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
-
In the past infantry TO&E, where BARs were deployed, they were deployed as a crew served weapon.
Doug0 -
quote:Originally posted by Doug Wilson
In the past infantry TO&E, where BARs were deployed, they were deployed as a crew served weapon.
Doug
Doug, if I'm not mistaken the BAR was issued at the fire-team level (at least in the USMC) to the Automatic Rifleman in the role that the M249 SAW is employed today. Nominally, there was an assistant gunner, but he was more of an ammo-hauler than a crew member....
Take it for what its worth, I'm not an expert.....nor did I stay in a holiday inn express last night [;)]0 -
quote:Originally posted by Doug Wilson
In the past infantry TO&E, where BARs were deployed, they were deployed as a crew served weapon.
Doug
Doug, would you be willing to 'dumb down' your language a bit for folks like me who are interested to know what you're saying, but have no idea what it all means? Thanks in advance. (I know that a BAR is a rifle, but most of the rest of your jargon is going about three feet over my head).0 -
The chair is against the wall. The chair is against the wall.
John has a long moustache. John has a long moustache.
zzz-zzz-zzz0 -
I also have no idea. I'll try to restrain myself.
My memory is so bad - no joke - that when I try to figure out different words, by the time I come back to my post, I can't remember what I wanted to say !!
My Parents and Grandparents were all well educated folks, and they wouldn't tolerate slang or colloquialisms(normal human talk). That speaking style has got me in trouble, all my life. I DON"T DO IT ON PURPOSE !!
I'll try to do better.
Back to your questions: TO&E = Table of Organization and Equipment. BAR stands for Browning Automatic Rifle - a light machine gun chambered in .30-06 and fed by 20 round box magazine. Crew served means more than one person is dedicated to firing/spotting and ammo bearing.
I really like BARs and know a little about them. They are no longer issued to infantry units. It's heavy - I think 23 pounds, unloaded.
Thank you for trying to straighten me out !!
Doug0 -
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
The chair is against the wall. The chair is against the wall.
John has a long moustache. John has a long moustache.
zzz-zzz-zzz
DWS has started writing poetry.
Poetry has started writing DWS.0 -
quote:Originally posted by spurgemastur
DWS has started writing poetry.
Poetry has started writing DWS.
Man, you don't miss a trick. Can't put anything over on you. Whew!0 -
posted by doug
quote:I really like BARs
can I qoute you on that?0 -
I believe that particular prose was written and broadcast in 1944. I think it was the coded signal sent to underground forces in Europe (or maybe just France) meaning the Normandy invasion was at hand. 0 -
It was also in red dawn and the longest day. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
quote:Originally posted by spurgemastur
DWS has started writing poetry.
Poetry has started writing DWS.
Man, you don't miss a trick. Can't put anything over on you. Whew!
Keep trying!0 -
Yep.
I like BARS, bars, and also taverns.
Doug0 -
quote:Originally posted by spurgemastur
Keep trying!
Nah, I know genius when I see it.
Sire...0 -
Would A Civilian Militia Need Select-Fire Weapons?
Why would you list a topic to take my weapons ? [:o)][:o)]0 -
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
quote:Originally posted by spurgemastur
Keep trying!
Nah, I know genius when I see it.
Sire...
I'm honored.
Now write me another one.0 -
quote:Originally posted by spurgemastur
I'm honored.
Now write me another one.
Nah, I wouldn't want your lips to get tired.0 -
Stupid... 0 -
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
quote:Originally posted by spurgemastur
I'm honored.
Now write me another one.
Nah, I wouldn't want your lips to get tired.
Don't worry about that. It's kind of like a flubbery massage to have them banging together as I read your verse.0 -
quote:Originally posted by spurgemastur
It's kind of like a flubbery massage to have them banging together...
I'll be you say that to all the boys.0 -
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
quote:Originally posted by spurgemastur
It's kind of like a flubbery massage to have them banging together...
I'll be you say that to all the boys.
Just you, buddy. Now where's my next piece of verse?0 -
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.
This is the exact text of the 2nd Amendment, the one so hottly debated because of the use of some commas.
I think that your topic is very centered on one word in this one sentence..."regulated".
As it seems to me, those that have the power to make law have decided that "regulated" means that the citizen militia would never have to face the situation in which full automatic firearms would be a necessity. Their view is one that since the country has such a highly trained and competent military to fight in their stead, that the citizenry should need less powerful (term used loosely only to indicate the rapid expendature of ammunition) firearms in self defense. Semiautomatic, bolt, lever and pump action firearms, by their determination, more than suffices in any situation that we may find ourselves, hence their decision to "regulate" the ownership of full automatic firearms to a relative few law abiding citizens.
Moreover, they also think that if faced with a situation that any militia would become a necessity to employ, most would simply barracade themselves in their houses or pack up and hide in the hills. While they may have some validity in thinking so, most of us believe differently. Most of what they tend to forget is the tactical advantage we may have in being a few to their many. Smaller bands of citizens can move swiftly, hide amongst their numbers and infiltrate as needed. Hiding in the hills also isn't as cowardly as some may think. Being able to fire from an elevated position is a great advantage (growing up in the hills of WV has taught me quite a few places that are both remote and difficult to access and close to civilization but well hidden). Their underestimation of the resourcefulness of the citizen militia is their Achilles Heel.
We know this country better than anybody, and ultimately it is ours to protect. God have mercy upon the souls of those who seek to challenge this.
To recap...we kick ass, the government "regulations" say we can have these but not those, I'd stand beside any of you guys should we need to, and I want a pop-tart. Anyone else want a pop-tart?0 -
quote:Originally posted by cransona
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.
looks like most of your questioning is summarized in the last part of the first paragraph.
no, it wouldn't help a civilian militia to accomplish their goals by having their select-fire weapons registered with the government. I can't see how it would "help" the government in helping a militia to accomplish their goals either. it could only serve the government in keeping track of who has what, the most obvious purpose of which would be to go to the owner and take it away. that's the only real purpose I can see in having serial numbers on any gun. ..or like you said, not take them away (yet) but use that information tactically when employing force against them.
it would help to have automatic fire capability in any combat role.
the role of "a" civilian militia man would be to
-aid law enforcement authorities (local, state, national) if they want the help
-military forces (state, national) if they want the help
-act by themselves to acheive goals similar to law enforcement or military, either parallel to them, or in their absence, in lieu of
in the event of
-a declaration of martial law (natural disasters, riots, etc)
-invasion by foreign aggressors
in the above scenarios, militia may act in concert or individually.
now, I don't want to go off on the implications of the 2nd amendment, but I would like to say that there should be no laws regarding the ownership and "bearing" of arms; and I think that serial numbers do serve a legitimate purpose in identification for insurance purposes, stolen property, etc. BUT their use in tracking a weapon by the government should not be allowed, not only becasue of the potential for abuse (CA, NY gun confiscations) but when the gov't uses a serial number, it's as part of enforcing some kind of gun law. of which there should be none.
"a law" falls under the category of "infringement", which encompasses any kind of obstacle to a right.
note how the first amendment says "shall make no law".
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
...and the second amendment says "shall not be infringed".
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.
so, the Framers of The Constitution not only meant "make no law", but they specifically said don't F with it in any manner.
now. observe how in the state of New York, there haven't been much laws specifically denying ownership of guns. but it has been commented by new yorkers that there are so many regulations (which are unconstitutional in the first place) with difficult interpretations, that it's very difficult, if not almost impossible, to own a gun. that is an example of infringement. "very dificult" and "almost impossible" are infringements. that situation is exactly what the Framers wanted to avoid.0 -
no thanks, I already got 6 boxes of toaster strudel. 0 -
mmmmmmmm...toaster strudel
buschmaster, you are a very intellegent individual, and while i wholeheartedly agree with your take on the topic, there should be NO LAW barring the citizens ownership of any type of firearm, there are times when one of us needs to play "devils advocate" so that we may better understand the thought processes of those who do not agree with our point of view.
That being said...what reasons can we, as law abiding citizens, put forth to argue our need to own (using the oppositions jargon) "fully automatic assult weapons"? What would be our need for high capacity magazines? If our military is so well trained and versitile, why do we need to have these things?
Bear in mind that I think we should have these as a means of protection should the possibility that our military or government should fail, we think logically and plan accordingly, preparing just in case this should happen, not inspite of. The opposition thinks emotionally screaming out the possibilities of dead children and women and that before such a thing would occur, urban wars would break out, city blocks would be innundated with rapid fire because one person wore a blue tee shirt in a red tee shirt area and the like.0 -
why would we need full auto firearms? because when you're doing that kind of stuff, semi auto isn't always good enough. full auto is a force multiplier. your engagements in combat (if any) will probably be against multiple aggressors. especially if you're doing military-type operations, you may have area targets (like several opponents far away) which require full auto fire.
the whole point is to not rely on the military. in fact, when the Constitution was written, they didn't have a standing army. if a war was to be fought, the army was to be disbanded as soon as it was finished. ok, we have a standing army now, but we still have our right to self-defense, with or without an army to do it for us.
as for trigger happy yoyos, well, there's one in every crowd, but that's not good enough to take away everybody's rights. just have to rein him in.0 -
Full auto is not needed except to spray bullets all over the landscape.
What IS needed is riflemen.
Guess you youngsters prefer to spray and pray with an itty bitty bullet.
A Garand will be fine for me, Thanks.
Doug0 -
true that the army was, at one time, a loosely banded group that went their own ways after the need for them was over. As time passed the need for it to become a formally organized entity was realized. The formal creation of the military has, to an extent, rendered the need for a citizen militia obsolete (again devils advocate.) The continued existance of a militia has become arbitrary and many view them to be unnecissary. Militias have also seemed to change faces over the years. Instead of being a protective ( or perhaps a police type) force many view them to be paranoid conspiracy theorists covertly planning to overthrow the government. How might we change this outlook?
Personally I believe that each state should have at least one official sanctioned (or declared) militia. Sanctioned, not funded so that the government of said state cannot pull the marionette strings.
I also think that each state militia should work in concert with other states so that the populace could see how organized they actually are instead of viewing them as trigger happy gun toting ultra conservatists hell bent on a new American government. I also think that each militia should elect one representative to establish a 50 member governing body to set the official guidelines offering more evidence that the militias work as both independant and as a whole as the situation dictates. Kinda like the National Guard, but not necissarily the same. They would also work in tandem with all law enforcement agencies while safeguarding against abuses of power. This would go far in reversing the negative stereotype that current militia endure.
Wow...I never thought so much on this subject as I have tonight. I hope some of what I said makes sense.0 -
If I'm gonna spray and pray, a shotgun full of double-ought buck will hopefully answer my prayers for me.
I think all a good militia needs are some cool heads, steady hands, and good eyes. All the fully automatic weapons in the world won't help you if you haven't got any of those.[;)]0 -
Doug,
Personally, I'd prefer using my rifles and pistol. Distance first, close quarters if necessary (ha...knew I'd eventually spell that word correctly!!!!)
But even you have to admit that should one find onesself in a situation where neither long range nor limited firing capability would suffice in surviving said situation, "spray and pray" as you so succinctly put it, would keep the opposition at bay until one could reach cover or safely retreat to a secured location.0 -
EMM,
True, but I currently don't own a shotgun either.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
67 comments