First, one cannot compare WWII with Afghanistan. Yes, they are both military conflicts, but that is where the similarity ends. WWII was a national struggle in which the governments of the opposing forces were compelled into surrender. Afghanistan has no such structure — this is an ideological opposition that will not be compelled to surrender through the use of military force.

I agree completely, and this is exactly why you can compare Afghanistan to a scenario in which US citizens revolt against their own government, which is the scenario you’re dismissing in your article.

The foundation of the remainder of the article, then, is flawed. A revolt against the US Government here would look just like Afghanistan does, except with far more insurgents who are much better armed, and have technological advantages the Afghanis simply don’t have.

A rewrite of your article to state explicitly that this would work, but it would be horribly ugly and nobody wants that, would be more intellectually honest. But such a rewrite might quite possibly lead you to the opposite conclusion — that the sheer fact that nobody wants that prevents the US government from crossing that Rubicon, and therefore that gun proliferation is, in fact, already working as intended.