Mark Steyn on gun control, from America Alone:
New Hampshire has a high rate of firearms possession, which is why it has a low crime rate. You don’t have to own a gun, and there are plenty of sissy arms-are-for-hugging granola-crunchers who don’t. But they benefit from the fact that their crazy stump-toothed knuckle-dragging neighbors do. If you want to burgle a home in the Granite State, you’d have to be awfully certain it was the one-in-a-hundred we-are-the-world panty-waist’s pad and not some plaid-clad gun nut who’ll blow your head off before you lay a hand on his seventy dollar TV. A North Country non-gun owner might tire of all the Second Amendment kooks with the gun racks in the pickups and move somewhere where everyone is, at least officially, a non-gun owner just like him: Washington D.C., say, or London. And suddenly he finds that, in a wholly disarmed society, his house requires burglar alarms and window locks and security cameras.
And, finally, a last bit about war:
“…as the great strategist of armored warfare Basil Liddell Hart wrote: “The destruction of the enemy’s armed forces is but a means – and not necessarily an inevitable or infallible one – to attainment of the real objective.”
The object of war is not to destroy the enemy’s tanks but to destroy his will.
America is extremely good at destroying tanks. If you make the mistake of luring the United States into a hot war – i.e. tanks, bombers, ships, etc. – you’ll lose very quickly.
Wars fought under absurd degrees of self-imposed etiquette are the most difficult to win – see Korea and Vietnam – and one lesson of Germany and Japan is that it’s easier to rebuild totalitarian states if they’ve first been completely smashed.
So, in the last passage he’s saying that the U.S. is great at destroying the enemy’s armed forces, but not so great at destroying the enemy’s will. In fact, the U.S. has been very good at bolstering the enemy’s will.