xKodiac
|
  |
| Joined: 02 Jan 2012 |
| Total Posts: 719 |
|
|
| 07 Sep 2014 11:55 PM |
"The government is just taking out guns so we can't rebel"
US Military would crush a rebellion easily... You need more than just guns ya narbs .-. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
0Z0NE
|
  |
| Joined: 25 May 2010 |
| Total Posts: 7951 |
|
|
| 08 Sep 2014 12:23 AM |
When the number of firearms owned in the US is about the same as the number of citizens of the US, and is estimated to be more than the population of the US in most cases, the government may have an issue fighting a force which outnumbers it at least 10 to 1. Even accounting for those who own multiple guns, the number of gun owners in the US is likely at least 10 times the size of the US' entire armed forces, active and reserve. Considering that the US would not be able to US its Air Force or Navy to fight in its own cities without outraging the entire world over collateral damage, that leaves the US's main ground forces, the Marine Corps and the Army, which is about 750,000 active and reserve forces. Now, we assume that a large portion of the military wouldn't be supportive of killing US citizens, or in favor of a policy to take away firearms from citizens, and that number goes down even more.
Now you are left with a group which is less than 1% of the firearms which are owned in the US. It may be well outfitted, and well trained, but it would stand no chance against a civilian fighting force at least 10 times its size.
Now we understand why the government fears the people, and why firearm ownership is an important part of making that fear exist. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
BooneHEAD
|
  |
| Joined: 09 Oct 2011 |
| Total Posts: 125099 |
|
|
| 08 Sep 2014 02:55 AM |
| Wanting to stop the violence. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Dulexo
|
  |
| Joined: 07 Mar 2015 |
| Total Posts: 32755 |
|
|
| 08 Sep 2014 02:55 AM |
>US Military would crush a rebellion easily... You need more than just guns ya narbs .-.
oh really?
lets go look at iraq, syria, and afghanistan, hows that working for ya, scrub?
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 08 Sep 2014 03:53 PM |
| why dont you just make it so people need lots of training and back checks for a gun... |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 08 Sep 2014 03:54 PM |
Guns aren't nearly compared tot he weapons the government has. If they really wanted to wipe out the movement they just send out tanks and drones. Job done.
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
mayor21
|
  |
| Joined: 11 Nov 2010 |
| Total Posts: 3604 |
|
|
| 08 Sep 2014 04:06 PM |
| 0z0ne that is the smartest thing I have ever heard you say. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 08 Sep 2014 04:10 PM |
I can see both sides being obliterated. But who knows what countries will side with whom if any, most of you assume there will be no outside interference from the UN of any countries. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 08 Sep 2014 04:12 PM |
| American citizens don't have the knowledge of how to shoot anything that shoots back. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 08 Sep 2014 04:13 PM |
True. Maybe not the knowledge, but the mental ability to execute it. Soldiers are trained not to feel pain, remorse, of hesitate when killing a person. The civilian population on the other hand probably isn't going to be so ready to have blood on their hands. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 08 Sep 2014 08:09 PM |
@0Z0NE
You forgot to mention the u.s. military has sherman tanks, fighter jets, battleships, bombs, etc. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Scyblocks
|
  |
| Joined: 24 Mar 2012 |
| Total Posts: 26732 |
|
|
| 08 Sep 2014 08:10 PM |
| Heck the US gov't might even use nukes against some areas in the midwest and southeast. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 08 Sep 2014 08:24 PM |
@scy
I don't think they'd go that far. They would probably just send some soldiers accompanied by drones to deal with isolated places then spread out to larger areas. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 09 Sep 2014 12:40 PM |
| It's not like criminals aren't going to not use guns because the law says so, anyway... |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
breuning
|
  |
| Joined: 30 Oct 2008 |
| Total Posts: 4268 |
|
|
| 09 Sep 2014 12:48 PM |
| have fun destroying a stryker with an ar-15 |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Dulexo
|
  |
| Joined: 07 Mar 2015 |
| Total Posts: 32755 |
|
|
| 09 Sep 2014 12:58 PM |
how u gon destroy it
just throw fire on it then every1 ded |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
0Z0NE
|
  |
| Joined: 25 May 2010 |
| Total Posts: 7951 |
|
|
| 11 Sep 2014 12:34 AM |
People fail to realize that the US would not be able to use most of its resources in a war against its own people without being invaded by NATO or UN forces.
The moment there is collateral damage, the military is split between loyalists and deserters, the UN condemns the US, international trade with the US ends, and NATO topples the US government.
There is no scenario where the US wins a war against its population. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
dans59
|
  |
| Joined: 15 Apr 2011 |
| Total Posts: 8606 |
|
|
| 11 Sep 2014 03:56 AM |
this is why we are now coming to a time that we all need our personal nukes
...
oh wait, I'm in canada where the crime rates are 10x lower then the u.s
lol sorry forgot
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Dulexo
|
  |
| Joined: 07 Mar 2015 |
| Total Posts: 32755 |
|
|
| 11 Sep 2014 04:13 AM |
| @OZ, no, every time they fire 1 bullet, or kill one person, it IS colletral damage, they're basically shooting a balloon, the balloon being their country. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
0Z0NE
|
  |
| Joined: 25 May 2010 |
| Total Posts: 7951 |
|
|
| 11 Sep 2014 08:48 AM |
| No, the military would be well within it's rights to fight rebels. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 11 Sep 2014 03:00 PM |
| we need guns to shoot ourselves after we've shot the fridge |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|