From: Richard Pierson <fist@iscp.bellcore.com>
Subject: Re: No Army Needed( was: Swiss military preparedness?)
Organization: Leave the $#%&*#@# Bylaws Alone !!
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 17:31:45 GMT


From Richard Pierson <fist@iscp.bellcore.com>

In article <Bzs8v0.LGz@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, Aryk Nusbacher
<nusbache@epas.utoronto.ca> writes:
|> 
|> From Aryk Nusbacher <nusbache@epas.utoronto.ca>
|> 
|> First, it is useless to expect any military value from personal
|> firearms if they are selected without regard to standardisation.
|> Without standard ammunition and parts, there is no military point to
|> having everybody armed and ready to turn out.
That was one of the reasons for DCM (maybe not directly) This would
and did standardize the caliber of weapons that were available for
public consumption from the Govt. Now the weapons are either thrown
away (recycled) or sold to someone else outside the country, either way
sourcing of military equipment is rapidly drying up from the Govt and
I think that is what they want.
|> 
|> Second, the above point implies that standard issue firearms would
|> be
|> kept at home, after the Swiss model.  Now, I would trust the
|> Switzers
|> with their five-hundred-year tradition of maintaining combat weapons
|> at home, to give their firearms the attention they'd need.  However,
|> I
|> would not trust some cussed, individualistic Anglo-Saxons of the
|> sort
|> found in abundance in North America, to keep their firearms clean,
|> bright and slightly oiled.  Some would, but most would turn their
|> gear
|> up for inspection with rust, wear, and filth.  And that would pretty
|> much moot the whole idea of having them.
   If military weapons were to be issued to "take home" and
they were treated the same way as my personal weapons, they
would be issued in a "Hard Case", cleaned, oiled and ready to
go before they left the armoury. During the course of a normal
training year these weapons would be inspected at least 5 times.
1st before they left the armoury, 2nd when they were fired at
yearly qualifications, 3rd before Annual Training, 4th at
completion of Annual Training and the 5th time would be in Jan
for the Annual Records check weekend. If the member was also
given the option of "Keeping/Buying" the weapon on completion
of obligation they might even take better care of it in its
service life, if they knew it was "theirs". Every reason I 
have ever heard from "Seniors" about why we cant take the 
weapons home have so far been all bogus. Why is it that the 
more senior an officer is the less apt he/she is to say 
"Well sarge I don't really know but I'll find out for you" 
rather than feed lines of BS.
Any one know when the rule change came about that prohibited
war souviners from being brought home to the United States. I
have the feeling it was about the time that the Govt got real
interested in gun control.
|> 
|> Western civilisation developed the armoury for a reason.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 The British did it to keep control of the weapons and to
keep them out of the hands of the serfs except when they
wanted them to have them for the "common defense", to me
an Armoury means "A place to lock weapons and arms up to
prevent unauthorized use or access" with the people who have
the keys deciding who is "Authorized". Why do you think the
British armed the marines and officers on board ship when it
came time to mete out punishment, armed conscripts would not
have taken to kindly to being whipped would be my guess which
was also a reason to keep it locked and guarded. :-)
 I agree and the reason more and more is to remove weapons
from the hands of civilians. Currently the National Guard has
started requireing that ALL TA-50 (Field gear) be kept at the
armoury. During normal year to year operations for training
many guardsman drive their own POV (personally owned vehicle)
to drill, whether it be at the armoury or the local "Fort xxx"
Now the guardsman has to go out of the way to stop at the
armoury, pick up his/her equipment then head to the training
area thereby wasting another several hundred man hours of
training. This has not been true for the last 14 years and has
only transpired in the last 2 months. Referencing Bill Gawne in
his comment of the US Marine corps reserve, the National Guard
units I have served with were similar (excpet we have to wear
helmets when we fire small arms instead of adequate hearing
protection) and during our normal Annual training (2 weeks) 
period we accomplished more than a most regular active duty 
army units do in 6 months. When I first started in the guard
after 7 years active Navy I was rather unimpressed with the
normal drill year, my first annual training changed that.
They (we) busted our butts during AT's to accomplish what the
regular army said we should accomplish in a given training
year and we did it well, blowing the socks off of the Advisor/
Evaluators year after year, policy changes have driven many
of these people out due to how "inflexible" the system has
become,( mostly to have the Guard meet the same requirements
as active units in the same "Politically correct" manner
read "no promotions unless you are AA target".)
When someone does not trust me to do my job I'm reminded of 
a couple of lines my father told me when I was growing up: 
"It takes a liar to know a liar, a thief to know a thief 
 and a politician to know a politician". No, I don't trust
my govt and never will after 72'
Govt does not like it's people to be able to say "NO, We
don't want that" and make it stick. Just my opinion or
$.02 cents worth.
|> 
|> Aryk Nusbacher

-- 
##########################################################
There are only two types of ships in the NAVY; SUBMARINES 
                 and TARGETS !!!
#1/XS1100LH	#2/10/10/92
Richard Pierson E06584 vnet: [908] 699-6063
Internet: fist@iscp.bellcore.com,|| UUNET:uunet!bcr!fist  
#include <std.disclaimer> My opinions are my own!!!
I Don't shop in malls, I BUY my jeans, jackets and ammo
in the same store.

Newsgroups: sci.military