XPost: uk.politics.guns, aus.politics.guns, aus.politics   
   XPost: talk.politics.guns   
   From: daniel47@eternal-september.org   
      
   Dechucka wrote on 4/4/13 6:16 am:   
   >   
   > "SaPeIsMa"  wrote in message   
   > news:kjhc35$u55$1@dont-email.me...   
   >> "F Murtz"  wrote in message   
   >> news:gQs6t.177$e66.114@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com...   
   >>> ozarkheart@yahoo.com wrote:   
   >>>> On Mon, 1 Apr 2013 08:50:37 +1100, "Dechucka"    
   >>>> wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>  wrote in message   
   >>>>> news:sshgl89t7qtihmu8v59ianojcgefn0667s@4ax.com...   
   >>>>>> On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 23:50:30 +1000, F Murtz    
   >>>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> ozarkheart@yahoo.com wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 20:30:50 -0700 (PDT), bringyagrogalong   
   >>>>>>>>  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> ozarkhe...@yahoo.com wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>> "yaputya"  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> Here's somethingh the gun-nuts won't want to see....   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> Shields told host Judy Woodruff, "You know, Judy, the reality   
   >>>>>>>>>>> is --   
   >>>>>>>>>>> and it's a terrible reality -- since Robert Kennedy died in the   
   >>>>>>>>>>> Ambassador Hotel on June 4, 1968, more Americans have died from   
   >>>>>>>>>>> gunfire than died in . all the wars of this country's   
   >>>>>>>>>>> history, from   
   >>>>>>>>>>> the Revolutionary through the Civil War, World War I, World   
   >>>>>>>>>>> War II,   
   >>>>>>>>>>> in those 43 years. ... I mean, guns are a problem. And I think   
   >>>>>>>>>>> they still have to be confronted."   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> Is that counting the unarmed people that died at the hands of   
   >>>>>>>>>> governments led by Stalin? Hitler? Mao? In Cambodia? In Africa?   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> And what difference would it have made if they were armed, you   
   >>>>>>>>> dull-   
   >>>>>>>>> witted gimp?   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Probably a lot in those days,but not now with modern armoury   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> That is open to debate. But you made the point - probably a lot in   
   >>>>>> those days.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> but not today   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Why not?   
   >>>>   
   >>> Because you can have an army of individuals and do the lot in with a   
   >>> remote controlled bomb   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> Look at how the Soviets were stymied by the Taliban in Afghanistan   
   >> Look at how the Soviets and later the Russians were stymied in Chechnya..   
   >   
   > The situation as with the American et al in Afghanistan at the moment is   
   > that "defending force" only needs to make a pain of itself till the   
   > "invading country" loses the political will, leaves and allow the old   
   > situation to return, Bit different from you taking on the US goverement   
   > Of course the Taliban etc have access to rather more sophisticated   
   > weapons than your US punter   
      
   Hmm! How apropos that I happen to be reading this post from 2013 with   
   the world situation as it is today??   
   --   
   Daniel   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)