A 3rd civil war

"It has been unlawful since 1934 (The National Firearms Act) for civilians to own machine guns without special permission from the U.S. Treasury Department."A few things:1. you can get it via back market, even in anarchy countries where society has fallen the black market is still present. 2. So? Machineguns have what benifit? I will denounce their benifit in a later rebutal. "Gun ownership was highest among middle-aged people of rural small-towns in America."the poll is 17 years old, (1994) and almost 18 years old. An outdated poll. Find a newer one please, then lets converse. "Civilian militias and the military will have differing ways on getting their supplies. "They gat it from:1. Black market2. Nature3. They can raid UN and US storages at night4. Countries can smuggle in food (countries that hate the US and the UN). COuntries that would do this: SyriaIranvenezuelaCubaand 3rd party peopledrug cartells, terrorist groups, and even possibly the looters. "US military might not have to fight at all. A simple 'sanction' and constant atillery fire can easily defeat the civilians and lower their morale."The citizens would engage the artillary at night and kill and capture the workers ang guns, then turn them on the US camps. Also sanctions don't always work i.e. some seiges, Iran, and even the warsaw ghetto revolt, it worked there, but had great cost."When the current society collapses, new orders will be formed within the civilians. Not so 'new' within the military. The military has already experianced 'wars' and already has established it's power pyramid. Civilians will be struggling to rise up to power and fight among themselves."Once again, I am reading a book about this (hence the debate) and it shows that when facing a common enemy the civilians will form seperate militias, but allied militias fighting the foe. The enemy of my enemy is my freind. So in theory your argument is false. "The Military has already established the ranks of people."So can the militias. They choose a leader, and then make a chain of command. It's quite simple to do, so this argument is invalid.The Civilians have not yet established the ranks of people."The Civilians have not yet established the ranks of people."look at the argument above."There will always be greedy, selfish people."That argument hurts you too, a general can be selfish and greedy too, infact that's more likely in this situation because the militias are in a fight for your life mode, the general is in a let's take advantage of these crazies mode. "Discipline and internal problems are more likely to occur within the Civilians."If your fighting for your liberty and you life, then your disipline would be high. Also the taliban fights well, and they don't have discipline, why does it work? Tactics. In pop up then pop down warfare battles are breif. The guys pop up, pop a few shots at marching soldiers, kill a few, set of a few road bombs and back down you go. You don't need disipline in those situations. "Say you have a family of four: your loved one, and your 2 children. Now a fanatic comes to you and asks you "come fight with me --we'll provide you with weapons." You are presented with the choices:"You forget an option, take the family. Your family needn't fight, just sit in the camp and march along. And also using my family is a bad example because we all are trained with rifles and pistols. But anyway in many war situations the family comes along. The taliban bring their families around, same deal with the militias. And I own 1,200 rounds of .223 ammo and plenty of guns, take out the we provide part :P. "The US Military along with the UN force will have much more equipment for communications and reconnaissance. They have satellites for a communications network, along with a visual on the civilians' movement." Yes, sadilotes, which means cell phones still work, so communications = bad argument. Also radios, militias would have those. And also can they see you in the brush or in the woods with a sadolite? No. America has thouthands of acres of wooded areas which are perfect for ambushes, safe from sadolites. Also the night vision and the thermo spoters, what heppens when the batteries run out? You can charge radios and phones via solar equipment, but the US and the UN and the militias will lsoe that equipment over time. Also you can purchase night vision and therma red scopes at sportsmans warehoses. So the milita has a good chance of having a few of these, hence this argument even out. "The US/UN forces are much more likely to be able to plant undercover operatives."1. Since the militias have no set travel patterns how will the operatives find the militia?2. The militia arn't dumb, they would interogate him, and he may crack. And also, if he was caught contacting UN and US troops he would be shot. A big deterent. "Where would our forces be located at the start of the war? Civilians are much more spread out all across America, and there wouldn't be a central control. Basically, mobs across America calling for a rebellion. The US/UN military would be able to seperate these forces, and create fronts as they please."lol those army's are spread out too. So the rebelions could surrond each military base in america, and overwhelm it. They are just as speed out, even more so. SO The US army would be overun by the time UN troop arrive. "Furthermore, the rebels will be forced to have to 'mobilize' their forces and gather them up. During this chaos, the US/UN military could easily deploy their forces and slaughter the civilians."Not really, one armed mob could just go in and overwhelm, no tactics needed, (arguemnt above). And the UN soldiers woudl take a while to get here because they'd have to get organized. Also so would the army, they would have to organize defences, plans, and their troops and arms before this could be done. So it would be US organizing and being overwhelmed, Armed pissed mobs, and the UN troops taking weeks to get there. "The US/UN military, as explained the above argument, would be able to create fronts as they please. This gives them the chance to set up atillery positions and fire on heavily populated areas of civilian forces, which could be determined through the intelligence department. "How do they do this when facing 100,000 armed citizens per base. Also I am going to steal your loyalties argument:Stay at the base and let your family get looted, hurt, or possibly killed or draged in the war against you (choosing to join militia)or leave/desert and help your family. So the US forces woudl have mass desertians. "Sea Cities"They can overun the naval bases and use the anti-naval guns against the US ships. But places like hawaii would be in trouble your correct. "The US/UN forces will have much more acess to equipment. "falseaurmored vehicles, guns, ammo, body aurmor could be purchased very cheaply via black market. Also with Irans weapons shipments the militia would be doing ok. Once again, you rebuttals seem short, mal detailed, and weak. My historical arguments prove me right. Also my recent libya argument still works. Their army didn't criple them. Also vietnam great example, I will refute a refutation right now so that makes sense:"The implemention of these tactics will be hard in the midst of chaos. *US Military can cripple Civilian forces"Not really, those tactics where made for chaotic times. Also look at vietnam, gurilla tactics slauhterd US troops, and befor the US the french. So looking at a second historical reference, and how and what gureilla tactics do, this argument is false. Now my promise about the machine gun ans automatic weapon argument:It is easy to modify an AR-15 into an automatic weapon, you just need to rearange some springs and bolts and buy a peice which is legal to buy. Ans again, the black market is a option. Source: patriots (the book I mentioned above). Here's a site on how to convert them:http://www.hackcanada.com... (for an AK-47)