Okay,

I think the idea of a militiaman as primarily a rifleman is outdated. If we were fighting WWII, a resistance soldier running around with a Sten and grenades is a potent idea. In 2001, we were attacked as a free people. My countrymen went to Afghanistan and some have died in defense of this concept called "freedom".

What did we learn over the past twelve years? One. The rifle is not the best way to utilize a smart and determined resistance movement. Sure, it's one thing to toss a grenade or fire a Springfield into a target of planned value. That said, look at the IRA. They operated for decades in Northern Ireland, fighting a long, protracted, political guerrilla war. In fact, some of them are still fighting, and their tactics have grown from using bolt-guns and dynamite to complex strategies.

The soldier is worth more than the rifle. A man with a photocopier can produce thousands of flyers in a viable period of time to produce a propaganda effect. The kid with a spray paint can, can rapidly produce a propaganda effect. The termination of a enemy commisar or high value target can be used to mobilize a population in your favour (after all, if we had shot Osama in 2001, would the Taliban have had the stones to fight, knowing that high value targets would be eliminated?).

An AK costs a few hundred dollars. A man's life is worth hundreds of thousands. If I were to sue in civil court of the USA, and somebody shot my brother, mistaking him for something else, I could get millions. Less if he was shot legally, by the BATF but I could make a heck of a case. Now, think about tactics. What's worth more, a dedicated militiaman who will kill for his cause, or an SKS carbine and fifty rounds?

The militia needs to diversify. If we were organized around the classic guerrilla model, some of us would exist in combat cells. Some in propaganda cells. Some in command cells (for example, they would combine intelligence and their contacts to direct combat cells to their targets). Maybe they're too old to fight in a field situation. Maybe they're diabetic or otherwise impaired.We need intelligence cells. We need procurement cells. One round can kill an enemy soldier. If we're running around in the bush carrying a dozen magazines, are we attacking political targets, or are we attacking an enemy occupying force, hoping that our mere actions cause a war of attrition (that is, are we making it expensive for the enemy to operate. Are we causing casualities that demoralize the enemy and cause a problem for their command structure?)

What does this have to do with logistics? A command cell might not need more than a few pistols for personal protection. A combat cell might need rifles and ammo for a short timing firefight. A propaganda cell needs toner and electricity to run a photocopier.

We need to eliminate the idea that the rifle is the ultimate piece of gear. Anti-drone warfare, mass casualty targets and political targets are more valuable than shooting an enemy thug.

Just some thoughts. Please debate.