[Westbrook]

You impute to the US Military a hesitancy to commit warfare at home that you do not seem to share. What makes you think that after you start shooting at them, they won’t shoot back with everything and anything they’ve got?

[Badeye]

Lets note a couple of things, then we can debate this if you’d like.

I didn’t say anything about shooting at anyone. Anywhere on this thread.

Second, my time in the service is much of the basis for my comment about the military acting ‘differently’ here, than in Iraq.

Yep, you can take out any single target you want if you are the US military with authorization.

But I wasn’t talking about lil old ME.

I was talking about the difference between a nation in the Middle East with a population of under 30 million total, that had been brutally surpressed for over three decades...in comparision to our nation, with 300 million people, and well over 220 million firearms in their collective possession.

You suggested originally that how we acted in Iraq applies here at home. It simply doesn’t, for a wide variety of reasons.

From the lowest ranked member of our military, to the top of the ranks, there would be CHAOS. Our military isn’t trained to act blindly in relation to our population, unlike what you see in other countries, particularly the Middle East.

[Blue Jays]

It doesn't seem likely that American soldiers would be willing to engage in warfare with fellow countrymen in the event of a confiscation scenario.
Especially when they could avoid violence simply by facilitating law-abiding & peaceful folks to remain law-abiding & peaceful as they've been their whole lives. No muss, no fuss.