Mines can be deployed by small vessels. Including civilian vessels. I'm pretty sure Iran had worked on that as a contingency. Video shown many years ago.

And here too civilian vessels. Speed boats, RPGs. Again, videos many years ago. They seemed to what to portray a guerrilla war style approach to tanker attacks. Again, a contingency. Presumably attempting to make the USA concerned that taking out traditional naval warships was not enough. That Iran was ready to go asymmetric.

Its reality. The US Navy has not closed them. The US Navy is conducting minesweeping operations to make sure Iran is not attempting to close them.

Yes. Hence Iran having no authority to control them. Hence the US Navy blockage only applying to Iranian ports and territorial waters.

Only initially. The ships in transit constitute a "pipeline" delivering fuel.

No. The problem is the side that's been chanting "Death To America" since 1979. They were ignorable until on the verge of having a nuclear weapon and ballistic missiles. Missiles which had twice the state range we found out, capable of reaching Munich, Paris, and Rome.

Every, EVERY, US President said Iran can not be allowed to have nuclear weapons.

The Hormuz is not closed, the shipping lanes are in international waters and they are open. What is blockaded is Iranian territorial waters, lie Iranian ports. The world is free to visit other countries in the gulf. They are however waiting for the Navy to finish minesweeping to make sure Iran had not mined the international lanes.

They are likely just waiting for minesweeping to complete. The shipping lanes are open, they are in international waters. It's the Iranian territorial waters that are closed, ie Iranian ports. Tankers are free to transit the international lanes and visiting other countries in the gulf.

The shipping lanes are not closed. The Iranian ports and costal waters are closed. The international waters with the shipping lanes are open. Most ships are waiting the for minesweepers to finish checking it out though.

I'd wager that multiple valid interpretations make it a more appreciated response. And I mean the preceding in multiple interpretations as well. :-)

The US, Mexico, and Venezuela can pick up some of that shortage.

Some mine sweeper will probably be sent to the straight as well.

Pease requires two side that are interested in peace.

Re-read your own pasted definition, "conclusion of an argument is assumed in the premises". The premise is that a quote proves something, then you used my lack of responding with a quote was evidence of being incorrect. It's logically flawed, and circular. By the way, my not quoting is nothing more than making my point a different way.

I've explained what is implied, and why, numerous times. You are simply in denial. And your flawed gymnastics doesn't change that.

Well if we stick to 1970s Soviet era electronics, maybe we can manage steel and glass. :-)

You seem to have failed to notice that is what you did. You (falsely by the way) concluded this is how to prove something. Then you said I failed because I did not do that.

Actually, I did. You just (falsely by the way) claimed otherwise. You introduced the topic of diversity in a politicized manner. That implicitly question the qualifications.

And did so in a polticized manner injecting the implicit challenging of qualifications.

Wrong again, I wrote "grammar nazi", which is something different than a nazi. You then were the first to refer to historical nazi.

Courts have recognized that ammunition is an essential parts of the protected "arms".

In California a pistol grip, flash suppressor, or bayonet lug.