originally posted by: projectvxn
I recently spent the better part of a year serving in Afghanistan with the US Army.
The Taliban have small arms and the ability to make rudimentary, yet effective, explosive devices that have us spending billions a year trying to fight.
Generally, Americans don't really need automatic weapons. Semi will do just fine. This is not to say that I am against the ownership of automatic or selective fire weapons. I just personally don't see the need for spray and pray even in combat outside of suppressive abilities.
Americans with semi-auto weapons and bolt action rifles with access to incalculable amounts of information about bomb making would mount the world most destructive insurgency. No Army on Earth, not even ours, would be able to contain it, let alone defeat it. It's just not possible.
I'm still in the Army. We have all kinds of cool toys. And even if 100% of us were in the bag for killing our own families and friends we would lose in short order for the reasons listed above.
Don't be stupid OP.
originally posted by: masqua
a reply to: swanne
The notion of an armed revolution involving the population of America pitted against the US Military is pure fantasy. It'll never happen regardless of the scenario of 'state of the art' tanks in every driveway.
Because the US Military consists of sons and daughters who would never stand against the citizenry.
originally posted by: Jesuslives4u
But no reason to argue because the U.N. troops will do most of the killing. Any idea how many active fully armed U.N. troops are stationed in the U.S.? Go online and do a little research, I think you will be surprised.