My Vision For America

[Vuk]

If you had the power to reshape American laws and institutions in any way that you wished (but only once), and exercised some kind of control over the next few decades, how would you do it?

I would split my reforms into several categories.


A) Economy/Business
1. The first thing I would do is attempt to create as strong as possible a separation between business and government. I believe that the close ties between business and government is and always has been the greatest threat to liberty. I would remove the right of corporations to make political donations, restrict as tightly as possible the Federal Government's ability to interfere with businesses, except where protecting individuals is concerned. While the details of such bills would define whether they succeed or not and a lot of thought would need to be put into them, I will leave it at that for now.

2. I would abolish the Federal Reserve and return the right to create and issue money to the legislature.

3. I would cut any Federal program that could be easily ran by the States and is not completely necessary to the defense of the nation and of the individual and his/her rights.

4. I would instantly stop nearly all foreign aid which is not essential to the security of the US. We have plenty of our own problems at home right now. Leave charity up to corporations and individuals.

5. I would completely get rid of our current tax code and create a flat tax (income and corporate) at a rate that would bring in the necessary amounts of revenue to run the (now greatly reduced) Federal Government and to pay off all US debt within 30 years. After US debt is paid off in full, tax rates will be lowered. Exceptions to income tax will be made for people below a certain income level. Corporate tax and income tax will never be able to exceed 30%.

6. I would abolish and replace the EPA (and not hire anyone who has ever worked for the EPA) with a new (advisory) organization to help Congress come up with a set of laws designed to protect people and private and public property from environmental contamination and/or chemical and radiological exposure while placing a minimal burden on industry.

7. I would end all Federal agricultural subsidies.

B) Military/Foreign Policy
1. The US would be removed from nearly foreign conflicts. Our new foreign policy would be that unless there is a clear and demonstrable gain for the US (material, monetary, diplomacy, etc) AND said country poses a direct military threat to the US, we would not interfere militarily.

2. The Army would need to adopt current Marine Corps standards (e.i., the "Every Man a Marine" policy) and the Marine Corps marksmanship standards would be raised.

3. Small Caliber assault rifles would be phased out for .308 and 30-06 battle rifles (either magazine fed variants of the M1 Garand with synthetic stocks or the M14 EBR).

4. Women would be allowed in combat roles in the military if they could meet military standards (e.i. the same ones for men). There would be all man and all woman units, not mixed gender units.

5. I would create 'war games' of a sort to test the combat readiness and performance of infantry. Both the Army and the Marine Corps would compete every year for a $50 million grant in addition to their regular spending that can be put toward any program of their choice.

C) Social policy/Educational reform
1. "reverse discrimination", "affirmative action", and any such policies would be legally defined as discrimination.

2. I would remove the Federal Government as much as possible from education, and allow the States as much control as possible.

3. The right to keep and bear arms means you have the right not only to own a gun, but to carry it with you. You always need to respect other people's property (so a private individual, business, or government building could not allow firearms on their land or in their facilities). I would make the right to carry Federal Law.




If within this framework I could make a State match my Vision, it would be this: (and of course I would choose my very own Wisconsin )

Economy:
1. No State subsidies of anything.

2. No property tax for people who own 40 or less acres of land.

3. A house valued under $100k would not be taxed at all.

Education:
1. Standards would be raised enormously (esp in the areas of literacy, business writing, mathematics, etc.) and the focus of school would be to prepare people for jobs or future education. Math, English, Logic, Economics, Critical Thinking, Physics, Biology, Chemistry, History, and Basic Philosophy would all be required subjects. These and classes directly related to industrial and agricultural jobs would be State funded. Anything else would be partially State subsidized, but you would need to pay a fee to take the class. By time a student graduates high-school he/she would be required to get passing grades in calculus, High level (as in mid-to-high for a 4 year college now) Biology, Physics, Economics, and Chemistry classes, and upper-level History classes (e.i. They would every year of high-school have to pick one geographic area (in previous grades they will have studied world history in depth), either the Americas, Europe/Middle East, Asia, or Africa that they would need to pick a specific location, theme, time, group, religion, etc and write a 15-20 page research paper about it. They would have written a research paper about something from every major geographic group by time they graduate.

2. Classes would be offered over the summer that would allow high-school students to get certification in fields such as welding, so that they would be prepared for jobs when they graduate.

3. I would abolish sports completely. The entire reason for all the State funded sports programs at schools is military preparedness (they didn't like being called dough-boys in WWI). As such, I would take a more direct approach to military preparedness with mandatory (for those without physical disabilities that would make it impossible) military fitness classes, marksmanship classes, and for the last few years of schooling, combat tactics and field-craft courses. Sports would be replaced with competitive war games. Wisconsin would buy up all the ARs that the Military would no longer be needing and turn them into kiddie training guns. All the .223 rounds we already have produced would then not go to waste when the military switches to .308. Marksmanship classes twice a week, two 30 round mags. In order to graduate high-school, you would need to be able to quickly and reliably take out targets at 500 meters (by the time you are 16 you will be using an M14).


Military:
1. After graduating high-school (or at the age of 18), every able bodied and able-minded man and woman would be required to perform two years of mandatory military service in the State Militia (which they would remain in the militia till they are 50, as long as they continue to be able bodied and able-minded). Every year they would need to spend a month of militia training and testing. If they do not pass their physical fitness and marksmanship exams, they are then required to spend an additional four months of training.

2. State militia standards would match or exceed Marine Corps standards.



Children would be so incredibly busy with school and training that they would have no time for crime! They economy would boom, people would be much safer, and the Wisconsin militia would be as formidable as any military in the world!

So, perfect paradise or scary capitalist military state? Would you like to live in Vuk's Wisconsin?

[a completely inoffensive name]

You would be the perfect tyrant to rebel against.

[Husar]

That's a lot of text for a rather bad idea IMO.

1. No subsidies but some classes are subsidized?

2. Get out of most conflicts but increase all things military?

3. Collect less taxes but increase military spending?

4. Everybody spends a month per year in military exercises? Does that help the economy? Or would you completely cancel all sorts of holidays/free time in turn?

5. Make childrens' lives horrible? What is that going to help with, exactly? Can you explain how making them miserable and angry would stop them from "crime" or sabotaging the system?

6. For someone who wants to increase freedoms in terms of gun laws and letting states decide more, you take quite a lot of freedoms away when it comes to school and military service.

7. What if due to all the difficult mandatory courses at school a lot of people fail school, can't graduate and are lost to the economy when they could otherwise become specialists in a certain field if they weren't forced to take all the other complicated courses?

[Tellos Athenaios]

What's with the obsession of wasting people's best years on nonsense militaristic tripe?

[Vladimir]

As opposed to the other things people waste the best years of their lives on?

[Vuk]

You would be the perfect tyrant to rebel against.

lol, I am not talking about forcing it. I am saying hypothetically, if the people and government would accept your vision. I know you could never realistically achieve all of that (at once at least), but ideally that is what I think would be best for America.

That's a lot of text for a rather bad idea IMO.

1. No subsidies but some classes are subsidized?

2. Get out of most conflicts but increase all things military?

3. Collect less taxes but increase military spending?

4. Everybody spends a month per year in military exercises? Does that help the economy? Or would you completely cancel all sorts of holidays/free time in turn?

5. Make childrens' lives horrible? What is that going to help with, exactly? Can you explain how making them miserable and angry would stop them from "crime" or sabotaging the system?

6. For someone who wants to increase freedoms in terms of gun laws and letting states decide more, you take quite a lot of freedoms away when it comes to school and military service.

7. What if due to all the difficult mandatory courses at school a lot of people fail school, can't graduate and are lost to the economy when they could otherwise become specialists in a certain field if they weren't forced to take all the other complicated courses?

1. When talking about getting rid of subsidies I was talking about industry, not education. Maybe I should have made that more clear.

2. No, not increase all things military. I never even said that I would increase military spending. (which I would ) Our military should not be in existence to bully small countries across the world Husar. It should be in existence for one reason: to defend the US and her people. That requires that it is the strongest military in the world. Ideally we would have a military much stronger than we do now and never have to use it. Of course we would never have to use it because of how strong it is.

3. I never said collect less taxes (though you almost definitely would be collecting less taxes on the Federal level); I said change the tax code. The Federal government would be drastically reduced, and thus you would need to raise less revenue (even with increases in military spending).

4. Does it help the economy? No, it does not, nor is it designed to. It is designed to make Wisconsin more defensible than most countries in the world. It is designed to increase the safety of all Wisconsinites. As an American citizen, I believe that it is your duty to be as fit as possible for military service.

5. I never said making their lives horrible. Believe it or not, what I described is not too unlike my own childhood. :P My dad was a Marine who had us shooting at the age of 5 and had us do military like fitness regimes up till he died. Also, I was home-schooled and held to very high standards compared to public education. (I completed calculus before I graduated high-school at the age of 17, and tested into 300 level math at my Uni) I was also a very slow learner (esp compared to my brothers and sisters), and despite fairly rigorous academic standards, constant physical labour, and my dad's insistence that everyone in the family meet Marine Corps marksmanship standards, I had a lot of free time and a lot of fun as a kid. It keeps you tired though, and it keeps you busy. It doesn't mean that you won't have free time and won't have fun, but it teaches you responsibility and keeps you from getting bored.
It would make kids be able to lead much more successful, rewarding lives.

6. The reforms concerning school and military service that I mentioned were all at a State level. Things like that SHOULD be up to the States to decide. (and if someone doesn't like it, they can move to Cali or Mass )

7. 99% of people could graduate school. You will change requirements for the mentally impaired of course. If parents want their kids to get a basic high-school diploma, then they will make sure that the kids apply themselves. Just like with the current system, if someone doesn't care enough, they will flunk out. The truth is that when you raise the standards, people raise the amount of effort they put into things. No one is gonna want their kids to be a high-school dropout. Simply having a high-school diploma from WI would get these kids into almost any out-of-state Uni, so you would be doing them a big favor. The Truth is Husar that kids now-adays are a bunch of lazy blighters. You need to work them hard and make them apply themselves. Kids need to take responsibility, and they need to learn that at a young age.

[Vuk]

What's with the obsession of wasting people's best years on nonsense militaristic tripe?

Two years of their life Tellos. Two years that will be spent improve themselves physically and mentally, and teaching them skills that will translate over into tons of work-places. Most kids at that age are drinking, drugging, and having unsafe sex. Which do you think would be better for them?

[johnhughthom]

Two years of their life Tellos. Two years that will be spent improve themselves physically and mentally, and teaching them skills that will translate over into tons of work-places. Most kids at that age are drinking, drugging, and having unsafe sex. Which do you think would be better for them?

Choice?

[Vuk]

Choice?

You are talking about only two year of their life. Also, you are talking about a Citizen Militia which would not require the same, always on base or deployed time commitment that serving in the military proper or deployed National Guard would. It would be a Citizens Militia that would only be used to defend Wisconsin...not one that would be sent off to fight foreign wars.
You are right, they would not have a choice...just like they would not have a choice to pay their taxes. If you want the benefits of your roads, you need to pay taxes. If you want the benefit of being safe and secure, then you need to serve some time in the military. The way I see it, it is no different. You are just paying for what you are taking.

[johnhughthom]

Vuk, not everybody has a childhood like yours. I don't want to sound disrespectful toward your father, so I won't say how your childhood comes across when posted like that. I believe children should be allowed to be children, and forced military training most certainly does not come into that. I was in the Army Cadets for two years and enjoyed it. Had I been forced into it, I have no doubt I would have rebelled against it. As for the tax analogy, children in America pay taxes?

As others have mentioned, your get out of all military conflicts, whilst building up the military comes across as bizarre.

[Vladimir]

I think a problem is that people are taking this as a serious proposal for change instead of a deep look into a person's psychology.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Don't agree with the views on education or military service.

IMO we have far too much focus on education. Education is a means, not an end. It should serve to give you the basic skills you need for life and set you up for being able to develop a role in the workforce. We need more apprenticeship schemes and the like and less pointless classes and exams. And this is coming from someone who just gradauted with a First and continues to hand out fried chicken for the living.

As for the military service, that's far too much of an invasion of the state into my life for my liking. And its also kind of pointless, the world we live in is not that violent. I guess the OP also said it has social benefits like reducing crime but that a) does not warrant such a harsh measure as taking up two years of my life and b) could be done without the military aspect.

[Ronin]

I´d make you guys sit down somewhere and write up a new constitution.

you can write down whatever you want...the only rule is that it must be in clear XXI century English so that you don´t constantly argue about what it does and does not mean.

[Vladimir]

Wait. You want it written in current legalese?

[Vuk]

Vuk, not everybody has a childhood like yours. I don't want to sound disrespectful toward your father, so I won't say how your childhood comes across when posted like that. I believe children should be allowed to be children, and forced military training most certainly does not come into that. I was in the Army Cadets for two years and enjoyed it. Had I been forced into it, I have no doubt I would have rebelled against it. As for the tax analogy, children in America pay taxes?

As others have mentioned, your get out of all military conflicts, whilst building up the military comes across as bizarre.

Think what you want, but I had an extremely fun childhood that also gave me a real competitive edge over lots of people as I grew up. No, children should not be forced into the military, just like they should not be forced to work a job. But that does not mean that schooling should not prepare them for both.

I think a problem is that people are taking this as a serious proposal for change instead of a deep look into a person's psychology.

Actually, I take what I said as a serious proposal. I don't think it is something that could happen over night, but I do think that most of it could be implemented over time. Also, these are policies that I think would be ideal, but of course I realize that majority of them would be a long shot at best.

Don't agree with the views on education or military service.

IMO we have far too much focus on education. Education is a means, not an end. It should serve to give you the basic skills you need for life and set you up for being able to develop a role in the workforce. We need more apprenticeship schemes and the like and less pointless classes and exams. And this is coming from someone who just gradauted with a First and continues to hand out fried chicken for the living.

As for the military service, that's far too much of an invasion of the state into my life for my liking. And its also kind of pointless, the world we live in is not that violent. I guess the OP also said it has social benefits like reducing crime but that a) does not warrant such a harsh measure as taking up two years of my life and b) could be done without the military aspect.

These are all subjects that would make people intelligent, responsible citizens. It would also prepare them for just about any job out there with minimal additional training needed. No one likes school, but an uneducated populace is an unfree populace. If you want you freedom, then you need your education.
As far as the military service goes, it is (IMO) everyone's duty to defend their country when it is under attack. They need to be trained and ready to be able to do that. It would be less of an intrusion into people's lives than the mandatory-if-you-want-to-get-a-halfway-decent-job college set-up we have now. You wouldn't need to go to college anymore with my plans for a reformed education system. This would be two years instead of four, and you would get great personal benefits out of it.

[Vuk]

What a marevellous experiment that would be! Take ten random Americans off the street, give them a several hundred page-long pamphlet full of the various criteria that must be covered, and then see what theycome up with. I bet the results would be shocking, as long you could assure that the participants were of a sufficiently diverse makeup (i.e. political beliefs, income strata, ethnicity, ect.)

lol, I personally don't think there is anything wrong with the one we got. :P

[Vuk]

But would you be mortally opposed to investigating alternatives?

To changing the fundamentals? Yeah. If you want to change parts of it or add things to it, then I would have to hear some really good reasoning to consider it.

[Vuk]

Do you think the founding fathers intended their words to stand for all time, like commandments on tablets?

I think that from the beginning of human existence humans have been humans. What worked then will work a million years from now. Do I think it was perfect in its original form? No, of course not. It was in so many ways the first of its kind. The Founding Fathers could not foresee the future. We have changed some of its imperfections with amendments, others I believe require more amendments.
I believe though that freedom is the most precious thing in the world. It has no value, and mankind will always desire it. Freedom from tyranny, minimal government interference, freedom of local governments; these are all fundamental ideas and values that Constitution is built around. Yes, I believe that the Founding Fathers probably dearly hoped that the day would never come when people were stupid enough to throw-aside the only document in the world that guarantees that level of freedom.

[PanzerJaeger]

Eh... some things would be good and some would not. Keep in mind that government subsidies to industry have been incredibly beneficial in America, particularly those given to the military industrial complex. We probably would not be conversing through this medium if the US government hadn't subsidized the research that underpins it. Don't let the current administration's cronyism in dealing with 'green' companies cloud your judgment.

3. Small Caliber assault rifles would be phased out for .308 and 30-06 battle rifles (either magazine fed variants of the M1 Garand with synthetic stocks or the M14 EBR).

The rationale for moving away from battle rifles to assault rifles has not changed. And bringing back the M14? There are much better options in .308 battle rifles.

[Fragony]

Will there be mixed showering

[a completely inoffensive name]

I disagree with you Vuk about military conscription. The US military is much superior than any European country, because we only take the best of the best of those that want to join. European countries dilute themselves down with anti-patriotism at home and conscription among the conscientious objectors.

I'm gonna quote a favorite author of mine that can explain this point perfectly.

The sinews of war are infinite money - Marcus Tullius Cicero
Western Europe used to be full of men who were ideal to the ways of war, and the only thing that could hold a European military back was a lack of funding or good military technology. The problem with Western European militaries TODAY is not their lack of funding or sophisticated weaponry, but the lack of good citizens, and therefore the lack of effective fighting men available to them. The rest of the world (the USA, most Asian countries, most South American countries, and most Eastern European countries, and many African countries) has no shortage of able bodied and minded men who have been raised in a culture that produces good citizens and good soldiers.

The sinews of war are not gold, but good soldiers - Niccolò Machiavelli
It will be the countries who have both the good citizens/soldiers AND the economy to support large scale organized warfare that will shape the future of the world. Wealthy countries with no means of guarding their wealth will simply be juicy prizes for those countries who have BOTH the elements needed to be great. Western Europe will simply be a fatted duck for Russia, China, India, the U.S., etc to fight over.

That is my take on the military situation of Western Europe. The world always tends toward disorder, and the longer countries exist, the more corrupt they will become. The more corrupt countries are, the larger a chance for war. If history has shown one thing, it is that humans will ALWAYS go to war with each other. Everytime they devise a way to avoid war through alliances, economic control, etc, it either backfires, or simply delays war a little. Countries not willing to fight will be swallowed up or brought under the direct control of those who are. Depressing? Sure, but that is human nature, and that is why it is important for yourself and your fellow citizen to be vigilant participants in your society to prevent this from happening, AND to be willing to fight if a war does happen. I guess that my point is that most Western Europeans do not have that will to fight for their country, their family, and their society. They are not proud of themselves, where they came from, or their country. Why would they give their lives after all? Their entire lifestyle is contrary to what makes a good soldier AND citizen.

Am I right? Am I being too harsh? Do I not have a good take on things? Have I just lost my mind? You tell me.

You can't dispute this Vuk. You must give up your conscription fetish lest we become European.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Two years of their life Tellos. Two years that will be spent improve themselves physically and mentally, and teaching them skills that will translate over into tons of work-places.

Obviously. I for one look forward to Best America, etc., etc.

Most kids at that age are drinking, drugging, and having unsafe sex. Which do you think would be better for them?

Drinking, drugging and unsafe sex vs. military service? You mean: trying out what it's like to be adult, vs. wasting years of your life on boring pointless idiocy?
There is a reason we no longer call upon the masses of unmotivated people who resent having their good time taken away and substituted by an even more boring version of highschool to render an uninspired service of no value whatsoever to the recipient.

Really, what good would it do your military to have to look after every idiot in America for two years, forever ?

[Husar]

I think what Vuk wants to achieve is cram every single American into the top 1%.

[Strike For The South]

More Beer

Less Clothes

[Vuk]

Ah, educational. I have peered into your soul, Vuk, and I have seen the seeds of Rebellion! If you could be persuaded, then, that the current government is unsalvageable would you be opposed to violent revolution? Our fore-fathers demonstrated a willingness to lay down their lives for the betterment of future generations. Is that no longer viable? Is it inconceivable that we are already there?

These questions are not rhetorical. My views on the matter are well-known. I seek your views!

I don't believe that we are at a point where 'violent revolution' is needed, and I don't believe that we ever will be. (at least in the near future) Violent revolution is only necessary when other means of securing your freedom have been lost. (the ability to vote in fair elections, freedom of speech, etc) If those things were taken away, what do you have to lose by violent revolution? Not a lot, but a whole to gain.
As I said though, I don't think even a socialist like Obama would be stupid enough to think he could make himself a dictator. His own military and secret service would turn against him if he tried, so I don't think violent revolution will ever be necessary. (though having your leader aware that their people are capable and willing to if they try to strip them of their freedoms is no doubt what has stopped any attempt at dictatorship so far)
Of course I use the word dictatorship in a very inaccurate and loose way, to refer to a government that strips a people of their rights and takes total control...no matter what system of government. I honestly think that the thing America's should fear most is a socialist government that labels anyone who disagrees with them as a spreader of misinformation, and makes that a crime. So far Obama has taken the first step, but has not (and hopefully never will) take the next stop. When a President has that kind of power over thought and expression, then Americans will have lost all freedom.

Eh... some things would be good and some would not. Keep in mind that government subsidies to industry have been incredibly beneficial in America, particularly those given to the military industrial complex. We probably would not be conversing through this medium if the US government hadn't subsidized the research that underpins it. Don't let the current administration's cronyism in dealing with 'green' companies cloud your judgment.



The rationale for moving away from battle rifles to assault rifles has not changed. And bringing back the M14? There are much better options in .308 battle rifles.

While I disagree with you strongly on the issue of subsidies, I will simply disagree, as a discussion into that would require much more time that I am able to devote this close to finals.
As far as assault rifles are concerned though, I believe that the rationale for moving to them was flawed from the start. They needed and wanted to spend less money on ammunition, and tried to find a high-velocity round that would still be effective. Unfortunately the .223 is not .308. They also wanted to fill in the gap between sub-machine gun and full battle rifle, so that troops would have a sort of 'jack-of-all-trades'.
The problem is that the .223 round lacks the sufficient knock-down power of sub-machine guns (which generally are 9MM or 45; both significantly heavier than the .223), which is needed in close environments (the closer you get, the less time to react, and therefore the ability to kill with as few shots as possible and move to your next target is increasingly important).
They also lack the range and long-distance take-down power that the 30 cal weapons have.
A full-battle rifle would perform better in nearly every (if not every) situation. You cannot be pumping 3-5 rounds into your target before you move onto the next one. You should need 1-2 shots, and then move onto the next guy before he shoots you. Every Marine I have ever talked to, and most people from the Army who I have talked to about it all agree that they would prefer the M14 to the M4 or M16.
The truth is that assault rifles are a failed experiment. I will use a .223 if I want to hunt squirrels, but not if I want to hunt a deer. Why? Because I want the confidence of knowing that I can kill a large animal with 1 shot, not 3-5. Deer don't shoot back, but humans do. If I am having to pump a bunch of rounds into one guy to make sure he is dead, his buddy may just shoot me. As I said above, ARs would become kiddie training rifles, and when they turned 16, they would get a real gun.

Will there be mixed showering

lol, one of the things I want to avoid. There would be separate facilities, if not separate camps. Otherwise you would just be asking rape an harassment to flourish (the same objection I have to allowing gay and straight soldiers together). The last thing you want is to add extra stress to people by making them have to worry about things like that.

I disagree with you Vuk about military conscription. The US military is much superior than any European country, because we only take the best of the best of those that want to join. European countries dilute themselves down with anti-patriotism at home and conscription among the conscientious objectors.

I'm gonna quote a favorite author of mine that can explain this point perfectly.


You can't dispute this Vuk. You must give up your conscription fetish lest we become European.

I agree with you ACIN, which is why the regular military would remain volunteer only. However it is everyone's duty to defend their country and state should it come under attack. That is why everyone would need to serve in the militia. It is a last defense, not America's fighting force. The problem with Europeans is the quality of their citizenry (I agree with that author you posted...in fact I posted something similar a few months ago in a thread on European military incompetency). Wisconsin citizens would be of a much higher quality because of the new education program. The Wisconsin militia would probably out perform most European armies if my reforms happened.

[Vuk]

There are much better options in .308 battle rifles.

Could you name some?
Also, if I had my way (and this I think you could never achieve) we would be using 30-06. Modify the M1 Garand to have a synthetic stock and detachable box mag, and you would have the best rifle in the world. From 1900 to 1950 the effectiveness and quality of firearms increased at an astronomical rate. From 1950 till 2000 however, the effectiveness of guns has significantly decreased. As sad as it is to say, the M1 Garand (assuming basic modifications to update it with modern tech) has never been outdone as an infantry weapon. (the Vector will change that though, don't worry )

[Major Robert Dump]

Your man crush on the Marines is adorable.

Also, women already serve in combat roles.

We use small caliber assault rifles for several reasons, and moving back to giant rounds as stnadard load makes us as bad as the monkeys we fight against.

[Lemur]

From 1900 to 1950 the effectiveness and quality of firearms increased at an astronomical rate. From 1950 till 2000 however, the effectiveness of guns has significantly decreased.

Interesting point. My papa lemur was a Marine involved in testing the then-experimental M16, and he hated it. Loved his BAR.

Funny thing is, when I'm going through my day, I often think of rules I will impose once I'm Imperator of America. But now that there's a thread I'm drawing a blank. Gah.

[Ronin]

Could you name some?
Also, if I had my way (and this I think you could never achieve) we would be using 30-06. Modify the M1 Garand to have a synthetic stock and detachable box mag, and you would have the best rifle in the world. From 1900 to 1950 the effectiveness and quality of firearms increased at an astronomical rate. From 1950 till 2000 however, the effectiveness of guns has significantly decreased. As sad as it is to say, the M1 Garand (assuming basic modifications to update it with modern tech) has never been outdone as an infantry weapon. (the Vector will change that though, don't worry )

wouldn´t the M14 cover most of that stuff?
there are still a number of variant models in use by the special forces, as a kind of short-range "sniper" rifle I think.

[Major Robert Dump]

I was never a fan of the M4, but I loved the M240B. Quick, easy, relatively light, accurate as hell, easy to clean and reliable. If I had to pick one fire-arm to defend myself from a random dangerous circumstance, I'd pick an M240B.

Are you on crack? Is this sarcasm? Surely you jest.