Quote:
Originally Posted by Factsplease
It is amusing that people really think they have a chance or enough people on their side to wage a war against the government and win at that. I guess they forgot that the majority of the country just put Obama in office for a second term and another thing they seem to ignore is that many of those people also own guns. Not to mention, the government has weapons that could destroy your house or your whole city with no problem and you think a few rifles or even grenades is going to get it. WE THE PEOPLE have already spoken...some of you need to take your meds and go sit down somewhere. I agree with the OP - people who think this way are not mentally stable and should not be allowed to own guns.
|
Well... Hold on there for just one moment...
Firstly we don't live in a democracy, we live in a republic, your state has no more say in the running of the country than mine, regardless of population, which is why we have two senators per state, but have representatives based on population. Also WE THE PEOPLE, isn't cut and dried, because a poll taken 1 week after a tragic event and subsequent media feeding frenzy doesn't even mean that the same poll taken today would result in the same majority.
American voters are fickle except for hardliners, it's not easy to be hardline over something that doesn't actively effect you, so gun control supporters have a lot of support after these events but in the week afterwards that support evaporates, gun owners will often be affected (or are concerned they will), so they're much more likely to be hardline. The CD poll certainly didn't result in a majority wanting more regulations, although we can't state positively how representative that is, it shows that polls are not necessarily accurate all of the time, and even when representative and accurate, they're only a snapshot into the current public opinion at that time, a week later they can be entirely different.
While there's some unrealistic expectations on the side saying they'd not relinquish their guns, there's equally unrealistic expectations on the side saying you don't stand a chance against the US Military.
It's not what the Military has, it's what it can use.
Nuke's not happening, you suggesting that the US Gov can somehow justify vaporizing say Chicago to fight off some rebels? Nope, not going to happen. Although it could solve Chicago's crime rate overnight. Political fallout (not just the radioactive kind) would be extreme, likely every member of the Executive would be unable to leave the US for the rest of their natural lives, or they'd risk arrest and trial for crimes against humanity and/or war crimes. This would make it difficult for the US to have any meaningful foreign policy, subsequently don't you think?
Air strikes, drone attacks, cruise missiles, only if the US Gov wants to come out the other side as potentially close political allies with North Korea, because that's about the only country in the world that would be playground pals afterwards, and I think we've p*ssed in their Wheaties enough that even they wouldn't want to be pals.
Heavy weaponry (Artillery) nope, collateral damage is too great, while dropping a 155mm HE round on Gramma's head may sound funny in theory, the reality is quite different, it will probably kill everyone else in the retirement home as well. While we wouldn't come out of the other side with only North Korea as an option in the International Playground, the alternatives are pretty scarce too, certainly most of Europe, Canada, Japan, Australia would be about as likely to be pals with us as Syria.
Of course the other concern is if any of the above were used, what message does that send the world about the US military? Can't fight off a bunch of farmers, rednecks and hillbillies with hunting and sporting rifles without resorting to big guns, airplanes, and nukes?
So it leaves typical infantry, trucks, tanks, etc. Not much of an advantage technically.