Hunting is not a justification for gun ownership

Of course the fools who didn't go to the shelters and stayed in their homes during Katrina fared much better, right?

 

At least whatever happened to them was based on their own decision, and not the decision of a hood rat.

 

Oh boy. Back to reading comprehension. I am not comparing armies. I am comparing civilian populations in resistance to the various armies. In Afghanistan, it was the Afghanis against first the Russians, and then the US military forces. They prevailed against both, with rather crude weaponry. In Syria, it began as the Syrian people (some of them) vs. the Syrian military. We see how that is going. In Chechnya, it was the rebels vs. the Russians. Here's a CLUE, just for YOU: Because of the problems the Russians had with snipers in Chechnya who were using lowly .22LR rifles, the Rooskies developed their very own rimfire sniper rifle:
http://world.guns.ru/sniper/sniper-rifles/rus/sv99-e.html
Here in America, we have tens of millions of .22LR "sniper rifles".

 

Here is the post you made

"By all means, civilian arms would come in very handy against Gov. forces, as they did in Afghanistan, Syria, and Chechnya. Where have you been?"

Maybe the reading comprehension problem is yours. Or maybe your writing doesn't adequately communicate what you are actually trying to say. Either way the comparison of government forces is clear in your post.

 

OhmyGawd. There is nothing ambiguous, unclear, or lacking in that statement. You might even recall that I linked to the Russian sniper .22LR, which was developed in response to the effect that the Chechnyan snipers had against the Russians, using regular old bolt action .22LR rifles.
If you need more help, ask someone else.

 

The topic was your rather idiotic comparison of the US army to those off the other three countries. But since it was unbelievably ignorant we can understand your need to divert the topic. The sniper rifle was just an attempt to change the topic, which is of course necessary after you make a statement that is impossible to defend,

 

I don't approve of women in combat zones but she looks awesome. Really cool. I bet she's skilled.

 

You obviously do need help. I was comparing the armies of Russia and the US to the civilian armed people of the countries I named. The US military did in fact come to a draw against the Afghanis, same as the Russians did. The Russians managed to defeat the Chechnyans, but at horrible cost. Beyond that, LEAVE ME ALONE!!!! I don't need your attitude.

 

What a free country needs to get through their heads is that freedom comes with mistakes and loss of life. If governments job was nothing more than attempting to reduce death, it could destroy freedom and outlaw and regulate every death possibility. It could put cameras everywhere. It could put cops every where. It could implant chips in everyone. It could eliminate all guns(at a very high death toll cost). It could eliminate all hammers, knives and cars, but is this what we really want? Or, are we willing to accept that liberty comes with challenges worth accepting. People have proven they will kill other humans, so we need guns for self defense. Governments have proven they will kill citizens, so we need arms to resist tyrannical governments. The people have the right to say no to government at some point and the ability to fight it if neccessary.