Do Gun Owners Stand a Chance Against the U.S. Military? [OPINION]
I had a conversation with a fellow gun owner the other day, and he was stymied that I owned only 2 guns. "What will you do when the government comes to take your guns? How will you defend yourself?" were the questions.
That got me to thinking: do gun owners really stand a chance against the US Military?
My initial thought was "no way"; but then I gave it more consideration, and even reached out to my Army buddies.
I asked them the question: "Do gun owners stand a chance against the US Military?", and here were their answers:
Friend 1: Nope.
Friend 2: Not a chance.
Friend 3: Nope.
Through our conversations, one of my friends (Friend #4, if you are keeping track) said this: "What some gun owners might lack is a background in warfare. Some may not think in 3-D when it comes to a gunfight; they think small arms against small arms."
When the Constitution was written, and then altered to include the rights of citizens to own guns, the playing field between the military and civilians was a little more level. In the 200+ years since, the weaponry advances made in our military far out-gun what civilians are allowed to own.
The military can attack you from the air with big planes, little planes, helicopters, rockets, missiles, and drones. (FUN FACT: The F-16, in one configuration, carries the following armament: General Electric M61A1 20mm six-barrel cannon and two wingtip Sidewinder or Sparrow air-to-air missiles; nine additional hardpoints capable of carrying up to 15,200 pounds of other stores - US Navy.) They can attack from the sea, from the ground, and through your internet. They can attack at your front door or from hundreds (if not thousands) of miles away. They can attack with gas that can kill you or with gas that just slightly aggravates you. They can use percussion and/or audio warfare that will cause you to drop your weapon and try to cover your ears or, just simply, drive you batty.
One of my friends is former military (he retired with 20+ years, most of that in combat units), and he sent me this reply:
I think your friend’s premise is flawed from a philosophical, strategic, statistical and anecdotal level. First, consider that identifying how many firearms actually exist in the U.S. is difficult at best. Pew and Gallup both suggest the total number of weapons could be around 400 million. They do suggest the number of owners is around 3 in 10 or 30 million. Let’s say it is closer to 50 million, just for argument. If fuzzy math could be used roughly 1% of that ownership would have had formalized training in the military, so perhaps 500,000 who actually understand something of combat. The rest would be ok shooting static targets in the back yard, totally different than shooting moving targets, while you are on the move and under duress...combat. Now look at the nature of the weapons: there are estimated between 5 to 10 million assault-style weapons in the country now. Once again, hard to pin that number down. In sustained combat, weapons require extensive maintenance and repair. There are entire career fields dedicated to this in the military. The average civilian will pack their broken weapon up and send it to the manufacturer for repair. Likely not a luxury in sustained combat. So the advantage goes to the military. Finally, let’s talk experience. The U.S. military is not only the highest trained military in the world, even privates study tactics, they are now, by far, the most experienced with nearly 20 years of straight combat experience. There would be no contest between even 50 million armed militia, if you could even muster such a thing, which is highly unlikely, and the U.S. military. Modern maintained military weapon systems, constant training and combat experience wins every single time.
Also interesting that your friend's argument is based on the quantity of weapons and people and discounts training and experience...suggesting that it isn’t that difficult to maintain soldierly skills...I would argue the quality of Soldiers wins wars not numbers of guns...
Using only the aircraft in this picture, a swath of land from Carencro to Maurice and Scott to Breaux Bridge could be reduced to near rubble, but they wouldn't have to do that. All they would have to do is hit a few important targets like fuel reserves, power distribution points and bridges, and we'd be in dire straights.
Here is some good news, though: there is no sign that we will have to test ourselves against the might of the US Military any time in the near future.
What are your thoughts?