Important to understand the difference between true guerrilla warfare (e.g Iraq) vs Militias The Spanish Civil war was the first indication that irregular Militias were swiftly chewed up in modern warfare and were completely unprepared to face heavy weapons etc Iraq is really what you have to do. Keep your people highly dispersed. But again the key to those guerrilla conflicts is a large flow of weapons and resupply.
Which is why I think our Heartland Army would be useless. It would be child’s play for a modern army to cut off their gasoline and diesel supply, and that would be that. No need to occupy them; just let them implode over the lack of supplies and electricity and cable TV.
Like lets say libertarianism... Right, because Ogg from Broken Fang Clan used the same kind of IED as Saleem did in Iraq.. Walking Dead fan I see... All those things are constructs and conventions and are not universally practiced, while some of them are recognized, at least in theory by most countries in the world. As far as I know, the only country that recognizes the "Right to bear arms" is the US (Ok, possibly Russia comrade). If you are looking for a more universally accepted list of rights, you can read them here: https://www.youthforhumanrights.org...eclaration-of-human-rights/articles-1-15.html BTW, rights like Freedom of Thought, Freedom of Expression and Copyright are part of the list. No right to self defense using guns.
Oh man, so many wrong assumptions. Rural America is such a bullshit concept, not to mention it is the minority of America (20% of the population). A big portion of them, just sided with a traitor president and if asked they would rather support Putin than a Democrat, so there goes love for country and duties. Also, while you might be right in the "millions and millions", owning a gun it's very very very different from being capable of using it in a military style operation. I don't really trust Cletus would be able to defeat Sgt. Ivanov or Lt. Ling when they face each other.
Did I hurt your fee-fees? What about InThirdTCBSDI? And you left all the other points out. That's so...InThirdTCBSDI of you...
Well Vietnam did a good job. Afghanistan after all these years, the Taliban are still kicking around. Don't underestimate guerrilla warfare ability to defeat (or at least outlast) a well equipped military.
Sure would you want to own a few weapons if your are able to survive a nuclear Armageddon? I don't own any, but if shit hit the fan, I would like to go to my gun owning cousin house.
The initial claim was that one of the main reasons to not invade the US was its armed populace. I would like to think that having a strong military, relatively friendly neighbors and deep seas to separate you from enemies contribute a lot more. Now, if for any reason, a powerful rival managed to invade the US, and to defeat the military, I have no doubt that some 'Muricans will engage on asymmetrical warfare, but that was not how the argument went, not to mention the huge overestimation of Cletus and Jessie as guerrilla members. Most of the warfare will be conducted by military and by some with some sort of training, not just plain gun owners.
No it is not. There is nothing even remotely close to a "human right" to own and use a firearm. You seem to conflate "Constitutional Rights" with "Human Rights." They are not synonymous, in the US or anywhere. Owning a firearm may be a Constitutional Right, but not a Human Right. Not to mention, there is no Constitutional Right to self-defense. It is statutory, as an affirmative defense to a criminal charge. So, clearly, there is no Constitutional Right to "self-defense by firearm." Once again, the text of the Second Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Security of a free State, not personal self-defense. It says that the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, not shoot people in self-defense. You are simply wrong.
You seen like a pro 2A person, especially the right to self defense. You do realize hollow points are much safer to use in a self defense scenario? The majority of these scenarios occur at distances under 10 feet. Unless the FMJ round is stopped by a tougher bone (Jaw, femur, pelvis, skull). That round has the ability to penetrate the initial target, exit and continue with enough kinetic energy to pass through walls/doors, even another person or two. This is particularly dangerous in high density places such as townhomes and apartments. Even in the suburbs, your neighbors house usually isn't too far away. HP handgun ammunition does do more damage in tissue. This is because it designed to "dump" the energy into the target as well as "mushroom" which creates a larger wound cavity. There are tradeoffs, but I do believe it is safer for everyone if those who carry handguns (especially in public) use HP ammo. Now if you were worried about defeating soft armor (Mexico/Brazil) FMJ or a specialized round would be the way to go.
We can't even get a majority of rural America to get off of their asses and vote, despite you claims of "love of country and duty to protect it." Also, even if this ridiculous scenario would happen, these rural Americans would likely not be "protecting the country," but protecting their own stuff. I am not sure why you would say: "The 2nd amendment, while an inconvenience for you..." I have no idea where that came from in anything I have said.
The point of most guerrilla armies is not to militarily defeat occupying armies or to take and hold territory. As ISIS can tell you, that requires a lot in terms of money and supplies and support and logistics. (Think about it: If you're trying to hold a certain piece of territory, your enemy generally knows where to attack you and where all your supply lines are headed, and such.) No, the goal of most guerrilla armies is to inflict pain and death and suffering on an occupying army until your occupier decides that the costs of occupation are too high, while at the same time keeping your own losses acceptably low.
No comment on the rest of this conversation, but I think this is 100% wrong. you should spend some time out of the city.
No doubt, and we spend a shit lot of money on that. My answer was to how effective guerrilla warfare would be once the USA military was defeated by the mighty Canadian empire. It could be effective or it may fall apart, history has examples of both. And if the USA lost a nuclear war, the surviving forces would melt into the population and train the survivors on just that.
Because we have the bare minimum understanding of modern military hardware? Well ******** me for not being stupid as a bag of shit.
What a bizarre response. This has nothing to do with "the working man." You posited the strange concept about an invasion and guerrilla warfare and morphed it into an attack on "Democrats" and the "working man." That is pretzel-like logic.
Well guns (NRA is dying, everyone wants more gun control), gays (one is running for president, nobody really cares what you do in private) and God (Catholic Church was a pedo ring & dishonest Evangelicals voted for Thing 1 in overwhelming numbers) has worked out so well for Whitelandia over the years. Now all they've really got left is Economic Insecurity & owning the libs. What pathetic lives they live. And yes, that is a snobby Liberal value judgment.