Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Read my sig. I have a few good Obama jokes in it.

Frazzled wrote:
History is replete with coups, military juntas, or soldiers doing what they were told, or what they thought was right. Sometimes its a good thing (Honduras, military in Turkey), other times its not (Burma, cuba, China, nearly everyone on the UN Human Rights Commission)
History's also replete with military forces splitting and doing that civil war thing as well. If I remember correctly we ourselves had that epic legal case of Billy Yank vs. Johnny Reb in 1862 (Justice Grant presiding, appeal denied).

History is replete with it, but the Constitution is laid out to protect the government from military interference. There is no military junta in the United States because the U.S. military reports to Congress, the way it should be. It is true that we do what we're told, that's how a military works, but we don't think about what is right and what is wrong. That is laid out for us clearly in the Geneva Convention and the Rules of Engagement (which the military goes through an inordinate amount of trouble to make sure we know), and it is well within our rights to tell an officer or NCO to go stuff themselves if they give us an illegal order, which a military coup would be. Every single last service member is sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Which means that we uphold the laws that keeps the military subservient to the civilian government.

I'd be amazed if you could find an example of a military as integrated as ours splitting and devolving into civil war. We do things the way we do for a reason, and comparing the U.S. Army of 1861 to the army of today provides absolutely no basis for comparison. The U.S. Army of 1861 numbered a bare 16,000 men, a far cry from the forces that would be fielded in the coming war (R.E. Lee surrendered 27,000 soldiers at Appomattox, and 51,000 soldiers died at Gettysburg) . The vast majority of people who fought in that war were just regular citizens before the war, or in the state militia, which provided them with an almost unshakable loyalty to their home state. In today's military it's uncommon to serve with more than a few people from your home area, and in the Information Age people don't feel so attached to their home states.

This just in. I finished the sandbag emplacement and have requested the necessary forms for my FFL.

I hope to God one of my damn meth-head neighbors tries something stupid after the first of the year when I have the MG42 in place.

Bring on the New Year I say!!!

IAmTheWalrus wrote:There is no military junta in the United States because the U.S. military reports to Congress, the way it should be.

Lets get technical. The CIC is still the US president and has a 30 day window to field forces outside the US before a declaration of war is necessary.
Congress members are outside the chain of command. If Parker Griffith (Senator for AL) opens his yap with an order he should be shut down in no uncertain terms as any other civilian. That whole separation of powers thing tends to get in the way.
50 U.S.C. 1541–1548 allows for mobilization for 60 days, and 30 to pull out of a deployment without a congressional declaration of war. 50U.S.C is also still a subject of debate regarding its validity.
I also question your statement on weapons training in Basic. Since I'm not a military historian I can only find reference to current Basic training where even the much maligned Coast Guard gets M16 training. Can you point me to a better reference?

But, this Digresses wildly.

The OP, a resident of the UK, has trouble understanding why the "right to keep and bear arms" is so important. There are, regrettably, some instances where violence is the only answer to an unwelcome or unreasonable occupation. The thread is full of reasons (legitimate and personal) to own a weapon.

I have a right protected by law that I choose to invoke. Much like the one we're using to discuss this in a public forum while enjoying a pint of stout, and advising everyone they should partake if they like. Its nice to have even if I don't choose to use it though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Apparently, FW's MG emplacement is ready. I should bring a few six packs....

Don't get too excited. Need to get the FFL app filled out and approved (easy as pie as I'm not a felon) and then have to order the mg42 and it's ammo. I'm thinking one hell of a NYE party though.

BYOB

In connection with the ACW it is worth noting that it took the election of the Wrong Man to cause the southern states to democratically vote for splitting off.

Except for officers, only a miniscule number of regular army went south.

The majority of the men who fought in the civil war were state militia, relatively few of who provided their own weapons. Both sides had extreme difficulty equipping troops and had to import a lot of weapons.

BYOB, and BYOT (Bring Your Own Tracers) because that madness looks *awesome* on a dark night and nobody at the party suffers PTSD.

Oldgrue wrote:
Lets get technical. The CIC is still the US president and has a 30 day window to field forces outside the US before a declaration of war is necessary.
Congress members are outside the chain of command. If Parker Griffith (Senator for AL) opens his yap with an order he should be shut down in no uncertain terms as any other civilian. That whole separation of powers thing tends to get in the way.
50 U.S.C. 1541–1548 allows for mobilization for 60 days, and 30 to pull out of a deployment without a congressional declaration of war. 50U.S.C is also still a subject of debate regarding its validity.
I also question your statement on weapons training in Basic. Since I'm not a military historian I can only find reference to current Basic training where even the much maligned Coast Guard gets M16 training. Can you point me to a better reference?

Thank you for pointing out the specifics, for the sake of brevity I was summarizing. It's true that the President can deploy us, but in the end it's Congress who (should) decide how we fight.

Sadly, I can't point you to a more accurate reference on Basic Training weapons training, but having worked closely with all services (save the Coast Guard) I can give you a short summary. This list is by no means the be-all-end-all, just what I know for a fact is the bare minimum among the branches. More combat oriented personnel (like Security Forces, Infantry, Armor, Cav) have more weapons qualifications than do that of non-combat personnel (medical, suppy and the like)

All Army Basics provide training for: AT-4 84mm anti-tank rocket, M2 .50 machine gun, M4 .223 carbine, M16 .223 assault rifle, M203 40mm grenade launcher, M240B 7.62mm machine gun, and M249 .223 machine gun, as well as hand grenades and claymores.

Air Force: M16 (spend a single day at the range with no mandatory qualification, just have to shoot), and M9 9mm handgun

Navy: 12 gauge shotgun (don't remember the designation) and M9

Marines weapons training is similar to that of the Army. Pistol qualification never came up when I was talking to one, so I couldn't say for sure.

You know, typically if there is a coup, they aren't going to follow the separations of power or Chain of Command most likely. Really it is almost as if it would be an illegal act. I'm not sure saying, in essence, that it could never happen because it against the rules we have in place is a bit like saying because murder is illegal no one will ever do it.

Mick A wrote:Noble713- wasn't there a case some years ago of an upset national guard guy who ran amok in a stolen tank? No he never fired the guns but in that thing he didn't need to when it came to causing damage...
Mick

Yes, they are dangerous enough just driving around. I'm saying two things:
1. That the costs/risks to the public good of allowing and encouraging full military-grade tanks, tossing around 120mm HE rounds, is such that no one would ever approve of it. Nor should they.
2. The pricetag alone would not be a sufficient deterrent to carnage given a situation of lax government regulation on the associated hardware.

Fateweaver wrote:So I didn't do my homework on M1 costs. Sue me.

Ah, so you just have a habit of talking out of your 4th point of contact. Good to know...

IAmTheWalrus wrote:
All Army Basics provide training for: AT-4 84mm anti-tank rocket, M2 .50 machine gun, M4 .223 carbine, M16 .223 assault rifle, M203 40mm grenade launcher, M240B 7.62mm machine gun, and M249 .223 machine gun, as well as hand grenades and claymores.

This must be new. I went through Basic @ Ft. Leonard Wood in 2003, and we never did anything with the .50 cal, M203, or M240. In the 2 1/2 years that I spent in active Air Defense Artillery units we only ever fired the M16 and M249. I had an opportunity to fire an M9 while doing range detail, but didn't take it (they just don't excite me). Then I spent 2 1/2 years in a National Guard infantry unit. The infantry crash course they put us through at Camp Robinson, AR was too short for M9, .50cal or Mk19 ranges, so I've STILL never fired those. When my unit conducted a .50cal range at Annual Training, I was off at the Warrior Leader's Course...

Marines weapons training is similar to that of the Army. Pistol qualification never came up when I was talking to one, so I couldn't say for sure.

I dunno about the enlisted side, but it's on the curriculum for The Basic School along with virtually every other weapon system so at least officers get comprehensive training.

IAmTheWalrus wrote:As a member of the United States military, I know for a fact that not every service member is trained or equipped with a sidearm.

A M14 is not a modern military weapon, and doesn't fall into the criteria I laid out. And it's true that not everyone with an AK is going to go on a killing spree, but why should that option even be there? Think of it like a car, the government is allowed to put restrictions on how powerful a car you can drive on the road so you aren't a danger to other drivers. A rifle is the same thing, a dangerous tool, and I think it falls under the government's responsibility to protect it's citizens from that danger.

You sir are incorrect the USMC, US Navy, and US Army (mainly SF and some NG units) use modernized variants of the M-14 Battle Rifle, with the Navy variant being designated the MK14 and the Marine Corps variant labeled the DMR, Designated Marksman Rifle, also the US Army 2nd Infantry Regiment still has members that are issued with the M-14 Battle Rifle. It does infact meet your criteria as well as that laid out by Congress for Assault Weapons, it has a flash suppressor and a twenty round magazine.

IAmTheWalrus wrote:

Lordhat wrote:
As a member of the United States citizenry, I believe that 'military grade' weaponry should not be 100% restricted to just the military. I simply don't trust any government to remain beneficent without sufficient checks and balances. Excuse me if I don't trust indoctrinated military personnel to value my personal freedoms and rights over the government's wishes. How many times have normal people done horrendous and immoral things due to 'following orders'? Soldiers are trained to follow orders without much (if any) question, and to kill the enemy (both foreign and domestic) at a word.

An unarmed populace simply cannot effectively disagree with their government, which is exactly how every governing body likes it. We are lucky that our Founding Fathers knew this, and encoded our ability to do so into the framework of our laws and rights. Like it or not, the 2nd amendment was not written to guarantee our ability to hunt, or have a good time wasting ammo at paper targets. It was written so that the people would always be a proper deterrent to unscrupulous leadership.

As for not trusting the 'indoctrinated' military personnel, I don't think you've had much experience dealing with the military. There is no difference between our citizens and our soldiers, they are one and the same and hold the American freedoms just as dearly as you do. Do you think the 18 year old son of your neighbor has a burning desire to impede your rights? Of course not, he's just trying to make a better life for himself in the military. Obedience is expected of soldiers, but what you don't know is how many stupidly long briefings on the conduct of war and the Geneva convention we've had to sit through so we know exactly when we can stop 'just following orders.'

I have had lots of contact with men and women in the military coming from a family with strong military ties, and having several friends in the military and having the burning desire to get in. I have met several people over the years that would do exactly what their Officers tell them and would do exactly what the politicians want them to. Why because they are very impressionable and not that bright. I've had several off my friends state the same thing about people they've encountered as well.

Disagreement with the government can be solved non-violently. The government has power by the consent of the people, and people have the power to change it. If you look at the movements of Dr. King and Ghandi I believe that you will find both to be far more effective non-violently than they would have been had they engaged the government in combat. The days of the Founding Fathers has long past, and I think people cling to the misguided belief that they can deter the government as an excuse to have whatever incredibly dangerous weapons they want.

What if the time for words passes? What if the politicians don't wanna take the time to be heard? Sometimes you do have to get out there and do the dirty work. Sometimes you need to be the bad guy.

Just out of curiosity, what would it take for you to take arms up against the government?

For me I'm not entirely sure what it would take, despite my want to get into the military, let me point out that which military ours or the French Foreign Legion, ultimately my loyalties lay with my friends, family and loved ones.

IAmTheWalrus wrote:

All Army Basics provide training for: AT-4 84mm anti-tank rocket, M2 .50/12.7mm machine gun, M4 5.56/.223 carbine, M16 5.56/.223 assault rifle, M203 40mm grenade launcher, M240B 7.62mm/.308 Win machine gun, and M249 5.56/.223 machine gun, as well as hand grenades and claymores.

Air Force: M16 (spend a single day at the range with no mandatory qualification, just have to shoot), and M9 9mm handgun

Navy: 12 gauge shotgun and M9

Marines weapons training is similar to that of the Army. Pistol qualification never came up when I was talking to one, so I couldn't say for sure.

The Navy's shotgun is the Mossberg 500 I believe, and I put up the NATO designation in mm for the .223's and .50cal, and the civilian inch designation for the 7.62's.

BrotherStynier wrote:

The Navy's shotgun is the Mossberg 500 I believe

I think it's actually the 590, complete with the 8 round tube, heat shield, and bayonet lug.

BrotherStynier wrote:I have met several people over the years that would do exactly what their Officers tell them and would do exactly what the politicians want them to. Why because they are very impressionable and not that bright. I've had several off my friends state the same thing about people they've encountered as well.

We've *ALL* met stupid people. This is the internet! Its not MENSA.
The Catch to all of this is that "several people" and "most" are only the same to Glenn Beck, his breed of entertainer, and internet arguments.

Should we be wary of the actions of good folk with good intentions? Absolutely. Thus our right to keep and bear arms.


Having a weapon does not make us prone to use it.
Given that the ability to think is a weapon.
QED.

Cant....resist.....thread.......any.....longer............

BrotherStynier:

A M14 is as outdated and far from "modern" as a Vietnam Duece and a half or a Ma Duce. You may be thinking of the M21 or the M25 variants of the rifle system.

The M14 is still seeing very LIMITED used in combat line units, however that doesnt mean that its a modern weapon. Hell, my SDM used a 1903 found in country. Does that make it a modern rifle? The only reason why the M14 is still around is because the Military had a stockpile sitting around and a slot to fill with a limited budget.

Here is a good example:
When I deployed on my first tour, my Troop got one M-14 per platoon. Guess where we pulled some of these dusty relics from? The on post Museum of all places. One day its behind a glass case with people going by going oooh and ahhhh then the next its off to your local arms room with a shiny new fireing pin.

And no, the Armys Newer shotgun is the Moss 500. Used one several times on door breaches all over Iraq. What the navy uses, I dont have a clue... not in the navy lol.

Kilkrazy wrote:In connection with the ACW it is worth noting that it took the election of the Wrong Man to cause the southern states to democratically vote for splitting off.

Except for officers, only a miniscule number of regular army went south.

The majority of the men who fought in the civil war were state militia, relatively few of who provided their own weapons. Both sides had extreme difficulty equipping troops and had to import a lot of weapons.

Thats not correct actually. A majority of the officers went back to the South. The numbers seem small because the US Army was tiny at the time. We didn't keep a large standing army until the mid 1950s.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
History is replete with it, but the Constitution is laid out to protect the government from military interference. There is no military junta in the United States because the U.S. military reports to Congress, the way it should be. It is true that we do what we're told, that's how a military works, but we don't think about what is right and what is wrong. That is laid out for us clearly in the Geneva Convention and the Rules of Engagement (which the military goes through an inordinate amount of trouble to make sure we know), and it is well within our rights to tell an officer or NCO to go stuff themselves if they give us an illegal order, which a military coup would be. Every single last service member is sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Which means that we uphold the laws that keeps the military subservient to the civilian government.
***That means deer pellets to me. It also means deer pellets to the Commander that does it. Rome thought it had an excellent separation of powers too.
Trust No One Believe Nothing.

I'd be amazed if you could find an example of a military as integrated as ours splitting and devolving into civil war.
***Er…the Civil War
***1917 Russia
***Every freaking coup in Latin America, in history.

More importantly that doesn’t help your argument. If the military follows orders and impugns our rights then your argument means the whole military will do it (which I don’t agree with).

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:In connection with the ACW it is worth noting that it took the election of the Wrong Man to cause the southern states to democratically vote for splitting off.

Except for officers, only a miniscule number of regular army went south.

The majority of the men who fought in the civil war were state militia, relatively few of who provided their own weapons. Both sides had extreme difficulty equipping troops and had to import a lot of weapons.

Thats not correct actually. A majority of the officers went back to the South.

That's what I said.

Except for officers, only a miniscule number of regular army went south.

I'm not sure it was a majority of officers, actually, but I can't find the figures quickly.

Woops sorry. Didn't see that.

Ayah I read that in several places. Easiest to note that they offered McClellan's job to Lee. :O

He was a good choice for it.

Oldgrue wrote:The OP, a resident of the UK, has trouble understanding why the "right to keep and bear arms" is so important. There are, regrettably, some instances where violence is the only answer to an unwelcome or unreasonable occupation. The thread is full of reasons (legitimate and personal) to own a weapon.

Yes, this is true. Just ask the Iraqis and Afghans.

And the Germans.

Not to mention some old British colonies, the Vietnamese, etcetera, etc....

And when the French invade Germany!

Occupations: Not just for income anymore!

jp400 wrote:Cant....resist.....thread.......any.....longer............

BrotherStynier:

A M14 is as outdated and far from "modern" as a Vietnam Duece and a half or a Ma Duce. You may be thinking of the M21 or the M25 variants of the rifle system.

The M14 is still seeing very LIMITED used in combat line units, however that doesnt mean that its a modern weapon. Hell, my SDM used a 1903 found in country. Does that make it a modern rifle? The only reason why the M14 is still around is because the Military had a stockpile sitting around and a slot to fill with a limited budget.

Here is a good example:
When I deployed on my first tour, my Troop got one M-14 per platoon. Guess where we pulled some of these dusty relics from? The on post Museum of all places. One day its behind a glass case with people going by going oooh and ahhhh then the next its off to your local arms room with a shiny new fireing pin.

And no, the Armys Newer shotgun is the Moss 500. Used one several times on door breaches all over Iraq. What the navy uses, I dont have a clue... not in the navy lol.

The point is how ever jp is that the M-14 is still issued to soldiers in how ever limited a number, much like how the M21 and M25 variants are still issued in small numbers. Then we have the MK14 which is a modern variant of the M14 series. So while its issues in limited number it is still a military weapon issued with some frequency in the modern military.

The 1903 you mentioned is completely different in that it wasn't issued, it was procured on the battle field.

Deleted

because they're American

Hells yeah and proud of it (at least I am).

Well, got the FFL application sent off along with the money to cover the fees.

Now in about 6 months I might be able to order that MG42.

then its time for DAKKA DAKKA DAKKA!!!

This is an interesting thread..

I do think the removal of guns decreases crime, as all the chicken gaks wont have the balls to do anything. But you actually have to remove the guns.. Impossible in the US I would imagine as they love guns like I love cigarettes.

I have no desire for a gun cause I dont need to kill anything, robbers and or kangaroos.

But then again I live in brisbane Oz and have never been robbed, seriously threatend or assaulted..

Must just live a charmed life.

Shaman wrote:This is an interesting thread..

I do think the removal of guns decreases crime, as all the chicken gaks wont have the balls to do anything. But you actually have to remove the guns.. Impossible in the US I would imagine as they love guns like I love cigarettes.

I have no desire for a gun cause I dont need to kill anything, robbers and or kangaroos.

But then again I live in brisbane Oz and have never been robbed, seriously threatend or assaulted..

Must just live a charmed life.

Ironical that, when Australia restricted firearms a few years back, crime rates went up...

Do you have sauce frazz, cause Im amazed by that.. I mean the cops still have guns..