TexasCHLforum.com

AndyC wrote:

RockingRook wrote:I know that it is difficult to come to a compromise regarding this issue but each and every time something like Arizona happens
the far left comes out of the woodwork.

Hmmm. When did the definition of "compromise" change to mean that we always have to give something up - and they don't give anything in return?

Nope - I sure don't like compromising any more.

WHAT?!? You INSENSITIVE %$#@&#*&.... Don't you KNOW its about saving LIVES!!! You DO want to save lives and end violence for ALL TIME... and what about the CHILDREN...and uh, and... You MUST be a RACIST I mean LOOK at all the minorities who get hurt and DIE each year because of EVIL GUNS...That says just one thing... YOU'RE EVIL!!!!

I mean come'on its JUST...uh, ONE small insignificant Amendment, you have 26 more to work with... Heck the Constitution is antiquated ANYWAY... We need to adopt a Worldwide Brotherhood and END this violence once and for all and by regulation/confiscation of ALL uh, EVIL GUNS we can and WILL end not only violence but hunger, AIDs, and to a lesser degree Global Warming! How could you NOT relinquish your rights... Uh, I mean Hope and Change compromise with us?!?

chasfm11 wrote:My point was that discounting those who cling to their guns and religion is not always a good strategy.

lkd wrote:I'm not quite sure I'd buy into your 60% number. I'd honestly say you could expect something like 2% tops. It's one thing to shoot clay pigeons, paper targets, and steel plate. It's quite another to point it at somebody and be willing to stop them from doing something that it not directly related to defending your, or somebody else's, life. More specifically engaging in an act that is almost certain to destroy your life and possibly the well being of your family. More accurately, those 2% would have to create an effective and organized resistance using means that are not easily detected.

Far more difficult than you might imagine.

This is all academic but ... this was actually discussed a few months ago on talk radio and they were using the number of registered hunters in just Michigan and Wisconsin and how many there were and how if they extrapolated it out...yada yada yada ..

I fully understand your point but mine wasn't the actual percentage of people who would stand and fight being hard and fast... That's why I pulled the 60% out of thin air.

My point being that the number of people who are peacefully and legally armed in this country vastly outweighs the number of standing military and the number of people I believe who would volunteer for the job of confiscation police. The sheer numbers is as much a deterrent as the possibility of ever having to take up arms and (God forbid) fire on another American.

That being said, I believe a 2% resistance is a little on the low side because, given that the 2nd amendment is one of the cornerstones of our Constitution and if that is being directly attacked I would surmise (at that point) so are the rest of our inalienable rights and there isn't much left to lose before it's a police state.

Okay...let's think about how bad this could get...

Let's take the number of legal gun owners in say, just ONE state... Now let's say an arbitrary number...say 60% are able and or willing to stand and fight if they come to confiscate our weapons. So according to BATF there is an estimated 223 million guns available in the U.S. And an estimated 25% of adults live in a house with a gun. Given that number and there are 310,000,000 in the U.S. In 2011 so say 50% or 155,000,000 couples that means that there are about 38,750,000 houses with guns in the U.S.

So again using my arbitrary number... but say 60% will stand up and defend their right to own their guns... That means that there are an estimated 23.6 million ready to fight... EVEN if it is as small as 10% that is still 2.3 million able bodied angry and driven individuals ready to fight and kill or die to keep their guns, their ideals of what is America, to defend their families and to keep our republic and our Constitution intact

Last time I checked we only had 1.6 million active and 1.5 million reserve in the military. Not counting the number that wouldn't fight against their own people they would need every single active duty member willing and ready to fight. And, given they are U.S. Citizens who have sworn to defend the Constitution their hearts and minds aren't in the same place ...

I'm thinking given even my loose statistics on factual numbers I would really hope and pray they wouldn't think this approach as a viable option to attempt. I'm thinking it will continue as it has for decades, sneaky slimy behind the scenes attempts at confiscation and control. Even Bloomberg isn't "STOOPID" enough to try a direct toe to toe approach!