Many guns used in inner city violence, as in other crimes, are bought legally at gun stores, which could be traced much easier if police and democrats had their way, but when they have been traced, this has been demonstrated. Many guns are also stolen from legal gun owners houses in burglaries. Cut down on gun supply and you cut down on deaths in their houses as well as future deaths when the guns are sold illegally or stolen.
Even though the U.S. lost 'nam by failing to accomplish its main goals, it still had around a 20:1 k/d ratio. If U.S. civilians ever managed to defeat the U.S. military it would be with terrible losses.
tardbro wrote:
There are at least 50 million gun owners in the U.S, that number is probably closer to 100 million.
And most of them look like this guy...
http://giveupinternet.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/dont-worry-sir-im-from-internet.jpgFor everyone who says that the military would side with the people, when the time comes, the government won't have to worry about whether or not the military will obey orders. Once effective mind control technologies have been developed, soldiers will be under the direct control of the government and will attack the people if ordered to do so. With mind control technologies, the government could just exercise mind control on the general population, making armed conflict unnecessary in the first place.
A mind control device would be implanted in everyone's brain at birth, or later on for those already alive at the time of implementation. Installation would be mandated by the government. This device would allow for all sorts of cool technologies such as thought sharing, and would be marketed as such. However, unbeknownst to the general population, the device would possess mind control capabilities, which the government would utilize as needed.
Face it guys, when the government develops mind control technologies, then we will all be screwed, and granddaddy's old shotgun won't do anything to save us.
First of all we must assume the military has some advanced tech and weaponry that we dont even know about. With that said , knowing what they do have, there is no way any civilian could survive drone strikes, carpet bombing, air craft attacks, tanks etc. I am sure they have thought of this scenario already and have prepared fortified bunkers with missle controls etc not just here but all over the world and aircraft carriers and Navy vessles. Now on the other hand if you got enough moles in the military you could take it down from the inside out. Gaining control to all the advanced weaponry. This is the only way I see it happening. Problem is People are sheep. They are programed for self preservation. Once bombs started dropping They will hide and hermit away rather then rallying a mass. If the military started going door to door and rounding up arms, most people would just hand them over. If you went against even just a few soldiers in full body armour chances are you lose. Your best bet is to build a bomb shelter now and start storing away food and water just in case.
kikKomen Soi sauce wrote:
For everyone who says that the military would side with the people, when the time comes,
They watch waaaaaay too many movies.
kaitainen wrote:
i don't think vietnam is a very relevant analogy. in this (admittedly ridiculous) hypothetical, the US military is not trying to take over new territory, as it was in vietnam.
sure, a small band of insurgents could pester the US military for decades, causing deaths here and there. but there is no way they would defeat the military and take over governing the US. (absent a meaningful chunk of the military refusing to be part of this hypothetical military dictatorship).
You might want to check you history. The US was not trying to take over new territory. There weren't an invasion of the north.And here it he big difference. We could leave Vietnam. Pretty hard for the US army to get up and leave the US.
Obiviously you are well off into hypothetical land but the gun owners would basically be reduced to terrorist activities. Would that be enough to win? Who the heck knows.
Fantastic thread idea. I haven't made it past the first page, yet, but I plan to.
It would boil down to this: how readily would the US Military engage in total war? Would they be willing to carpet bomb areas of resistance? Send in the tanks? Etc?
On the other hand, how many "local militia" would actually take up arms against the US Military?
On the first foot; you would likely see a lot of desertion and treason within the military itself. Robert E Lee led the Confederacy, not because he especially liked their (ok, our) cause, but because he simply refused to lead an army against his home state.
There would be blood. And rednecks. But mostly blood.
........ wrote:
Two words: air superiority
And heavy artillery. What a dumb thread. Who thinks that the lower ranks, (grunts) would make war on their family/friends. They'd kill the brass hats first.
I don't own a gun, but I could take refuge in the "safe place" at my local University.
Wolverines!!!!
zombies win
thejeff wrote:
It would boil down to this: how readily would the US Military engage in total war? Would they be willing to carpet bomb areas of resistance? Send in the tanks? Etc?
On the other hand, how many "local militia" would actually take up arms against the US Military?
You watch too many movies.
pop_pop!_v2.1.1 wrote:
thejeff wrote:It would boil down to this: how readily would the US Military engage in total war? Would they be willing to carpet bomb areas of resistance? Send in the tanks? Etc?
On the other hand, how many "local militia" would actually take up arms against the US Military?
You watch too many movies.
Either that, or I have a MSS and teach AP Euro and AP US History.
One of the two.
The question a lot of posters seem to be asking is the degree to which the military would follow orders. I suspect the degree to which civilians would not only resist, but side with the government would come into play. The conditions that would prompt civil war here could also possibly invalidate any chance of foreign intervention.
I suspect if it came down to it, you would see a split between both the military AND the civilians. Half would be pro-government, half would be pro-whatever is opposing the government.
tardbro wrote:
Imagine if the Indians had rifles when the spanish and english landed in the new world. Thats about how it would go.
They would shoot the smallpox germs?
Of course civilians would beat the US military, but it wouldn't take any guns at all.
We would just have to stop feeding them and the battle would end quickly.
Amateurs discuss strategy.
Professionals discuss logistics.
Most of the gun owners I know talk a big game but would be hunkering in a corner wetting their pants if confronted by anyone or they would be firing their handgun with their eyes closed and running backwards while doing it.
Fity Cent wrote:
Most of the gun owners I know talk a big game but would be hunkering in a corner wetting their pants if confronted by anyone or they would be firing their handgun with their eyes closed and running backwards while doing it.
The history of the American revolution shows that you are correct... to a point. The continental army did wet it's pants and run, but then they rallied behind Washington and defeated the most powerful organized military force in the world at the time. So it can be done, and it will be done again.
Only 3% of Americans took part in the revolution. All major changes in the course of human history have been driven by a highly motivated tiny minority of people.
DiscoGary wrote:
Fity Cent wrote:Most of the gun owners I know talk a big game but would be hunkering in a corner wetting their pants if confronted by anyone or they would be firing their handgun with their eyes closed and running backwards while doing it.
The history of the American revolution shows that you are correct... to a point. The continental army did wet it's pants and run, but then they rallied behind Washington and defeated the most powerful organized military force in the world at the time. So it can be done, and it will be done again.
Only 3% of Americans took part in the revolution. All major changes in the course of human history have been driven by a highly motivated tiny minority of people.
The US army didn't defeat the british. The French army and navy did.
