You are a devil, aren't you?
Devil? what do you mean lol?
Last edited:
You are a devil, aren't you?
What would Most Likely happen is that the majority of the officers would be disgruntled and angry at their orders, but believe enough in the chain of command to follow orders "in times of emergency". A smaller but still sizeable fraction would break away and refuse to fight (initially), and a smaller still portion of the officer core would actively rebel and join the "insurrectionists" on principle. This would create havoc within the field army, and render it useless for the time being.
The still loyal units would have the communications and control edge, as well as mobilility on the broken, unorganized, and confused break away units, and would mostly ignore them for the time being, going for the juicier prizes (us citizens). They can bring the rest of the army to heel later.
In effect, what you would get is a small(er) loyalist group of soldiers, augemented by police and NG, zooming from hotspot to hotspot, crushing resistance, and an air campaign against the "constitutional" forces. The Confor's would have their hands full defending themselves and getting straightened out, organizing, setting up a logistical train and forming their own strategic goals, which would basically take them out of the fight for the time being.
That means the groups in the hills are on their own. THEY will be slaughtered. That part of the resistance would be wiped away fairly quickly, with the Confor's soon to follow, haveing no base of logistics.
UNLESS..... *wink* the rest is up to the inner strategist in you : )
I believe the initial action would be entirely too quick to involve the navy, since most of it is at sea at any given time (thank the Japs for that one), and the air force would be pretty even along side the army in the way that they split. the reason I say whole commands will split off is each unit in the army is loyal to the nation, but they are even more loyal to each other. If the commander gives an order, it WILL be carried out, especially in that kind of emergency. If it is not immediately followed, there will be lots of summary courts martial (executions) until it IS followed.
Thats the way of the military in civil war.
I agree with you. I seriously doubt that anyone could make it happen in the near future. Firearms ownership is simply too ingrained in the US psyche.
This is the way I feel too. I don't care about stuff that much. I have a wife, a daughter, and a very happy life. I don't base my happiness or my security on my guns. Or any one nation.
Don't think for a moment that your paltry small arms are going to stop a government that wants to take away your guns. The best you can hope to do is break the hearts of the families of a few law-enforcement officers. After that your family will be without a father, and your guns will be gone.
Dan, I'm sure you mean well, but I agree with Flammatrix. The 2nd amendment is not the cornerstone of the Constitution. The ballot box is. If they want my guns they can have them. I collect guns for fun - nothing more. My money and my education will protect me.
Legg86,
Even if 100% of the military were to go with the government (which most agree will not be the case), it is a blunt instrument in general. By this I mean that the most common solution a problem is the application of copious quantities of HE. The destruction of the American infrastructure would be fairly complete. There are huge numbers of non-hardened targets around the nation. If this infrastructure is significantly damaged, the financial markets will grind to a halt (given the global nature of investment, the crisis will likely be worldwide). The United States would come to a screeching halt. It would be a screwed up situation well beyond anyone's comprehension.
As for going quietly like the British and Australians, I don't think so. There is something in the American psyche that rebels against authority. Without generations of propaganda, I don't see this changing.
Dan
This, although I would expand the idea to encompass the actual resistance itself. The goal is not to win the fight in any traditional sense, only resolve the issue and abolish the notion of a ban. If the government decides to "call the bluff", actually taking a stand against it would be a pretty huge statement. Not to mention that a guerilla war in an urban setting is not exactly the easiest to win...
Also, consider how many of the LEO and military personnel are supporters of the Second Amendment. Talk about a complication on top of the staggering cost issues already mentioned.
Really, regardless of what your stance would be, the response to disarmament would devastate the entire country. When you start taking rights away, there's no guarantee that you will stop. And as many others have already mentioned, the Second Amendment is in place to protect all of the others.
Fortunately for those who haven't considered this issue at all and for those who are kidding themselves in terms of what an imposed disarmament would mean, it's not likely to happen until the country (and the rest of the world, for that matter) is ready for it. That would mean some serious changes in the hearts and minds of the population, and it's unlikely that they'll ever take place. Simply put, not that many people in power are that silly.
I was in the military. At the time, 19 and dumb, if my commander told me to do something, I did it. I don't know what would have happened if I was with my unit and we were told to fire on a bunch of American citizens, but I can tell you at least half of the company would have done it. If they opened up, and the citizens shot back, you can bet I would've joined it, american or not.
Don't rely on the army saving your bacon, there are other ways.
If the gov't wants my guns they can have them. It is not that big of a deal for me. I only got interested in them about two years ago. Most of my life I never was around them.
I think it's probably more of a peter stretching contest. Hey, look at me! Look what I have!
Who gave you that ballot box?
You're a fool. Would you run forever? History has shown us a unified nation can defend itself when necessary.
What would Most Likely happen is that the majority of the officers would be disgruntled and angry at their orders, but believe enough in the chain of command to follow orders "in times of emergency". A smaller but still sizeable fraction would break away and refuse to fight (initially), and a smaller still portion of the officer core would actively rebel and join the "insurrectionists" on principle. This would create havoc within the field army, and render it useless for the time being.
The still loyal units would have the communications and control edge, as well as mobilility on the broken, unorganized, and confused break away units, and would mostly ignore them for the time being, going for the juicier prizes (us citizens). They can bring the rest of the army to heel later.
In effect, what you would get is a small(er) loyalist group of soldiers, augemented by police and NG, zooming from hotspot to hotspot, crushing resistance, and an air campaign against the "constitutional" forces. The Confor's would have their hands full defending themselves and getting straightened out, organizing, setting up a logistical train and forming their own strategic goals, which would basically take them out of the fight for the time being.
That means the groups in the hills are on their own. THEY will be slaughtered. That part of the resistance would be wiped away fairly quickly, with the Confor's soon to follow, haveing no base of logistics.
UNLESS..... *wink* the rest is up to the inner strategist in you : )