Civil Defense Rifle


PDA






kcmarine
September 14, 2007, 07:21 PM
I'm back... just been busy with school here of late.

I was wondering the other day, if the US had a program like Switzerland where every house had a gun, what would that rifle be like?

This is just kinda a daydream thread... ha ha... sorry.

If you enjoyed reading about "Civil Defense Rifle" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
eldon519
September 14, 2007, 07:25 PM
Depends who ran the government at the time. If it were the Democrats, it would probably fire a cork on a string.

markmc753
September 14, 2007, 07:27 PM
cheap to produce, uber reliable and simple -- an ak

aka108
September 14, 2007, 07:29 PM
Probably something patterned after the AK. Cheap to built, few parts, easy to maintain and simple enough for the simplest person to learn to operate.

Frog48
September 14, 2007, 07:33 PM
http://www.dhampton.com/weblog/GGandT/Images/nerfgun.jpeg

USMC Tanker
September 14, 2007, 07:34 PM
The US government issuing AK variants to the civilian population? That wouldn't make any sense when there is already a logistical base in place for the M16 family.

It would more than likely be left-over M16A2 service rifles pulled from military armories, modified to semi-automatic fire only.

Kaylee
September 14, 2007, 07:42 PM
What USMC Tanker said.

Actually, the DCM/ODCMP is a pretty darn good model of the same - sell the govt's cast offs for a song, then use 'em for civilian education and competition. Prolly though these days the ideal would be using surplused M16A1s and A2s in something resembling 3-gun competitions.

Pity we ain't taking it as seriously as we used to. :(

-K

Frog48
September 14, 2007, 08:46 PM
It would more than likely be left-over M16A2 service rifles pulled from military armories, modified to semi-automatic fire only.

Modifying them to semi-only would be pointless, because as far as the law is concerned, if it ever was a machinegun, it forever is a machinegun.

It would take an act of Congress in order to dispense surplus M16's to the civvy population, literally.

cslinger
September 14, 2007, 08:51 PM
Old, beat to snot, M16s. Never happen.

Sharps-shooter
September 14, 2007, 09:03 PM
Maybe it would be old garands. They could call it something like "Civilian marksmanship program".

If it were really like what the swiss have going on, I guess it would be the current service rifle. But swisserlnd is a lot small, and they have pretty high taxes from what I understand, so they can afford this type of program, and we can't, unless priorities change

Titan6
September 14, 2007, 09:05 PM
If the US had a program like Switzerland where every house had a rifle?

It would be nice if they handed out (or sold) old M16s but that will never happen. We are lucky that the CMP program is still functioning at all.

Even if the US were faced with invasion by a large Army than mass conscription would be the answer. In the new People's Army we would have whatever rifle the contractor with the best lobbyist wanted to sell.

Cosmoline
September 14, 2007, 09:14 PM
The US has had similar programs, though not on a national level. Up here during WWII natives were trained and issued Garands.

havanatrader
September 14, 2007, 09:19 PM
By the time congress got done with committee decisions, it would look a lot like this. Until one citizen got a welt from the rubber band. Then they'd ban them.:cool:
http://www.backyardartillery.com/rbguns/rifle2.jpg

eldon519
September 14, 2007, 09:42 PM
I think an important part of the Swiss plan is that everyone also has mandatory military service and are theoretically trained and disciplined enough to use a rifle. I don't think it would be such a great idea to roll up into the projects and start issuing all the wellfare dependents their Civil Defense rifles.

DMK
September 14, 2007, 09:47 PM
Didn't the swiss just take home the rifle they were issued in service? It's my understanding that the K31 was in service until the 70s so some folks had them, others were issued STG-57s, etc.

In our case, that would be M1s, M14s, M16A1s, M16A2s, etc.

Hoppy590
September 14, 2007, 10:17 PM
Darn double posts!**

Hoppy590
September 14, 2007, 10:19 PM
i think the swiss get to take home any individual weapon i believe, SAW's, Rifles etc.

personaly. i think the US should have the system like the one i read about a while ago. i think it may have been swiss. in order to vote you must display a rifle capable of over X ( lets say 1200 ftlbs?) and X ( 100?) rounds of ammo.

that will be the day...

W.E.G.
September 14, 2007, 11:51 PM
Pardon me if I sound bitter, but I believe our government and its PC-ninny attitude would allow our borders to be overrun before it would ever train "civilians" in the use of arms, let alone ever issue weapons to civilians.

Deaf Smith
September 14, 2007, 11:54 PM
Just get a 16 inch M4 look alike. DPMS, Bushmaster, Stag, etc.... with a EOT, Aimpoint, or ACOG (if you have the bucks), and a chest pack of mags.

Onmilo
September 14, 2007, 11:59 PM
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Our government at that time was expecting all households to maintain at least one weapon capable of firing government ammunition.

If we weren't so inclined to the move towards facism that would imply keeping a 5.56 0r 7.62 NATO caliber weapon on hand.

I will always keep an AR15 around right now since this is the government standard.

It would be nice if they provided magazines, ammunition, and toss in an M203 or M79 grenade launcher with 12 rounds of H.E. Fragmentary grenades if things ever get dicey.

I can take care of the rest on my own.

Limeyfellow
September 15, 2007, 12:12 AM
The main difference between the Swiss and the US, is that the majority of the Swiss males who are given these arms do so when they have finished conscription duties and military training to successfully use military tactics as well as being armed.

I guess it be like giving an M16 or SAW to members of the military as they finish their active duty.

We also have to remember the Swiss are a far smaller population base.

Still I would think it would be nice, but since we haven't had a real pro gun President since Kennedy, I don't see it happening.

precisionshootist
September 15, 2007, 04:52 AM
It would be surplus M-16 A1/A2 rifles. As the military got new gear the old would be transferred back to the civilians that paid for the stuff to begin with. In the past the program was the DCM (Department of Civilian Marksmanship) which was a government program specifically designed to promote and carry on the fighting skill of the American riflemen. Then it was turned into the CMP (Civilian Marksmanship Program) which is private but still with the same purpose and same surplus military rifles. The problem now of course is that the second amendment has been limited (effectively repealed) to semi-automatic weapons only so civilians can’t possess anything made during or after the Viet Nam war. After reading these simple facts warning lights should now be flashing. We have been disarmed!

LaEscopeta
September 15, 2007, 12:30 PM
Even through I would like a few cheap military surplus M-16s, and I agree the tax payers should get a chance to get what we paid for after the government no longer has a use for it, I don’t think handing rifles out to the general population with no training or organization is going to do much for national defense.

I think an important part of the Swiss plan is that everyone also has mandatory military service and are theoretically trained and disciplined enough to use a rifle.Didn't the swiss just take home the rifle they were issued in service?The main difference between the Swiss and the US, is that the majority of the Swiss males who are given these arms do so when they have finished conscription duties and military training to successfully use military tactics as well as being armed.

+1. The Swiss have to complete conscripted military training to get their free rifle, the government does not just give them to any and all civilians. And I think the guys with the free rifles are part of reserve units with National-Guard-like monthly & yearly training requirements. But unlike our National Guard the Swiss reserve units are not supposed to join the regular army in time of crisis but form semi-independent insurgent units in case the country is invaded. They train around their own towns and villages, learning the land, where the good ambush spots are, where escape and hidden rally points are, etc. Not only does each member of the reserve units have a rifle and 50 rounds at home, but the units have heavier weapons, ammo and supplies hidden around their area of operations in caves, sunk in lakes, etc. And like any good insurgent army the organization is compartmentalized; one unit does not know a lot about the plans of adjacent units, so when individuals are captured there is a limited amount of information they could give the enemy. They came up with this system at the start of WWII, and once they got it set up…THEY TOLD THE NAZIES ABOUT IT! So the Nazies knew if they invaded they would have a full blown, trained, equipped and supplied insurgency attacking them through out the country, tying down who knows how many divisions.

Further info on the above:

http://frankcomment.blogspot.com/2007/05/swiss-military-service.html

http://history-switzerland.geschichte-schweiz.ch/switzerland-second-world-war-ii.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Army

http://www.strike-the-root.com/51/walker/walker1.html

http://www.semp.us/publications/biot_reader.php?BiotID=245

DCM (Department of Civilian Marksmanship) which was a government program specifically designed to promote and carry on the fighting skill of the American riflemen.I don’t think the goal of the DCM nor the current CMP is to arm groups of citizens so they can form army units to fight off an invasion. It is to encourage rifle handling and marksmanship skills through out the population, so the military would not be starting from scratch with all new recruits.

Limeyfellow
September 15, 2007, 12:59 PM
They came up with this system at the start of WWII, and once they got it set up…THEY TOLD THE NAZIES ABOUT IT! So the Nazies knew if they invaded they would have a full blown, trained, equipped and supplied insurgency attacking them through out the country, tying down who knows how many divisions.

+1 The German high command estimated they would need 5 million men to occupy Switzerland successfully. Not bad since the Swiss only had 4 million in the whole country, but an insurgency with 800000 members is not a nice easy victory for anyone.

molonlabetn
September 15, 2007, 01:24 PM
Probably something akin to a Ruger Mini-14 or Armalite AR180B. Cheap, easy to use, and chambered in .223/5.56. Maybe they'd issue some old M16A1s & A2s... but it's unlikely (they wouldn't have enough, for one thing).

woodybrighton
September 15, 2007, 02:06 PM
well can't see every able body American putting in a couple of weekends military service every year which the swiss do.
even if you live abroad your get the opportunity to qualify if the swiss government can organize a range.
in Cyprus they used a British army range they shot pistol rifle and crossbow?:eek:.
But the swiss system is based on mass conscription and citizenship very different to the American model :)

I reckon I could hear the bitching from the UK. if it was implemented.
you get a free rifle but your have to do a years conscription and until your 65 four ruck marches a year 41/2 miles out stop at a restaurant 41/2 miles back:D
thats every man (god knows what the feminists would say:D)

Limeyfellow
September 15, 2007, 04:16 PM
I guess it could work well in Britain. Then we can send the chavs on masse against overwhelming firepower and when they are wiped out we can send in real soldiers to clean up. Solve two problems with one stone.

RobTzu
September 15, 2007, 09:55 PM
I think in the urban areas an AK knock off, with the ability to fire full auto.
For rural a mix between Ak knock offs and M-14s for long range work.

MechAg94
September 16, 2007, 12:43 AM
I seriously doubt they were standardize on one rifle. They would likely require it to use military ammo such as 5.56 or 7.62, but I bet they would allow a wide range of different rifles. There would likely be some caveat that if you pick some uber cool rifle, you have to maintain it and its magazines yourself.


One thing to remember is that you are talking about something like 100 million rifles. The govt doesn't have that many surplus arms and certainly wouldn't buy them for everyone. IMHO, I would suggest allowing common military calibers as well as few common civilian calibers. 100 million men and women with 30-30 leverguns and support weapon (crew served and rocket launchers) would still be something substantial for an enemy to deal with.

kmrcstintn
September 16, 2007, 01:09 AM
well I see a few major problems...

1) federal government over-legislation will eventually ban any sort of weapon to include pointy steak knives...why stop there...they would start with ban this and ban that until even having long fingernails is considered harmful to others

2) the dominions of evil tree huggers would rally to save the trees and woodland critters that would get hurt by opening too many practice ranges that require lead management

3) my stupid state wildlife management agency (Pennsylvania Game Commission) is closing down several ranges in the area for whop knows how long and for whatever reason (?lead removal and land rehabilitation?)...we'd never have such a rifle due to the fact that there will be nowhere to practice

HorseSoldier
September 16, 2007, 01:25 AM
Never happen (and what's the point? We're never going to see invasion by a foreign power in my lifetime), but if it did, it would not make any sense to use anything but whatever the current service rifle, possibly converted to semi-auto only or produced in a semi only format.

dstorm1911
September 16, 2007, 01:26 AM
Limey fellow, I have a very good friend (in his 80s now) who was one of the Germans sent into the Swiss alps to feel out the Swiss resistance, when he seen onea my K-31s for the first time he started mutterin and swearin bout it and then told me the story... the first time he was sent he said the Officers were dropped from well over 400 yards out he ended up losing 3 toes to frost bite as did most of his fellow soldiers 8 months later he was selected to try again.... this time the officers were smarter they forced enlisted men to wear their tunics and head gear those men were immediately eliminated again without ever seeing those shooting at them and Fritz lost 3 fingers from his left hand and his pinky from his right hand to frostbite he told me he had decided if they sent him again he would shoot his own officers and then himself but the war ended before it came to that.......


The Swiss have a sealed tin with 50 rnds in it at home , when there service term is up they must return the sealed tin of ammo, they pay $80 to have their issued SG-550 converted to Semi auto and its marked with a "P" to signify private ownership and its theirs, Every soldier is issued a current issue infantry rifle and that is the only rifle they have the option of keeping when their term of service is up, doesn't matter what other weapons they might have used during their service they can keep the converted infantry rifle Ammunition is whats closly regulated in Switzerland, however they can go to the state target ranges and shoot all they want........ at the range no ammo is to leave with em, they can buy ammo but must have a permit to do so...

The Stgw-57 was relegated to Home gaurd and reserve status in I think 2000 and the SG-550 took over as the Stg-90 (Swiss designation)

.45&TKD
September 16, 2007, 02:11 AM
Never happen (and what's the point? We're never going to see invasion by a foreign power in my lifetime),

Maybe possible, according to Matt Bracken's preview of the third of his Trilogy "Foreign Enemies".

Jeff White
September 16, 2007, 02:23 AM
Maybe possible, according to Matt Bracken's preview of the third of his Trilogy "Foreign Enemies".

I haven't read any of Matt Bracken's books. But I will tell you based on 28 years 11 months service in the US Army, that no foreign power can project sufficient force far enough from it's borders to mount an invasion with a force large enough to seize and hold even a small part of this country.

Weapons must have ammunition, soldiers must eat, vehicles and aircraft must have fuel. The idea that an invading army could roll across the US border capturing the amount of food and fuel it would need to sustain operations is ridiculous. We are the worlds last superpower and the strain on our resources to support somewhere around 200,000 troops between Iraq and Afghanistan who are in a low intensity conflict is about all our nation can bear without making big changes in our way of life.

No one is physically coming for us, because no one has the resources to actually do it.

Jeff

amprecon
September 16, 2007, 02:24 AM
If the Dems were in charge? Whatever weeney weapon they could contrive would have to be P/C and include an integral ethnic and party affiliation discriminator attached.

jpwilly
September 16, 2007, 02:42 AM
I was wondering the other day, if the US had a program like Switzerland where every house had a gun, what would that rifle be like?

Yea actually they do have a plan it's called the Army National Guard. Anyone else will need to excersize their 2nd ammendment rights! But to answer your question...an M16 semi auto. I don't think they have a stockpile of anything else.

precisionshootist
September 16, 2007, 03:30 AM
Never happen (and what's the point? We're never going to see invasion by a foreign power in my lifetime),

An armed population is one of the primary forces deterring such an invasion. Our enemies know that even if they could defeat our military they would be fighting an endless and virtually unwinnable gorilla war against US Citizens.

RevolvingCylinder
September 16, 2007, 04:05 AM
We're gonna send gorillas at them!? Sure we have enough? Maybe instead guerrilla tactics should be implemented.:neener:

Firstly, there is an ongoing invasion that has been occurring for some time now(where have you been?). Secondly, the federal government views armed Americans as more of a threat than any other armed force. Hence, gun control.

.45&TKD
September 16, 2007, 05:37 AM
And yes, there will be a final novel completing the trilogy: Foreign Enemies: State of Emergency. This last book in the series will see the vestigal U.S. federal government invite foreign "peacekeepers" into America, in an attempt to regain control over the rebellious western and southern states. These states have rejected the validity of the "New Constitution," which enshrines socialist prinicples into law. Once again, the promise of U.S. citizenship and free land will be used to draw foreign enemies onto American territory. I won't be finished writing Foreign Enemies before 2008 at the earliest.

Matt Bracken - June 2007

http://matthewbracken.web.aplus.net/bookde.htm

Granted, it is fiction, but it is a fiction based on truth and real world events.

HorseSoldier
September 16, 2007, 12:33 PM
An armed population is one of the primary forces deterring such an invasion. Our enemies know that even if they could defeat our military they would be fighting an endless and virtually unwinnable gorilla war against US Citizens.

That was the original intention of the framers of the Constitution, but that was before we had a navy worth mentioning, you could fit the enture US army onto a football field and the USMC into a good sized tavern, etc.

It has little, if anything at all, to do with the modern world situation where the USN outnumbers or outshoots all its potential enemies put together, the USAF does that or better, one American army or marine division packs more firepower than a Chinese field army, etc etc etc.

The only tyrants the 2nd Amendment could conceivably be used to protect against these days are homegrown ones . . .

Firstly, there is an ongoing invasion that has been occurring for some time now(where have you been?). Secondly, the federal government views armed Americans as more of a threat than any other armed force. Hence, gun control.

Luckily, I suppose, the beaches at Ellis Island were not so well guarded when my Irish ancestors stormed ashore around 1850. Unless you're typing from an Indian reservation, any "invasion" currently occurring is nothing our ancestors collectively did not do themselves 1+ generations ago.

And every previous wave of immigrants thought the latest arrivals were the end of civilization. The Irish were going to destroy the moral fabric of this country, a generation or two later it was the Poles, then the European Jews, then the Italians, with the Chinese and Japanese thrown in there along the way doing the same thing and none of whom spoke English and all of whom just weren't like us good Americans etc.

.45&TKD
September 16, 2007, 12:42 PM
every previous wave of immigrants thought the latest arrivals were the end of civilization.

Some problems with your line of reasoning:

1) You are comparing legal immigration with illegal immigration.
2) Drugs were not being smuggled through Ellis Island. Drugs are being smuggled through our porous border.
3) This is the first time we have had this large of an immigration wave combined with a modern "welfare" state. The latest wave is not economically beneficial or sustainable.

HorseSoldier
September 16, 2007, 01:02 PM
1) You are comparing legal immigration with illegal immigration.

The concept of legal versus illegal immigration did not even exist for much of our country's history. When the concept was invented, it was always used to obstruct the arrival of the latest wave of immigrants, whoever they were, and it was always bypassed when possible by some portion of those immigrants.

Meaningless point.

2) Drugs were not being smuggled through Ellis Island. Drugs are being smuggled through our porous border.

Drugs were not smuggled through Ellis Island for the simple, and sole, reason that there were no illegal drugs at the time.

Again, meaningless point in regards to immigration. And, since most of the drugs used in this country are being used by native born Ah-Mer-Cans who fuel their importation by spending literal mountains of money to obtain them, you could completely zero out immigration, legal and illegal, and guess what? The drugs are still going to make their way into our country. Huge demand and outrageous profits for illicit substances have nothing to do with people coming to this country looking for a better future.

3) This is the first time we have had this large of an immigration wave combined with a modern "welfare" state. The latest wave is not economically beneficial or sustainable.

Really? What skin color do the guys you see putting roofs on houses and mowing lawns have? If less than half of them didn't look like extras from Apocalypto you live in a different country than me. What do you think the skin color of the guy who cooked the last meal you bought in a resturant was? If not the chef, the guy who washed your dishes and mopped the resturant floor for minimum wage?

In any case, this conversation, however knee-jerk reactionary and media-hysteria-talking points one side's comments seem to be, is entirely off topic and does not belong on Rifle board.

Pigspitter
September 16, 2007, 01:19 PM
In free America there is a magical town called Kennesaw, Georgia that requires all households to have a firearm and ammunition in them.

wcwhitey
September 16, 2007, 01:33 PM
Following WWII it was not uncommon for local Guard Armories to be overstocked in 1903's and 1917's. Our government thought about the possibility or having to arm the local population if the SHTF during the Cold War. That was then. I am not sure about currently. I would think that there has to be some sort of contingency plan for a catastrophic event. My thinking is that it would follow an order like 1. First line military 2. National Guard 3. Federal and Local Law Enforcement 4. Deputizing the citizenry. I cannot think of any other reason that they would hold in storage such large quantities or surplus. Bill

Nil
September 16, 2007, 02:47 PM
I personally see no reason why the government should arm the citizenry with weapons. If some sort of training was implemented, perhaps, but the US has no reason to fear a foreign invasion anytime in the foreseeable future.

And besides, the recent gun ownership study listed 90 firearms for every 100 Americans. While obviously a large percentage of those are in the hands of a small number of citizens with relatively large collections, if faced with circumstances that would necessitate arming the populace, I hope some of them would be magnanimous enough to part with some of them to arm their neighbors. A lone citizen with a hunting rifle would be incredibly difficult for any army to overcome if repeated tens of millions times.

Browning
September 16, 2007, 02:57 PM
Jeff White
Moderator : I haven't read any of Matt Bracken's books. But I will tell you based on 28 years 11 months service in the US Army, that no foreign power can project sufficient force far enough from it's borders to mount an invasion with a force large enough to seize and hold even a small part of this country.

Weapons must have ammunition, soldiers must eat, vehicles and aircraft must have fuel. The idea that an invading army could roll across the US border capturing the amount of food and fuel it would need to sustain operations is ridiculous. We are the worlds last superpower and the strain on our resources to support somewhere around 200,000 troops between Iraq and Afghanistan who are in a low intensity conflict is about all our nation can bear without making big changes in our way of life.

No one is physically coming for us, because no one has the resources to actually do it.

Jeff

I respect your view of the conventional military situation based on your length of service in the military, but we are in fact being invaded. For the most part it isn't by a foreign military, but we're being invaded nevertheless. We're being invaded by millions of Illegal Aliens. It's probably not a subject often talked about on THR, but it's true.

Illegal Immigration Statistics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States

The Coming Breakup Of America I
http://www.frostywooldridge.com/articles/art_2004jul07.html

The Coming Breakup Of America II
http://www.newswithviews.com/Wooldridge/frosty29.htm

Center For Immigration Studies.
http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html

Estimated Number Of Illegal Immigrants.
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/peo_est_num_of_ill_imm-people-estimated-number-illegal-immigrants

Professor Who Talks About The Possibility Of A Future War With Mexico.
http://www.aztlan.net/future_us_invasion_of_mexico.htm

This War Is Very Fresh To Many People In Mexico Because They Lost Land To The US.
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican-American_War

Mexico Plans To Block Wall Between US and Mexico.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8EK9N0G6&show_article=1

Illegal Aliens.
http://www.usillegalaliens.com/

Illegal Immigration and Gangs.
http://www.usillegalaliens.com/impacts_of_illegal_immigration_gangs.html

MS-13
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mara_Salvatrucha

Article on MS-13
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7244879/site/newsweek/

Article on MS-13
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-01-05-gang-grows_x.htm

Mexican Mafia - All Sureno Gangs answer to them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Mafia

Illegal Immigration Group.
http://www.alipac.us/article1187.html

Site That Talks About The Possibility of Conflict.
http://www.alpinesurvival.com/immigration-2.html

This is what we're really talking about isn't it? Defending the US from an invasion and what rifle that could possibly be used to do it with? Talking about armed conflict that is breaking out here and there and the increased tension in the US over the subject of illegal immigration is THE scenario most likely to result in what we're talking about isn't it? It's not a nice subject, but it seems like that's what this thread is about without actually mentioning it by name. Why dance around around the subject?

Who else would go to war with the US? Canada? Honduras? Brazil?

Is China Going To Make It Over Here If A Trade War Explodes Into A Shooting War?

Nations are often pulled into war as the result of their ethnic group having some political trouble on the other side of the border. That's what Germany used as an excuse to send troops into Czechloslovakia and then later Poland. It was the result of supposed persecution of the German minority in both of those countries.

Wouldn't Mexico at the very least help out their own people? The Republic of Ireland helped out the IRA in the beginning of the "Irish Troubles" with arms, training and money. Would Mexico do any less for their people? They might not have to send soldiers, all they have to do is provide a safe haven and arms and money the way that Laos and Cambodia did for the VC during Vietnam for an unconventional war. There are already political advocates of the State of Aztlan that want the Southwestern States of the US (California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas) to split from the US if they become the majority of the population in those States.

What would happen if the US Government tried mass arrests of Illegal Aliens in the Southwest to deport them to their country or origin? There would be huge riots and mass civil unrest wouldn't there? Who would likely fight for the Hispanics, wouldn't the Hispanic gangs jump into that role? That basically means that the US Government can't enforce it's own laws on it's own soil. Those demonstrations taught us that Illegal Immigration is a very touchy subject and it provided a glimpse into what these leftist radicals think like with their speeches in front of the cameras. Most of us saw all that on TV didn't we? I shouldn't be telling you anything new.

Vincente Fox has even made the statement that "he's proud of his people for extending the border beyond it's true borders". Mexico's military has also gone over the US border many times and has even engaged in firefights with the US Border Patrol and local law enforcement. They've kidnapped US civilians and stolen vehicles. It's not exactly an ideal situation and it's kind of weird that I'm one of the first ones to say it straight out that Mexico is likely who we'd have to defend ourselves against with these rifles that we're talking about.

Low Intensity war doesn't require a whole lot of funds or technical know how. All it requires is a cause, people to support the fighters and a country to help them obtain what they need in the way of hardware, training and a safe haven. People that want a State of Aztlan have all three from Mexico if the situation breaks out or gets any worse. Mexico doesn't even have to fight, unless the US invaded the way it did during the Mexican Civil War when they sent US Troops to chase Pancho Via.

It's either that or this. A North American Union With The US No Longer Being A Sovereign Nation.

http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-2223484/Mexico-NAFTA-and-the-prospects.html

Personally if the US does ever have to defend itself it'll probably be with M-16A2's and M4's as that's what are in US Government depots. I wonder if the US will ever defend itself from this invasion because it doesn't really seem like it has so far despite everybody knowing about it.

After I read The Boston Gun Bible I started reading the recommended reading listed in the end of that book. That book led me to Civil War II : The Coming Breakup Of America by Thomas Chittum. The title describes itself pretty well. It's not a racist book, just one guys observations about the current situation and he compares it to other countries that exploded into civil war. That book then led me to both of Matthew Brackens books which are basically the same scenario only in novel form. All three are great books and people interested in the subject should buy them.

wdlsguy
September 16, 2007, 03:33 PM
It would take an act of Congress in order to dispense surplus M16's to the civvy population, literally.
They could always rebuild the lowers with semi-auto receivers and fire control groups.

Float Pilot
September 16, 2007, 04:31 PM
1. According to the founding fathers we are all members of the citizen militia.

2. As such, it is your / our responsibility to possess and be proficient with a military style firearm similar or the same as that used by the standing Army.

3. The enemies of our Republic may be foreign or domestic.

4. Some of our enemies come under different names, Apathy, Corruption, Crime, Treason and so on..


A rabid rat from your own back yard, can bite just as bad as one from across the border.

qbpc
September 16, 2007, 05:24 PM
This is easy depends on what politician in high power has a spouse, parent, brother, sister, or what ever invested in an arms manufacture. You all are looking at it with common sense not political logic.:evil:

BB

woof
September 16, 2007, 05:47 PM
Whatever it was there would be a lot of them available on the street the next day for ten bucks or a bottle of cheap liquor each.

.45&TKD
September 16, 2007, 07:23 PM
Browning,

Good point. I had not taken my thinking quite that far, but Mexico is the most likely foreign power that might engage us on our soil. And we have gone to war with Mexico in the past.

Browning
September 16, 2007, 07:31 PM
Thanks .45&TKD, it's kind of a weird thought, but it could happen.

That doesn't mean that it will happen, but it seems the most likely out of the various possibilities since they would have a vested interest in what goes on with their population which is just over the border. All it would really take for the situation to come to this would be if they elected a leftist leaning President who believed in such things. Or perhaps even a revolution, it's happened there before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_revolution

The PRI Party in Mexico doesn't have a monopoly on just being shoe in's into power anymore, it's up for grabs every time now. Perhaps the next time they'll get someone more radical like Chavez is in Venezuela.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_general_election,_2006

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felipe_Calder%C3%B3n

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andr%C3%A9s_Manuel_L%C3%B3pez_Obrador

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_Mexico

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5309700.stm

Up until recently I knew nothing about their political process. It really isn't all that stable there.

Other than China I can't think of another country other than Mexico that we'd have to worry about right now where we'd actually have to worry about them actually invading the US (or fighting a low intensity war on our soil when they're a large segment of the population which amounts to the same thing).

We could get into a conflict with North Korea or Iran, but I can't see them trying to invade. How would those two even get here? Any conflict with those two would be fought on their soil, not ours. They might be able to launch missles at the US or something, but not a ground war.

HorseSoldier
September 16, 2007, 08:48 PM
Wouldn't Mexico at the very least help out their own people? The Republic of Ireland helped out the IRA in the beginning of the "Irish Troubles" with arms, training and money. Would Mexico do any less for their people?

Doubtful. Mexico's economy is entirely too dependent on trade with the US. Low intensity warfare in the SW USA, even before considering any economic sanctions against Mexico, is bad for business. Add to that the economic vitality of el Norte to the Mexican economy as well, right where its utterly vulnerable to interdiction, air strikes, raids from the US and whatever else and we're really and truly into fantasy land with this "Mexico versus the US" silliness.

There are already political advocates of the State of Aztlan that want the Southwestern States of the US (California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas) to split from the US if they become the majority of the population in those States.


And the hippies wanted us all to live in Wigwams and wear roman sandles or whatever. Aztlan advocates tend to be hippie analogs, only latino ones -- second or third generation immigrants, probably in college or with some college education, and affluent enough to waste their time on ridiculous ideas. Also like the hippies, they enjoy scaring the establishment.

As for real Mexican immigrants and migrant workers? The "Invaders" under discussion? You think they want the carve part of the US off the map and align it with Mexico? :rolleyes: Are you nuts? You think they haven't figured out that Mexican government or Mexican style government is why they can't find a job that pays more than pennies a day back home (if they can find one at all)?

buck00
September 16, 2007, 09:14 PM
no foreign power can project sufficient force far enough from it's borders to mount an invasion with a force large enough to seize and hold even a small part of this country.

I agree.

There is a popular myth Japan would have "made it to Chicago" if they had invaded the west coast in December 1941- not true. And the other myth is Hitler could have or would have invaded the U.S. eventually- never. Not only was the intention not there, but the sheer logisitcs would have been impossible.

The concept of invading another country, occupying, and ruling it is more or less an antiquated concept now. The benefits are far outweighed by the risks and costs.

* I would be more worried about America rotting from within than being invaded from afar.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." - Abraham Lincoln

Neo-Luddite
September 16, 2007, 09:39 PM
The closest thing (as said) is the DCM-now CMP. It is a bona-fide miracle of devine grace and crafty politics, that the whole program wasn't canned under Clinton.

Anti's are quite simple minded for the most part--and look at all those '03's, M-1's, and M-1 Carbines as non-threatening curios and relics.

And good for them.

RevolvingCylinder
September 16, 2007, 09:50 PM
You think they haven't figured out that Mexican government or Mexican style government is why they can't find a job that pays more than pennies a day back home (if they can find one at all)?
Apparently not as they crowd the Western Unions to send half their paychecks "home". The demonstrations involve much Mexican flag waving and criticism of the US and the demand for our government to change and there is no criticism of the Mexican regime. That would make me thing that loyalties lie elsewhere.

Now to get back to the question at hand, Amendment II of the US Constitution established a system in which the citizenry purchased and own their owned military firearms to provide for the defense of this country. That has since been revoked by the federal government and further violated by some state governments. Now the militia is no longer well regulated but is instead not as well equipped as any potential enemy which goes against the very purpose of the Second Amendment.

HorseSoldier
September 16, 2007, 10:38 PM
Apparently not as they crowd the Western Unions to send half their paychecks "home".

Wow, sending money home to the wife and kids does prove nefarious intent and a desire to see the western US under Mexican dominion. I've been so blind all these years. :rolleyes:

Browning
September 16, 2007, 11:44 PM
HorseSoldier : Doubtful. Mexico's economy is entirely too dependent on trade with the US.

That couldn't ever change?

Isn't China rising as a super power? I've read and heard these Mexican radicals talk and write about how much they admire China and that they might try and get political and economic backing from China when the time comes.

Just because the Mexican economic situation is like that now doesn't mean that it will always be so.

This is the economic state that Mexico is in right now. You're just not trying to envision what it'll be like in 20, 30, 40 or 50 years. I'm not talking about a year from now, I'm talking about a ways off in the future. Besides, war is not always bad for an economy and just because Mexico is dependent on the US right now does not always mean that it will be so. Maybe they'll recieve backing from China and maybe they won't, but they aren't looking to the US to hold their hand forever.

1994 Economic Crisis in Mexico.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_economic_crisis_in_Mexico

Mexico Got into a bind economically when it tried to reach too far, too fast.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_Mexico

While the crisis took place under President Zedillo, the causes are usually attributed to Carlos Salinas de Gortari's outgoing administration. Salinas de Gortari partly coined the term "December Mistake" when he stated in an interview that Zedillo's sudden reversal of the former administrative policies of tight currency controls was "a mistake." It must be mentioned that Salinas de Gortari's popularity and credibility at the time was still high; even though his government's currency policy put an unbelievable strain on the nation's finances, the resulting economic bubble gave Mexico a prosperity not seen in a generation. This period of rapid growth coupled with low inflation prompted some political thinkers and the media to state that "Mexico was on the verge of becoming a First World nation.", and in fact, it was the first of the "newly industrialized nations" to be admitted into the OECD in May 1994.

As in prior election cycles, a pre-election disposition to stimulate the economy temporarily and unsustainably led to a self-fulfilling prophesy of post-election economic instability. Well before this, there were concerns of the sheer level and quality of credit extended by banks during the preceding low-interest rate period, as well as the standards for extending credit. Credit booms often precede credit busts. Later on, the country's risk premium was also affected by an armed rebellion in Chiapas which made investors even more wary of investing their money in an unstable region. The Mexican government's finances and cash availability were further hampered by two decades of increasing spending, debt loads, and low oil prices. It's ability to absorb shocks was hampered by its commitments to finance past spending.

It was a known fact that the peso was overvalued (by at least 20%, according to some sources), but the extent of the Mexican economy's vulnerability was either not well-known or downplayed by Salinas de Gortari's tame políticos and media. Nonetheless this vulnerability was further aggravated by several unexpected events and macroeconomic mistakes of his administration.

Economists Hufbauer and Schott (2005) have commented on several events in 1994, and the macroeconomic policy mistakes that precipitated the crisis:

1994 was the last year of the sexenio or 6-year administration of Carlos Salinas de Gortari who, following the PRI tradition on every election year, launched an amazingly high spending splurge, which translated into a historically high deficit
In order to finance the historical deficit (a 7% of GDP current account deficit) Salinas issued the Tesobonos, an attractive type of debt instrument that was denominated in pesos but indexed to dollars
Mexico experienced (common to those days) lax banking or corrupt practices; moreover, some members of the Salinas family (though only his brother, Raúl, was imprisoned) collected enormous illicit payoffs
The most-likely-to-win candidate, Luis Donaldo Colosio, was assassinated in March of that year; a couple of months later José Francisco Ruiz Massieu, in charge of the investigation, was assassinated as well
The EZLN, an insurgent rebellion, officially declared war on the government on 1 January; even though the armed conflict ended two weeks later, the grievances and petitions remained a cause of concern, especially amongst some investors.
All of these, and the increasing current account deficit fostered by consumer binding and government spending, caused alarm amongst savvy investors that had bought the tesobonos, mainly Mexican and a few foreigners, who sold them rapidly, depleting the already low central bank reserves. The economically orthodox thing to do, in order to maintain the fixed exchange rate functioning (at 3.3 pesos per dollar, within a variation band), would have been to sharply increase interest rates by allowing the monetary base to shrink, as dollars were being withdrawn from the reserves (Hufbauer & Schott, 2005).

China-who might be their savior. Then again they may not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Republic_of_China

Low intensity warfare in the SW USA, even before considering any economic sanctions against Mexico, is bad for business.
Add to that the economic vitality of el Norte to the Mexican economy as well, right where its utterly vulnerable to interdiction, air strikes, raids from the US and whatever else and we're really and truly into fantasy land with this "Mexico versus the US" silliness.

If you're trying to argue that there will be no war between Mexico and the US or a civil war involving a significan portion of the Hispanic population just because it's bad for business then think again. This is what Ludwig von Mises had to say on the subject that you're talking about (war being bad for the economy).

Quote from LVM from this site.
http://www.mises.org/nsande/pt2ch4.asp

About Ludwig Von Mises.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises

His Economic Institute.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises_Institute

Nation, State, and Economy

Ludwig Von Mises

The Economy's War Costs and the Inflation

The losses that the national economy suffers from war, apart from the disadvantages that exclusion from world trade entails, consist of the destruction of goods by military actions, of the consumption of war material of all kinds, and of the loss of productive labor that the persons drawn into military service would have rendered in their civilian activities. Further losses from loss of labor occur insofar as the number of workers is lastingly reduced by the number of the fallen and as the survivors become less fit in consequence of injuries suffered, hardships undergone, illnesses suffered, and worsened nutrition. These losses are only to the slightest degree offset by the fact that the war works as a dynamic factor and spurs the population to improve the technique of production. Even the increase in the number of workers that has taken place in the war by drawing on the otherwise unused labor of women and children and by extension of hours of work, as well as the saving achieved by limitation of consumption, still does not counterbalance them, so that the economy finally comes out of the war with a considerable loss of wealth. Economically considered, war and revolution are always bad business, unless such an improvement of the production process of the national economy results from them that the additional amount of goods produced after the war can compensate for the losses of the war. The socialist who is convinced that the socialist order of society will multiply the productivity of the economy may think little of the sacrifices that the social revolution will cost.

But even a war that is disadvantageous for the world economy can enrich individual nations or states. If the victorious state is able to lay such burdens on the vanquished that not only all of its war costs are thereby covered but a surplus is acquired also, then the war has been advantageous for it. The militaristic idea rests on the belief that such war gains are possible and can be lastingly held. A people that believes that it can gain its bread more easily by waging war than by work can hardly be convinced that it is more pleasing to God to suffer injustice than to commit injustice. The theory of militarism can be refuted; if, however, one cannot refute it, one cannot, by appeal to ethical factors, persuade the stronger party to forgo the use of its power.

The pacifistic line of argument goes too far if it simply denies that a people can gain by war. Criticism of militarism must begin by raising the question whether the victor can then definitely count on always remaining the stronger or whether he must not fear being displaced by still stronger parties. The militaristic argumentation can defend itself from objections raised against it from this point of view only if it starts with the assumption of unchangeable race characters. The members of the higher race, who behave according to pacifistic principles among themselves, hold firmly together against the lower races that they are striving to subjugate and thus assure themselves eternal predominance. But the possibility that differences will arise among the members of the higher races, leading part of their members to join with the lower races in battle against the remaining members of the higher ones, itself shows the danger of the militaristic state of affairs for all parties.

In any case, not too much economic insight is needed to recognize that a war means at least direct destruction of goods, and misery. It was dear to everyone that the very outbreak of the war had to bring harmful interruptions in business life on the whole, and in Germany and Austria at the beginning of August 1914 people faced the future with fear. Astonishingly, however, things seemed to work otherwise. Instead of the expected crisis came a period of good business; instead of decline, boom. People found that war was prosperity; businessmen who, before the war, were thoroughly peace-minded and were always reproached by the friends of war for the anxiety that they were always showing at every flare-up of war rumors now began to reconcile themselves to the war. All at once there were no longer any unsalable products, enterprises that for years had run only at a loss yielded rich profits. Unemployment, which had assumed a menacing extent in the first days and weeks of the war, disappeared completely, and wages rose. The entire economy presented the picture of a gratifying boom. Soon writers appeared who sought to explain the causes of this boom.[10]

Read the entire article and tell me what you think.

It can be in a PM or on here. Or don't tell me what you think if you don't want to, but I'd be interested in whatever you had to say on the subject. To my way of thinking Von Mises is saying in that article is that economics really doesn't matter in war if you're past a certain point economically. Read the whole article if you like as I wasn't going to print the whole thing.

To me what he's saying is that wars always have a way of being fought and that the rich industrialists always have a way of getting rich. He's also saying in there that whether there was money or not, people would still make weapons to fight wars as whether they have money or not, they still have the materials to make them.

A good economy won't prevent a war just because people are making money and neither will a poor one because people will still find a way of profiting from it as well. We may be having fun in consumer bliss enjoying our wide screen TV's and computers, but there can still be war no matter what.

The "It Can't Happen Here" syndrome won't prevent it from happening.

And the hippies wanted us all to live in Wigwams and wear roman sandles or whatever. Aztlan advocates tend to be hippie analogs, only latino ones -- second or third generation immigrants, probably in college or with some college education, and affluent enough to waste their time on ridiculous ideas. Also like the hippies, they enjoy scaring the establishment.

So you're saying that just because radicals are educated then they become less dangerous rather than more? I seem to remember American Communist students in the 1960's and 70's that blew up buildings, shot people, robbed banks, rioted in the streets and cause all manner of mayhem. They were educated and many of them recieved advanced degrees.

If you doubt me do a search on the United Freedom Front or The Weather Underground. In the UFF most of them were college graduates who recieved Bachelors and Masters degrees. They went on to rob 20 something banks, bombed various targets and killed a policeman.

The Weather Underground wasn't made up entirely of former college student like the UFF was, but most of them were college students at one time or another and many of them were well educated. They bombed targets, robbed banks and killed several policemen and some armored car guards.

The terrorists in the Italian Red Brigades and the German Red Army Faction were well educated as well and most of them met at college. So were the radicals that tore apart the countries of Brazil, Columbia, Uruguay and several other South American countries for years with political violence.

Is that still your argument that just because they're leftist students that they can't be violent?

As for real Mexican immigrants and migrant workers? The "Invaders" under discussion?
I've argued and talked with alot of Mexican-Americans when I worked construction when I was younger about why they were here in the US illegally. They told me that this country used to belong to Mexico and that it would again. That's what alot of the regular Mexican-Americans believe. If you don't believe me, ask some of them.

They believe that they have every right to be here despite the fact that they're violating the law. They believe that the Southwestern US is their country and they intend on taking it back. Haven't you ever talked to a Mexican-American about this subject?

You think they want the carve part of the US off the map and align it with Mexico? Are you nuts?

I never said that. From the things that I've read they want to set up the Republic del Norte or Republic of the North which would be separate from Mexico. They don't want to return the territory to the Mexicans, they just don't want to be part of the US.

In order to understand the situation you have to understand how wealthy and well to do Mexicans and the Mexican elite view Illegal Immigration into the US. Basically they need the pressure release. Releasing poor people into the US is taking some of the pressure off of them. The people (Illegals) don't want to be there and they see more opportunities in the US and Mexican elites don't want them back as if they stayed then the poor Mexican people might eventually demand some kind of reform or revolt against the corruption the way that they did during the Mexican Revolution. It's just a large safety valve to release some of the pressure on the Mexican government. It works out for them both if they come to the US, then those people are the US's problem. It just doesn't work out that well for the American people, but who cares about us right?

Wikipedia on Aztlan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aztl%C3%A1n

Wikipedia on MECHA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MEChA

Who is MECHA
http://www.mayorno.com/WhoIsMecha.html

Professor Predicts Hispanic Homeland.
http://www.aztlan.net/homeland.htm

The Nation of Aztlan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajkAP_M4ZAM

Aztlan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auo4shn_cJQ

Aztlan Rising
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCCVUot-hBo

Cost Of Illegal Immigration
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cY6t2ckpb5g

Mexican Corruption Spurs Illegal Immigration.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zvm4A9IZytM

Republic Del Norte
http://www.unm.edu/~ecdn/socialcontract.html

You think they haven't figured out that Mexican government or Mexican style government is why they can't find a job that pays more than pennies a day back home (if they can find one at all)?

When people want war and are angry, economics seems to take a backseat in peoples emotions. But like Ludwig Von Mises talks about, just because there's a war on does not mean that the economic situation will become bleak. You're just having trouble envisioning the situation many years from now, as you're looking at the situation NOW.

Limeyfellow
September 16, 2007, 11:56 PM
What would happen if the US Government tried mass arrests of Illegal Aliens in the Southwest to deport them to their country or origin?

Its not like they haven't tried to do this before. In the great depression they tried to force out alot of Mexican settlers so they wouldn't be on the breadlines. They went as far to creating tax stamps for Marijuana ownership to pressure the population and round up thousands and sent them across the border. It didn't lead to any low intensity wars.

Even when WW1 veterans marched on Washington DC to demand the money Hoover offered and Patton ordered a bayonet charge on them, that didn't lead to any war.

The masacres of students and union workers on a dozen occassions over the past 120 years never led to any conflicts.

Even the civil rights struggle of the 50s, assassinations and so on didn't really do much disturbance.

The most we tend to see is short time rioting and looting.

dstorm1911
September 16, 2007, 11:56 PM
Buck 00, guess ya haven't noticed Iraq the last 5 years? Maybe ya outa point out that Antiquated concept to Bush

Browning
September 17, 2007, 01:26 AM
Limeyfellow : Its not like they haven't tried to do this before. In the great depression they tried to force out alot of Mexican settlers so they wouldn't be on the breadlines. They went as far to creating tax stamps for Marijuana ownership to pressure the population and round up thousands and sent them across the border. It didn't lead to any low intensity wars.

Even when WW1 veterans marched on Washington DC to demand the money Hoover offered and Patton ordered a bayonet charge on them, that didn't lead to any war.The masacres of students and union workers on a dozen occassions over the past 120 years never led to any conflicts.

Even the civil rights struggle of the 50s, assassinations and so on didn't really do much disturbance. The most we tend to see is short time rioting and looting.

When's the last time that a government tried to expel upwards of 20 million people from states as big as Texas, California, New Mexico and Arizona without war or civil war? Or when did an ethnic population in a certain section of a country that's different from the rest of a nation decide that it was in their best interest to stay apart of that nation?

Eventually given enough time doesn't every large ethnic population that comprises a majority in a certain region decide that they can go it alone or that they should at least have some sort of addition autonomy?

Almost every nation in Europe has answered these same questions at one time or another and usually a split within that nation or increased independence for that region of the country as a condition of them staying within that nation is the order of the day.

The things that you're talking about are much smaller scale.

People riot, throw stuff, burn buildings and get themselves arrested over the various situations and conditions that you're talking about, but they usually don't start wars. Wars are usually over territory and in reducing a potential violent threat to the population of a nation or a specific region. In this case both of those items apply and could be cause for conflict.

dstorm1911
September 17, 2007, 02:14 AM
Browning, what part of TX are ya in?

Here in Southern AZ there are "rumors" of of many shootouts between drug smugglers and ranchers or property owners, the Rumors are that many are hiring private contractors to protect some of the larger ranch properties, the number of stolen vehicles being found abandoned out in the middle of nowhere has increased lately sometimes with drugs still in em no trace of the smugglers though...... Last year one particular group actually had a wannabe sniper shoot up my house because I've stuck it out way out here right in the middle of their best rout through the area makin a point of makin smuggler travel very difficult.... at least inconvenient, in the last couple years the smugglers both in drugs and people have gotten more bold in fireing on USA citizens that happen onto em

Browning
September 17, 2007, 02:19 AM
dstorm1911 : Browning, what part of TX are ya in?

DFW right now, but that'll be changing soon to Washington State.

dstorm1911
September 17, 2007, 02:43 AM
Ahh your a lil more sheilded at least as opposed to those around San Anton or Laredo Brownsville Eagle pass Ochoa etc.. I run into those areas alot with the Road truck, the outfit my trucks are leased to is based in Desoto so I spend alota time in the DFW area in fact onea my trucks is sitting in the lot behind Military Gun Supply right this minute another is in Mesquite... and a third is sittin in the T/A truckstop out on 20

.45&TKD
September 17, 2007, 05:39 AM
Last year one particular group actually had a wannabe sniper shoot up my house because I've stuck it out way out here right in the middle of their best rout through the area makin a point of makin smuggler travel very difficult.... at least inconvenient

dstorm1911, God help you!

HorseSoldier, The hypothetical is already a reality for some of us.

Browning
September 17, 2007, 12:34 PM
dstorm1911 : Ahh your a lil more sheilded at least as opposed to those around San Anton or Laredo Brownsville Eagle pass Ochoa etc.. I run into those areas alot with the Road truck, the outfit my trucks are leased to is based in Desoto so I spend alota time in the DFW area in fact onea my trucks is sitting in the lot behind Military Gun Supply right this minute another is in Mesquite... and a third is sittin in the T/A truckstop out on 20

Yeah, a little bit.

It's a nice area where I'm at.

I grew up in California where I wasn't shielded at all.

I like it here much better.

But in the near future we're moving to Washington.

I've been there a few times before, it's beautiful.

WuzYoungOnceToo
September 17, 2007, 01:08 PM
Even if the US were faced with invasion by a large Army than mass conscription would be the answer.
Unless we're talking about some post-apocalyptic, relatively primitive state of affairs...the reality is, if the U.S. were ever faced with invasion by a large army then this would be the most likely answer:

http://tinyurl.com/2vd88x

Browning
September 17, 2007, 01:45 PM
But I've said enough about Mexico and what such a Civil Defense Rifle could be used if that kind of thing did happen, but wasn't there some cheap and easily made rifle that could be put into production if there needed to be a simple and easily made rifle for Civil Defense use?

I seem to remember some various militaries coming up with a rifle that matched that.

So I made a search while doing this post. These are all the last ditch and counter-insurgency weapons that I could think of. Most were made during WWII. I'm not sure how well they worked, but they might get off a couple shots to get a soldier or fighter a new gun off a wounded or dead soldier shot dead with one of these guns.

Type 99 Japanese Rifles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_99_rifle

http://www.diggerhistory.info/images/weapons-ww2-jap/rifles-jap.jpg

Last Ditch Japanese Rifles.
http://www.gunsnet.net/forums/showthread.php?t=245954

The Liberator
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FP-45_Liberator

http://www.psywar.org/psywar/images/liberator.jpg

Proposed Counter-Insurgency Shotgun Never Put Into Production.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurgency_weapon

CIA "Deer Gun".
http://www.securityarms.com/20010315/galleryfiles/0900/968.htm

http://kr.img.blog.yahoo.com/ybi/1/dc/67/funnyblog/folder/1610412/img_1610412_1275581_4?1172470456.jpg

Viet Cong Type K-50
http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com/j/K-50M.jpg

Couldn't find any links of the K-50 Viet Cong submachinegun, but here's one on improvised submachineguns in the Phillipines.
http://illegaleconomy.com/firearms/faithful_replicas_of_guns_and_rifles_produced.php

EMP-44
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EMP_44

EMP-44
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/29/EMP_44_(Shark1982).jpg/250px-EMP_44_(Shark1982).jpg

Volkssturmgewehr Assault Rifle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkssturmgewehr_1-5

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ru/thumb/6/6d/FG-45.jpg/300px-FG-45.jpg

The Panzerfaust.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzerfaust

http://www.lonesentry.com/german_antitank/pics/xgerman_antitank19_panzerfaust_klein.jpg


And then last but not least the Sten Gun
http://www.diggerhistory.info/images/weapons-ww2-allied/sten.jpg

http://stenguns.tripod.com/

There must be some rifles that would meet this definition, but the AK-47 and the SAR 80 (AR-180 copy) made in Singapore are the only ones that really fit the definition that I can find.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAR-80

SAR-80 Made In Singapore.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/c7/Rifle_SAR80.jpg/300px-Rifle_SAR80.jpg

This One Needs No Introduction
http://photos.state.gov/libraries/475/09a06/090806-ak47-200.jpg

Does anyone know if there are any rifles or plans of assault rifles that are or could be made specifically for using as a counter-insurgency or as a last ditch firearm that are made currently?

From what I understand the AR-180 is cheap and it's supposedly easy to make, but I guess that there are probably alot of small arms in US Military Depots somewhere if the US Military really wanted to hand them out.

Or maybe something like this with a polymer reciever.
http://www.cavalryarms.com/MKII.html

Nothing right now currently made is probably as cheap as an AK though.

They seem to have low cost down to a science for the AK.

Browning
September 17, 2007, 01:54 PM
WuzYoungOnceToo : Even if the US were faced with invasion by a large Army than mass conscription would be the answer.

Unless we're talking about some post-apocalyptic, relatively primitive state of affairs...the reality is, if the U.S. were ever faced with invasion by a large army then this would be the most likely answer.

The PC US Military bomb civilians that are concentrated in urban areas WITHIN the continental US? :eek:

That would be a great way to get the Dems and Liberals up in arms.

It would be dubbed an atrocity and we'd never hear about anything else.

Kind of doubtful in my opinion.

They're hesitant to bomb anywhere near Iraqi civilians now and they aren't even in the US.

Imagine what they'd be like if it was in the US.

Sheepish is the word that comes to mind.

WuzYoungOnceToo
September 17, 2007, 03:27 PM
The PC US Military bomb civilians that are concentrated in urban areas WITHIN the continental US?
Who said anything about boming civilians - or anything else - in the U.S.? You're assuming a great deal from a very non-specific stock photo.

My point was that any *attempt* by a large military force to invade the U.S. would likely be met with a nuclear response before the invasion took place, and that such a response would be used both against the advancing military force as well as military targets in its homeland. After all, it's not like a large invading force would have the ability to just sneak up on us without detection by us well in advance of their arrival in U.S. territory.

You do know that "Red Dawn" was just a movie based on an incredibly implausible plot, don't you?

KBintheSLC
September 17, 2007, 03:59 PM
I don't think that handing out battle rifles to every Thomas, Richard, and Harold is the answer. Maybe we could start by giving service men/women their issued guns after the completion of service. That's real "Homeland Defense"... imagine actually having real soldiers... in the homeland... defending.

precisionshootist
September 21, 2007, 02:13 AM
RevolvingCylinder

We're gonna send gorillas at them!? Sure we have enough? Maybe instead guerrilla tactics should be implemented.

Yes we would use gorillas! Scares the hell out of um! :D

Firstly, there is an ongoing invasion that has been occurring for some time now(where have you been?).

Been right here in Texas, and yes I agree totally, we are being invaded. We need to start using that term more often because that’s exactly what is going on. The invaders are not “Undocumented Workers” they are Criminal Aliens. I love it when we hear they are doing jobs Americans won’t do. I guess before this invasion we never had roofs over our heads, never had cooked food in restaurants and never mowed the lawn because it was beneath us to do so. These criminals are NOT making our country stronger, they are in fact a major drain on the economy.

If you enjoyed reading about "Civil Defense Rifle" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!