Now is the time for Hilary Clinton to take a bold position that in one brilliant, courageous stroke shows the nation that she is more willing to pursue true reforms of the two-party plutocratic political system than Obama is.

With this position she can reveal that all the Obama talk about change is just a clever campaign strategy to seduce people who rightfully are fed up with politics as usual.

With this single position she can transform herself from status-quo-political-establishment-candidate to a true believer in what the Founders gave us in the Constitution: the right to turn public mistrust and lack of confidence in the federal government into peaceful constitutional problem solving. When 81 percent of Americans think the country is on the wrong track, then the constitutional path to reform should be used.

How can a true political leader do better than advocating use of what is sitting right there in our beloved Constitution?

How can a candidate advocating solutions for America do better than supporting what has already been used hundreds of times by the states, but has been blocked by fearful political forces for over 200 years at the federal level?

How could Obama tell the nation that he does not believe in using what the Constitution says we have a clear right to use? How could this self-professed change agent say he is against using the peaceful constitutional path to examining profound political reforms? Neither Obama nor McCain would find it easy to say that what the Founders gave us in our Constitution should not be used. Indeed, as Senators, would they introduce a bill to amend the Constitution to remove this option? I think not.

Sometimes, a great notion just needs to be articulated for people to see the clear way forward. Now is the ideal time for Hillary Clinton to say to Americans that she agrees that the political system must be fixed and that the time has arrived for a serious national discussion of political reforms that only can be achieved through constitutional amendments, because Congress has shown no inclination for pursuing deep, systemic political reforms.

The constitutional alternative is to use what is in Article V: a convention of state delegates that is given the constitutional power that so far only Congress has used, to debate and consider proposals for constitutional amendments. The Framers brilliantly created both this option and the safety net that proposed amendments, like those from Congress, must be ratified by three-quarters of the states. Nor can a totally new Constitution be considered, only amendments to the present one.

Clinton would have history and facts on her side. The clarity of the Article V convention option in the Constitution is undisputed. Better yet, the one and only stated requirement for Congress to obey for convening the convention has already been satisfied – namely that two-thirds of state legislatures ask Congress for a convention. Indeed, there have been over 500 such state requests from all 50 states. Hillary could state very simply that the time is long overdue for Congress to obey the Constitution and convene a convention. She could introduce a bill that says exactly that to show that she is really true to her words.

There have been several important books from respected academics that provide the intellectual ammunition for taking this bold position. These include: “A More Perfect Constitution” by Larry Sabato; “The Second Constitutional Convention: How The American People Can Take Back Their Government” by Richard Labunski; and “Our Undemocratic Constitution: Where the Constitution Goes Wrong (And How We the People Can Correct It)” by Sanford Levinson.

In other words, advocating the nation’s first use of an Article V convention is no far-out, brainless idea. Indeed, it is exactly what the nation needs at this time and exactly what any political leader that claims both to love our Constitution and see the need for political reforms should support.

Clinton can give many examples of what a convention could consider proposing, including amendments that: make universal health insurance coverage a constitutional right; replace the Electoral College with the popular vote for president and vice-president; take all private money out of political campaigns and replaces it with total public campaign financing; clarify that only Congress can declare war and must do so explicitly.

Be brave Hillary. Do what is both right and politically dazzling.

Pretty much a simple little survey of sorts. We currently have the M9 (Beretta 92FS 9mm) as the standard issue side arm for most military MOS’s. There’s no substitute for the old Colt 45, but if you happen to find a 9mm Luger and the extractor and the ejector don’t break, well there’s just something about the Luger that is magnificent! I guess I’m just one of those people that think, if you’re using a side arm, someone is too close and you need to knock them down. Ill takes stopping power over velocity any day.

You can hit target on the earlobe with a .45cal and knock it flat. If the police had .45s instead of 9mm in the Hollywood shootout, they would not have had to get rifles from a gun store. It might not have gone thru the armor but would have knocked them flat and let them close. Just ask the FBI about their tragic 1986 Miami shootout. On the linked chart note the weapons of agents Grogan and Dove, the two agents who lost their lives in the gun battle. The agents had to shoot the two suspects several times to bring them down–none of the FBI agents involved were armed with .45 caliber weapons.

As I understand it we converted to 9mm in order to conform to NATO. In my opinion it was a ridiculous compromise. The purpose of a side arm is to defend yourself in close quarters. A 9mm will injure an adversary, but leave him active enough to possibly still do you harm. 45cal. on the other hand will disable the individual most entirely. Made by Colt or whoever the 45. Is superior for flat out stopping power and NATO should have conformed to us. . 45 bring ‘them back alive. Beretta is mucho regretted.

I’ve also heard that the model 92 Beretta has a problem with not chambering the final round in its magazine. Don’t know if it’s been worked out, but it could be a major problem. I have both 9mary ammo and a 45cal. prefer the 45 over the 9mary ammo. Have concealed weapon permit, I carry the 45cal. My 45 is over 33 years old and still shoot like it was brand new. I go through a box of ammo for each every month. .45 calibers. The premiere mans-stopping round, proven over and over as an excellent heavy pistol round since 1911.

I think the .40 cal was a compromise, going up to the 10mm, but the .45 was designed to drop a drug-crazed terrorist (also known as a Moro tribesman in the Muslim influenced areas of the Philippines’). I say bring them back. I have witnessed what the 9mm doesn’t do. .45 any day. While the venerable 45 was, in fact, designed to knock down the original uppity Muslims and almost 100 years later is still relevant. On a personal note, I could never qualify above Sharpshooter with it. With the M9, I got Expert the first time out and every shoot afterwards.

The Beretta 92F was brought in because the US needed to maintain the bases in Italy. It was very simply a “Quid Pro Quo.” No studies were done, no one’s opinion was asked, the change was simply done. No military member I have asked would take a 9mm over a .45. Many people I talked to owe their lives to the .45.

I’ve also heard that .45s are like gold over in Iraq, as soldiers there are trying to get their hands on one because the 92F doesn’t do the job. The only way a 9mm can stack up to the .45 in stopping power is if you’re using Black Talon or Gold Dot hollow-point ammo. However I have heard these two brands of ammo are now restricted.

Columbine 04/20/99, Utah Mall Shooting 02/07, Virginia Tech Massacre 04/16/07. These are all active shooter situations where armed subject(s) enter a public place to murder as many people as possible. These incidents have become more common in our society and it is the Patrol Officer who will be first on scene and may have to confront heavily armed suspect(s). Hopefully your agency has developed training and procedures for responding to active shooter situations. These situations are extremely dangerous for the responding Officer(s) because by the time we arrive, the scene is chaotic and information is usually limited and basic.

Obviously you will want to adhere to your department’s procedures if you find yourself responding to one of these situations during your career. The importance of a fast and rapid response by Officers cannot be stressed enough when talking about an active shooter situation. Officers must respond rapidly and and move to eliminate the threat immediately and without hesitation. We have to remember that as we are responding to one of these situations people are being killed and our quick response and action could save many lives.

Even if the suspect(s) commit suicide before we arrive, our rapid response into the shooting scene will allow us to render life-saving first aid and allow for the deployment of more highly trained medical first responders to treat the wounded. These are not situations where we setup a perimeter and wait for the Swat Team. Swat will be used if we can contain the active shooter(s) in a specific location where they are trapped or if hostages are taken.

The ideal situation would be for 2-4 Officers to arrive at the scene and then form a fire-team to deploy into the active shooter area.A fire-team is simply a group of Officers working together as a single unit to complete a required task. It makes sense that 2-4 Officers working together will be more capable of dealing with an active shooter than a single Officer. A 4 Officer fire-team is ideal because the 3rd Officer will protect the rear as your team moves around the shooting scene.

If I was the first Officer on the scene of an active shooter I would wait for the next Officer or Officers to arrive before deploying into the shooting scene. A team needs a leader so it would make sense for the most experienced Officer or highest ranking Officer to be the leader. If a member of your team happens to be a Swat or Tactical Officer then he becomes the leader for obvious reasons. Because we are in rapid-response mode we want to form up quickly and then deploy into the shooting scene.

With a 4 man fire-team I would want a minimum of 2 Officers with long guns and a subgun if available. Because most active shooter situations are in confined areas like school buildings & officer buildings, compact weapons like mp5’s, short barrel shotguns, and handguns are ideal. I carry a short barrel pistol-grip shotgun and I love it for close quarter combat scenarios. It gives me the knock down power but affords me the ability to crawl, climb, jump, and run around with ease.

It is ideal to have someone with a long gun like an an-15 because you may need someone to take a distance shot or you may encounter someone with body armor. Think of your fire-team as a mini swat team and remember that Swat Teams bring an assortment of weapons and equipment for good reason.

I wont get into any specifics on tactics for a 2-4 man fire-team because this is something that needs to be taught in person in a live action setting. As a fire-team you stay together and do not get separated unless absolutely necessary. It may become necessary to split the team in two if you have the suspect(s) pinned down and you need to perform a flanking move. You may also need to split the team up if you come across injured victims who need to be removed from the scene.

As you and your team begin to deploy into the shooting scene you will hopefully have more intelligence being relayed to you by dispatch. Survivors will have escaped to safety by now and will have called 911 with suspect(s) descriptions and direction of travel. You will also encounter witnesses who you can quickly interview for intelligence on the movement of the suspect(s).

It also obviously important to communicate with dispatch and other Officers so that you can coordinate your movement with other fire-teams that may also be deploying into the area. Several fire-teams converging on an active shooter can mean a very quick end to the threat. Always keep in mind that there may be more than 1 active shooter even though initial reports indicated only one. It is also important to remember that an active shooter could possible ditch his weapon(s) and attempt to flee the area by acting as an innocent victim. This is the reason that you saw so many kids being forced to walk single file with their hands on their heads during the Columbine shootings.

Every active shooter situation is unique and has different elements that will require different methods and tactics. The key things that I am trying to stress is that it is imperative that we respond quickly and we deploy into the shooting scene with other Officers and a team so that we can safely & quickly eliminate the threat(s) and save lives. Police departments must train for these situations so that their Officers will be prepared in the event that one of these dangerous situations happen in their city. It is unfortunate that we will be seeing more and more of these active shooter situations in the future but with proper training and equipment we can end these quickly and save lives in the process.