The gun nuts are DELUSIONAL...

[X_Digger]

74. Yeah.. no.

I've seen a lot of similar memes lately talking about how individual firearm ownership poses no challenge to the US military.

The problem with such a position is that it makes a lot of unwarranted and untenable assumptions.

Probably the biggest wrong assumption is that a group of people wearing similar uniforms would line up toe to toe with the military to fight on an open battlefield. That hasn't been a standard tactic since Korea. No, think Viet Nam. Think Afghanistan (either in the 80's against the Soviets or now with the US .mil).

Now imagine that the "battlefields" are the same places where the soldiers live, not "over there somewhere". No geographic distinctions, no 'line' where you can say, "those from this side are okay, those from the other side are not." Unlike in the second world war, there wouldn't be one factory producing munitions for the "loyalists", and another factory on a different side of a line producing munitions for the "rebels". Same range of skin colors, no religious ornamentation to differentiate "us" from "them", no language differences.

Remember the chaos caused by Lee Boyd Malvo in the beltway in 2002? Imagine that times a hundred, or a thousand. Imagine the same number of guys with chain come-a-longs misaligning railroad tracks at railroad yards or even worse- out in the sticks where a derailed train would be screwed. Or the same number of guys taking pot shots at power substations or transformers. Or a concerted effort to snipe workers at the Port of Los Angeles and Miami- how much chaos do you think *that* would cause?

Stochiastic actions such as these are not designed to 'win', but to make maintaining the status quo impossible.

Such a meme also assumes that the military is a monolithic entity. As if, were there serious civil unrest, all the military would remain loyal to whatever party was in power. As if a unit from the Mississippi National Guard would act the same way a unit from the New York National Guard would, if the orders were to subdue a population in New York City. Preposterous. No, you'd see widespread fracturing and dessertion.

No, a person with a rifle can't take on a tank, but tanks are thirsty / hungry beasts, driven by thirsty / hungry people. You don't have to take on a tank, just the tanker truck feeding it or the guy driving it.

There's a saying that, "In battle, a handgun is what you use to fight your way to your rifle." Well, a logical extension of that would be, "A rifle is what you use to fight your way to heavy weaponry."

No, if a "Prophet Nehemiah Scudder" were to be elected and declared himself permanent ruler under a theocracy, it wouldn't be a band of men wearing red armbands calling themselves the "Cabal" who resisted. It would be the same guy who fixes your cable, the cute waitress you make sure to tip well at lunch each week, or the car wash attendant who snaps his towel to get your attention.