. Do they have rights to keep and bear arms? Yes. Keep our concerns in mind as you read the gunplays that follow.

Gunplay - titled "Young Adult Male Is Active Shooter In School, Leaving Twenty-Six Dead (Including Twenty Children)".

The plot for this play starts a few years prior when the family acquires a gun for recreational purposes. When bought, the youth was too young to actually own the gun so this implies that either parent is the owner. If GS organization existed and the family was asked (by friends or acquaintances) our standard question: "who is your gunnery sergeant?", then we would like to believe that they would yield to social pressure and enlist the gun and its owner. But, as you know, we don't process a private without a sponsor. This poses some plot options. Is the other parent the sponsor? Is some trusted friend the sponsor? No matter. GS forces a third party. So we have: (1) the owner, (2) the GS, (3) the sponsor.

Plays have dialog sequences, right? So why not this gunplay? What follows are a few dialog snippets from this gunplay.

Act I Scene 1. Initial dialog. Actors: GS - Gunnery Sergeant (uses handle 'CaptainHook'), OWNER - gun owner (uses handle 'PecanSandy').

CaptainHook: Hello, I'm trying to reach the owner of a Bushmaster rifle who enlisted in my organization, Gunnery Sergeant dot org. I'm told his handle is 'PecanSandy'. Is he in?
PecanSandy: Hi. I've been expecting your call for a few weeks now. I understand that you folks want to keep a thumb on gun owners. We like our new Remington firearm and have visited our range several times.
CaptainHook: Our site lists that firearm. Glad you're happy with it. By the way, some of my enlistees simply call me 'Captain' or 'Hook' but most simply call me 'Sarge'. As you know we don't use our real names. Do I call you 'Pecan', 'Sandy' or what?
PecanSandy: Sandy would be fine, sarge. I have sandy-colored hair and I admit to being partial to a certain cookie with pecans.
CaptainHook (aka 'Sarge'): Hey Sandy. I know the cookie you referred to. I agree they're tasty. Since this is my initial call, I promise to be brief. I simply want to remind you that our goal is to cover best practices and responsibilities related to gun ownership. For example our web site blogs pose questions that we'd expect owners to have a handle on such as "Where is it?" and "Is it Secure?". Have you had a chance to browse through our site and do you have any questions that our FAQs or blogs haven't answered?
PecanSandy (aka 'Sandy'): No real questions. We're getting fine instructions at our range that covers the same details I've seen at your web site. I did review the FAQs and blogs and I'm fine with the info.
Sarge: OK Sandy. I'll get back to you after awhile and would appreciate your feedback at any time. In a way I'm glad you like to be called Sandy, I'd be concerned if some 'nut' (that is a pecan) owned such a powerful firearm! [chuckles] Take care and bye for now.
Sandy: OK Sarge. Get back to us anytime. Bye.

A later scene (occurs a few years later).

Sarge: Hello. Just Sarge checking in. Is Sandy in?
Sandy: Yep. What's new?
Sarge: Well Sandy I have a few questions and maybe suggestions for you today. Before calling I have a habit to review our past discussions. A few calls ago you informed me that, although you have since divorced, you decided to leave the firearm you own with your ex. You said that visits to the range were therapeutic and fun and the growing boy still looked forward to you or your ex having target practice with him. I guess my concern is this. We have you as our enlistee, or gun owner, yet the firearm is evidently kept elsewhere such as your ex's home. Is that so?
Sandy: Yes but she assured me that she would take full responsibility for it - for example keep it secure and out of reach of visitors.
Sarge: Glad to hear that. I do have a suggestion for you. We tend to follow what we call 'best practices'. Our best practice in this case is to always try to speak with the actual owner who properly maintains the firearm on premises. It sounds to me that your ex has become the de facto owner. Is it time for you to consider a formal transfer of ownership to her? As far as we're concerned this is easy to accomplish on our end. You would simply resign as a GS private gun owner and your ex would enlist (with her own handle such as ChocolateChip [chuckle]). What do you think?
Sandy: I'll have to speak with her about this. She was my sponsor when I enlisted anyways. Don't see how she could object. She could handle updating our permit as well. Might be a good idea.
Sarge: Glad to hear that you'll consider that it really is time to straighten this out. One minor hitch exists. By definition any GS site sponsors do not own guns. I would think that this shouldn't be a big problem. You and your ex can simply visit the site and reverse roles: she'd become the owner after your resign and become a sponsor. Could that work?
Sandy: I appreciate the suggestion Sarge. But I have a clean divorce and I really don't feel comfortable becoming her sponsor. Frankly I couldn't handle all the issues.
Sarge: No problem! If she's willing to assume the ownership responsibility, then simply resign. Ask her to get another person to sponsor her and then enlist as the private gun owner herself. OK?
Sandy: OK by me Sarge. Next time you call hopefully you can chat with her. I'm done.
Sarge: Great! Guess this our last chat. I wish you well Sandy. Bye.

Next scene (occurs a few months later). Setting - the ownership transfer occurred and 'Sandy' is now out of the picture. His 'ex' enlisted as a private with the handle 'Oreo'. A new GS (handle 'PinkPanther' - aka 'Pinky') has contacted her, this is a follow up contact call.

Pinky: Hello this is Pinky calling again; from Gunnery Sergeant dot org. Is Oreo in?
Oreo: Yes. We spoke a few months ago. This is she. What's up?
Pinky: Well not too much. I took some time to review some prior discussions that were logged by another GS. I gather the discussions were with your ex. Now that you have taken responsibility for ownership of the firearm, I simply wanted to pass by some possible issues I culled from the prior logged conversations from the previous owner: your ex. Do you have time now?
Oreo: Sure. Shoot. Or is that a bad metaphor? [chuckles].
Pinky: Well, for one thing, he passed up being your sponsor. Glad you found another one and you enlisted as a private gun owner yourself though. He said something about not being able to "handle all the issues". Prior logs suggested you and your son (who is probably a teenager now) would visit target ranges as a way to find mutual enjoyment. That's nice. I'm just wondering if any of the 'issues' your ex mentioned interfere with the safe usage of your very powerful firearm (that some consider an assault weapon). He said that you're a responsible person. I take it that statement would mean you always know where the weapon is and you always ensure it is secure from everyone including the teen and his friends (unless he has permission from you). Is that the case?
Oreo: For the most part. I trust him and can't imagine him going off on his own with our gun without me. Where would he go anyways? He doesn't even drive yet and the range is miles away.
Pinky: I guess I'm just spelling out best practices for you. Your firearm is really capable of doing lots of harm. Let me tell you some experiences we've witnessed. Some owners bought similar weapons too soon. I can recall a child from Connecticut who blew his brains out at a range. Another firing-range teacher was killed by an inept child. From looking over the logs you and your ex probably started him at a good age so these dangers were minimal. The firearm is actually a good fit to reward unskilled shooters since it's so easy to rake through a target. I hear the ammo costs add up though. I'm just wondering, if there's any issues of any kind, it probably is the best practice to either cleverly secret the firearm away or better still lock it up.
Oreo: I think my ex may have caused an alarm out-of-proportion. Maybe I'll stow it away it bit better. Is that it?
Pinky: That's pretty much it for today. Just a reminder to 'better be safe than sorry' as the saying goes. I do have one more suggestion of sorts though. Your style firearm makes it pretty easy not to miss a target due to its power. Some of our enlistees outgrow such a weapon and want to be challenged with a weapon that requires a greater skill set. A fine hunting rifle or a handgun may work in that respect; boost your (and your son's) skill set. Just wanted to remind you that our site can arrange a swap of sorts giving you guys a premium credit for your Bushmaster and having our supplier give you a challenging brand new firearm in return with cash to boot. Just something to consider.
Oreo: Ok. Don't think we'll take advantage of this deal now. Are we done?
Pinky: Sure we're done! Just wanted to remind you about safety tips and growth in sporting options! I'd say it is time to think about this; take care and bye.

The dialog snippets from the above gunplay, of course, don't tell the whole story. The storyline is entirely fictional but based upon a real tragic event. We presented just portions of this story in order to allow the reader to create their own endings. What follows are some discussion pointers. We think it is time for a discussion!

• The dialog suggests that owner responsibility means always knowing where is the firearm, is it secure and is it in proximity to the owner. Do you agree?
• The dialog exhibits a feature that the GS site supports. Owners may change, so-called "sergeants" or sponsors may change. Logs are tracked via the firearm. Firearms have a tendency to outlive humans (especially if used to mow down folks).
• The dialog exhibits the value of log tracking over time. Time is perhaps the single major element ignored by folks on either side of the gun control/Second Amendment debate. Yellow flags (the owner having "issues" and even refusing to sponsor his ex wife). Over time complacency can set in. Midway through this story a question is posed: is this firearm still appropriate? (The dialog suggests maybe no.)
• The dialog exhibits the fact that a trained GS, armed with the gestalt of regular logged interactions (the groundswell regulated militia concept), may make well meaning suggestions, is likely to focus on owners of assault-like weapons, and can receive and/or send notes to sponsors (all anonymously and never knowing whom they are communicating with by name for example). These attributes, we think, have the capability to avert tragedies by nipping potential problems 'in the bud'. Sadly there is no guarantee that all future episodes such as the titled event will cease!

This blog topic is titled "Is it necessary?". Members of our site, on occasion, are contacted with their GS (Gunnery Sergeant). If this question is posed, we have to presume the answer is of course it is necessary!

The remainder of this blog post will reinforce the appropriateness and importance of this simple question. To start, the Constitution implies it is necessary. The Second Amendment reads: "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." [Our emphasis]

Focusing on the single word necessary for just a bit, consider this article headlined: "Rule change sets off rush to buy weapons" (Boston Globe, July 21st 2016, p A8). The inside story suggests that certain assault-weapons may be under consideration to be banned. Simply discussing bans drives up sales of weapons. It literally becomes necessary to buy now or never!

Folks who maybe wouldn't have considered buying the discussed weapon suddenly feel compelled to buy one anyways. One reason being to ensure "security of a free State" and remind the rest of us of their right "keep and bear Arms". Never mind if they can or cannot actually afford the weapon (and the ammunition cost). A statement for freedom, they feel, must be made!

There's a range of actions that speak louder than words regarding patriotism. The range include veterans who enlisted and served our country down to the simple claims some can make such as 'I have never, ever missed a single chance to vote!' If actions speak, than we tend to group the gun aficionados (who reacted to the discussion ban by buying guns) as patriotic Americans. After all, they got off their duff, they spent ready cash, and at least did something to protect the Second Amendment.

This blog post doesn't intend to knock patriotic Americans. If anything, it points out that broad regulation discussions (regarding gun control) may be viewed as dire threats to some folks, could be counter-productive, messy, and, typically, due to strong lobby groups, get pigeon-holed anyways.

If someone really thinks it's absolutely necessary to buy an assault weapon, in today's political climate, then they'll obtain one (legally or not). We can only hope that, over time they may consider other options or at least have heightened responsibilities (as cited in the previous blog: Is it time?).

This post will simply state the fundamental proposition for the web site, GunnerySergeant.org. It follows here:

• Somewhere's along the way we heard this "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...". In addition to (not instead of) patriotic actions, we claim that KABA rights need to be "well regulated". We are a necessary organization.
• Another observation we make is this: the political environment will probably NOT be the proper arena to do the "well regulating" (so to speak).
• Our proposition (driven by our website) is an alternative mechanism, if you will. We call it a "groundswell regulated militia" that could, we firmly believe, successfully do the "regulating".
• Groundswell movements are typically driven by volunteers who have become disappointed with alternatives (such as government 'executive orders', laws, etc). This movement avoids taking on stringent sides such as pushing for a total ban of assault weapons. One reason for this is the inevitable quibbling, expensive lobbying, definitions (e.g. what exactly is this type weapon?), etc.
• As a nonprofit (private and non-government), we have installed safeguards to ensure privacy. Although we do solicit details about a person's firearm (e.g. make, model, serial number) we don't necessarily have to know anything about the actual owner (excepting their sex, a zip code of residence, and a made-up safe name that we call his or her's 'handle'). This should dissuade enlistees' fears, held during some crises or another, that the owners' firearm could be confiscated. It cannot! Some call our approach as tracking a firearm and not the owner.
• The movement is funded by donations. We don't actively solicit government assistance (especially financial) that goes beyond what other nonprofits get (i.e. special tax considerations). The vast majority of our staffing are recruited volunteers who serve without pay.
• A boycott is another kind of "groundswell movement". Boycotts can be effective. Word gets out to stop buying a certain product for various reasons (e.g. a bad or dangerous product, a less than reputable company, etc.). Boycotts apply leverage where other means fail (such as a law to prohibit purchases of said product). Our movement is expected to grow via old-fashioned 'word-of-mouth', social media, etc. We have adopted the slogan "We Do Our Part" meaning folks who help us (they needn't 'enlist' in any way at our site) simply help spread word of our purpose (and mission as outlined in these proposition statements). Part of the 'word' we spread is to use the boycott leverage. Large chains that retail firearms are to targeted and pressured to ensure each and every buyer is properly enlisted as described in previous blogs or the FAQs. This lever should propel near universal acceptance of our non-intrusive, common sense approach that should be palatable to both gun-control advocates and the aforementioned Second Amendment 'patriots'.
• Perhaps you have heard the phrase: "if you see something, say something" (regarding terror threats). This citizen-be-vigilant approach is also a groundswell movement. After all there's no law mandating that you become a tattle-tale person. It's just wise counsel given today's times. We have a parallel groundswell-driven need for vigilance. Anyone who might encounter another who owns a firearm we urge that person to ask them: "Who's your Gunnery Sergeant?" Simple question as it is it can explain a lot. A non-answer, for one thing, implies that the person hasn't enlisted (or been enlisted by another person - sometimes called a sponsor). Having no answer to this simple query places a 'scarlet letter' on the gun owner. You see, we believe that each and every gun owner is, by default, a modern day militia member. That means that they should enlist (or be involuntarily enlisted by a friend who really does care about being vigilant). We truly hope, between boycott mechanisms and citizen vigilance, that the incidence of so-called 'lone-wolves' armed with assault weapons can be vastly reduced! [More on this proposition's details can be found in FAQs, etc]
• To encourage (proactively) enlistment we aim to provide real benefits to gun owners! [Too many to list here. See details in FAQs, etc]
• We educate. Not just about gun ownership responsibilities but also the tasks and roles of non-gun owners such as sponsors, sergeants, and even non-enlistees. [Our 'education' also consists of shining a light on other organizations in the prevue of gun ownership. We don't hold back if some groups appear to be 'off-target' (see blogs, etc.)]

In summary we would like to think that we are a necessary alternative and common-sense solution that can be applied to the never-ending gun control imbroglio. We realistically don't expect strident folks (on both sides of this passionate issue) to stop their efforts. We simply hope to advance a fresh approach, reshape and reframe the debate, and continue to push for an approach that has absolutely no legal barriers. Something that can be done immediately and prove effective in lieu of alternatives still being delayed by entrenched, non-compromising attitudes.

This blog topic is titled "Is it SMART?". Members of our site, on occasion, are contacted with their GS (Gunnery Sergeant). If this question is posed, we have to presume the answer is yes!

The remainder of this blog post will reinforce the appropriateness and importance of this simple question. But, as with a few prior posts, the question we pose is a 'loaded' one. That means we need to do some explaining.

The easy answer is, of course, still going to remain yes - it is smart. Gun owners take pride in their ownership and consider the investment a smart one: whether for sporting, security, collecting, etc.

However we phrased the question with all capitals: SMART. The 'loaded' part of our question, we confess here, is that this is actually a special acronym (whose meaning will follow below).

Before presenting our SMART interpretation, we'll discuss another acronym: DUMB.

The patient reader, who has ventured through all previous blog postings, probably has an inkling about what's dumb and what's not dumb. It's time to provide some background detail about our web site: how did it start? why to be claim it offers a fresh approach towards resolving emotional attitude differences when it comes to the subject of so-called 'gun control'?

During incubation of our site we worked closely with a think-tank (Collogistics). Their logo shows someone leaping over a hurdle (or barrier). Their forte is to try to identify issues or problems that appear to have intractable 'solutions'. They ponder the problems and make every effort to 'lower' the barriers.

Collogistics helped us formulate a scheme that we believe is acceptable to all parties such as vehement gun enthusiasts as well as folks wary of firearms proliferation. Our scheme, in effect, 'lowers attitude barriers' and tries to stifle opposition to a reasonable proposed 'compromise solution'.

To start with we developed a motto of sorts: 'We Do Our Part'. That implies that we will not succeed unless and until we educate the population about our fresh approach. We depend on folks to 'do their part'!

DUMB to us means Defeat Useless Meaningless Barriers. Reader: put aside all your preconceived ideas - no matter what side of the control debate you stand on. Listen carefully to our message. If we each do our own part - what seems like huge and unsurmountable obstacles can be hurdled over! Stay with us!

With coaching from Collogistics we identified barriers. For example legislation. For this reason our approach doesn't advocate surmounting legal hurdles. As far as we're concerned the Second Amendment can stand on it's own. Frankly, too much wasted money is spent with lobbying, too much anguished debating has occurred in Congress. For this reason we consider "writing" to your representatives a waste of time. Our approach goes "over" their heads since we depend on buy-in from a vast majority of citizens whose attitudes occupy both sides of the highly charged issue we are addressing.

Indeed, the so-called 'gun control' is an unending barrier. It's really dumb not to get creative and put it to rest. Therefore we have every intention to Defeat Useless Meaningless Barriers (DUMB) and take real actions acceptable to all!

We still have a problem though, before we can declare victory and defeat the perceived barriers. Our proposed solution is, we admit, complex. The prior blog posts have, combined, alluded to our proposed 'solution'. But it takes some understanding to comprehend. If we hope to get buy-in from most citizens we really need to put some focus on education. We need to evangelize our approach. Not too easy to do.

This blog post will try to reduce our ideas, boil them down to a thirty second 'elevator speech'. What is that? Suppose you get into an elevator and someone asks: "What exactly is Gunnery Sergeant dot Org about?" You've got no more than thirty seconds to explain it! Good luck! Time to get SMART!

As we said earlier SMART (in this blog) is an acronym. It means: Sponsored Militia: Armed, Regularly Tested.

That phrase is an all-in-the-nutshell description of this web site's mission. Some reasons follow.

• Armed. Our members own firearms. They obviously hold dear the right to "keep and bear arms".
• Sponsored. The Second Amendment suggests 'well regulated'. We don't see why any gun owner would object to being 'sponsored' (by a non-gun owner). Do you?
• Militia. Especially at the time the Amendment was written, firearm owners were 'expected' to be militia members. Our vision is a modern-day militia. Every person who owns a firearm is, by default (in our opinion) a 'modern day militia member'. Really they should take pride in that assignation.
• Tested. While there exists hundreds of formal 'fire-departments' (mainly in urban areas), there has to be vastly more rural 'volunteer' firefighters. In a sense, they're another form of a 'modern day militia', but they fight fires. These volunteers would be a complete failure without knowledge of complex equipment (pumps, breathers, etc.). So they meet and test the devices. Our approach to the 'test' is the role of a Gunnery Sergeant. One who contacts owners of firearms and presents questions such as a few samples from previous blog posts. A sort of awareness test endured by responsible gun owners.
• Regularly. A major benefit of our approach (even over proposed laws) is the element of regularity (see prior blog about time). For example, owners of so-called 'assault weapons' can be expected to be contacted with more frequent regularity than others.

In summary we would like to think that we can collectively get SMART, eliminate unnecessary barriers and provide a common-sense solution that can be applied to the never-ending gun control imbroglio. We realistically don't expect strident folks (on both sides of this passionate issue) to stop their efforts. We simply hope to advance a fresh approach, reshape and reframe to debate, and continue to push for an approach that has absolutely no legal barriers. Something that can be done immediately and prove effective in lieu of alternatives still being delayed by entrenched, non-compromising attitudes.