The insurgents have surface to air missles, explosives, AK-47s up the wazoo, etc.
None of these things are beyond the concept of what a militia uses or does.
And even with all that they certainly can't overthrow the US military presense there, they can just destabilize the country....
And that's all the needed to do go get us to tuck tail and leave.
You can lose every battle and still win the war, just as they did.
Of the guns? That is 1 in 10,000 people. Only about 40 million households in the US have guns in them, so that is one gun death a year for every 1,428 households that have a gun.
So? If the issue is a number of guns relating to a number of deaths, then the only valid comparison is the number of deaths for each gun.
You're talking about a different thing.
No, I am not. You were talking about banning guns. In those cities, the guns were banned. They would have remained banned of not for the court, and if, God forbid, the court over overturns itself, you can bet the guns will be banned again. Banning these guns takes away the right to own them; by supporting these bans, you want to take away the right to own guns.
Somehow I have this sneaking suspicion that your idea of reasonable safety regulations involves 12 year old juvenille delinquints being allowed to bring grenade launchers with them to school without a permit..
This is a self-serving, baseless and unsuppotable assumption. Straw, man.
A "reasonable" gun control law does two things:
- Ensures that criminals will not get guns
- Does not infringe on the rights of the law abiding.
Just because it's a right you have doesn't mean it's worth your time to get all up in a tizzy about it all the time.
You say that because this particular right doesnt mean much to you.
If the issue were a right that did mean much to you, and the anti-right people were looking to restrict in whatever way THEY found "reasonable", your attitude would change.
As such, your commentary here means nothing.