A 3rd civil war

I'd like to point out some current laws that restrict civilians. 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. In the following states, machineguns are outlawed: DE, DC, HI, NY, WA ; Class 3 dealer only in : CA, IL, IO, KS, MI, NJ, RI, SC In the following states, silencers are outlawed: DE, DC, HI, IL, MS, MT, NY, NJ, RI; Class 3 dealers only in : CA, KS, MO, MN Gun ownership was highest among middle-aged people of rural small-towns in America. https://www.ncjrs.gov... ==Arguments==I've decided to start on my arguments first, as I may not have time for rebuttals...--Differences--Now, there are many differences between a group of civilians and the military. These differences can result in victory for the military.1) Supplies-- Civilian militias and the military will have differing ways on getting their supplies. The military will have a constant supply of food, ammo, etc, from the UN. But where will the civilians get their supplies from? Obviously, they will be forced to search through empty areas and take whatever they can...>A. Civilians will be forced to compete with looters...>B. Civilians might even have to compete with each other, when supplies run low...>C. Civilians cannot win in the long run. Their supplies are finite and become corroded with time. However, the military gets it resources from outside nations, that have a constant flowing supply...>D. Heck, the 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.2) Newly Formed Societies--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.-->A. The Military has already established the ranks of people.-->B. The Civilians have not yet established the ranks of people.-->C. There will always be greedy, selfish people.-->D. Discipline and internal problems are more likely to occur within the Civilians.3) Loyalities--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:-->A. Leaving your family to fend for themselves and running off to fight a war with your own country-->B. Staying and trying to do your best to protect them.Where do the loyalities lie? It's needless to say that the majority of people with families cannot find it in their heart to leave their family in the midst of war.4) Communications/Recon--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. Now what do the civilians have? Some cellphones and the internet? All of the possible ways a civilian militia can communicate can be monitered by the government. Furthermore, the US and the UN can track the movements of civilian forces.-->A. The Civilians no longer have the element of surprise in any situation.-->B. The US/UN Military have more oppertunities to strike with the element of surprise.5) Undercover Operatives--The US/UN forces are much more likely to be able to plant undercover operatives.-->A. The US/UN forces have acess to large amounts of Intel on the civilian forces.-->B. Step back and think about this situation. A small force of civilians are at rest, with a couple secret operatives that work for the US/UN forces. These operatives, under the cover of dark, blow up and gun down the force, causing severe damage and sucessfully crippling the civilian force. By then, it'll be a simple matter for the main US/UN force to waltz in and slaughter/capture the rest.6) The Beginning of the War--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.--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.7) Artillery fire --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. 8) Sea Cities--Sea cities won't be much of a problem, as the Navy could be involved. Navy ships could bombard nearby cities, making it especially easy for the US/UN military to come in. From this tactic, the US/UN military could collapse onto the Civilian forces, creating two sides: the East and the West, and continue their assault to meet in the middle of America.9) Equipment--The US/UN forces will have much more acess to equipment. For example, they are equipped with combat boots, body armor, binoculars, robots, chemical and biological equipment, vehicles, UAVS, grenades, camoflauge, special energy bars, etc. All of these things mentioned could give a large boost to the US/UN forces.==Rebuttals==CON says that there is a large amount of guns within America. 1) Gun ownership was highest among middle-aged people of rural small-towns in America. 2) Certain guns are not very common, such as machine-guns, yet these rapid-fire guns are rather common in the US/UN military, when you compare them together.3) Most popular gun is a Colt M1911, a pistol. When you have people running around with semi-automatic pistols up agaisnt fully equiped trained military operatives with fully-automatic assault rifles, what do you get?CON mentions the Warsaw ghetto uprising.1) The situations are different, as you cannot compare the current US/UN military status to the German Army. 2) As I've stated before, undercover operatives along with artillery fire can cripple the Civilian forces, making the US/UN main military force simply a 'clean-up' crew. CON says that even if the militias lose the battles, they can push Pyrrhic victory, and overtime wear down the US forces. 1) Once again, the US/UN military force does not have to engage in full-out costly conventional warfare. Tactics such as artillery fire, undercover operatives, chemical and biological warfare, can easily devastate civilian forces to the point of no return.2) The Civilians and the US/UN forces are equipped completely differently. I'll bet that the majority of civilian forces will only have a pistol along with their normal civilian clothes to fend off the US/UN military troops. When comparing the two together, we see that the US/UN forces have better equipment in everything.CON says that the Civilians will have a overpowering amount of people equiped with weapons, which can cause enough Pyrrhic victories to defeat the US/UN forces.1) Different tactics can be used to kill off most of the civilian forces. (Artillery fire, undercover operatives, chemical/biological warfare, etc)2) Most of the people will have inferior weapons.3) The civilians won't have the time to distrubute these weapons among themselves. 4) Not all civilians can fight. You have to account for the children, women, and seniors, who have a large disadvantage at fighting. Not to mention that some people will have problems about giving weapons to a convicted criminal.CON mentions that the Civilians will be able to use 'guerrilla tactics'.1) The implemention of these tactics will be hard in the midst of chaos. *US Military can cripple Civilian forces--Out of Room--