re: Why do hunters and just about anyone who owns a gun think they could repel a invasion..

Military offensive involves ground troops after the bombing. You can cower and surrender while gun owners fight back. Also, what about the invasion from within in the form of riots and angry mobs, allowed by our government, when law enforcement won't help.

quote:

---

And assuming anyone invades it will be a full scale combined arm invasion. If we don't own the air then ground troops will be torn to shreds by air to ground and by artillery.

---

Lol, all of our enemies have to cross a sea to get to us. Just how are they going to get supplied? Stay fed? No one has anywhere CLOSE to our Naval capacity. How will they maintain air superiority, and keep their planes in the air? Nothing immediately seized will be close to enough to supply the size of a force needed, and this is a big country with lots of weapons and military bases, good luck taking more than a few before you get pushed back into the sea.

Logistics is everything.

Of course we can repel an invasion. In fact I would say any invasion is unwinnable for the invader, which is why they work so hard to collapse us from within instead.

Really? You have the absolute perfect example playing out right in front of you. The US has armed every citizen still left in Ukraine and they have defended their country from a world superpower for over a year. Its not like Ukraine has some massive polished army, this is dudes off the street handed a gun, a radio and some camo.

Vietcong
Taliban
Iraqi insurgents
Balkan fighters
Baltic fighters


I can list more

Good troll thread

Ask yourself how many American service members would heed the command of a tyrant and turn his weapon on his father and brothers, for nothing more that to defend the power of the tyrant? Further, ask yourself what kind of elected government in a so-called free society sends tanks rolling through its own streets... against its own people? Is that a government you support?

Is THIS your argument against the 2nd amendment?

quote:

---

So you dont think US citizens wouldnt try to do the same?

---

The Finns did it to spectacular effect during the Winter war. Outnumbered and outgunned they were able utilize makeshift weapons like the Molotov Cocktail (credit to the Finns for that) and guerrilla tactics to beat back the Soviet menace.

Will is sometimes more powerful than weaponry

It's not like we're going to be lining up at Antietam with our AR-15s. I'm not really a doomsday/zombie/red dawn cosplayer guy but the concept would be that in any period of strife, it gives you a tool you wouldn't otherwise have.

It's a big country. If some foreign invasion happened, which is pretty fantasy-land stuff, the entire might of the invading force wouldn't be at your suburban door on day 2. You'd have looting, raiding, perhaps small contingents of invading military,, perhaps coopted locals to do the bidding of the invading force, etc. You'd probably have a lot of problems that might require firepower before Invadistan sets its sights on Shreveport neighborhoods.

It feels pretty stupid to even talk about considering there are a hundred more likely unrest scenarios where having arms would be useful, but even in the most fantastic red dawn discussion, I think the critiques don't really hold up.

They aren't necessarily going to repel attack

But doesn't mean they have to submit

I wish I could like your comment a hundred times