[Joe Brower]

"Against them would be the best military on the planet, along with the bulk of the citizenry, many of whom are also armed and ex-military."

A factor to consider in this, however, is that many of those who would not cooperate are themselves ex-military. In addition, a great number of our military personnell would not be keen on attacking fellow Americans. Studies have been done on this subject, some which have been made public and some which have not, and they all tend to indicate that our military would by and large suffer a complete loss of unit cohesion.

A question that arises from this unpleasant topic is, "Why, with all the planes, tanks, ships and heavy weapons at it's disposal, is our government so afraid of simple, private citizens with small arms?"

[MineralMan]

"A question that arises from this unpleasant topic is, "Why, with all the planes, tanks, ships and heavy weapons at it's disposal, is our government so afraid of simple, private citizens with small arms?"

"

The answer is that the government is not afraid at all. That's why they keep passing all these restrictive laws. They know nothing will happen to them as long as they do it slowly.

As I said, you might be able to muster up a single regiment of people who are actually willing to take up arms against the government, but that's about it. Such a regiment couldn't even take on a big city police deparment, much less the military. The government's not scared. Individual politicians might be scared about the next election, but that's about it.

[Henrietta]

"A question that arises from this unpleasant topic is, "Why, with all the planes, tanks, ships and heavy weapons at it's disposal, is our government so afraid of simple, private citizens with small arms?"

Answer: Vietnam. Afghanistan. Iraq. Mogadishu. Where our best-trained, best-equipped and best financed army either got its butt soundly kicked or had to keep constantly looking over its shoulder to avoid the ill-trained and ill-armed, but oh-so-motiviated civilian.