TexasCHLforum.com

cb1000rider wrote: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

True, but I think you're over simplifying. We could, in theory, obliterate Afghanistan, but that would make us the Nazis of the modern era, gain us lots more enemies, and lose us our allies. The US government just can't do whatever it wants, here, or elsewhere. If we demonstrate that we're willing to obliterate another country other countries will have to wonder what we're capable of doing next, and not just Russia and China. The economic consequences of being a pariah nation alone could be devastating.

TAM, I would add to your write up that even just rogue elements in the military supporting the Constitution could do enough damage to derail a government attack on the people.

cb1000rider wrote:Liberal, communist, socialist - which one of those philosophies advocates the shooting of teachers at school?

I don't know whether to construe your statement broadly or very particularly. A modern liberal is indistinguishable from a socialist, and socialists are just communists who haven't committed. One of the very first things the communists do when they get power is to round up and execute school teachers ---though some regimes may just put them in re-education camps and only kill those who can't be "re-educated." But yeah, they don't usually kill them at school.

cb1000rider wrote: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.

That must explain why we're still in Afghanistan after ten years and our troops are still being killed....the US government is invincible and no one can stand against it for more than 30 seconds.

Sarcasm aside, your claim simply isn't true. The government can't do whatever it wants to put down a revolution. Whatever it does, it has to maintain the support of the vast majority of the population. So, it's not going to be droning homes in Houston or Corpus Christi. It's not going to be dropping nukes. It's not going to be launching air strikes except in very limited circumstances. If fact, it won't be able to get away with as much as it gets away with in Afghanistan.

Also, the government just isn't that competent. Two clowns shut down the entire city of Boston. They had hundreds if not thousands of LE personnel chasing down just one clown and couldn't even find him. Dornan had the entire LAPD in hysterics. That guy that recently showed up at a mall attracted something like two hundred officers. Just imagine if it was ten lone rangers instead of one, or ten small groups, and it was happening all across the country. The system would be overwhelmed. And furthermore, your assertion assumes there will be full cooperation throughout law enforcement and the military with those seeking to impose a tyranny. That just ain't gonna happen.

cb1000rider wrote: But we can do "what if" via studying other countries that don't have the number of guns that we do.

Not really. You can try to separate the apples from the oranges and maybe get a hint about certain trends, but the cultural differences between countries are so significant that most comparisons are invalid. The gun banners try it all the time.....gee, just look how great the UK socialist nanny state utopia is, if you look at gun deaths. Other statistics, such as stabbings, assaults, rapes, and the increasing trend of gun deaths, and the fact the the UK authorities routinely falsify their crime statistics to hide how violent the UK has become, make a meaningful comparison nearly impossible. Switzerland is often cited by the pro-gun side as the opposite example, but again, the cultural differences make such a comparison largely meaningless.

What we can do is study our own country and the results of various policies, though even here there are so many variables that sorting out true cause and effect is difficult if not impossible. To me, it doesn't matter one way or the other. I have a right to defend myself and my family and the only effective tool for defense is a gun.

chasfm11 wrote:Then perhaps it is time for some new teachers. I believe that teachers should be a cross section of society. If that is true, there will be some percentage, perhaps a small one, of those who frequent this forum. If, on the other hand, the teachers in an area have been hand picked to be the type that would scare you about guns, they likely have a variety of other scary characteristics and should not represent a large percentage of the teaching pool.

Maybe should be, but aren't. I highly doubt any profession represents a cross section of society. For one thing effective teaching requires a certain kind of personality and interest. For another, if a person is intelligent and has other options, teaching requires an unusual amount of dedication and willingness to forgo income. Liberals also dominate in some areas of government, particular social services, and in the media, whereas In my industry, there are very few "liberal" engineers, though some particular kinds of engineering my tend to attract more liberals. Most of this is just do to self-selection and the types of people who are inclined to certain professions. I doubt, for instance, there are a lot of liberals wanting to grow up to be a SEAL.....or even just grow up, if they can't keep their onesies like Pajama Boy.

cb1000rider wrote: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.

They can't escape the blame on this one given the fact that the shooter is a self-avowed communist, and anti-gun to boot.