2 birds with one stone

S

Sorel366

Inactive
I was thinking about policies that were/are in use elsewhere :

-When a soldier joins, the first pay will be directed towards the rifle.

-When they are honorably discharged they take their firearm with them after it's been converted to semi auto, when dishonorably discharged they are reimbursed.

Switzerland applies a version of this, the British army used to as well. Benefits for society : savings for the military, more rifles in the hands of valuable men (harder to confiscate, more citizens armed).
 
#1, I don't think the dishonorable should get their money back.

#2, I have ethical issues with the "Honorably discharged can't be trusted with a select fire weapon" concept. I realize that it is the operative concept in most of the world, I just think it shouldn't be. It is the easy way out, blanket prohibition on everyone, rather than dealing with those who actually are a danger, once, and for all. And, it is an insult to those who honorably served.

The soldier keeping their weapon after service is a quaint custom, carried over from the days when it was actually beneficial to society. It simply isn't (generally) looked at that way today.

Today, the fear of a deranged veteran causing carnage with a machine gun far, far outweighs the benefit of a decent man or woman getting to keep their service rifle.

What was a good idea in the 18th century just isn't workable for the majority of the 21st century world.
 
44 AMP said:
The soldier keeping their weapon after service is a quaint custom, carried over from the days when it was actually beneficial to society. It simply isn't (generally) looked at that way today.

Today, the fear of a deranged veteran causing carnage with a machine gun far, far outweighs the benefit of a decent man or woman getting to keep their service rifle.
Click to expand...
I grant that's the perception and perspective of a large segment of the population, but I don't agree. Remember, every male who wore the uniform (as well as most who did not) remains a member of the militia until he reaches the age of 45. The militia should be armed, and ideally they should be armed the same as those who are wearing the uniform.

I am absolutely not prepared to concede that "the fear of a deranged veteran causing carnage with a machine gun far, far outweighs the benefit of a decent man or woman getting to keep their service rifle."
 
I have no issue with veterans getting to keep their service pistol or rifle, but our society is not what it used to be. We have gang members joining up for military experience, and gang behavior is common. Drug and alcohol abuse and mental illness are very common in the general population and cannot be perceived until it has become too advanced to permit M4s with 3-round burst fire to be available to every veteran.

Let them keep their service weapon, but keep it at the armory or police station. When the militia is needed, the weapons are available.
 
I am absolutely not prepared to concede that "the fear of a deranged veteran....
Click to expand...

You may not wish to concede it, but I think that it IS the opinion of a great many people, many of whom are in government or other positions of influence.

No, it should NOT be the reality, and it isn't among people governed by rational thought and not emotions. But those people (like us) are kind of thin on the ground these days, especially in positions of authority.

When our government puts veterans (as a group) on a terrorist watch list, I think its time to concede that their attitude about this is real.

THEY don't see any benefit to the veteran keeping their service weapon (in ANY form) all THEY see are the risks.
 
If American culture was anything like Swiss society, we could do something like that.
Click to expand...

Considering that the Swiss modeled themselves after us way back in the late 1700s.......;)
They at least kept the concept of no standing army, limited small central government, etc................
 
The US abandoned much of those concepts before any of us were born.

It's not coming back, that threshold was crossed decades ago.

Given a corporate idiocracy, a media partisan to the extreme, an education system geared towards indoctrination, political elites blatantly hostile to freedom and responsibility, half a nation foreign-born, a welfare state afraid to lose it's subsidies, and a population more inclined to seek gratification than liberty, the idea of a Minuteman militia setting things right is not entirely pragmatic.
 
What was a good idea in the 18th century just isn't workable for the majority of the 21st century world.
Click to expand...

It was actually considered a very good idea for sometime after the Civil War, too.
 
As I write this, it's been almost exactly 4 months short of 100 years since the last time a significantly populated* area of the United States was attacked by foreign ground troops* in the Battle of Columbus – and I bet that 19 of 20 Americans don't realize it ever happened. :rolleyes:

The idea of armed militiamen protecting against foreign invasion seems quaintly anachronistic to most Americans.

*Pearl Harbor was obviously a naval attack, and the Japanese occupations of Attu and Kiska in the Aleutian Islands involved islands that were minimally populated.
 
In short the vast majority of Americans just don't seem to care and would gleefully trade away such rights in favor of free hand outs and instant gratification.

Surprise surprise.

Pardon the cynicism. I'll continue to fight, but it gets harder to do so on some days, especially when you have so many who are willfully ignorant about...well...many things.
 
#2, I have ethical issues with the "Honorably discharged can't be trusted with a select fire weapon" concept. I realize that it is the operative concept in most of the world, I just think it shouldn't be. It is the easy way out, blanket prohibition on everyone, rather than dealing with those who actually are a danger, once, and for all. And, it is an insult to those who honorably served.
Click to expand...

The military doesn't trust its own people out of theater with such weapons.
 
Interesting solution...what problem are you trying to solve?
Click to expand...

Gun control. With so many vets, it would be difficult to enforce. I believe the ultimate purpose of gun control is not safety, but to render the populace unable to defend itself against a tyrannical government. If all vets kept their rifles, they would be the first line of defence against any attempt at establishing a dictatorship.
 
Why should the firearm be converted to semi-auto only? Does getting discharged automagically make one less competent or responsible with their firearm than before they were discharged?

In short the vast majority of Americans just don't seem to care and would gleefully trade away such rights in favor of free hand outs and instant gratification.

Surprise surprise.

Pardon the cynicism. I'll continue to fight, but it gets harder to do so on some days, especially when you have so many who are willfully ignorant about...well...many things.
Click to expand...

I hear ya, brother.
 
Sorel366 said:
It should be converted for legal reasons, since FA is prohibited.
Click to expand...
NOT prohibited – only restricted to 1986 and earlier manufacture. :)

I think that an underlying assumption of the follow-up posts is that the recipient would be considered military and thus would be exempted from the Hughes Amendment 1986 cutoff.
 
You do realize that many Americans dislike, distrust or downright despise veterans, right?

People don't support veterans the way you might think: this is due to numerous reasons. Sometimes jealousy. Sometimes anti war political beliefs. Sometime people see veterans as a consumer of their hard earned tax dollars. Many folks just got burned by a knucklehead veteran. So many reasons that add up to a significant number of people disliking veterans. This is an influential amount, and some are influential people.
There's a reason that veterans have benefits and protected status.
I have, on more than one occasion, had my resume handed back to me because I was a veteran. They have told me that's the only reason.
 
You do realize that many Americans dislike, distrust or downright despise veterans, right?
Click to expand...

Yes, and I also realize that many Americans are short sighted, bigoted, jingoistic fools so wrapped up in their personal lives, agendas and ideologies that they have little or no concept of patriotism, duty, sacrifice, or honor.

Some of the best people I've ever known were veterans. So were some of the worst. Dislike, distrust, or despise anyone because of what they individually do is fine with me. DO it because they fit in a certain demographic is NOT.
 
Switzerland is able to maintain their militia model for a few reasons though:

1) Small country (about eight million people)

2) Banker for so many people and entities that they have the ability to remain neutral and not worry about getting attacked

3) Geographically, very difficult to invade

4) Like most of the rest of the Western world, piggy-backs off of the security umbrella provided by the United States (which keeps the sea lanes open, underwrites global trade and security, etc...)

Also, although limited government, Switzerland does have a universal healthcare system, so in that sense they are not strictly like a mini version of early America.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top