:)

There's nothing wrong with caution. If I was going to visit a jungle in Africa, I'd probably want some sort of defensive weapon (more to scare animals away, not to take their lives). I don't know what form a weapon would take, but I'd want one for protection.

But for day-to-day living, some of these gun nuts are nihilistic. "I need my gun in case the government is overthrown." Great, is that your first thought before breakfast? 

It's the same with the teaching debate. Concealed or not, how is a teacher carrying a firearm going to create a conducive environment?

The first time I ever visited an airport, it was jarring to see cops carrying guns (cops are not routinely armed here). I wasn't doing anything wrong - and they greeted me with a smile, but being that close to someone with guns, here in Birmingham, was shocking. I'm not sure what a kid's psychology will be like if teachers are walking around with firearms. Not conducive to a positive environment at all.

(And the difference in my scenario is that those airport cops, probably attached to Counter-Terrorism units, needed guns).

+++++++++++++

You're being too kind. Penis replacements, more like it.  

Well, Trump may finally one-up Obama - Obama never suggested abridging the 2nd Amendment and taking guns in an illegal manner!

“Take the guns first. Go through due process second,” Trump said at the White House yesterday in a meeting with lawmakers. “I like taking the guns early.” Typically, he'll likely say the opposite today.

-C!

First, get the population angry, scared, and divisive. Give them some group or policy to hate. (Among a lot of others, Jews have always been a particularly good target for this.)

Then get a figurehead leader to paint a doomsday scenario in the near future. "Death! Destruction! Woe! Horror!" Remind the citizenry of "the good ol' days" when what they hated wasn't about, and how good things were (whether they were or not). Then tell them that they can have it again... but only that leader can bring it back.

Lull the citizenry into complacency. "You don't have to vote, you don't have to complain, you can just sit back and do what you do. Ignore all those people who are opposed to us. I can take care of everything for you... as long as THEY let me do my job."

Start removing rights little by little. Impose a limit on what "news" outlets are allowed on the air, or what newspapers are allowed to be published. Restrict their content. All in the name of national security, of course.

Silence critics and those who would question authority. Putin is particularly good at that.

Establish a national security force, but under control of one person in the government. First, have them supplement the current security forces... "We support our local police!" Then put them in a position of equivalent authority and force of those local forces. Then start easing out the previous police - but keep those who pass the psychological and intelligence tests (not too much intelligence, mind you) for the private force.

Start nationalizing critical industries. Establish a government run news outlet for periodicals, broadcast, and internet. 

(This one's tricky.) Create a small "resistance" group so that those who are truly opposed to the current regime can gather and try to decide on action to be taken. Determine the strongest activists and leaders. And eliminate them.

Gather information about everyone... all information. Put them into a national registry, "in case of emergency." This is much easier done with computers and databases. Start with schools, with students and their parents supplying all this data. Again, for their own safety.

With regards to the military... build it up. Push that big budget through Congress. Pick a foreign enemy or two as critical threats... so that, damn it, we NEED more bombers and we need them NOW! Retire the highest ranked generals and admirals who don't see things the right way, and replace them with "our heroes"... the ones who are with us.

That's the big start. And slowly, silently, smoothly, the reins of power are reduced in scope and scale to a small group of people who will run things from now on.

a military takeover would be a very difficult and awkward way to take over a government. A dictatorship starts subtly.

-----------------------------

I would say military coups d'état happen far more frequently than subtle dictatorships. Even Hitler's wasn't that subtle; the little corporal needed the muscle of the SA to get him on his way.