Would A Civilian Militia Need Select-Fire Weapons?
(edit: removed distracting opinion unrelated to topic)
For a moment, however, let's focus on the topic of civilian militias and gun ownership.
If you are forming a civilian militia, then it's for the purpose of homeland security. Our forefathers viewed homeland security as defending your home from BOTH foreign AND domestic military rule, and so our civilian militias are supposed to protect us from invaders and our own government. For reference, please see "The American Revolution." Since the government keeps track of select-fire weapons and other destructive devices, then would it really help to have a militia with your auto-weapons all registered with the government so they know exactly where to find you and what you're armed with? Also, would it really help to have automatic-fire capability in a civilian combat role? What is the role of the civilian militiaman?
The way I see it, a civilian militia should be comprised of (1) mostly snipers firing a standard cartridge from a standardized platform - for example, everyone in a particular militia group fires .308 from the Remington 700 BDL - to minimize logistical problems (costs/parts) and to encourage the avoidance of close combat with soldiers trained in the art of killing, (2) a small number of people who's primary focus is camouflaged entrenchment for the purpose of holding strategic ground in close quarters.
I really don't see the need for a bunch of select-fire M16's in a civilian militia because civilian militias don't need to mow down rioting crowds or engage in massive open-field combat. Civilian militias will always be outnumbered by their opponents, and so sniping and subterfuge is the only real way to go. Holding ground can probably be done with high capacity semi-auto weapons (or shotguns, because defending your country is "Base Defense") because if you need full-auto, then you either can't aim or are shooting at 4 people at once in a confined space; either case you're bleened. The only full-auto guns a militia would have a good use for are full-auto Glocks for personal protection and maybe room-clearing, but I certainly would not carry around an extra rifle just to have select-fire capability. Give me a good semi-auto .308 (FAL, AR-10, HK-91) and a pistol, and I would be happy. Even if military rifles are hard to come by, I would still feel comfortable with a band of men with Safari BAR's shooting from half a kilo away from the action.
Just a thought. I have more to say, but I want a take a break to work ;-)
For a moment, however, let's focus on the topic of civilian militias and gun ownership.
If you are forming a civilian militia, then it's for the purpose of homeland security. Our forefathers viewed homeland security as defending your home from BOTH foreign AND domestic military rule, and so our civilian militias are supposed to protect us from invaders and our own government. For reference, please see "The American Revolution." Since the government keeps track of select-fire weapons and other destructive devices, then would it really help to have a militia with your auto-weapons all registered with the government so they know exactly where to find you and what you're armed with? Also, would it really help to have automatic-fire capability in a civilian combat role? What is the role of the civilian militiaman?
The way I see it, a civilian militia should be comprised of (1) mostly snipers firing a standard cartridge from a standardized platform - for example, everyone in a particular militia group fires .308 from the Remington 700 BDL - to minimize logistical problems (costs/parts) and to encourage the avoidance of close combat with soldiers trained in the art of killing, (2) a small number of people who's primary focus is camouflaged entrenchment for the purpose of holding strategic ground in close quarters.
I really don't see the need for a bunch of select-fire M16's in a civilian militia because civilian militias don't need to mow down rioting crowds or engage in massive open-field combat. Civilian militias will always be outnumbered by their opponents, and so sniping and subterfuge is the only real way to go. Holding ground can probably be done with high capacity semi-auto weapons (or shotguns, because defending your country is "Base Defense") because if you need full-auto, then you either can't aim or are shooting at 4 people at once in a confined space; either case you're bleened. The only full-auto guns a militia would have a good use for are full-auto Glocks for personal protection and maybe room-clearing, but I certainly would not carry around an extra rifle just to have select-fire capability. Give me a good semi-auto .308 (FAL, AR-10, HK-91) and a pistol, and I would be happy. Even if military rifles are hard to come by, I would still feel comfortable with a band of men with Safari BAR's shooting from half a kilo away from the action.
Just a thought. I have more to say, but I want a take a break to work ;-)
0
-
Ak`s and roadside bombs are all that is needed. 0 -
No, no, no... I'm taking about preserving the infrastructure of our country, not blowing it up along with the aggressors. Using close-combat like those Iraqis is a good way to get civilians killed. 0 -
lol. This should get amusing. I'll start: I disagree with this interpretation of the 2nd Amendment:
quote: The Constitution allows for the ownership of weapons for militia purposes only...
And I believe several courts recently have agreed with me.
No, I don't need a select-fire rifle. But I sure would like one!0 -
The second amendment doesn't appear to state any restrictions on type or purpose of firearms; only the right to possess and use them. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by cransona
The Constitution allows for the ownership of weapons for militia purposes only
I stopped here0 -
I think moost of the coup planning happens in the Political forum?...[:D] 0 -
I though it was clear in the constitution that the rights to bear arms is to ensure the existence of civilian militias, but WHO CARES because this argument completely defies the opening paragraph of this topic. Rack Ops has a weak mind.
And, no, this does not belong in the "coup planning forum" as you so ignorantly put it, this belongs in the "I am inviting a general discussion about the use of select-fire weapons in civilian militias" section.
*sigh* I will edit my topic intro to prevent further degression.0 -
quote:Originally posted by spurgemastur
lol. This should get amusing. I'll start: I disagree with this interpretation of the 2nd Amendment:
quote: The Constitution allows for the ownership of weapons for militia purposes only...
And I believe several courts recently have agreed with me.
No, I don't need a select-fire rifle. But I sure would like one!
Spurge, you demonstrate uncommon (for this forum) restraint in your reply. I fear that forthcoming replies will not be as kind.[;)]0 -
I would want full auto & three round burst on my car. It's better to have it. You don't know what your mission would be that day. Or you could be doing an E & E and need the fire power to keep thier heads down at the least. Three round burst for clearing room to room and full auto for a close quarters ambush. Hell yeah I want select fire on my M-4. Differant guns for differant missions. You can shoot out to 300 meters anyways on a single shot with your car an take out your objective with no problem. And I think it's our right to be able to have it. 0 -
I understand it's our right, but when you have to carry your food and ammo in a backpack and guns on a sling, tell me how many long-guns you want to bring with you in your "different gun for different missions" world? Would you use that M-4 for long distance sniping, or would you have to carry another rifle for that? 0 -
Leave me out of it... 0 -
quote:Originally posted by cransona
I though it was clear in the constitution that the rights to bear arms is to ensure the existence of civilian militias, but WHO CARES because this argument completely defies the opening paragraph of this topic.
And, no, this does not belong in the "coup planning forum" as you so ignorantly put it, this belongs in the "I am inviting a general discussion about the use of select-fire weapons in civilian militias" section.
Sorry to go off-topic again, but how are you going to assemble a civilian militia if nobody in the neighborhood knows how to shoot or has anything to shoot?
I read the 2nd like this:
The country needs to be able to assemble civilian militias, therefore the right OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Not like this:
Militia members have the right to keep and bear arms.0 -
Take your M-4 always and your .45 for your side arm. Only two firearms. Unless your going to snipe. 0 -
To: Spurgmastr
That's great! How about this one:
What do you think about select-fire weapons in militias? Do you have an opinion that's worth my time, or should you post on another thread anout the second amendment? And, "select-fire", I love your guns! Keep 'em coming!0 -
No one needs a full-auto, non crew served rifle.
Ask the WWII, Korea, and early Viet Nam Marine Corps vets.
Doug0 -
I think he came here to recruit, lol. 0 -
Now that's what I'm talking about. Someone who has an actual opinion, based on reality! Thanks, Doug. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by cransona
To: Spurgmastr
That's great! How about this one:
What do you think about select-fire weapons in militias? Do you have an opinion that's worth my time, or should you post on another thread anout the second amendment? And, "select-fire", I love your guns! Keep 'em coming!
I'm neither trained nor educated in battle tactics. That said, given the choice I'd prefer a select-fire rifle because it sounds a little more versatile than a semi-auto, bolt, or single-shot.0 -
Don't feed the trolls! 0 -
I tend to agree with Doug, however he brought up crew served weapons, therefore I will expound on that.
I do believe that there is a need for fully automatic crew served weapons, like the SAW or M-60. That need is for when, after the enemies are reduced from sniping and long range fire, the objective becomes claiming the ground that they are presently on. You need to have the ability to lay down suppression fire to allow your troops to get into position.
Another use for them would be, as you stated in your original post, "Base Defense" in the true sense of the words. I agree that that could be accomplished with semi-auto weapons in some cases, but if you are facing a military invader, you will probably be defending against large numbers, all attacking at the same time. Now, while I am inspired by the account of Alvin York, I would much rather have the ability to put a lot of lead in the air in very short period of time while being charged by a platoon of invaders.0 -
I have no military or combat experience so take my opinion for what it's worth.
I suppose a loosely-formed militia comprising of true citizen-soldiers (not the National Guard which is a professional army) could fight modern infantry effectively using guerrilla tactics and "sporting" weapons such as hunting rifles used for long range sniping. If air power or armor is introduced into the scenario then the folks with their bolt-action Winchesters and Rugers have a problem.
Of course, the goal might to hit small groups of soldiers and overwhelm them with superior numbers and take their weapons. You only need a stout stick long enough to club an opponent who has a rifle. You need the rifle long enough to shoot an enemy with a machine gun. Etc... etc...
I don't really think a home-grown militia would last long against a professional, competent military force. The only way a militia wins is to bleed the opposing army until the people bring pressure to bear on the politicians to make it end. This is the lesson of Vietnam and our current enemies have learned it well. They don't have to defeat our troops, just send enough home in body bags so a majority of Americans lose the will to fight and their interest in victory.
BTW- The most recent ruling on the Second Amendment by the Supreme Court (Miller, 1939) held that indeed it was only military weapons protected by the Constitution. Miller was charged with having a sawed-off shotgun and the court ruled that since such a gun wasn't usable for military service the 2nd didn't protect our right to own one.0 -
It's called gorilla warfare. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Doug Wilson
No one needs a full-auto, non crew served rifle.
Ask the WWII, Korea, and early Viet Nam Marine Corps vets.
Doug
Try again.
0 -
To be quite succinct--what does "need" have to do with it? 0 -
quote:Originally posted by watrulookinat
It's called gorilla warfare.
guerilla!0 -
The american militia took out the british with long range sniper fire, full auto or selectfire was unknown at the time, but if the need came up again it would be good not to limit you options. 0 -
i'm a sneaky (deleted), i'd rather have a suppressor 0 -
Te 2nd Amendment provides us citezens the right to protect ourselves.
Personal Protection...From what?
Whatever you believe you need protection from. The neighbor. The neighborhood. Russia. Canada. Warshington...
What is the best suitable weapon for personal protection?
Whatever you think is best. Hand gun, shotgun, bolt rifle, semi, ... If had a choice, some here would fell safer if they had a Thompson submachine gun in their closet.0 -
SUB!
LOL!!!!!0 -
quote:Originally posted by cransona
Rack Ops has a weak mind.
So says the fella who deleted his own comments when called out....0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
67 comments