TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/arc ... er/272734/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But as we debate the role of firearms in our society, it makes no sense to be sidetracked by the impossible and dangerous idea that a heavily armed citizenry is the ultimate safeguard of liberty in America.

Impossible, he says, because the US military is so powerful. His argument ignores the manifest difficulties the US military has had in Afghanistan as well as the fact that the armed citizenry of the US vastly outnumbers the military, some of whom would not be willing to fire on their own countrymen.

And where does this guy teach?

Mark Nuckols teaches at the Lomonosov Moscow State University Business School and at the Russian Academy of National Economy and Public Administration.

Yeah, that's a guy I want lecturing me on the US Constitution and the rights of citizens.

If the king ever decided to use the military against the citizens he will find he has a much smaller army than he thought.

forget our own army...our citizen militia makes it darn near impossible for other countries to invade! Think China does not want a slice of our lovely fertile grasslands...think again...but they can't have it right now, because behind every blade of grass there is a rifle.

I think the number I heard was 1,000,000 active duty troops, that math doesn't bode well for D.C.

Mark Nuckols, biz degree at Tufts, jd at Georgetown, CEO Hufu, ridiculously smart, without the common sense given to a fly. Totally amoral, there is a reason he is teaching in the former CCCP.

Wodathunkit wrote:I think the number I heard was 1,000,000 active duty troops, that math doesn't bode well for D.C.

And Texas has roughly 30 million residents.

He should study a little Russian history. I seem to remember seeing tanks with flowers in the barrels shortly after they tried to turn their military against the citizens. It seems to me that was pretty much the end of the Soviet Union.

Many of those who are commenting on that article and backing the author seem to believe that the Armed Forces of the USA would willingly drop bombs on American cities and towns and machinegun American citizens in the streets. I do not hold with that opinion in the very least.

K.Mooneyham wrote:Many of those who are commenting on that article and backing the author seem to believe that the Armed Forces of the USA would willingly drop bombs on American cities and towns and machinegun American citizens in the streets. I do not hold with that opinion in the very least.

??? I don't think a single person in the posts above "backed" the author. In fact, I think everyone said, in one way or another, exactly the same thing you just said.

Jeff Barriault wrote:

K.Mooneyham wrote:Many of those who are commenting on that article and backing the author seem to believe that the Armed Forces of the USA would willingly drop bombs on American cities and towns and machinegun American citizens in the streets. I do not hold with that opinion in the very least.

??? I don't think a single person in the posts above "backed" the author. In fact, I think everyone said, in one way or another, exactly the same thing you just said.

I believe he's referring to the comments in the article, not the comments here.

K.Mooneyham wrote:Many of those who are commenting on that article and backing the author seem to believe that the Armed Forces of the USA would willingly drop bombs on American cities and towns and machinegun American citizens in the streets. I do not hold with that opinion in the very least.

Battle of Blair Mountain, Ruby Ridge, Waco. Most won't but there those who will blindly follow.

baldeagle wrote:

Jeff Barriault wrote:

K.Mooneyham wrote:Many of those who are commenting on that article and backing the author seem to believe that the Armed Forces of the USA would willingly drop bombs on American cities and towns and machinegun American citizens in the streets. I do not hold with that opinion in the very least.

??? I don't think a single person in the posts above "backed" the author. In fact, I think everyone said, in one way or another, exactly the same thing you just said.

I believe he's referring to the comments in the article, not the comments here.

Correct, baldeagle, I was indeed talking about commenters on the original article.

suthdj wrote:

K.Mooneyham wrote:Many of those who are commenting on that article and backing the author seem to believe that the Armed Forces of the USA would willingly drop bombs on American cities and towns and machinegun American citizens in the streets. I do not hold with that opinion in the very least.

Battle of Blair Mountain, Ruby Ridge, Waco. Most won't but there those who will blindly follow.

And to clarify what I meant, I meant that I don't think it would be able to be run as a cohesive and coordinated operation like military operations are supposed to be. There are always those who will do dirty deeds for money, but as the deeds become dirtier, the number willing to do them tends to go down. And I think that would certainly be true in a situation where our Armed Forces were told to go and kill their fellow Americans en mass.

Just to let you how Syria regime was for the last 40 yrs was afraid of its people.
First,
1) No personal guns, unless you are loyal to the regime and be under the control of internal intelligence services (17 branches!). Now, you are part of the thugs gangs terrorizing disarmed civilians and called a shabeeh. Or a ghost, who more or less is above the law.
2) There is a 3-yr military draft. However, in boot camps if you ever show any kind of marksmanship or para-militray awareness, you would be detained and referred to the military intelligence services to be questioned for hours and days and no one will ever hear from you again. You would ask, why? The regime is hunting for anyone who had any experience or good at anything related to firearms.

Do you like to live in Syria? or Do you like to have the same gun control, like in Syria?