TexasCHLforum.com

tbrown wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:If you want a 20th century example of what an armed people can do when invaded, look no further than Finland's reaction to the Russian invasion during WW2.

An even more recent 20th century example is Afghanistan. Look at the reception Russia got there.

Russia was doing pretty well until we armed the Afghani's well enough to put up that resistance. 30 years later, I wonder where we would be if we hadn't armed them.

speedsix wrote:

alexrex20 wrote:

speedsix wrote: the Jews were powerless before the evil Germans because they had no means of defending themselves...

not all Germans were Nazis, some Jews were German, and believe it or not some Nazis were not German.

...I didn't say they were, I didn't say they weren't, and I didn't say that they weren't...but I think I understand your post...

Wha????????

I don’t understand your reply.

...he did...and it wasn't directed to the general conversation...but to answer his...which wasn't either...as usual...

Well, if I might express my opinion on the subject.

I have served in the military and I have been an LEO. I believe that 95% would not move against U.S. civilians. As a matter of fact, I believe most would move to protect civilians.Having said that, I am concerned about things like the disarmament of citizens in New Orleans after hurricane Katrina. I am concerned about the militarization of some police departments and the apparent overuse of SWAT. I am concerned about DHS and ATF.

I don’t believe our present military or law enforcement would move against U.S. civilians, but those in government that want to, could readily find those willing to do as told and put a badge or uniform on them. This has been demonstrated more than once in even the U.S.A.

In my opinion, lack of firearms was only a small part of the reason for the holocaust. I believe the Jewish mindset at the time that “it is more valiant to suffer bravely than fight” played a large part in this.

OK let the slings and arrows begin for my last paragraph, but I have good reason for that opinion.

Edited to add;
Read
Man's Search for Meaning
by Viktor Frankl

VoiceofReason wrote:Well, if I might express my opinion on the subject.

I have served in the military and I have been an LEO. I believe that 95% would not move against U.S. civilians. As a matter of fact, I believe most would move to protect civilians.Having said that, I am concerned about things like the disarmament of citizens in New Orleans after hurricane Katrina. I am concerned about the militarization of some police departments and the apparent overuse of SWAT. I am concerned about DHS and ATF.

I don’t believe our present military or law enforcement would move against U.S. civilians, but those in government that want to, could readily find those willing to do as told and put a badge or uniform on them. This has been demonstrated more than once in even the U.S.A.

In my opinion, lack of firearms was only a small part of the reason for the holocaust. I believe the Jewish mindset at the time that “it is more valiant to suffer bravely than fight” played a large part in this.

OK let the slings and arrows begin for my last paragraph, but I have good reason for that opinion.

Edited to add;
Read
Man's Search for Meaning
by Viktor Frankl

I post this quote from Aleksander Solzhenitsyn:

"And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward."

THIS is a reason "they" would want to disarm citizens...but, as it stands today, THIS cannot happen in the USA. It is why the Second Amendment and the right that it enumerates is so important to us as free human beings. I have said it before and I will say it again: they will do WHATEVER THEY CAN GET AWAY WITH (I don't care how "nanny" their motivations are or how much they believe those motivations to be pure)...and as long as a large percentage of us are armed, it limits what they can get away with...thank you Founding Fathers.

I hope that it would be as much as 95% that would not move against U. S. civilians but I fear the number will be much lower. From my experience, the younger LEO’s, I have dealt with lately; seem to have less moral conviction than the LEO’s I grew up respecting. “Protect and Serve” seems to have less meaning that it used to. That being said, I still respect our LEO’s and would stand by any who would choose not to follow any unlawful orders to disarm the citizens that may be issued by the traitors that have taken over our government.