It's not surprising you were lost, giving my poor grammar. And you've answered yourself in the post below. Right, my point was: There are people, who support their arm ownership with the "militia" argument. Well, I ask, are thy militiamen? By merits of training and structure, not by some long forgotten badge in some dusty drawer (if they bother to get one at all)?
Now, I suppose you wouldn't claim "I have right to get a gun, because I'm a militiaman" if you were not one. You want a gun, 'cause you're a target-shooter.In every country, also with rather stringent laws, there are provisions for people like you - e.g. they can join the shooter or hunters club, lots of tedious paperwork and such, but they'll got their licence and can have their weapon. The idea is of course, that some less stable ones will be helpfully denied a weapon; and to keep the number of weapons at generally low level (thus helping to lower accident/suicide by firearm level; also crime-inflicted death/harm level).
Not true at all. In fact, quite the opposite is true in the country. There is a fair amount of cooperation between civilian and federal/state military assets but they also are often quite separate from each other.
You're right, but it doesn't make my comment untrue - only badly expressed. What I meant is that the things I listed as possibly necessary for militia unit can be organized without using any military equipment/state help. Only using the resources of the militia members themselves. E.g. transport by cars (the owner of a minibus gets to be a squad driver and he's reguired to provide transportation if the unit needs to go somewhere), the owner of a food shop is required to organize food supplies, when two other guys, who camp often, are to look after accomodation (tents) and cooking equipment (gas stoves) etc.
Of course the state, if it so wishes, can make some of its surplus equipment available to militiamen, if necessary, or even provide some for them from the beginning. But that's another matter.
no subject
Right, my point was:
There are people, who support their arm ownership with the "militia" argument. Well, I ask, are thy militiamen? By merits of training and structure, not by some long forgotten badge in some dusty drawer (if they bother to get one at all)?
Now, I suppose you wouldn't claim "I have right to get a gun, because I'm a militiaman" if you were not one. You want a gun, 'cause you're a target-shooter.In every country, also with rather stringent laws, there are provisions for people like you - e.g. they can join the shooter or hunters club, lots of tedious paperwork and such, but they'll got their licence and can have their weapon. The idea is of course, that some less stable ones will be helpfully denied a weapon; and to keep the number of weapons at generally low level (thus helping to lower accident/suicide by firearm level; also crime-inflicted death/harm level).
Not true at all. In fact, quite the opposite is true in the country. There is a fair amount of cooperation between civilian and federal/state military assets but they also are often quite separate from each other.
You're right, but it doesn't make my comment untrue - only badly expressed. What I meant is that the things I listed as possibly necessary for militia unit can be organized without using any military equipment/state help. Only using the resources of the militia members themselves. E.g. transport by cars (the owner of a minibus gets to be a squad driver and he's reguired to provide transportation if the unit needs to go somewhere), the owner of a food shop is required to organize food supplies, when two other guys, who camp often, are to look after accomodation (tents) and cooking equipment (gas stoves) etc.
Of course the state, if it so wishes, can make some of its surplus equipment available to militiamen, if necessary, or even provide some for them from the beginning. But that's another matter.