why the left hates guns

[Atencio 43]

Israel had them running for their lives and begging for mercy. Then again, you said you don't give a ####### about the rest of the world, therefore, you would have missed that azz-kicking. That's how it rolls when you fire at will and disregard civilian casualties.

You really don't know anything. Living in a parallel world are you?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/18/world/africa/18iht-web.0818israel.2526690.html?_r=1

Initially, in a poll by an Israeli radio station, Israelis were split on the outcome with the majority believing that no one won. By 25 August, 63% of Israelis polled wanted Olmert to resign due to his handling of the war.

In contrast, Israel's military performance fell well short of expectations. Troops were sent into battle without sufficient food, water and basic supplies, apparently because of recent cuts in defense spending. The prioritization of diplomatic goals accounts for much of the vacillation and hesitancy of Israeli officials in directing the campaign - a leadership failure terribly out of step with Israeli military doctrine

http://www.mideastmonitor.org/issues/0609/0609_2.htm

Indeed, there was no observable degradation of Hezbollah military capabilities at all during the war. The quality and endurance of its military performance exceeded Israeli expectations in virtually every domain, from the volume and accuracy of rocket fire into northern Israel (which peaked in the final week of the war) to the sophistication of its communications network and artful camouflage of heavy military equipment and bunkers (belying the initial assumption of Israeli war planners that air power alone would be sufficient to destroy them).

Fighting an insurgency gets difficult, when you are trying to preserve civilian lives. That said, this discussion is about the effectiveness and practicality of a militia armed with guns to take on a modern foreign military. It wasn't some hillbilly militia that took on the Soviets in Afghan, it was the use of surface-to-air weapons. Without them, the Militia of Afghanistan was being crushed, thus, why Wilson provided them with the state-of-the art weapons in the first place.

Oh yes, they beat the Russians with Stingers only. Haha You are something. What about the 120,000 Russian Troops, tanks, APC's, and bombers? Are you not the guy that said GDP will win wars? Now it is technology? Your opinions seem to change as the air leaves your mouth.

Vietnam was also 40 years ago, technology has vastly advanced since then.

Yet we are still in Iraq and Afghanistan. OK, I guess you think you are making sense.

You guys are grasping for straws to justify the validity of gun ownership in 2010. Word of advice, it's a safer bet to stick to we simply want them, as you cannot possible argue on logic or facts.

Not with your logic. You have that rare ability to honestly believe whatever comes out of your mouth.

[Atencio 43]

No one said it wasn't, however that doesn't change the reality that no armed militia can destroy any modern [first world] army. As such, negating the Guns will protect the country against foreign invaders argument.

As I said before and you seem to have not noticed. That beating an army head to head is not the point of guerrilla warfare. I asked if you could understand this important step. If not it would be hopeless to explain. Well guess what, it is hopeless.

Since you guys brought black hawk down into the discussion, did you guys notice how their actions were at the mercy of the UN?

I also asked what you met by this statement and what relevance it actually has to anything?

[slim 1,514]

Nevertheless, the militias you refer to, just so happen to be located in third world countries. They're also not battling any first world nations.

Several of the nations I listed are battling the US (and UK & AUS) right now. Are those not first world enough for you?

Fighting an insurgency gets difficult, when you are trying to preserve civilian lives.

So what you're saying is the US military would fight militias on US soil without concern for civilian lives?. That's your point, right? The army is going to come in with their tank battalions and the AF is going to use F-22s to level cities... that's what you've been saying, right?

Please, correct me if I'm wrong here because it sounds like that's what you've been saying.

That said, this discussion is about the effectiveness and practicality of a militia armed with guns to take on a modern foreign military.

So is it a modern foreign army or the US army the militia groups will be fighting because now you're teetering between the two and I'm almost starting to get confused which one of these "modern technological power houses" militia groups are going to be facing.

No one said it wasn't, however that doesn't change the reality that no armed militia can destroy any modern [first world] army. As such, negating the Guns will protect the country against foreign invaders argument.

So we're back to foreign invaders again? Dude, is the US army a foreign invader? I'm going cross-eyed here trying to figure out which hypothetical first world army our militias will be fighting.

This is the cause of your confusion. An armed militia does not need to defeat a modern army. They kill a guy here, shoot a guy there. It becomes a war of attrition. Who does the army go after when the militia fades back into the population? Despair soon sets in among the army units. If you get a chance read about the Soviet soldiers experiences in Afghanistan.

Regardless of which modern army militia groups would fight - this is the outcome. Every single time. This is the outcome.

Indeed, there was no observable degradation of Hezbollah military capabilities at all during the war. The quality and endurance of its military performance exceeded Israeli expectations in virtually every domain, from the volume and accuracy of rocket fire into northern Israel (which peaked in the final week of the war) to the sophistication of its communications network and artful camouflage of heavy military equipment and bunkers (belying the initial assumption of Israeli war planners that air power alone would be sufficient to destroy them).

It's amazing what a little help from some friends can achieve!

Do you think there'd be a shortage of money and weapons coming in to overthrow the US government? The same folks who helped Hezbollah would have us on speed-dial trying to give us whatever support we could carry. "Does anyone speak Farsi?"

[HannahP 119]

Too drunk to read this thread but as a liberal who has owned guns and whose daddy taught her to field strip an ak 47, my head just exploded with cognitive dissonance.

[slim 1,514]

whose daddy taught her to field strip an ak 47

What a great dad!

[HannahP 119]

What a great dad!

Except for the non-existent doctor alcoholic stuff, yeah.

But hey, if the zombies attack, I'm ready.

[slim 1,514]

Except for the non-existent doctor alcoholic stuff, yeah.

But hey, if the zombies attack, I'm ready.

Priorities, man!