Author talks about his book on the history of gun rights in America.

[Cotton1]

I did not know that. They're pretty rare. I don't have one, and almost never come across one. They look cumbersome as heck.

Here you go..http://gadgetynews.com/self-defense-...rower-hottest-

[Peter1469]

I'm just the messenger simply noting there is a new power of academia now in the arena -- first, actually, I've seen. And who would these people be "who would prevent anti-Constitutional action against guns".

Are you ready to take it to the streets?

Rumor has it that I am armed and dangerous.

[Standing Wolf]

I get the impression that a couple of members took my earlier post the wrong way.

Yes, Cap, I'm aware that many citizens are, themselves, armed, and in that sense are an impediment to the idea of universal confiscation. But if you read what I wrote, I called the predominately pro-lawful firearms possession view of police forces and the military the "single greatest impediment" to such an action - not the only one. Were most cops of the opinion that private citizens shouldn't be armed, it would make any violent resistance on the part of the citizenry extremely problematic. Armed violence against police attempting to enforce the law would be met with an overwhelming response on the part of the police. In simplest terms, you draw down on a police officer, regardless of how much justification you believe you have for doing so, and every other cop in the world is your enemy. The only way, realistically, to avoid that scenario is not to send the police out trying to enforce such laws in the first place.

Peter, you wrote that we should consider:

people who would prevent anti-Constitutional action against guns

I'm not sure whether you meant the voters, in this instance, or the politicians themselves...but in either case, you're right, of course, and that gets back to my point, above, about nipping the problem in the bud by preventing politicians from putting cops (and perhaps even soldiers, in some extreme cases, posse comitatus notwithstanding) in the position of attempting to enforce an extremely unpopular and ultimately unenforceable law. The politicians, themselves, of course, are not going to be hitting the streets trying to round up those firearms that they've outlawed - rather they are dependent on the forces of law enforcement. And as we have seen in recent days, that is a factor in the equation that they cannot necessarily depend upon.

[Peter1469]

I get the impression that a couple of members took my earlier post the wrong way.

Yes, Cap, I'm aware that many citizens are, themselves, armed, and in that sense are an impediment to the idea of universal confiscation. But if you read what I wrote, I called the predominately pro-lawful firearms possession view of police forces and the military the "single greatest impediment" to such an action - not the only one. Were most cops of the opinion that private citizens shouldn't be armed, it would make any violent resistance on the part of the citizenry extremely problematic. Armed violence against police attempting to enforce the law would be met with an overwhelming response on the part of the police. In simplest terms, you draw down on a police officer, regardless of how much justification you believe you have for doing so, and every other cop in the world is your enemy. The only way, realistically, to avoid that scenario is not to send the police out trying to enforce such laws in the first place.

Peter, you wrote that we should consider:



I'm not sure whether you meant the voters, in this instance, or the politicians themselves...but in either case, you're right, of course, and that gets back to my point, above, about nipping the problem in the bud by preventing politicians from putting cops (and perhaps even soldiers, in some extreme cases, posse comitatus notwithstanding) in the position of attempting to enforce an extremely unpopular and ultimately unenforceable law. The politicians, themselves, of course, are not going to be hitting the streets trying to round up those firearms that they've outlawed - rather they are dependent on the forces of law enforcement. And as we have seen in recent days, that is a factor in the equation that they cannot necessarily depend upon.

The people will retain their arms despite what law enforcement decides.

At least so far as the military goes, I have good word that SOCOM is on our side.