Well, someone asked the most stupid question I've heard in my life, in Quora.com. The one in the title of this thread. Here is the answer he got:
Answered by Nick Zimmerman
Nick Zimmerman, studied Madison College (2017)
I've written the answer to this in previous answers, but never as a standalone, so here we go.
#1 the military has an oath to uphold, not any politician, or any president, but the Constitution. This being an unconstitutional order, the force that takes this order will be small, which brings us to point 2.
#2 the military at full force would be hysterically outnumbered. There are about 2 million active members of the armed forces, which would be stacked up against over 75 million registered gun owners. But then, take into account that some households have multiple guns and multiple people who can use them. So I would guess over 150 million targets. From there, I would guess that, (being unflattering here,) maybe half would follow orders to house to house. That's 1 million, which, when confronted by a complete suicide mission would definitely shrink. (I know that some will make a sacrifice for their brothers in arms, but not a suicide mission with literally no chance of success.) Let's be generous again and assume that half remain. Now we have 500000 against the assumed 150 million, plus the 1 million defectors, who will have access to their tanks planes and missiles. Massive insurmountable numbers, plus a complete lack of reliable intelligence, plus a much larger equally trained force with the same gear? That remaining 500000 will crumble.
#3 now the ground attack has failed, and in a similar debate with a family member, who said that we have no chance because of drones and fighter jets, yada yada yada. Here is why the most feasible way is door to door search. You could just blow up the houses of gun owners, use missiles to wipe out entire towns if everyone, or at least a vast majority of the population are gun owners, but the reprecussions from shooting a 12 gauge through your head are better. See, you would have to indiscriminately kill 150 million Americans, and to be honest, probably closer to 250 million. More than the civil war, WWI and WWII combined. You would be socially hated even more than Adolf Hitler, because the course of action leads you to kill anyone with a certain possession. So your left with literally one option if you want to get rid of every last gun by force and not be a social spittoon.
#4 send the entire United States of America straight to with a nuclear suicide. Then you might as well do the 12 gauge to the head, because that will be a lot less painful than radiation poisoning. The fallout from that many nukes going off, plus probably Russia and every other nuclear capable country shooting in retailation (because they don't know about the suicide,) would plunge the world into a nuclear winter, irradiate probably half the world, shift tetonic plates, ect.
Go door to door and demand guns, I dare you. I promise that the only way to get it done is to kill about 2 thirds of the population. Good. Luck.
Edit: I am fully aware of Posse Comitatus. I wrote this from the prospect that somehow the anti-gun position gained enough momentum the override any sort of civil block to it, and skipped right to what would happen if a door to door style raid were to happen. As for the numbers, I was really unflattering, and in think in reality, the largest force against gun owners would probably be private security in the employ of the anti-gun leaders. So maybe enough to fill a small hotel against the entire gun owning population and military. But legally, it would be easier to get Hitler a Nobel Peace prize for humanitarian work. In terms of military strategy? Plugging a shotgun with your d!(k would have a better chance of success.
Here is a link to the discussion: https://www.quora.com/Why-doesn-t-th...onfiscate-guns.
Bookmarks