Quote:
Originally Posted by QuadCityImages
Seems like we should have won the war in Afghanistan by now considering they're 1/8th the population of the US, less educated, and less well-armed. Don't underestimate the fact that quantity has its own quality, as the Soviets used to say. (although they then forgot it and invaded Afghanistan)
Anyway, I don't necessarily disagree with your point. Using the controlling the government argument, you could logically make a case for the 2nd amendment allowing machine guns and anti-air missiles, which almost nobody thinks should be legal. (outside of the NRA) I just think there's probably a balance in there of limiting access to guns from insane people, while still not disarming the country as a whole.
|
They don't use extreme tactics in Afghanistan because they care about perception. If they decide they're dictators now, why would they care about the citizen's perception. These little bands of freedom fighters would stand no chance. Sure they'd kill soldiers, but overall they'd get stomped.
As far as complete disarming, it's not necessary. Canada has a lot of weapons, but when it comes to handguns and assault weapons there are some serious hoops to jump through to get them.
You might have to go more extreme in the US and outright ban handguns and assault weapons to break the engrained gun culture and then revisit them in a few generations. However, after a few generations, American citizens might have realized that having guns isn't as important as they thought.