of course you didn't, but you have to remember that when dealing with the whole "reasonable restriction crowd", these kinds of extreme scenarios are the norm, and they are to be expected. it was pretty clear to me what tiger was trying to say, but muddying the waters with examples like the afghanistan one is nothing more than a way to turn common sense on its head, and frame the debate in such a way to try and discredit the opinions of some based on extremely silly hypotheticals.

for the sake of a debate i will address the taliban scenario. of course a soldier has the right to stop a threat to himself, it boils down to self defense. this is the same argument that is so hard for so many to understand: a law abiding citizen should have the same rights to self defense. generally firearms are the most effective form of defense against hostile threats, which may include hostiles armed with a gun.