Regarding "cultural appropriation": Yes, folks, "civil rights" and everything associated with it is part of war on White people and the White race.

 

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.

THE DAILY FUDD: E171: "A fudd solution to a military problem: A 9mm revolver backup for regular troops."

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 established, as IT IS THE MISSION, NOT THE PERSONAL INDULGENCE, THAT TAKES PRECEDENT HERE. (So shut up, libertarians. 

Yet that raises issues of use by comrades. Remember, a military unit is a collective. It's not just about the individual who's weapon it is, be it by ownership or issuance. (So again, shut up, libertarians.) Interoperability of magazines is difficult enough as it is within our alliances, as while AR STANAG magazines are more and more universal, there has never been a standardization for 9mm arms--the standard and most common by far pistol caliber in the Western alliances, and the world. And if alternative calibers are permitted...

To be fair, interoperability with pistols is less essential than with long/primary arms. And various factors can call for alternative calibers to 9mm (see, for example, TDF 55). An argument can certainly be made for such an item being like toothbrushes and running shoes: Important, even essential, equipment, but the precise model and such largely at the discretion of the individual.

In all of this, though, practicality must always be the prime consideration. A common rifle-toting grunt is expected to primarily employ his rifle. Sidearms and backup arms are truly secondary, and must not be allowed to interfere in any serious way with that. Full-size sidearms can do just that.

The solution, then, is a small CCW-type piece that requires little training, even less maintenance, and as little interference with everything else as possible. That would be a snub-nose revolver in 9mm NATO.

Simple to use, readily concealed, practical for killing time on the pistol range while one's unit waits to qualify with primary weapons. Yet it is indeed a backup weapon, and in the standard military caliber. It's a minimalist, but sufficient, answer to a current issue.

Yes, such weapons require star clips, and reloading in a pinch would be next to impossible. But--and this is key here--this is truly a case where something is always better than nothing. Such arms don't have the high capacity of large-frame automatics. But they don't have to have. It's not for regular use, but rather use in one of those extreme situations no one likes to think about. And those mags add carry weight better used for more rifle magazines, tools, or whatever. As for those scenarios naysayers will develop--"Well, what about..."--most are simply them expressing personal desires and preferences from a mindset thinking far more of their personal battle prowess than proper. Most military personnel aren't trained for the "Matrix"-style stuff those people envision.

And of course, when military members have off-post passes in semi-hostile settings, smaller arms such as these offer discrete protection when the house madam claims you didn't pay the bill. (Hey, we're Americans. We should have carry rights the world over. Fuck SOFAs if they don't include that! [I speak in jest, of course. Maybe.])

Of course, the two approaches are not mutually exclusive. Having such an official backup piece to be issued does not preclude allowing individuals on opt-out in favor of private pieces. Yet, seeing "rights" as being tied to their function, standardization on something like this comes out as more advisable.

Except, of course, for certain militant settings of a less conventional nature:

TDF INDEX: Cats, Guns, and National Security: THE DAILY FUDD index.  https://catsgunsandnationalsecurity.blogspot.com/2021/03/the-daily-fudd-index.html