Skip to comments.How to Arm the Citizenry
Posted on 06/21/2013 10:46:46 AM PDT by neverdem
The Armed Citizen Project aims to train and equip citizens who need the Second Amendment most.
Kyle Coplen may not be a sidesaddle gunslinger the 29-year-old got his masters in public administration from the University of Houston this spring but he can handle a weapon. And he is working to make sure you can, too.
Coplen is the founder and head of the Armed Citizen Project (ACP), a Houston-based nonprofit that trains single women and residents of crime-ridden neighborhoods in firearms use and then arms them. Its a small-scale effort so far, but Coplen has lofty targets. ACP aims to arm citizens in 15 cities nationwide by the end of 2013, hoping to collect in the process valuable data about the effects of gun ownership on crime rates.
He was one of the many Houston locals who lent a hand when 93-year-old World War II veteran Elbert Wood returned home from a doctors appointment in January to find his home vandalized. I started to think about what we as a society could do to deter home-invasion crimes, Coplen says. He found the answer in the Second Amendment. The result will be, he hopes, a wave of new, responsible gun owners.
And its all free. Coplen estimates that, start to finish, the whole process costs approximately $300 per person but private donations to ACP cover it all. Donors cover the financial costs of the program and also provide firearms that can be reused or sold to raise cash. Were redistributing power, says Coplen. Its Bidens love of shotguns with Obamas love of redistribution. It transcends politics.
But Coplen realizes that his organization 20 volunteers in Houston, 200 nationwide is stepping into a political crossfire. Gun violence in Aurora, Newtown, and elsewhere motivated the Obama administrations ill-fated gun-control push earlier this year, as well as several states more successful legislation When Coplen began the project, he assumed that ACPs chief function would be removing the cost barrier for those who could not afford guns. I couldnt have been more wrong, he says now. The biggest thing were actually doing is facilitating the whole process of acquiring weapons, which some states have made very difficult indeed.
But there are misconceptions, says Coplen, recalling ACP trainees who asked about a National Gun Registry and other hoop-jumping they thought would be necessary to arm themselves. Folks believe its harder than it is to exercise their Second Amendment rights. As a testament to ACPs success in removing the mystique that all too often surrounds guns, up to half of the participants, Coplen estimates, tell him at the beginning of the training that they do not plan to accept the graduation gift of a shotgun; only one person has actually turned the weapon down after finishing.
Moreover, many have finished the program and decided to expand their armory beyond the shotgun, or apply for a concealed-handgun license. Were arming folks with a gateway gun, Coplen likes to say. People prize the feeling of empowerment that comes with being able to protect your life, liberty, and property.
Pump-action shotguns are pretty good at providing that feeling. Theyre an excellent choice for home defense, says Coplen: reliable, cost-effective, and easy to learn how to use. They also are effective for exploding one prominent pro-gun-control talking point: Piers Morgan and people like him often say theyre only against assault weapons. But if they want to come out against ACP, they must reveal that they are really against the Second Amendment totally.
As for its neighborhood initiative, ACP has armed 35 residents in Houstons Oak Forest area where last year police instructed residents to stay indoors after dusk and it hopes to arm between 50 and 100, a goal that Coplen says is within easy reach. The plan, then, is to put up signs throughout the neighborhood warning criminals of increased risk of physical harm. We want criminals to know that, if they come into this neighborhood, they are playing Russian roulette with their lives. He says that Houston law enforcement has been overwhelmingly supportive, and he hopes for more input from those on the beat: I will listen to what any officer on the ground wants to tell me.
The organization plans to train and arm citizens in 15 cities by the end of the year, including Chicago and New York, known for their particularly stringent gun laws. New York City requires a city-approved gun permit, and investigators can deny them on grounds ranging from an arrest record to a lack [of] character. Moreover, if prospective gun owners can get through the permitting process, they still face daunting expenses: New York City charges $140 for a shotgun permit plus a $91.50 fingerprinting charge.
None of this is deterring ACP. [Chicago mayor] Rahm Emmanuel and [New York City mayor] Michael Bloomberg have overstepped their bounds, says Coplen, citing both mayors vehement anti-gun positions. He thinks private donations could cover New York Citys exorbitant fees, and he is even confident that ACP could win a legal battle against either city, if it came to that.
But Coplen is not interested in simply irking gun controllers, or securing individual neighborhoods, for that matter. Behind the unyielding Second Amendment advocate lurks a social scientist, who is hoping that future data on crime rates in the coming years will show that more guns do, in fact, mean less crime.
He has even received assistance from a famous proponent of that thesis, economist John Lott, who tells National Review Online that he thinks Coplen is onto something: It is interesting to see how [ACPs project] contrasts with the Obama administration and the Democrats. Liberal policy in recent years, Lott observes, has been to impose ever-increasing taxes and fees on prospective gun owners, which means that poor people are the ones who get priced out of getting to guns for protection exactly the demographic most in need of protection. Coplen believes those policies are doing more harm than good, and he is confident that the projects findings will prove the merits of the opposite policies.
In the meantime, criminals and Second Amendment foes beware. The Armed Citizen Project is on patrol.
Ian Tuttle is an intern at National Review.
Excellent! Keep up the good FIGHT!!!
Is this supposed to be about Kyle’s sexual orientation?
Against a tyrannical govt, rebels are armed with RPG`s, 14.5`s etc MANPAD`s, RR`s, AA, tanks, not shotguns.
FAT CHANCE 12 ga against a tyrannical tank.
Maybe if it were a tank v truck/suv battle. In the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 the Soviets sent in scores of T-34s. However, they weren’t effective until the supporting infantry showed up.
The Hungarians used a number of defences in the cities against the tanks. Snipers forced the commanders to fight buttoned up. Most tank commanders like to fight not buttoned up to keep the field of vision open.
They would turn plates upside down to resemble mines. You’re in a tank....you don’t know if it’s a real mine or not. Without supporting infantry to clear the area you’re in a qunadry as the tanker.
Obstancles can be set up to funnel the tank(s) into narrow corridors for ambush.
There are lots of ways to stop a tank. Granted, it will take some guts to do so, but it can be done.
Texas, Houston ping
Yeah I saw that live BW TV broadcast CBS tv news in 1956(?) October? when they threw Molotov cocktails on the tanks and Cardinal Mendzenty was freed (?)The russians actually retreated but came back later across the border. the Hungarians pleaded for Ike to send aid but Ike chickened out.
That's encouraging. Of course the point can be made that a shotgun is also an "assault" weapon. Which is pretty silly since a sledgehammer or a screwdriver can also be used as an "assault" weapon.
A couple of days ago Coplen led a group protesting at Sheila Jackson Lee's office.
Michael Berry talked to him several times and it was pretty entertaining.
From the article:
Police were called to the rally to keep an eye on things. The protest came a day after Jackson Lee targeted Coplen's group in a protest for tougher gun laws. So why does Coplen think she is targeting his group, which arms private citizens in at risk neighborhoods.
I think its because were starting to get a lot of attention. It was a chance for her to put her face in front of a camera. The most dangerous place in the world to be is between Sheila Jackson Lee and a camera, Coplen explained.
We had been stretched to the limit with the Berlin Airlift. Ike ran in 1952 promising to end the Korean War to a war weary America. He had to settle for an armistice and the status quo ante.
There was no way to resupply the Hungarians without violating somebody's sovereignty. There's a time and place to fight. Hungary was not it, IMHO.
Tools like Morgan and Bloomberg make no secret of their desire to get rid of the Second Amendment. They proudly reveal it every time they speak. So do a lot of other progs. The ones that don't state firmly they are against the 2nd are simply lying for political expediency. What's that Muslim term? Taqqiya? Lying to advance the cause is OK.
“FAT CHANCE 12 ga against a tyrannical tank.”
The crew have to come out sometime.
Bloomberg’s group has been traveling the country reading a list of those dead from gun violence...including those killed by the police, and those killed in self-defense by private citizens. They even originally read off Boston Marathon terrorist Tamerlan Tsarnaev as a victim of gun violence, having been killed during a shoot out with the police..
They are so uncritical and unthinking that they include a sizable number who clearly dont belong, and are willing to use even people who needed to be made dead to support disarming the rest of us. This is pretty egregious, and an obvious example even in the more normal situations...without even getting to the outrage with Timerlan
Why do you interject that nonsense??? Or is it sarcasm???
Who in their right mind would engage such a vehicle with such an inferior weapon???
Why is that analogy always made in discussions regarding the ability of the people to defend themselves against a tyrannical government???
When the logical solution is so evident that makes the initial comment moot???
Ok, muh bad...I had a feeling it was sarcasm, but I was not totally sure...Thanks for the clarification...