I’m going to be working on a post for Bearing Arms ( you know, the Second Amendment site that I now run for a living) on “militia kit.”
The basic premise for the article is that as the Founders wanted Americans to be armed with arms and accouterments of military utility for militia use, then we have a civic duty to be appropriately armed, equipped, and trained to function at a very basic level as riflemen.
The problem I’m having in writing this article is deciding:
- What arms should be considered acceptable for militia use? Considering that the M4/M/16 platform is the military standard and shares 80% parts commonality with the AR-15 for repair, maintenance, and resupply purposes, I’m having a hard time accepting an argument for anything other than an AR-15 from a logical point of view… but I’m open to persuasion. I’m less interested in pistols and shotguns because of their comparatively limited use.
- how expansive the ” standard kit” should be? Should it just be the rifle, mags, ammo cleaning kit, and something to carry it all, or should it include sustenance equipment?
- What should be considered a minimal level of acceptable training and competency?
- Should a minimal level of physical conditioning be part of the requirement, and if so, what is that minimal standard?
I do not have any illusions of developing actual functional militia units or even fire-teams with such a project, but think that a nation of riflemen with adequate arms and marksmanship training form a powerful deterrent force against tyranny that could be molded into a fighting force with real training in a shorter amount of time than a citizenry with no standards, common equipment, or minimal proficiency at arms.
I’d love to get your thoughts in the comments.