TexasCHLforum.com

The Annoyed Man wrote: CB, in my post previous to the last one, I made clear what I meant by "liberal", and I defined it very differently from "classical liberalism". I also clearly stated that when I used the word "liberal", I was referring explicitly to the other definition.

I went back and reviewed it. To be completely honest - I don't get it. There is a lot of defining "liberal" via the word "liberal" so in my obviously confused brain, it amounts to "liberal is as liberal does when you have high murder rates and bad things happen". I'm also providing a nod to the fact that not everyone on this forum uses the word like you do. You've obviously very specific. It may mean something to someone else.

You get zero argument from me on Chicago, DC, or Detroit... Zero. Disastrous results of bad government at many levels.

Remember, this country evolved from liberal ideas and liberal actions. I guess that's how I think about it, so I have a hard time equating "liberal" with "no guns". I have a hard time with *any* political faction that can't see the obvious results or learn from history liberal or conservative - and there is so much of this going on now a days, that my mind is spinning.

The Annoyed Man, I agree with you. I don't think the military would follow those orders either. I don't really worry about the scenario where the government goes in to confiscate the guns. It's political suicide, impractical, and just not a viable option in our particular culture.

Why haven't we won against an armed population in Afghanistan? Because of the civilian component and an inability to isolate civilians from bad guys. We're not willing to bring the hammer down and accept massive civilian casualties. We could certainly end that conflict overnight if we were willing to do so. Yea, an armed population can wage guerrilla war for a long time, but do you guys think that's what keeps Senators up at night?

Then again, I don't think that a population with civilian guns could stand up against a modern military that was willing to use full military force either. I'm pointing to conflicts like Syria where a government who is much militarily weaker than our own is willing to do awful things to the a population that is armed much better than we are. Guns aren't keeping us safe from the US government, but that's just my opinion. Guns haven't stopped our government from tracking who we are talking to, maybe who we're emailing... We can debate the "what if" - I just feel - not fact - I feel 0% safer from government because I own firearms.

The Annoyed Man wrote: CB, you posed a question previously about whether or not we can convert liberals to the cause, and I gave an answer as to why we can't. THIS answer is why I am not worried about their whining or hurting their feelings. Those liberals who cannot be converted and who continue to chip away at my civil rights ARE traitors. I don't care if I offend them with my logic. The truth SHOULD hurt, if one spends one's efforts in trying to subvert it.

I don't really get the liberal remark. I'm finding that there are many meanings of "liberal" on this forum, so it's tough to recall your particular meaning. I could conclude that anyone left of center is liberal and that you're indicating that they aren't worth converting because they're all traitors. And they're traitors because they can't be converted, so we're not going to try. I think that perhaps a little moderation is in order there, because ending discussion and saying that you're with me now or you're against me forever probably isn't the best long term strategy for bringing people around to your line of thinking. You're certainly right in some cases - some people will never get it. Discussion, statistics, rational thinking - they're impervious to all of it. Course, that's the case on both sides of the political isle. War on Drugs - case and point.

Truth is fact and should be heard - on that, you and I agree.. Opinions perhaps should be carefully crafted to the audience if our goal is to promote our agenda or have a rational discussion with an audience, that's all I'm saying... It's a bit like comparing in-your-fact tactics versus a little political strategy, even though two groups may be after the same goal.

mojo84 wrote:CB,
Taking the political bent and ideology out of it and boiling it down too basic common sense and practicality. How success do you think the country would be at ridding the country of ALL guns? A War on Guns would be no more effective than the war on drugs, prohibition, the war on poverty and any other war on a social issue.

Mojo - first thanks for recognizing the scenario that I was describing - a US without guns (not that it's even a reasonable suggestion) - I didn't suggest a gun "ban". Even I know that banning guns would simply result in a massive black market and likely be about as effective as the war on drugs. I don't suggest it even as a "what if" because it won't happen and won't be effective.

I agree with you - removing all guns is basically impossible in the USA. But we can do "what if" via studying other countries that don't have the number of guns that we do.

mojo84 wrote: Now back to the political aspect. The only thing "eliminating" guns would accomplish would be trampling on the rights of citizens and weakening the populace to the point of easily implemented tyranny and management of the subjects.

To be clear: I don't think that "eliminating" guns is warranted or reasonable.

I don't think I agree with you on what it would accomplish. Back when the 2nd amendment was put in place, it was possible to own the same type of military firepower as the military. Guys lined up and shot at each other. It's no longer possible to compete with military firepower. Even if we could own "military grade" weapons without massive background checks and license costs, an armed populace would last about 30 seconds against a modern government willing to take steps to put down a "revolution". Technology has changed things. The military can kill people (bad guys) in their homes halfway around the world without leaving an armchair. The military can watch you in your backyard. They can see you in your home. Why should a modern government fear any militia?

I don't think the government fears an armed public. I think the government fears a irritated public that might vote career politicians out of office and take away their lifestyles.

Liberal, communist, socialist - which one of those philosophies advocates the shooting of teachers at school? Give me a bad guy, I can find an association. You may not like the philosophy, but crazy is as crazy does and political leanings are out the door at that point.

I don't have a huge objection to having teachers with firearms. However, when I was a senior in high school, I was more than capable of taking away a firearm from most if not all of my teachers. It's going to result in perhaps "jusitified" uses of force against unarmed students the student acted to to justify it.. And it may give opportunities for students that don't have easy access a way to get a firearm. Course, that's conjecture, but that's the possible down side in my mind.

Beiruty wrote:I thank our Creator each day, that so far there was no terrorist attack on a school or educational institution like what happened in Russia. After said incident, I still cannot believe the lack of armed security and security measures at virtually all educational institutions.
Terrorists, it seems, are more sane than a wannabe tough Joe schmoe, of no-mama and no-papa of America.

Beiruty,
Look at our implementation of "armed security" at airports. Again, maybe this is a possible solution, but the way our government does it - and at the cost at which they do it - there are simply much better ways to save lives per dollar. Course, I'm being overly practical an analytical.. The last thing I want to see is the education version of the TSA.

03Lightningrocks wrote: Now you have it right.

Lightning,
You altered my post and misquoted me. That's not what I said. I take it the "LaLa land comment" is just an insult and nothing more. That's fine.
Look, I stand to be convinced. Show me how liberal laws caused this shooting and I'll listen. Just don't deliberately alter my posts and insult, please...


I'm on board with Running Arrow - armed teachers or faculty may not have prevented this, but they might lessen the damage done in a columbine situation.
I don't think that removing guns is the answer either... And I feel a lot of sympathy for all of those parents in Colorado. It's just too much.

03Lightningrocks wrote: It IS the liberals that refuse to allow us to protect our children.

I think I get it - you want the right to carry at school because of incidents like this, not because giving you that right would prevent incidents like this?
Sorry, I took your post to mean that liberal laws were the root cause of this shooting.

The "lala land" comment contributes what exactly?

Devils advocate:
So if I'm a moderate / centrist / person that really doesn't feel strongly about the 2nd amendment, which of the two solutions is more likely to have prevented this issue:
1) Removing the "gun free zone" status of public schools
2) Taking all the guns out of the USA so kids can't get them easily

I'm suggesting that we come up with something else other than blaming the liberals...

Colorado has had an awful recent history of incidents like this.. We need to do what we can as a group to be sympathetic, supportive, and come up with productive solutions otherwise the centrist moms and dads will start to think that removing all guns might solve the problem. The more this kind of stuff happens, the bigger fight we've got.