Just great! Another darned school shooting.

[VMI77]

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.

[VMI77]

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.

[VMI77]

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]

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.

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.

[VMI77]

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.

[The Annoyed Man]

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.

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. But for you, I'll state it again:

I want to carefully distinguish between "classical liberalism", which is more like modern libertarianism, and "modern liberalism", which is more like statist fascism. Whenever I say "liberal" below, I am referring to the latter:

[The Annoyed Man]

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.

Agreed.

[VMI77]

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.

[PhillRoath]

Concealed is concealed. Students in the school should have no better access to firearms carried by a CHL/teacher in the school than they would if that same teacher walked through Wal-Mart today. Perhaps some stories out of the schools were it is permitted today would confirm that it isn't an issue.

I know that it may not be a shared opinion but any student who is willing to try to take a gun away from a teacher or anyone deserves to be serving time. Thuggery has grown in our schools and it needs to be thwarted through prompt action against the student(s) involved. Instead, the schools seem bent on punishing kids on "zero tolerance" for just about anything else.

Good observation!

[cb1000rider]

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.

[JP171]

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.

Agreed.

Being a person who is in military service albeit at a state level I would refuse that order in a heartbeat, having served for 14 years honorably in the US Army I would still refuse that order. Many of the friends that I made in the Army would do the same, while there may be some who would obey this order the majority would not and would interfere at the least or even stronger stop those who would be jack booted thugs. Our gubbermint isn't quite that foolish yet.

[03Lightningrocks]

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.

Agreed.

Being a person who is in military service albeit at a state level I would refuse that order in a heartbeat, having served for 14 years honorably in the US Army I would still refuse that order. Many of the friends that I made in the Army would do the same, while there may be some who would obey this order the majority would not and would interfere at the least or even stronger stop those who would be jack booted thugs. Our gubbermint isn't quite that foolish yet.

Funny you say this. I can testify that my brother who is retired army after 27 years told me the same thing.

[ELB]

A somewhat different account of the Arapahoe school shooting:

Arapahoe High security guard: Shooter's warning signs ignored

Arapahoe High Students Upset Security Officer Was Let Go

The Facebook posting by Cameron Rust mentioned in the stories is here:
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;