The fallacy of 'Behind every blade of grass' thinking

[twoguns?]

Being a military dude, I have to say that the amount of guns in America and their effectiveness would largely depend on the type of occupation. Someone coming in just to destroy us would do so quite easily. An Army willing to level houses and willing to have large amounts of civilian casualties would destroy even a well trained band of citizens.

On the other hand, if it was a war like Iraq where you want to subjecticate (not saying that was the point there) and win hearts and minds, then the civilian could become dangerous if they chose to stand up. Clearing houses and cities is a pain and only grunts can do it in this type of war. You will take massive casualties if Americans are willing to die for their freedom. That then becomes the question though....How many people would stand up and fight versus just waiting to see what happened?

I think the reality is that no one really knows what it would be like to invade America because it hasn't happened. If it makes other countries afraid...great. It makes my life easier. I don't want to fight on my own soil.

Thank You,Sir

 

[HackerF15E]

They come to take OUR guns

I guess envisioning these types of scenarios in which one "rises up" and fights some malevolent Orwellian domestic government

When did this thread become about US government suppression of US citizens or taking anyone's firearms?

The quote and topic in the OP was about armed civilians versus a foreign invading army.

when the 2nd A'ers rationalize an army of deer rifles as being a substantial threat to a foreign army, I think it is laughable.

 

[HackerF15E]

And the Afghanis.

An "Afghani" is a unit of money.

A person from Afghanistan is an "Afghan".

 

[cjjtulsa]

An "Afghani" is a unit of money.

A person from Afghanistan is an "Afghan".

LOL – I wondered about that when I typed it. Couldn’t help but think “hound”, "blanket", or “rug” when I typed “Afghan”.

 

[JB Books]

When did this thread become about US government suppression of US citizens or taking anyone's firearms?

The quote and topic in the OP was about armed civilians versus a foreign invading army.

Keep up with the flow of the thread. Immediately after the op's initial post, people started alluding to a domestic threat.

 

[MLR]

A smart invader would not use excessive force. All they would have to do would be to promise our present Government that they could remain in power. Much like the Germans did with the Vichy Government in France during world war II. Some of the current government would leave. Some would tell themselves that by staying with the new government they could offer some protection to the people. A buffer you could stay. Others would be perfectly honest about it and remain with the new government for the power and wealth they hope to gain. Not much different than what some politicians do now when their party loses power. They change side so that they will be on the side with the most power.

Then they would just need to assure the 49.1 percent of the people in the U.S. currently receiving some form of government aid that their aid would keep coming possibly increased. Throw in a few other small details and it would be a done deal.

Michael

 

[LightningCrash]

49% is a bit low, it's well over 90%

 

[farmerbyron]

You're wholeheartedly convinced that the veterans of a country of 8 million could give pause to a modern invasion by a country of 300 million?

The first thing that comes to mind is Thermopylae pass. Especially considering the terrain of Switzerland. It's a cost vs reward analysis as well. Sure you might could get it done with large casualties but then all you would have to show for your efforts is Switzerland.

 

[farmerbyron]

That was said about 70 years ago when it would have predominately been bolt action rifles against bolt action/lever action rifles. So i believe it would have been a correct statement 70 years ago.
Now days, yes we have legal FA guns in the civilian populace but typically no way near what a modern military infantry has on a per person basis. Yes we have the FA know how, but how many are going to have time to whip out their home made DIAS in a "time of need" much less have that ILLEGAL d.i.a.s. TESTED AND PROVEN.
Another thing is how many joe blow hunters know and understand guerilla warfare and modern ground troop tactics and how to counter one with the other? Simply many untrained chairforce comanders and i'll lead the way.
Time will tell.

FA is overrated and most likely would not determine the outcome of a conflict. An insurgency would certainly be able to overcome and seize a SAW or any other automatic weapon at a unit level. Especially considering how many AR and AK weapons we already have in private hands.

 

[farmerbyron]

Really? Not unless you are a scumbag criminal or threat to national security.

Or a citizen that would like to stay on their own property.