lol where are you seriously getting this all from? you think cause militiary weapons cost more that means there not better? heres little insight.. they just get charged more! cause its for the military and government meaning theyll spend more! if you take same piece of equipment that was 500 for the military usually pays 1500 for same piece equipment.. why? because they pay alot more for same thing... While there are alot of great civilian made guns i highly dought they can go up against alot militarys weapons.. ive used alot them. and not saying there just better cause only automatic. and i qaurantee you the armor they have now is better then anything civilian can get... your looking at all old military surplus shit they used to get.
BTW you really think bunch civilians can do better then a trained soldier? someone thats done nothing but train to fight, had combat training etc. And yes if there was a civil war revolution outbreak you really dont think the government wouldnt take action againts its own people? such as using planes... come on now.. if it came down to it they would. question is how many of the soldiers, airmen, sailors etc. would drop there shit and go home ? I know many that would say fuck this... and leave take care there families. yet there still probably be many thatd stay an try enforce marshall law if came down to that
Civilian weapons are as good or better than military weapons. Why? For the same reason that Capitalism results in better products than Communism. The military buys a million guns of one type and once they buy them it is pretty much over - they won't switch up for a while. The people have access to whatever is currently the best.
The armor that the US military uses might stop a pistol round at range, but a rifle shot is going through the armor. They don't even have enough armor for the troops in Iraq, they had a big problem getting enough. They definitely don't have enough to arm a force big enough to suppress the people in the US.
I would say there is a military doctrine that says you don't send troops to their local area to enforce Marshall Law. It would be insane to believe they don't have a computer system or orders to ensure people won't be at home if the problem is a rebellion.
The issue with having an army keeping down the populace is this:4 rednecks vs 40 soldiers. The soldiers are standing out in the open, they aren't hiding, they are protecting. The rednecks can go wherever they want, and no one knows they are doing so with intent to cause attacks. Most people who have any experience with guns can hit a pie plate at 100 yards. Head shots from 100 yards with any rifle will likely kill you. .22 included with decent ammo. Most people who would be fighting back would have hunting rifles that are not registered, some ammo, and have been hunting. If you can sneak up on a deer or lie in wait for a deer, then you can do so with a human.
The soldiers won't know the land like the people who live there. The soldiers would likely take the major cities, but they would have no control over rest of the country unless they are traveling in force. A lot like Afghanistan or Iraq, except America has 10 times the population and area. Good luck keeping 10x's the area and people controlled.
Add to this that whichever side pulled the trigger and was in charge federally (dem or rep) would have to fight against half the states in the country too. I don't see the Dems or Reps being on the same side in a rebellion. So add to that dozens of states whose National Guard units simply won't fight for the Feds. Do you think those people are just going to kick back and relinquish their weapons?
