On Mon, 02 Feb 2015 09:16:10 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 2/2/2015 8:58 AM, Mucho Loco wrote:
On Mon, 02 Feb 2015 08:41:30 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 2/2/2015 7:43 AM, Mucho Loco wrote:
On Sun, 01 Feb 2015 23:22:03 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 2/1/2015 11:13 PM, Tim wrote:
On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 7:53:26 PM UTC-8, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/1/2015 10:33 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 01 Feb 2015 19:15:13 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Tim, that's a wonderful historical statement, true for it's time. It's
more of a tradition now though. I don't care how many guns are
privately owned, there's no way they could be used to fend off the US
military if our government somehow decided to become "tyrannical".
Heck, they can't agree on how many sugars to put in a coffee.


Considering the number of conservative southerners and westerners who
are actually the ones to join the military, why would you think they
would fight the citizens if the government became tyrannical?
You would be more likely to have a military coup.


I agree a few thousand guys in a compound somewhere will not stand
much of a chance but a million well armed guys could cause some
serious problems. Particularity if the military was less than
enthusiastic in quelling them.
Our military is yet to win a single "asymmetric" war even when they
were motivated to do it..


I think your hypotheticals originate in la-la land. By it's nature and
governmental structure it is impossible to even imagine a military
"coup" in the USA today and we aren't going to have another Civil War.


Richard, a coup is one thing, disarmament of the free citizen is another. an overthrow would be hard to pull off, and a disarmament would be even harder. I dont' think it would be that easy for US soldiers to willingly fire on US citizens. especially on such a basis. Few kids are gonna fire on people from their home town regardless of who wrote the orders.

Not really sure, but round where I live, If disarmament of the public came push and shove, I'd say things might get pretty bloody. On both sides.



Who's talking "disarmament"?

Personally (and no offense) I think the people shouting the most about
gun ownership to protect themselves against their government in the USA
have been drinking too much NRA juice.


Or listening to Bloomberg, et al.



I am talking about those who hang on the "necessary militia" stuff and
are fearful that the government will someday conspire and use the
military against it's citizens to justify *no* reasonable gun control
laws. Those concerns were true when written but not relevant today.
We have better ways to resolve differences and they've worked fine
so far. Most people can have any firearm they want (within reason)
for their sporting, competition or self defense reasons.


So Bloomberg, et al, are just ****in' in the wind?



What success has Bloomberg, et al, have to show for themselves? It
takes votes and they can't get any.


Look at the ridiculous laws in Maryland and your home state, for example. You think
Bloomberg, et al, had nothing to do with those?
--

Guns don't cause problems. The behavior
of certain gun owners causes problems.