Hezbollah vs Israel. Hezbollah only had infantry and small arms. Israel had a modern army with proper weapons. Why did Israel fail?
In which particular conflict? Seems in most cases, Israel's biggest barrier in that conflict isn't the Hezbollah, but the UN.
The Iraqi insurgents. While you may argue that they lose 90% of direct battles with US forces, why aren't they completely controlled yet?
Mostly because the US wants Iraq to handle it's own problems. We aren't actively seeking out the insurgents and are instead trying to build an independent police force in Iraq so they can take care of these problems without the help of the US military. That's why so many people want us out of Iraq. All our forces do is wait around for the Iraqi forces to call us up for help.
An armed population CANNOT BE COMPLETELY CONTROLLED.
Iraq under Saddam had pretty lax gun control, but he had fairly tight control of his country until we showed up, so that isn't entirely true.
Now who is talking about martial law?
Not him. Watch the video again. He's saying martial law is a ludicrous idea and the term is being thrown out there in an effort to generate fear and push the House into rushing into a decision. He's saying, DON'T believe the hype, these worst case scenarios are NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. I'm surprised you didn't throw up the quote from Michael Burgess which better supports your argument, but is still just sensationalizing the situation. It's actually a pretty common Republican tactic.
If I'm a crook and I know that that house is disarmed. I'd be more motivated to break and enter it. But if I know that I'd be SHOT DEAD the moment I break in, I'd think twice before doing it.
First of all, you can never tell if you will be shot dead the moment you enter a house. You can't require every citizen to own a gun, that would be stupid and irresponsible. Second, if I were a criminal with a gun, I wouldn't hesitate to rob the house in either situation and I would probably be more likely to kill the people inside if there was a risk of being shot, myself.
Criminals aquire guns through ILLEGAL means. Banning them wont do a thing. A criminal would always find a way to get guns.
There it is. That same old tired argument again. Most illegally aquired firearms in the US are stolen from people who bought them legally. There would be far fewer guns to aquire illegally if so many people did not already have them legally. This all plays into that fantasy of the criminal underground. The problem with that fantasy is that in the real world, criminals are not that organized and do not have the level of foresight to plan out what they do. Most of your violent crimes are acts of desperation, not mafia hits or well-planned conspiracies to lash out at society.
And ask yourself why these things happen despite the opposition of majority of the people against it?
Actually in some of those cases the majority were for the action until after the fact. As for why things happen that aren't always supported by the majority, that's a factor of our government being a republic and not a democracy. A lot of people seem to forget that. While we vote for people to represent us, they are still individuals with their own views and agendas. They are not always going to act as the majority wants them to. There is a reason the US is not a democracy. Pure democracy does not work. People do not think in terms of society, but in terms of self and as a group, people tend to make poor decisions. This is why we try to avoid this pitfall with a representative government rather than letting the majority call the shots. Representatives don't ALWAYS make the right choices, but that's why we can change our minds and go with someone else every two to six years. It may not be a perfect system, but it isn't a failure by a long shot.
- The continued fluoridation of water.
And you wonder why people think you're a conspiracy nut. I have to wonder at times if you don't do this on purpose.