It seems to me that you can still mount effective guerrilla warfare with these weapons. Also, during the Iran revolution, the state's armed forces had enough weaponry. They just weren't used.
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 1:02 AM, Drsolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You would if your opponent had artillery, jet fighters, napalm and > fuel-air bombs. > > US subjects are only allowed to own weapons that they could never use to > make a revolution. All you can do with your popguns is kill other > civilians. > > On Tue, 21 Oct 2008, quispiam lepidus wrote: > > > I guess our definition of "popgun" must differ substantially, I'd > > hardly consider an AK-47 a "popgun". > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 7:54 AM, Drsolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Or in the USA, actually. They don't allow US subjects to own any > > > substantial weaponry, only popguns. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. > https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec > Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list. > -- Imri Goldberg -------------------------------------- www.algorithm.co.il/blogs/ -------------------------------------- -- insert signature here ----
_______________________________________________ Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
