13 May 10 09:59, Roger Nelson wrote to Roy Witt:


 RW>> First he'll be ignored. The governor of Texas has already stated
 RW>> that any federal gun bans won't take effect in Texas. And then the
 RW>> people spoke about how the feds wouldn't have much luck enforcing a
 RW>> ban here with all of the guns in Texas.

 RN> Then they would try something dumb like sending the National Guard
 RN> (once nationalized) after its own citizenry.  That would place the
 RN> legislative and executive branches squarely between a rock and a hard
 RN> place.

Seems to me that the Mexicans tried that around 1836 and didn't fare very
well, even though they outnumbered the Texicans by 15 to 20:1. Oh, they
won a few scirmishes, but they lost the war and a whole lot of territory
in the end. Not to mention making heros of those who perished for Texas.
Then, the Mexicans didn't learn that lesson and made the same mistake
again, which is when the US aquired the Arizona and New Mexico territory.

I suspect that many National Guardsmen will have a hard time shooting
at citizens, let alone handling the citizens shooting back.

Remember the shootout in California where two bank robbers had a war with
an entire police force who had help from the state police?  Watching that
on TV, I was cheering for the bank robbers because they had their s**t
together and the police had no idea how to stop them (at least for a
while). BTW, those two bank robbers used AK-47s that they modified to full
auto, plus a lot of pistols. The best the cops could do was to rob gun
shops of AR-15s (semi-auto copy of an M-16). Eventually the numbers and
circumstances got the bank robbers, but only after the police figured out
that the bank robbers probably weren't wearing armored shoes and socks.

                R\%/itt

    You can put lipstick on a pig, but the pig still stinks!
--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000-10