So what if the government offered you a rifle?

B

Buzzcook

New member
A standard issue M16a2 and all the ammunition you can use. They also build rifle ranges and establish gun smithies for maintenance and repair.
The other side of the deal is that.
1 You reach and maintain a minimum level of expertise with the rifle
2 You fire at least a certain amount of ammunition each month.
3 You be available when either the state or federal government calls.

Would you take the rifle?
 
A

azredhawk44

Moderator
Marksmanship does not a soldier make.

A deal like this, (swiss-style militia) requires the citizenry to train as a unit to even begin to approach reasonable effectiveness.

No, I wouldn't take it.

I'll provide my own weapon. It's my own. No one has a claim on me by proxy of my weapon.

And I'll use my own judgement as to when to answer the call of my state or fedgov... right now, I've been calling them to come help me down on the border. They aren't answering me. Why should I answer them back? :rolleyes:
 
R

rbrgs

New member
This system works OK for Switzerland, but they don't have leaders with imperial ambitions.
The other part of the deal is that if you don't take it, you don't vote. Does that change anything; if every responsible citizen was bringing a rifle home from basic?

The US tradition is that weapons are privately owned and officers are elected. I like our system better.
 
L

Limeyfellow

New member
This system works OK for Switzerland, but they don't have leaders with imperial ambitions.
Click to expand...

They also only have a population a fraction of the size of the United States. I am not sure the US would know what to do with a hundred million people they offered to arm and then have to train, provide supplies, equipment and so on for. Such an offer taken seriously would take more Ar15 rifles than the world has and bankcrupt the country very quickly. It is just not very feasible and many of the groups don't trust the government as it is.
 
L

lockedcj7

New member
I suggested several months ago that we bring back the old Civil Defense and I still believe in the idea. I would do it in a heartbeat if there was no chance what-so-ever that I could be deployed overseas or activated and sent on "temporary" duty for months on end. I've done my time on active and reserve duty.
 
A

Alex45ACP

New member
No, I wouldn't. The last thing we need to do is give our government an unlimited supply of cannon fodder to meddle in other countries' affairs with. If a war that really needs to be fought comes along, I'll enlist voluntarily, but we haven't had one of those in centuries.
 
B

Buzzcook

New member
What I'm describing is a modernized version of the Jeffersonian ideal.
The Militia act of 1793 would have had you supply your own firearm and ammo. That was changed finally with the Militia act of 1903 which established the National Guard.

kozak6 asks the right question. During the War of 1812 militia members revolted against Gen. Henry Dearborn rather than invade Canada.
Earlier attempts with more willing militias ended disastrously under the almost comical leadership of Gen. William Hull.

Militias and the National Guard have been used for a variety of things. Suppressing strikes and labor activities, enforcing Jim Crow, and keeping political minorities in their place.

Of course there is also using the Militia and later the National Guard to aid in natural disasters. But their primary task is military rather than humanitarian.
That last was brought home when the Louisiana Guard was in Iraq with all of their equipment during Katrina.

Yes the original post is skimpy on detail. I didn't want to write 2000 words for a less than serious post.
I wanted to come up with an opposite of the continual stream of "storm troopers knocking on the door" threads.
 
D

delta9

New member
Depends what for. I'd be happy to defend my country, and by my country I mean Michigan. And by happy I mean just try and stop me, if there is a clear threat against which to defend. If they want to give me a rifle, I'm cool with that.

But since no branch of the military would take and since I'm a woman and since I have a toddler I won't be parted from for extended periods, I don't think they'd want me.
 
H

hogdogs

Staff In Memoriam
Not Only No But...

Hell NO! When I was but wee teen I asked my dad if my choosing the Army was the best branch of the service for me to consider he gave this advice... "Son I am counciling you NOT to choose any of the big 4." he went on to say that WWII was in his opinion the last battle America was going to be in that actually was fought to prevent foreign military invasion of our soil. He fought in Nam and says it was fought to help corporate interests of politicians. I see now he was right about that, at least in my lifetime. He did suggest I look at the coast guard as being an agency with helping others as a big priority. He went to tell me that I would not like being told to go over there and take a bullet for the team! he said if the nation were to be invaded we would need some "independent" soldiers to help the cause and I would be perfectly suited for that guerrilla type work with any of my private weapons.
I will take his advise!
Brent
 
D

DWARREN123

New member
Not yes but hell yes. It is the way it should be. We, the people, are America and should defend our country (friends, family and ourselves) with our lifes.
 
H

homefires

New member
No. I will supply my own thank you! Aren't we under the thumb enough all ready? For what I am worth, I am available and just need some one to call me! I have a .22 and SKS Model D! What more does a man need? I see it as one of the two can get me what ever I need from the bad man!
 
R

rampage841512

New member
No. I'd already have that particular rifle if the government hadn't decided to violate my rights as a citizen. In a US were this scenario would happen, it wouldn't be necessary, in my opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top