Quote of the day—Milo Yiannopoulos @m

I would support a modest income tax rise to issue every citizen with a gun when they reach the age of 21.

Milo Yiannopoulos @m
Via Gab on July 30, 2019
[As amusing as I find this, I would like to think it is just as unconstitutional as government provided food, housing, and healthcare.—Joe]


8 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Milo Yiannopoulos @m

  1. One could argue that providing a firearm is a national defense function.

    • Make the firearm a rifle and add firearm training that includes teamwork and I would agree with you.

  2. Nothing saying they are required to keep it, or can’t sell it.

    Or that they can’t opt for the wholesale value of the gun instead, probably in the form of tax credits.

    Heck, make it a voucher system. At age 21, American citizens receive a voucher from the U.S. Treasury — with a defined monetary value — which they could, at their discretion:
    1. Redeem at any retail FFL, to apply toward the purchase of a firearm and/or ammunition; or
    2. Return with their IRS W-2 forms, to be filed with their tax returns as a credit.

    This way, nobody is forced to keep and bear arms against their will, but all citizens receive the same objectively-valued benefit.

    There are ways to make it work without being unconstitutional. 🙂

  3. It’d be a game changer for the US if we offered tax credits for attending “militia regulation training” put on by private companies according to a standard curriculum, possibly with higher tax credits for objective higher performance levels, and we use that as a prelude to signing up for active military service.

    There are skills that would be important widely dispersed among the population. First aid, basic firefighting, riot control, disaster response, decentralized communication, emergency logistics, emergency engineering (flood, fire, barriers, obstacle crossing), response team organization, etc. Each one of these has a public value if a individual person knows it, and it would be valuable if each had a tax credit associated for annual training and re-certification.

    Basically, I’d like a DoD subagency called “Department of the Militia” just for establishing curriculum, chartering companies to teach the same and setting the criteria for qualifying for the tax credits. Falls under the Congressional power to “regulate the militia”, in the original meanings of those words.

    • Oh I like that, ways to get some damn good training, and be able to provide support to the local areas in case of an emergency, like say an earthquake, flooding, hurricane. Basically turn the “Redneck Navy” in to a real thing, that has set standards(uniformed type/size of boats, working comms, same size/fuel motor, number of people on the boat(driver, medic(even if not at EMS level but say a US Army Combat Lifesaver skill set(think just a bit more than RedCross first aid level)))) that would and could, as they have as just a bunch of rednecks in the past, offer a more coordinated search and rescue after a natural emergency.

  4. “There are skills that would be important widely dispersed among the population. First aid, basic firefighting, … disaster response, decentralized communication, emergency logistics, … response team organization, etc.”

    FYI for anyone not familiar with the program, the skills listed in the edited quote are covered in FEMA’s Citizen Emergency Response Team (CERT) program. FEMA sets the course work. Local agencies (Fire Departments mostly in my area) organize, train and support the teams.

    My team has been used in disaster supply distribution, supporting missing person searches, and supporting various FD activities ( such as fire watch at 4th of July fireworks).

    So there is an existing framework to build Tirno’s idea on.

  5. I remember a quote from years ago. “If the ACLU defended the Second Amendment with the zeal they defend the First, the government would provide machine guns to private citizens.”

    • The ACLU stopped defending the First quite a while ago. It was inconvenient to let people that had non-compliant opinions be able to express them. That’s hate speech, doncherknow.

Comments are closed.