Cats, Guns, and National Security

  Answer: Because questions of "cultural appropriation" are only to be applied to WHITE actions. Other cultures are free to steal from us. This is why all "civil rights" and other such liberals ideas are simply a war on White people. The truth is exactly the opposite--WE have every right to appropriate whatever the hell we want, because he can kick everybody else's ass on the planet. PERIOD.

It has long been the case that the common military grunt--of whatever branch, in most roles--is, when armed, issued a rifle or carbine, but no sidearm. Not only has this always seemed to yours truly to be "unbalanced," for want of a better term, it means that the loss of the primary weapon (long gun) leaves the individual effectively unarmed. And in a hand-to-hand situation, he (or she) is left to UAC ("unarmed combat") skills and a hope of someone to come along and put a round in the head of the enemy. Yet, a full-size sidearm, or even smaller versions of the same, add weight to an already-overburdened soldier, as well as another weapon needed practice and maintenance. Add in the cost, and it's understandable why militaries are as sparing as they are with pistols. One solution is to leave the option of a private pistol to the individual warrior. It would certainly fit with our American Second Amendment tradition. Regulations as to type and caliber could be esta...