If budgets are bare...what's a citizen to do?

[amlevin]

imported post

Dave Workman wrote:

If budgets are bare...what's a citizen to do?

When it comes to Government, especially in Washington State, the term "Bare Budget"is somewhat of an oxymoron.

The day I see a budget from our State Legislature that only provides for basic governmental services, and not a lot of "feel good" or "special interest" programs I will be astonished. It isn't going to happen in my lifetime unless everyone gets of their (whatever they are sitting on) and starts voting out the incumbents.

Obama was right when he said we needed "change". If we're not carefull all we will have is SMALL change.

Wouldn't it be nice to see Olympia write a budget that started out by fully funding Law Enforcement, Education, and Transportation. If any money was left then they could parcel it out to "safety net" programs but only for those that CAN"T work, not for those that WON'T? Do this all with a revenue program that rides on the State's existing taxes. Same program for Cities and Counties.

If the Government doesn't stop trying to be everything to everybody, soon it will be bankrupt and THAT brings on something none of us want to see.

 

[slowfiveoh]

imported post

For those making the AK vs M4 commentary.

I only partially agree, and that is based on the M4's shorter barrel length affecting 5.56 ballistics. Most notably, muzzle energy. An M16A2 is a TREMENDOUS firearm, capable of some heroic shots.


If you will recall, there was an actual investigation into the Marine/Spec ops kills in Fallujah. Kills that would not have happened from behind an overgassed, floppy, mud gun like the Ak47.

When being ambushed, especially after, say, an IED, it is important to be able to put rounds on target regardless of distance. Often these distances exceed 200+ meters, and present very brief engagement opportunities as targets pop in and out of view.

You do NOT want an AK for these scenarios. While it is the superior firearm for 150m or less distances, it pays for such power by being horridly inaccurate 250+m out.

People need to keep this in perspective. You cannot have the sheer destructive power of the 7.62x39, in a fully automatic, offset-bolt weapon, and expect it to be acceptable at range, especially in comparison to the M16 and its variants.

Although I do agree that for CQB, there needs to be a better alternative than an M4. I also think the step to the M240B is the proper one for suppression, while the M249 still has utility on the battlefield as well.


Anyways. I believe that companies like Kel-Tec and Hi-point are awesome for making available a reliable, and affordable personal defense solution.

I am very much considering getting a Kel-Tec.

 

[oneeyeross]

imported post

With reference to the 5.56/7.62X39 argument....there is data to support that NEITHER are the best round in Afghanistan. The general feeling among most GIs that I've talked to is the the 5.56 just doesn't do the job.

In fact, this is a good read on that subject:
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA512331&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

Taking Back the Infantry Half Kilometer

"Operations in Afghanistan frequently require United States ground forces to engage and destroy the enemy, often at ranges beyond 300 meters. These operations occur in rugged terrain and in situations where traditional supporting fires are limited due to range or risk of collateral damage. With these limitations, the infantry in Afghanistan require a precise, lethal fire capability that exists only in a properly trained and equipped infantryman. The thesis of this paper is that while the infantryman is ideally suited for combat in Afghanistan, his current weapons, doctrine and marksmanship training do not provide a precise, lethal fire capability to 500 meters and are therefore inappropriate."


(Interesting note: The marines, who did not go to the shorter barrel M4, but stayed with the 20" M16, don't have as many issues as the Army....hmm...)

 

[killchain]

imported post

oneeyeross wrote:

With reference to the 5.56/7.62X39 argument....there is data to support that NEITHER are the best round in Afghanistan. The general feeling among most GIs that I've talked to is the the 5.56 just doesn't do the job.

In fact, this is a good read on that subject:
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA512331&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

Taking Back the Infantry Half Kilometer

"Operations in Afghanistan frequently require United States ground forces to engage and destroy the enemy, often at ranges beyond 300 meters. These operations occur in rugged terrain and in situations where traditional supporting fires are limited due to range or risk of collateral damage. With these limitations, the infantry in Afghanistan require a precise, lethal fire capability that exists only in a properly trained and equipped infantryman. The thesis of this paper is that while the infantryman is ideally suited for combat in Afghanistan, his current weapons, doctrine and marksmanship training do not provide a precise, lethal fire capability to 500 meters and are therefore inappropriate."


(Interesting note: The marines, who did not go to the shorter barrel M4, but stayed with the 20" M16, don't have as many issues as the Army....hmm...)

That may be true, the whole M16/M4 argument... but my personal experience was that every M16 I had was a turd, but every M4 I had was a workhorse.

But, YMMV.

 

[oneeyeross]

imported post

I never had an M16 that was a turd, and was retired before I had to go to the M4.

BUT....I can't imagine cutting four inches off the barrel did much for the ballistics at ranges over 250 meters. It might be great in an urban setting, but I really like something that can reach out and touch some one at a longer range...7.62X51 or .30-'06.

 

[slowfiveoh]

imported post

oneeyeross wrote:

With reference to the 5.56/7.62X39 argument....there is data to support that NEITHER are the best round in Afghanistan. The general feeling among most GIs that I've talked to is the the 5.56 just doesn't do the job...

The issue taken with the AK, and more notably its 7.62x39 round, is its horrible ballistics at ranges of greater than 300m.

Even though kinetic energy transfer isn't that great with the 5.56 at longer ranges, at least you can hit what you are aiming at with regularity.

I am thinking the 6.5 or 6.8 may be the best solution to the "one size to fit all" question.

 

[killchain]

imported post

oneeyeross wrote:

I never had an M16 that was a turd, and was retired before I had to go to the M4.

BUT....I can't imagine cutting four inches off the barrel did much for the ballistics at ranges over 250 meters. It might be great in an urban setting, but I really like something that can reach out and touch some one at a longer range...7.62X51 or .30-'06.

Well, to be fair that's what I used it for.

I never shot my M4 over 300m. For a longer shot like that, hell yeah I'll grab my Mosin Nagant.

 

[Aaron1124]

imported post

I do agree with creating strictly volunteer police forces that consist of citizens, especially for small towns that cannot afford a full time, commissioned police force. The only issue with that, is that there would have to be some sort of strict organization among it. It can't just be a casual citizen patrolling the neighborhood while armed. They'll need to be formally trained very similar to how commissioned officers are.

I don't agree with a complete abolishment of our police force. I feel there are certainly circumstances where they're needed, when regular citizens aren't properly trained to handle the matters, and don't have the proper technology to do so.. these could be anything from hostage situations, heists, domestic terrorism, etc.

 

[Washintonian_For_Liberty]

imported post

Aaron1124 wrote:

I do agree with creating strictly volunteer police forces that consist of citizens, especially for small towns that cannot afford a full time, commissioned police force. The only issue with that, is that there would have to be some sort of strict organization among it. It can't just be a casual citizen patrolling the neighborhood while armed. They'll need to be formally trained very similar to how commissioned officers are.

I don't agree with a complete abolishment of our police force. I feel there are certainly circumstances where they're needed, when regular citizens aren't properly trained to handle the matters, and don't have the proper technology to do so.. these could be anything from hostage situations, heists, domestic terrorism, etc.

Yes, this is called a Sheriff deputizing citizens to act on his or her behalf to help with law enforcement. We need only a bare bones force... and a citizen preparedness group that would help train and prepare citizens for the time when they are needed. Basically, what we need are citizen militias.

 

[killchain]

imported post

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

Aaron1124 wrote:

I do agree with creating strictly volunteer police forces that consist of citizens, especially for small towns that cannot afford a full time, commissioned police force. The only issue with that, is that there would have to be some sort of strict organization among it. It can't just be a casual citizen patrolling the neighborhood while armed. They'll need to be formally trained very similar to how commissioned officers are.

I don't agree with a complete abolishment of our police force. I feel there are certainly circumstances where they're needed, when regular citizens aren't properly trained to handle the matters, and don't have the proper technology to do so.. these could be anything from hostage situations, heists, domestic terrorism, etc.

Yes, this is called a Sheriff deputizing citizens to act on his or her behalf to help with law enforcement. We need only a bare bones force... and a citizen preparedness group that would help train and prepare citizens for the time when they are needed. Basically, what we need are citizen militias.

Isn't that what the Selective Service is?

My main problem with the ultra-conservative view of "stop funding and/or kill gubmint" is the fact that we NEED a military. An organized, trained, and funded military.

EDIT: To clarify, I'm talking about the issue of ending government spending. My point is if we decide we should abolish a program (for example, Medicare) then why not just go full bore and get rid of it all?

I don't think it's wise at all. The Internet you are using right now is piggybacking on infrastructure the government made, and you drive on the roads the government maintains, etc. etc.

 

[Metalhead47]

imported post

killchain wrote:

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

Aaron1124 wrote:

Isn't that what the Selective Service is?

My main problem with the ultra-conservative view of "stop funding and/or kill gubmint" is the fact that we NEED a military. An organized, trained, and funded military.

EDIT: To clarify, I'm talking about the issue of ending government spending. My point is if we decide we should abolish a program (for example, Medicare) then why not just go full bore and get rid of it all?

I don't think it's wise at all. The Internet you are using right now is piggybacking on infrastructure the government made, and you drive on the roads the government maintains, etc. etc.

Selective Service is being drafted, involuntarily, into the regular Army, and the process & paperwork thereof. WFL's point of view is more Libertarian, not Conservative. No one here is saying we don't need a professional military. You seem to be missing a point here. Traditional conservatives (I'm one), and more moderate Libertarians believe we DO need some government services. The military, infrastructure, these are all traditional and legitimate roles of government. Handouts to the poor, free healthcare, and regulating every facet of your life up to & including how much water you use to flush your shite down the toilet ARE NOT LEGITIMATE ROLES OF GOVERNMENT! The ideas that tend to float around here are to reduce government to its bare minimum for a functioning society. Now we all tend to disagree on just what that limit is, but no one's proposing anarchy (at least not lately). REDUCE government, REDUCE taxation, REDUCE regulation. Reduce, NOT eliminate. You dig?

 

[TechnoWeenie]

imported post

Having firefighters and EMS as public employees insures a worse job performance and a much higher expense.

Which is why 73% of firefighters in this country are volunteers....

 

[Aaron1124]

imported post

TechnoWeenie wrote:

Having firefighters and EMS as public employees insures a worse job performance and a much higher expense.

Which is why 73% of firefighters in this country are volunteers....

Yes, although they're still trained to the fullest extent that career firefighters are.

 

[oneeyeross]

imported post

And road making IS in the Constitution. Art. 1, Sec. 8 specifically grants to Congress the authority to establish post offices and "post roads."

 

[gogodawgs]

imported post

Metalhead47 wrote:

Selective Service is being drafted, involuntarily, into the regular Army, and the process & paperwork thereof. WFL's point of view is more Libertarian, not Conservative. No one here is saying we don't need a professional military. You seem to be missing a point here. Traditional conservatives (I'm one), and more moderate Libertarians believe we DO need some government services. The military, infrastructure, these are all traditional and legitimate roles of government. Handouts to the poor, free healthcare, and regulating every facet of your life up to & including how much water you use to flush your @#$%e down the toilet ARE NOT LEGITIMATE ROLES OF GOVERNMENT! The ideas that tend to float around here are to reduce government to its bare minimum for a functioning society. Now we all tend to disagree on just what that limit is, but no one's proposing anarchy (at least not lately). REDUCE government, REDUCE taxation, REDUCE regulation. Reduce, NOT eliminate. You dig?

Correct, there seem to be many that advocate NO government. Silly rabbit! The Constitution (you know the document with the 2nd Amendment) outlines the Federal Government. Reduce the role of the Federal Government, Reduce, Reduce...

Now that being said, there is still another aspect which many get confused. State and local governments DO have the authority to determine how much water you flush your toilet with. Those type of things are different and often lumped in with the proper role of the Federal government. State and local governments have very different roles in relation to the Feds.

 

[Aaron1124]

imported post

How many Anarchists do we have on here?

 

[Washintonian_For_Liberty]

imported post

gogodawgs wrote:

Metalhead47 wrote:

Selective Service is being drafted, involuntarily, into the regular Army, and the process & paperwork thereof. WFL's point of view is more Libertarian, not Conservative. No one here is saying we don't need a professional military. You seem to be missing a point here. Traditional conservatives (I'm one), and more moderate Libertarians believe we DO need some government services. The military, infrastructure, these are all traditional and legitimate roles of government. Handouts to the poor, free healthcare, and regulating every facet of your life up to & including how much water you use to flush your @#$%e down the toilet ARE NOT LEGITIMATE ROLES OF GOVERNMENT! The ideas that tend to float around here are to reduce government to its bare minimum for a functioning society. Now we all tend to disagree on just what that limit is, but no one's proposing anarchy (at least not lately). REDUCE government, REDUCE taxation, REDUCE regulation. Reduce, NOT eliminate. You dig?

Correct, there seem to be many that advocate NO government. Silly rabbit! The Constitution (you know the document with the 2nd Amendment) outlines the Federal Government. Reduce the role of the Federal Government, Reduce, Reduce...

Now that being said, there is still another aspect which many get confused. State and local governments DO have the authority to determine how much water you flush your toilet with. Those type of things are different and often lumped in with the proper role of the Federal government. State and local governments have very different roles in relation to the Feds.

I hope I'm not lumped in with the "No government" crowd you mention there. I of course just want a Constitutionally provisioned government. For example... no Army, no Air Force, no coast guard and no National Guard (i.e. Federalized State Guards). The only Constitutional permanent force is the Navy, and by association, the Marines. All other military force in this country should be 100% controlled by the States except for in time of Constitutionally "DECLARED" war when the President takes over control as commander in chief.

I also think that States are limited in their encroachment on inalienable rights and on the Bill of Rights... and incorporation is an excuse for Tyrants to retake control they lost via the Constitution.... the Constitution clearly says "If it isn't prohibited here in this document, then it is up to the states.... i.e. everything prohibited in the Constitution is also prohibited to the states. As in... the States make up the majority of lawmaking that is not Constitutionally prohibited, and the Federal government just deals with foreign trade issues, war issues and border protection as well as keeping commerce moving between the States...i.e. preventing States from blocking interstate commerce... and that's about it. Anything that was to affect our Liberty was supposed to be enacted via the Amendment process... but the Tyrants who now rule us have different plans.... the Drug war is a perfect example of a government turning against its people and becoming tyrannical and evil. The military style swat raids on raw milk dealers is also equally preposterous. And deeming that our property is no longer our property, and that the government can take as much as they want at any level is a direct violation of our Liberty and Property Rights.

Everyone just excusing these actions are complicit in the murder of everyone killed by the tyrants.... Liberals just LOVE to hear me call them "Murderers" for not stopping the drug war. Why don't they stop it? Because it is a source of revenue for police... police can seize property connected to drug crimes without offering any procedure for owners to contest the seizure.... we lose our rights because we exercise them? How messed up is that?

No matter how you spin it... or excuse it... the bigger government gets, the more oppressive and evil it becomes... you can't stop it.... UNLESS you prevent it from getting big in the first place. The founders knew that once Liberty is lost... ONLY WAR and Killing will restore it... which is why they warned us to be vigilant and not let it go... they didn't want to see us fight each and kill each other over lost Liberty that was easily preventable through being good stewards of our freedom. Unfortunately, we have not been good stewards.

 

[Aaron1124]

imported post

edit.

 

[gogodawgs]

imported post

Actually the Feds can have an army.... (just not longer than 2 years at a time)

 

[Aaron1124]

imported post

gogodawgs wrote:

Actually the Feds can have an army.... (just not longer than 2 years at a time)

They basically do.