U.S. military vs. American gun owners, who would win?

Jaxin

If its strictly a numbers and experiance question, then obviously the US Military would win. There can be no question about that.

However, in REALITY, many people in the military would refuse to aide in taking away any American's right, including the right to bear arms, and would fight along side with the rest of us citizens. I have actually had this talk with a few of my friends who are in the marines, and my father who was in the Air Force, and they have all said that if it came down to it, they would have no problem fighting against the government if it turned on the people. And they said the majority of the military have similar thoughts.

So, if it really came down to it, and if Obama commands the military to remove all guns from United States citizens, the government, and the few military personel who support that effort, would loose, no constest. Out of those 6 million soldiers, I'm pretty sure almost all of them have private guns of their own they wont want to loose. Actually, I'm sure almost all those 6 million are already counted in the 150 million citizens you mentioned. So really, the US citizens wouldn't be fighting anyone, because the entire military, and it's arsenal, would be on their side.

So in the end, it woudl just be another revolution, and a new government would probably be established in the end.

Did You Get That Memo?

The bigger question is how many military guys would disobey such an unconstitutional order and refuse to disarm the citizenry. Hopefully, most of them.

Future Citizen of Forvik

it would be chaos. and the US Military might disband. That is sort of what is happening in Iraq right now. Let us hope that don't happen in our life times.

needalift?

That's a lot of "what ifs". BUT I do believe the American people will never be oppressed. We know what freedom is and will never be subjugated.

EDIT:
There would be MANY military personnel that would "defect". They are sworn to uphold the Constitution. Most take that very seriously.

EDIT:
I forgot to mention. Many of these "deserters" would take their weapons with them!

JOSE DUDE

of course the military
they have training, special training

Gov't Mule

I'm not sure how many private citizens own F-22s or stealth bombers, but I'm guessing none.

my2cents

The citizens would win, as the people in the military are part of the citizenry, and have a vested interest in seeing democracy continue.

If it got to that point, I think the government would have thrown off its "kiddy gloves" by then, and use any means necessary to try to win (real torture, civilian casulties, chemical weapons, etc.) as Iraq tactics of pacification would be contrary to a police state. At this point most of the military (if not all) would probably be so disgusted and so against what the government is doing that they would revolt outright.

europe

U.S Millitary

Rob

us milatary

Nick C

dude!!! what the hell? the military have tanks and F-22 fighters and what not.... think the nuclear war head would come in handy hey? hahaha

Entertainment World

I'd say the US Military because they are trained to use weapons and they have more experience.

It also depends upon the person fighting because you don't know how good the other person is until you fight he/she.

Good Luck!

Leander

Military for sure.. Although soldier's probably won't hurt the people they protect especially when they see them in the millions.. They would probably launch a coup-d-tat..

danieulate

Maybe the military would lose.

Chris R

it could go both ways but the gun owners would have to no how to be good with a gun

Rusty Shackleford

The Military has more sophisticated weaponry and training, but the fighting would be similar to what's going on in Iraq; the citizens would win, because they would most likely be using guerilla warfare, which would most likely be effective against the military. You also can't discount enlisted men and women, and what side they might take... The most probable downfall for the citizens would be the lack of organization though...

Variable 46

The parameters as established are that the conflict is between the gun owners and the military...I don't think this would actually happen, because our military, our brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, husbands, wives, parents, friends, neighbors, etc. who serve in the military would not fight a legitimate civilian uprising...they'd abet it. But regardless, using the parameters as given:

The military would win. They have weaponry that the gun owners don't have access to, such as helicopter gun ships, fighter jets, tanks, machine guns and so forth. More important, they also have the command and control structure to mount comprehensive operations...how would you organize a loose civilian militia scattered across a country as large as the U.S.?

The technological edge clearly goes to the military too. You couldn't make a cell phone call that they couldn't intercept, not to mention the survellience assets they have.

Guerilla uprisings can succeed if the military follows "rules" and the guerillas don't. But in this sort of showdown, all civilians would be legitimately viewed as enemy soldiers, so a lot of "rules" would be off. How long would a civilian uprising in this country last if the military started executing 100 random civilians pulled off the street for every one of their soldiers killed?

Supply...There's some black powder guns out there I suppose who could make their own gun powder and shot, but most gun owners require manufactured bullets. I suppose there's a few characters who have what they'd consider a huge stockpile, but in a conflict with an organized army, shot and powder are going to get short. Sucessful insurgencies rely on outside supply sources, so who is going to support the American insurgency? Canada? Mexico?

Finally, there is stamina. There would be some determined bands of freedom fighters out there in the wild, but I fear most Americans would eventually just accept the new regime if it didn't otherwise alter their daily lives too much.

sahmanx

So you're asking if regular civilians could fight a highly trained specialized military?

Look up something i think it's called the Revolutionary War.

and if another "civil war" broke out, you can bet that members of the armed forces would desert and join the resistance, giving a little bit more training to the resistance, as well as some other resources.

Jack_1989

The army would win hands down. How many of the American citizens have had training do disarm or kill someone using a gun? Hardly any I imagine. Also take into account the class of weapons. Only certain guns are legal on the market. The army would have long range missiles, High power machine guns capable of killing hundreds within seconds. Then you have tanks, bombs, aircrafts and helicopters with weapons.

It would be a massacre.

~sweetheartâ™¥~

I don't know that's a tough one cuz the military has a bunch of them automatic rifles and high power stuff, in my house we have about 5 rifles and a pistol and my dad down the rd has about 8 so we are pretty loaded. To answer your question I would have to think the military cuz they're loaded with more ammo them the American ppl

dinodino

Would you attack a tank with a 45, shotgun or deer rifle?
Take on a Blackhawk Helicopter? Storm a machine gun nest? Can you shoot down an F16 with those weapons? How about a cruise missile? How many gun owners know anything about military strategy and tactics, have lead troops etc. How many hunters would go hunting if the deer, bears and ducks were armed and could shoot back?

doomis_99

The people would win. Remember many of those "highly trained" Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, and Airmen would not fight with the military. It would be guerilla warfare. Afghanistan vs Russia, Iraq vs USA, USA vs USA.

abdul

Military. they are trained highly and effectivly. they will be in groups raiding houses while the gun owners will be one by one. even if they manage to group up the military has better technology and more advanced weapons.

Government is controlling. tahts how it always was.Thats what government means! and if they feel threatened that the homeowners would win. they would put a ban immediatly

DRocK

Wow thats a crazy question! But that theoretical scenario is fundamentally why we are even entitled to gun ownership in the US in the first place so it certainly is valid.

Basically we're talking sheer numbers vs. superior firepower & training. I honestly think that the US Citizens would win eventually, mainly just because of the numbers and because there are so many average joe yet die hard people out there with great knowledge of firearms and weapons in general.

It would be a bloody mess though! Power to the People!

Mowgli jr

U.S. military too much technology and too much training and skills.

Malficeus

Seeing how there is also more arms stores then u.s. armories, home field advantages, and the fact that taking over the city would mean keeping control of normals vs. guerrillas, and knowing the difference... it would more then likely be a stand still, just like the other countries right now in this kinda of situations. Just look in South America

Scandguard

I would think the gun owners. The national guard would join the people.

DasReich

If the U.S. military cannot pacify Iraq after five years of war then it certainly could not occupy and subdue its own country.

fight obama's lies

U.S. military vs. American gun owners, who would win?
The hypothetical tyrannical, abusive,U.S. government would LOSE.

Many of those military people own personal firearms as well.

Remember that being ordered to violate the Constitution or other laws of the law constitutes being issued an unlawful order. They might have to put a few GIs against the wall and then the entire military system would break down.

Remember - the MILITARY comes from the Civilian population.

Why is it that these crackpot questions come from people that don't know JACK about American Law or the Military?????

BRENDA P

ameican gun owners of course

Vejay S

I know many people in the military and Texas National guard, almost all of them would turn against the government if a fight between the government and the people broke.

But hypothetically, I don't think the military can win this because of guerrilla tactics and democracy. If the government waged a war against its own people, the government would be voted out. Geneva conventions would prevent them from bombing a city, and if they do collateral damage will turn public opinion against them.

greencoke

The military, they have more advanced weapons and more traaining.

Civilian

At first, the military would seem to have the upper hand. But, American citizens would adapt, and the military would slowly break down. Afghanistan? How many Afghanis have tanks, helicopters, drones, and others; I am assuming none. Has the military conquered Afghanistan, has any? No, because of the spirit of the people. Americans have lost more than any other civilian population in recent history. The spirit of the American people will prevail! Sadly, it will not be without collateral damage. Besides, many of the nations military will join the people, helping to construct a more organized campaign, and MILITARY WEAPONS WILL BE CEASED by sporadic take overs! The land area of the U.S. is too vast to be everywhere at once.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: