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

quote:

---

If a bunch of illiterate goat frickers can defeat the British Empire, the Soviet Empire, and the American Empire, what makes you think the army of American hunters couldn't put some real hurt on an invasion of the continental United States?

---

They failed at establishing puppet govt and new ideology. If the goal was to eliminate said goat flickers, we'd have to vote goats happiest animals on Earth.

quote:

---

A fat dude with an AR and all that ammo don't have to run...who said anything about having to run? You shoot and take out as many as you possibly can and go down in a blaze of glory!

---

Running aint gonna help....drones don't care if you are carl lewis....

Methinks you underestimate the number of armed veterans in this country.

quote:

---

magine going Guerilla warfare with baws in the swamp or the Gumpers in the hills of North Alabama etc et

---

There was a movie called Southern Comfort. Watch it.

quote:

---

Bubba down the street and his band of deer hunters are gonna what, guzzle one more beer and take out the drone

---

You paint with a broad brush my friend, taking a page from the skyscreamers playbook, your implicit bias (Me thinks you might have a touch of the f**k whitey) is showing. We all know a Bubba but hunters and rural people are extremely resourceful people.

So this whole topic is just a huge troll, but I will bite. For all you people who think the citizenry doesn’t stand a chance against a professional military, foreign or domestic, let me ask you a few questions.

First, for the air superiority crowd, what makes you think those planes and air bases will be safe when the planes are on the ground? What makes you think those planes will have a secure fuel supply to do their job?

Next, for the drone enthusiasts, what makes you think those systems won’t be hacked to hell and back by the most well-educated and resourceful citizenry in the world?

Next, how will any country, but especially our own, pay for such a war? Especially if it’s prolonged and especially if it’s our own country? How will a broken economy pay for troops and equipment?

Next, who would have the willpower to fight such a war against a huge citizenry that certainly would never, ever give up… because their death would be assured if they surrendered?

Lastly, what happened the last time a non-American professional army thought it would be a great idea to invade Louisiana?

quote:

---

his is one of my favorite responses when an armed rebellion discussion comes up. Not only is it not realistic or effective, but do you realize the propaganda effects that would come from a military indiscriminately bombing populated areas?

---

Some countries don’t care. Go study up on the Bosnian-Serbian war in the 90s. Serbia bombed the capital Sarajevo and sieged the city.
Siege of Sarajevo
Wikipedia Siege of Sarajevo

What is your plan without a gun?

I remember a guy telling me about his baseball bat he had by his bed and how he was ready. He was 41 at the time. I asked him had he ever been in a real fight before, because you better be the biggest of the bad @ssess to repel 1-3 young men in their 20s bent on destruction with a baseball bat.

He seriously responded by telling me he had a few scraps in high school. He was ready to protect his family. I guess.

They’ll turn on each other and accuse everyone of being a groomer.

It would be pretty much impossible to beat back the US Navy and Air Force to be able to invade the continental US so let me start off by addressing this with the scenario being the US military itself attempting to occupy and enforce martial law for completely unjust reasons.

You’re completely right that the average populace has no way to deal with armor, air support, artillery, or most infantry considering their logistical support and communications assets along with strong bases of automatic fire.

What you’re missing is the fact that an army marches on its stomach and that attempting to occupy a massive land area such as the United States with massive river systems, abundant impassible terrain, and major road networks that have no real redundancy would be suicide.

Any occupying army would have to secure thousands of miles of interstate roadways, bridges, pipelines, transmission towers, to keep everything going smoothly for themselves. There’s enough guns in private citizens’ possession that those who do want to fight will be able to and the havoc they could unleash on the rearguard and logistical train of an organized army would be enough to cripple it. This has been proven many times already in the 20th century.

Imagine trying to secure some place like South Louisiana for access to the Mississippi River. There’s bridges galore to destroy, transmission towers all over, and impassable swampy terrain to create choke points. Subjugating the city of New Orleans would never be enough and it’d be a never-ending game of whack-a-mole trying to stop partisan activity in the River parishes or downriver of New Orleans to be able to utilize the River.