skills, etc. that means saved $$$ and a more effective force. I always assume the ulterior motive is money. The more that people are self-trained, even self-equipped, the less you need to tax the rich. And I suppose that's not a bad thing, since the rich have many ways of dodging tax, passing it onto the middle-class, or redirecting it entirely on the middle-class. So until we fully get out of serfdom, we'll still be seen as someone's livestock. But it's not all a bad thing. Until there's forced conscription and martial law, people can at least prep for themselves before being forced to "prep" for the State. I believe that was an accepted fact when the country was founded and no one has ever said it still isn't true. The second ammendment starts out "An armed militia being necessary" Liberals like to interpret that to mean that only the military should be armed. The correct interpretation that has been upheld by the supreme court is that every able body man is a part of the militia. Years ago I called my State NRA representative about a match being held that required "military rifles". We got to talking and he told me that he felt it was a kind of duty that every able bodied man should own a military rifle. I kind of did a double take, but over the years have come to believe the same thing. The oath the military takes is to defend the CONSTITUTION of