
	Down to 170-some odd lines.  We must be making progress!
On an ironic note, where I deleted lines Emacs continually gave me
the message "Garbage collecting... Done."  Think it's trying to
tell me something?



	You lurkers can join in at any time, you know!  Ahhh..
Talk.politics.guns -- the kindler, gentler newsgroup.  Who would
have thought?


	I remind you of shrapnel.  I consider 5' a reasonable space
limitation, but make no mistake a gun blowing up is a hazard to
those nearby, say in the next lane at the range.  My point was at
what distance, or level of threat, we draw the line.  Is it the
endangerment of others, so we do a 5' restriction, or the possibility
of being shot, hence we draw a 1.5 mile restriction, or a nuke and
draw a 5 mile restriction?  To me they al suffer from the fundamental
flaw that they restrict based upon the instrument rather than placing
the responsibility for usage squarely upon the shoulders of the user.
Perhaps Sen. Metzenbaum declaring the Barrett Light Fifty an assault
rifle has made this more apparent to me, since the Barrett has
only range and acurracy going for it.


	I disagree, on the grounds that a house can be rebuilt much
more easily than my family once I have died.  I assume that word
would get to the citizens that such an attack was planned.  If this
is not the case, the tactical and strategic implications change
quite a bit.  Personally, my home is worth, say, twenty Martians
intent on taking over the world.  My family?  All of them.  The
balancing act here is hard to judge sitting at my desk.


	That seems to be the case already, given that heavy
weapons aren't commonly owned by the citizenry.  With such low
numbers, obviously due to cost, I don't think the superior
weapons are going to be of great effect against a numerically
superior foe.  Furthermore, it is even more doubtful their training
includes proper tactical movements that best utilize tanks,
whereas the commonly rifleman is not so hampered in effectiveness.


	I had envisioned that the armorer, perhaps the officers
of a select group, and the like would exercise control over the
heavier, more complex weapons.  But, if Joe Bob owns an old Sherman
tank I certainly wouldn't ask him to give it up.  Follow orders
from the officers, yes.  Since the expense of a tank is so large,
though, chances are it would be jointly purchased and should
therefore be jointly maintained and operated.


	This I'll agree with to a point.  The State having control
over the heavy weapons should not be justification for the state
to have them centrally located.  Keep them spread out, such that
the ability of the State to lock them up isn't so easy.  Otherwise,
I would have to assume that State control would rest on the
authority of the Governor and militia officers.


	I'm having a hard time seeing how these heavy weapons,
fairly few in numbers, could not be easily wielded by a few
people with government support.  Just as you argued above that
the weapons should be divvied up and under democratic control
so one side doesn't have all of them, I can't see where this
situation is alleviated in having the select militia holding
all the weapons and the unorganized militia being the infantry.
I think a better mix is called for.  But, I would argue that
the Federal army should rely upon the select militia and the
unorganized militia for the bulk of its infantry units.


	We have to assume that there would be those who would
side with the government-controlled forces, and if they've all
the equipment an infantry force 3x the size would be in trouble.
I'd like to see that heavy stuff, say tanks, offset by the
local troups having a few 105's and anti-tank weapons in their
armory.  These would be much more useful to infantry than the
tank would be when cost and training requirements are figured in.
I suppose I'm quibbling over what constitutes heavy equipment.


	So would I, but the resources often aren't available to
outfit local units well enough.  Thus, we will certainly have to
call in others, and a mechanized unit carries more stuff faster
than anything else.


	Perhaps our ideas of heavy weapons are different?  I think
main battle tanks, self-propelled artillery, and 155mm and up
field pieces are heavy stuff.  M113 troop carriers, 2 1/2 ton
trucks, HumVee's, old M60 tanks, 105 Howitzers, are more the stuff
of a mechanized infantry.  Actually, this is what the Guard units
in Iowa are currently fielding in some units.

	Perhaps it is just my innate fear of having the real heavy
equipment under State control, with little but numbers and light
stuff to act as a deterrent.  Allowing main battle tanks to the
states should be balanced with anti-tank capability in the local
ranks.  Similarly, local units would need to band together quickly,
hence small and fast response means mechanized infantry.  Finally,
the militia is more than just fighting.  Equipment is needed for
other responses.  The Federal army, I'm convinced, should have a
very minumum of infantry, relying on the state and local militias
for these functions.