They have a lot of firepower that we gave them back in the 80's...plus all the stuff left behind by the soviets. IF we got a hold of captured equipment...then yes. But that is a big huge IF...even then, we would still be at the disadvantage because they have more. Notice the difference in body counts between Afghans and US Military...To see a similar situation, look at the Israeli Palestinian conflict. The casualties are so disproportionate it should be criminal.
------------------------------------ Three Ravens Consulting Eric Roberts Owner/Developer [email protected] tel: 630-486-5255 fax: 630-310-8531 http://www.threeravensconsulting.com ------------------------------------ -----Original Message----- From: LRS Scout [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 8:12 PM To: cf-community Subject: Re: Shooting at Empire State building.People under stress or something? Yeah, cause the Afghans haven't done more with less right? The big things you would need, Anti-Aircraft and Anti-Armor weapons would bcaptured, and brought over by deserting troops. I went to 2C school, was a javelin gunner, do you have any idea what I can do with that weapons system? Even rotary wing aircraft can't do anything about, and I can kill any armor on the battle field out to 2K. On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 8:53 PM, Eric Roberts < [email protected]> wrote: > > Yeah...when the government has stealth aircraft, drones, and > missiles...you little handgun...or even assault rifle, isn't going amount to much. > > ------------------------------------ > Three Ravens Consulting > Eric Roberts > Owner/Developer > [email protected] > tel: 630-486-5255 > fax: 630-310-8531 > http://www.threeravensconsulting.com > ------------------------------------ > > -----Original Message----- > From: Maureen [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 2:00 PM > To: cf-community > Subject: Re: Shooting at Empire State building.People under stress or > something? > > > Not quite. The right to bear arms is to protect the citizens from > government. A simple read of British history in the years immediately > preceding the enactment of the Bill of Rights will show why. > > But as you say, with the current level of lethal technology possessed > by the government, simply having guns is not sufficient deterrent > against a government intent on taking away our rights. > > In some ways, the focus on the 2nd amendment right to bear arms draws > attention from the real government encroachments such as the Patriot > Act and the War on (some) Drugs. > > On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 9:52 AM, Jerry Barnes <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > The right to bear arms is because that's the last form of defense > > against tyranny. Not to hunt. It's to protect yourself from the > > police. - Ice T > > > > Ice T gets it. > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:354125 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
