TexasCHLforum.com

dukalmighty wrote:I don't have anything that can "kill" a tank or a bradley

I'll bet you do.

The Annoyed Man wrote:I don't think it will come down to that for a number of reasons, not necessarily in this order:

I think it could come down to it, for similar reasons, even despite your expansion on the NO disgrace.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

1. The enforcement of such a thing would boil down to the military, cooperating with LEOs.
2. More people in the military come from backgrounds sympathetic to the 2nd Amendment than those who don't.
3. There would likely be large scale mutinies within the military services if they were called upon to do this, particularly if called upon to fire on their own citizenry.
4. Ditto for most LEOs.
5. At the end of the day, it's a numbers game:
   • All military personnel, in all the nation's military services, including active duty, reserves, and units ready for mobilization, number about 1,426,026 at this time.
   • Per the NRA-ILA, the current population of the US numbers about 294 million.
   • If you use 4 people per household as an average (two adults and two children), then that is about 73.5 million households.
   • Also per the NRA-ILA, about half of the nation's households, 36.75 million of them, have guns.
   • The National Academy of Sciences speculates that there were approximately 258 million privately owned guns in the US.
   • If you do the math, that's 258 million guns in the hands of 36.75 million households, or an average of about 7 guns per household.
6. When you add up the numbers, it's a bloodbath, and the military loses if it comes down to it.

Even considering NO as a localized phenomenon, there were no mutinies, either by the military or the police, nor were there even any examples of passive resistance, such as the gun grabbers merely leaving if the residents said they had no guns - if they had any sort of evidence that guns were present, they went on in and looked for them.

The Annoyed Man wrote:Now realistically, most of us law-abiding gun owners would be extremely loath to fire on our own sons, daughters, brothers, and sisters in the military and law enforcement if it came to that - probably to the same degree that most of them would be loath to fire on us. Without that willingness on their part to do it, there exists no way to force the surrender of our guns, as long as we stand united in refusing to surrender them. It becomes a Mexican standoff.

But it needs to be standing united, at a geographical divide, such as the bridge in Concord, because house to house with midnight raids, does not lend to shoulder to shoulder support against a foe very well - in NO when people resisted, they were beaten down, restrained, and their guns were grabbed anyway - it was one against many, not many against many. Even the resisters at Concord had numerical superiority.

And in NO, most of the grabbing was being done, not by relatives, but by strangers from another state, and I can easily envision the IL National Guard kicking down doors in Dallas while the Nebraska Guard does it in VA, etc, and everybody ignores VT.

The Annoyed Man wrote:Add to that the fact that, in their blind foolishness, gun grabbers have disarmed themselves, so they have no means of forcing the compliance themselves, even if they can get the courts and the Congress and the president all on their side.

Actually, there is little evidence that the gun grabbers have disarmed themselves, don't forget that many of them are eliteist and feel that they have a right to be armed even if we hoy-polloy haven't. DiFi has a carry permit in CA, Chucky Shumer has guns, and even Teddy (shudder) Kennedy supposedly has a duck gun or two. And then add in the fact that, if it came down to it, they would have the might of the military to wield.

The Annoyed Man wrote:The bigger danger to our rights is their incremental erosion until, piece by piece, we lose them entirely. Vigilance, education, and actively voting are our best defense. That, and a darn good lawyer.

While I agree that incremntal removal of our rights is an ever present danger, I also see no reason to think that Hilly or BamBam would not declare a state of emergency based on reasoning as flimsy as that used in other government raids, declare martial law, and suspend the Constitution ala Lincoln.

Remember that the scenario of either Hilly or BamBam elected to the presidency, with majorities seated in both legislative houses, gives them adequate reason, in their little scheming minds, to declare the election results a mandate for their point of view and imprimatur to impose that point of view on the rest of us. The administration(s) are already planning out their campaigns for reelection in four years, the judicial appoinments for eight years, and lots of other things, don't doubt that, and it's not much of a stretch to envision a massive gun confiscation move about mid-term in the second round, just for the safety of the populace after their other programs have proved inadequate at reducing the crime problems that will be an inevitable result of their other social agendas.