Gun owners VS Military invasion

[Noob]

If there was a real Military invasion of America, not terrorist cells, but a real invasion with a real army, with real bombs going off in every major city, and big size town, tanks rolling down the streets, and troops going from house to house destroying them with grenades.

Do you think America's gun owners, or those who own a gun, and proudly fronting it as and exercise of their second amendment rights, would be able to repeal the invasion, or end up having a body count the likes America as never seen since the Civil war?

 

[TonySutton]

You would see organized guerrilla groups attacking from coast to coast.

 

[dannno]

Occupying Afghanistan is pretty tough, I imagine it would be way harder to occupy the US militarily (though politically it seems to already be occurring)

 

[hillbilly123069]

You still don't have the concept of how many guns an invading army would be facing.

 

[Acala]

difficult

It is VERY difficult to rout out a determined native resistance. About the only way you can do it is to kill everyone or round them all up and relocate them. It can be done but it is extremely difficult. The Russians failed in Afghanistan. The US failed in Viet Nam and will fail in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So I agree with the prior poster, you would have an Iraq-style "insurgency" that would continue until the invader was worn down and had to give up.

 

[Noob]

You still don't have the concept of how many guns an invading army would be facing.

Maybe, but considering all the anti-gun laws America as, the invading Army would have an advantage in the form of machine guns per troop. Can all American gun owners say they own a machine gun? Can all them get a machine gun? I sopose they could end up taking them off from the dead troops.

 

[Dr.3D]

The French Resistance did pretty well when France was being invaded.

What they did was kill enough of the enemy to get better weapons. They did not attack them head on but rather they used stealth and careful planning to accomplish their goals.

Did you ever watch the move "Wolverines"? That is how they would attack the enemy. Little by little they would disrupt the supply lines and capture food, weapons, fuel and other necessary items the enemy would need. Without those items, the enemy would find itself in serious trouble.

 

[Kotin]

"A gun behind every blade of grass..."

 

[tremendoustie]

If there was a real Military invasion of America, not terrorist cells, but a real invasion with a real army, with real bombs going off in every major city, and big size town, tanks rolling down the streets, and troops going from house to house destroying them with grenades.

Do you think America's gun owners, or those who own a gun, and proudly fronting it as and exercise of their second amendment rights, would be able to repeal the invasion, or end up having a body count the likes America as never seen since the Civil war?

Do you mean in a free society, with organized militias as a primary means of defense, receiving regular training and the kind of funding that goes to the military today? Or do you mean the current populace, with its current capabilities, drained of resources, buried in gun regulations, and under the delusion that the government will provide protection?

I'd still ultimately go with the current populace, just because of numbers and resources, but it'd be much, much shorter with far less loss of life, with organized militias.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

It is VERY difficult to rout out a determined native resistance. About the only way you can do it is to kill everyone or round them all up and relocate them. It can be done but it is extremely difficult. The Russians failed in Afghanistan. The US failed in Viet Nam and will fail in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So I agree with the prior poster, you would have an Iraq-style "insurgency" that would continue until the invader was worn down and had to give up.

Plus, the French Grand Armee failed in Russia!

 

[sevin]

It would be like Red Dawn.

 

[TinCanToNA]

I think comparisons may be useful.

Ask those same questions, but about the UK. How much resistance would/could that population provide?

We are suffering quite a lot of casualties in Afghanistan and that is a contest between the most battle-hardened military currently on the planet and a society that, although heavily armed, generally can't hit the broad side of a barn. We have a gun culture that is substantially more developed and generally doesn't miss. It would be hell on any invading force, even if they proved to be more brutal than the Nazis in France.

 

[PANT3RA]

If there was a real Military invasion of America, not terrorist cells, but a real invasion with a real army, with real bombs going off in every major city, and big size town, tanks rolling down the streets, and troops going from house to house destroying them with grenades.

Do you think America's gun owners, or those who own a gun, and proudly fronting it as and exercise of their second amendment rights, would be able to repeal the invasion, or end up having a body count the likes America as never seen since the Civil war?

I really don't think you have any idea how many Americans LEGALLY own firearms.... Not to mention illegally.... It'd be a blood bath for the invader.

Not to mention another point where, many of those gun owners are retired cops/military/etc.

Tanks and bombs? Well no shit it wouldn't be a front vs front war. It'd be like much of what's going on in the middle east with guerrilla tactics. Kind of like the 1st revolutionary war we had

 

[Noob]

It would be like Red Dawn.

I guest but Red Dawn was an hollywood movie. Most American's today think of war as being somthing done at some country they cant fine on the map, or some sort of a video game. I think mass riots and looting would happen, and gangs would be a real threat.

 

[BuddyRey]

I dunno, but I'm not planning on sticking around long enough to find out either. Upon first notice of anything fishy, I'd grab what little survival gear I could scrounge together and GTFO!!!

 

[klamath]

It would be a big deterrent but a well equiped modern army would crush local militia particularly if they cared not about the indigenous people but only the land. General Sherman style warfare would effectively end gorrilla warfare. Comparing Iraq or afganistan is not aplicable. If the US had not cared at all about the iraqi people there wouldn't have be any real insurgency because the Iraqis would have all been dead.

 

[tremendoustie]

It would be a big deterrent but a well equiped modern army would crush local militia particularly if they cared not about the indigenous people but only the land. General Sherman style warfare would effectively end gorrilla warfare. Comparing Iraq or afganistan is not aplicable. If the US had not cared at all about the iraqi people there wouldn't have be any real insurgency because the Iraqis would have all been dead.

The iraqis don't have anything close to the funding of the US military. And, if the US military just started slaughtering people, you can bet on every last Iraqi grabbing a gun and going after the invaders where they sleep. The level of resistance thus far doesn't even begin to compare. Heck, look at the Afghans vs the USSR -- just about the most powerful land military on the globe at the time, while the Afghans were a bunch of dirt poor tribesmen with a few SAMs and IEDs.

If you put a centrally controlled army, vs an equally funded and equipped collection of independent militias, the army would be obliterated. It wouldn't even be close.

The idea of independent militias, which join together in time of general attack, has several advantages -- among them:

1. There isn't the huge burden of maintaining a full time fighting force
2. There isn't the "when you have a hammer everything's a nail" problem.
3. No military industrial complex lobbying for war.
4. No war by the command of one individual, or body -- and your own skin's on the line. This encourages caution.
5. No central command and control to take out -- or take over.
6. Independent militias allow for independent creativity -- an approach slow to adjust central armies can't contend with.
7. Intelligence gathering by the enemy is nearly impossible.
8. Increases community cohesion in peacetime, as average folks go out training or shooting together on a regular basis.
9. This arrangement makes the fighting force almost impossible to use an an offensive weapon, or as a tool of tyranny.
10. Troops are beholden to their communities, not to a central government.

I went through the numbers one time. For a small fraction of the 350 billion americans spent on charity last year, you could buy an AK47 for one in every three adults, RPG-7s for one in every ten, and more than a million stinger SAMs. Plus, you've got the fact that in a free economy people would be far more wealthy, they'd be spending money every year on defense, and there's already more guns than people in the US. Then, you've got the tactical advantages created by independent militias, which are capable of rapid, creative action, and are nearly impervious to intelligence efforts. Oh, and these militias include 50-100 million people.

Invading under these circumstances would be absolute suicide.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

The iraqis don't have anything close to the funding of the US military. And, if the US military just started slaughtering people, you can bet on every last Iraqi grabbing a gun and going after the invaders where they sleep. The level of resistance thus far doesn't even begin to compare. Heck, look at the Afghans vs the USSR -- just about the most powerful land military on the globe at the time, while the Afghans were a bunch of dirt poor tribesmen with a few SAMs and IEDs.

If you put a centrally controlled army, vs an equally funded and equipped collection of independent militias, the army would be obliterated. It wouldn't even be close.

The idea of independent militias, which join together in time of general attack, has several advantages -- among them:

1. There isn't the huge burden of maintaining a full time fighting force
2. There isn't the "when you have a hammer everything's a nail" problem.
3. No military industrial complex lobbying for war.
4. No war by the command of one individual, or body -- and your own skin's on the line. This encourages caution.
5. No central command and control to take out -- or take over.
6. Independent militias allow for independent creativity -- an approach slow to adjust central armies can't contend with.
7. Intelligence gathering by the enemy is nearly impossible.
8. Increases community cohesion in peacetime, as average folks go out training or shooting together on a regular basis.
9. This arrangement makes the fighting force almost impossible to use an an offensive weapon, or as a tool of tyranny.
10. Troops are beholden to their communities, not to a central government.

I went through the numbers one time. For a small fraction of the 350 billion americans spent on charity last year, you could buy an AK47 for one in every three adults, RPG-7s for one in every ten, and more than a million stinger SAMs. Plus, you've got the fact that in a free economy people would be far more wealthy, they'd be spending money every year on defense, and there's already more guns than people in the US. Then, you've got the tactical advantages created by independent militias, which are capable of rapid, creative action, and are nearly impervious to intelligence efforts. Oh, and these militias include 50-100 million people.

Invading under these circumstances would be absolute suicide.

This post is brimming with win!

 

[klamath]

The iraqis don't have anything close to the funding of the US military. And, if the US military just started slaughtering people, you can bet on every last Iraqi grabbing a gun and going after the invaders where they sleep. The level of resistance thus far doesn't even begin to compare. Heck, look at the Afghans vs the USSR -- just about the most powerful land military on the globe at the time, while the Afghans were a bunch of dirt poor tribesmen with a few SAMs and IEDs.

If you put a centrally controlled army, vs an equally funded and equipped collection of independent militias, the army would be obliterated. It wouldn't even be close.

The idea of independent militias, which join together in time of general attack, has several advantages -- among them:

1. There isn't the huge burden of maintaining a full time fighting force
2. There isn't the "when you have a hammer everything's a nail" problem.
3. No military industrial complex lobbying for war.
4. No war by the command of one individual, or body -- and your own skin's on the line. This encourages caution.
5. No central command and control to take out -- or take over.
6. Independent militias allow for independent creativity -- an approach slow to adjust central armies can't contend with.
7. Intelligence gathering by the enemy is nearly impossible.
8. Increases community cohesion in peacetime, as average folks go out training or shooting together on a regular basis.
9. This arrangement makes the fighting force almost impossible to use an an offensive weapon, or as a tool of tyranny.
10. Troops are beholden to their communities, not to a central government.

I went through the numbers one time. For a small fraction of the 350 billion americans spent on charity last year, you could buy an AK47 for one in every three adults, RPG-7s for one in every ten, and more than a million stinger SAMs. Plus, you've got the fact that in a free economy people would be far more wealthy, they'd be spending money every year on defense, and there's already more guns than people in the US. Then, you've got the tactical advantages created by independent militias, which are capable of rapid, creative action, and are nearly impervious to intelligence efforts. Oh, and these militias include 50-100 million people.

Invading under these circumstances would be absolute suicide.

Sounds great on paper. The essay reminds me very much of the pundits that said the Americans were going to get waxed in the first gulf war. The Americans and allies were out numbered by 5 to 1. The allies were going against a million man army intrenched, well armed and pretty pretty much on their own soil. The allies had a 12,000 mile supply line. Believe me the Iraqis were better equiped then AK 47s and RPG 7s. The Iraqis were anililated.
I am not against militias, as they have their place. I spent twenty years in the National Guard for that reason but I also found out what the limitations of a part time army are
And yes every iraqi would have been dead if that was our rules of engagement. If our intent was to nation build using american citizens after illiminating the Iraqis the insurgency would have been pretty small. Even the Russians were restrained in afganistan because they had the western world to consider. Any country that felt up to taking on the US would not be concerned about what the rest of the world was likely do because in all likelyhood they would have already been under that countries control.
The training it takes to keep a large scale command and control system of an effective fighting force at its peak takes a lot more than a weekend shooting with your buddies.
What is your military tactical, stategic experience?

 

[Noob]

Sounds great on paper. The essay reminds me very much of the pundits that said the Americans were going to get waxed in the first gulf war. The Americans and allies were out numbered by 5 to 1. The allies were going against a million man army intrenched, well armed and pretty pretty much on their own soil. The allies had a 12,000 mile supply line. Believe me the Iraqis were better equiped then AK 47s and RPG 7s. The Iraqis were anililated.
I am not against militias, as they have their place. I spent twenty years in the National Guard for that reason but I also found out what the limitations of a part time army are
And yes every iraqi would have been dead if that was our rules of engagement. If our intent was to nation build using american citizens after illiminating the Iraqis the insurgency would have been pretty small. Even the Russians were restrained in afganistan because they had the western world to consider. Any country that felt up to taking on the US would not be concerned about what the rest of the world was likely do because in all likelyhood they would have already been under that countries control.
The training it takes to keep a large scale command and control system of an effective fighting force at its peak takes a lot more than a weekend shooting with your buddies.
What is your military tactical, stategic experience?

Would the common joe American be able to stand up to such an event? Would the ones that are unabel to fine a country on a map be able to tell the differnce between the invaders from America's own Army or the militias?