Another Gun Control Thread

Post Reply New Topic

A fair number are of the survivalist type, actually, or at least able to resort to the if need be. In emergency situations, the other people you mentioned can still still aim a gun and shoot down a couple of invading soldiers. The sheer number of gun owners (and guns, since they could be distributed more widely in an emergency) would overwhelm any invading force. Who has a standing army of 85 million? If only a tenth of gun owners became part of the active resistance, we still have 8.5 million for an army. That's pretty large. China has the world's largest standing army, at 2.25 million active members. We could trade them 3 to 1 and it would still be decisively in favor of us. No one can beat the armed American citizenry.


We don't have the psychotic death-or-freedom mindset? We do so as much as any other people, and will develop it much more strongly in the event of foreign invasion. I grew up around a lot of Kentuckians, and trust me, the rednecks of Kentucky alone could take down most military forces in the world. And they will fight to the death, though their death is considerably less likely than that of their attackers. We know the terrain. We're fighting on home soil. We have the advantage of the defense. We have a cause to fight for. We will win. We aren't like the submissive French who merely curl up and surrender anytime someone with a German accent walks through Belgium. Unlike you Brits, Americans traditionally use guns from an early age. We don't need any military to be able to use guns, and quite a few of your average hillbillies are much better at handling firearms than will be foreign troops who never held a gun until they got to basic training.


Guerrilla warfare may not be fun, but it sure as hell will wipe out anyone who tries to take over the US. When was the last time anyone ever managed to beat a guerrilla force? The most powerful militaries in the world have been made impotent by much smaller, much less organized, much less well-equipped guerrilla forces, and in the case of America our guerrilla force would outnumber and outgun any army that could conceivably be raised against us. It would be a massacre. There is no force in the world that could even hope to compete with us. And remember, we are assuming that the US military simply up and vanished. In reality, they would be around for a while and would considerably weaken any enemy force before an actual invasion of the American mainland could begin. The civilian militia is supposed to be a last resort, a fail-safe to make sure we will never be conquered.

America does not have the largest standing military in the world, get your facts straight. OK, so say the reservists have already all been killed. You don't think an invading force has even been weakened by taking out the strongest military in the world? And even without the reservists, we have enough gun-toting rednecks to finish off any army that could possibly be formed.


OK. So? Enough of them do. I grew up just across the river from Kentucky. The hillbillies would destroy any military force that could invade. And no, you don't understand our culture. You assume that anyone who doesn't have military experience has no idea how to work a gun. That's only true in emasculated societies such as yours. A very large proportion of Americans know how to handle a gun, and access to them would get a lot easier if we suddenly had to defend against invasion.

Flawed comparisons. You think in terms of bullet math that simply don't work. "If every citizen who owns a gun shoots one invader we will win". Doesn't work. Even a single platoon in most modern armies can call down and carry more firepower than the citizens of buttfuck nowhere. One soldier with full kit and armament, working in conjunction with the rest of an armed force, is easily the equivalent of a trailer park of rednecks. And as for the gung ho belief that Kentucky alone could defeat most armed forces.. whatever drugs you're taking, you should be selling to the US Army because that kind of psychotic and unrealistic patriotism is what they spend millions of dollars trying to train into people.

Does anybody in Kentucky privately own ordnance that could take down this:

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/tu160/

Would the citizens of Invincible Ten Foot Tall Warriors Live Here, Kentucky have anything in their arsenal that might be able to pwn these?:

http://orbat.com/site/history/volume4/4 ... 01960s.pdf

And those are just Soviet bits and pieces, and tend to be a touch second-rate.

Though agreed about the French. Most of them folded up way too easily. But their citizens did suffer badly because of the resistance. It occurs to me that a key part of this problem is establishing the moral level at play. A "western" style occupying force, with broadly similar morals, would probably have great difficulty holding anywhere. (See Afghanistan) because generally the troops are adverse to committing extreme acts to control or contain. If you are willing to depopulate areas, or commit scorched earth policies, then your control of an area will be more complete. Consider this: I (wearing my Supreme Commanders hat) know that Kentucky is going to give my boys trouble. My boys are willing to take extreme steps. If I am evil enough, then its deathcamps all round, and a good solid firebombing of most rural areas, and maybe some hardcore ethnic cleansing as well. Your handguns will be futile if I am willing to Agent Orange half the state. They might work better if my men are handing out chocolate bars to "gooks".

My original point is that no amount of private gun ownership is going to deter an invasion force. I can't imagine for a moment that Soviet plans ever contemplated "not going there because the citizens are armed..." No amount of the kind of firepower you lot can legally own is going to make a dent in conventional forces.

Not many here in my state, but I know of at least half a dozen (and I don't know that many people). and in "red states" like texas they make up to maybe a tenth of gun owners, plenty enough to start a resistance.

Again, you're talking about equipment, while I'm talking about tactics. You don't need more than small arms to mount an effective resistance if you're attacking where your enemy is weak. Also, realistically speaking, the invader would have enemies of its own who would be happy to sell a resistance heavy ordinance. At the same time you would be capturing matériel from the enemy, and more than a few resistance cells would be armed with weapons looted from (United States) army arsenals.

Remember 9/11? Yes we do.

Again, only the leaders need any kind of military experience. The fighters themselves only need to follow orders.

We're not talking about conventional war. Guerrilla war is, by its nature, unconventional.

Not among gun owners it doesn't, more than a few have been seriously considering the need for it, and the consequences of it, given the current course of our government.

...So? Some will make the commitment and some won't. Enough will.

No they could not. They are enthusiastic rabble at best. As I said, do a lot of hillbillies own Surface to Air missiles? Anti-tank weapons?

Didnt they already fail to win a war already? Is Kentucky not in the south? Did it develop a vast industrial base that comes complete with complete AAA defense networks at some point and nobody got told?

Handling a gun and firing one IS NOT THE SAME as being well-versed in small and large unit tactics and skills, and having a logistics network to supply you.

See what I said about training in tactics etc. Also, you dont have "suicide bomber" mentality as a wholebecause if you did, you would still be in Nam, controlling that nation, and you wouldnt be suffering so badly in Iraq etc. Conventional in this context means "non-nuclear"... and TBH non of the "survivalist" types ever give the impression of being able to follow orders. In fact, following orders ALONE is a requisite skill that many people lack, but is vitally important in military matters.

In a guerrilla war, it doesn't matter if the other side is better equipped. Tactics favor the guerrillas, even when they are a much smaller force. Has the world ever seen a guerrilla force larger than the force it opposed? We would pass the point of merely resisting until our opponent was bled dry and simply wipe them out. And one soldier against a trailer park of rednecks? Seriously? You don't know our rednecks, Macbeth. The "psychotic and unrealistic patriotism" would be a result of foreign invaders trying to take over our country. That type of thing tends to arouse just a wee bit of public fury.


There are plenty of Americans (not all of whom are even militaristic under normal circumstances) who are quite capable of creating a variety of IEDs. Hell, we made a makeshift grenade in my middle-school science class out of some leftover junk the teacher had in the back store-room. You really don't think we'd find a way?


That wouldn't happen because there is no benefit gained from invasion if you completely destroy everything in the process. I mean, yes, you could nuke America and there's nothing an armed citizenry could do about it, but it's hard to see where you benefit from this. And it's not just handguns anyways. We have loads of other guns, and we can get (or make) bombs if we need them. I could easily sneak into my school's chem lab and make some TNT to bomb your barracks or supply lines. That will be disruptive enough to hamper any efforts you are making.


Did the Soviets ever contemplate actually invading the US? I mean, I know the Commies were stupid, but it's hard to believe they were that stupid.

Yes they could. An enthusiastic rabble can do a lot of damage. They could get or improvise such weapons. They don't need surface to air missiles if they destroy every land base, and tanks can be taken out by IEDs. Besides, you're assuming a conventional style of tactics. That's not how guerrilla warfare works. They wouldn't go face-to-face with enemy soldiers, they would catch them off guard and kill them in their sleep. They would hide in the forests and the hills, emerging to take a few shots and then retreating back into the wilderness. They would stage terrorist attacks on your supply convoys. They would starve you out, if nothing else.


Please, spend at least 2 seconds on Google or Wikipedia before you spout off such ignorant crap. You suck at history.
Industrial base? Since when has any guerrilla army needed an industrial base? We'd steal from the invaders.


Does everyone firing a gun need to be a military tactician? Obviously not. Macbeth, you simply do not know what you're talking about. Logistics networks aren't really necessary for small, isolated cells carrying out terrorist attacks against an invader. A supply line will only be necessary for a large, unified, single army.

Training in formal military tactics is not necessary for guerrilla warfare, and not even for most participants in regular warfare. The "suicide bomber" mentality, as you choose to call it, will resurface if there is ever a direct threat to the American homeland. Remote wars that don't seem to serve to defend us are opposed. Again, you are showing a complete inability to comprehend not only American culture, but human nature in general. If your home is attacked, you'll be willing to defend it. Well, by "conventional" T-rav20 and I are referring to traditional warfare between two opposing armies. That's not what guerrilla warfare is like at all. Guerrillas tend to have a massive advantage. Also, they don't need to follow orders so much as long as they cause damage to the enemy.

The Soviets tried the whole scorched earth thing in Afghanistan, it didn't work so well. That sort of thing actually tends to harden the resolve of an opponent more than it saps their will to fight, even the massive city-busting air raids of WWII failed to break the morale of the targeted citizens. Also, all the high tech weaponry in the world is virtually useless against a determined guerrilla force, as has been amply demonstrated in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq, just to name a few places. We don't need anti-tank and anti-air weapons to effectively resist, an occupation cannot be conducted from the air alone, and even armored vehicles require infantry support to be effective. Remember that the British had to move their troops in force through certain areas of Ireland during the "troubles", and they didn't have 1% of the ordnance that would be available to an American guerrilla force. Face it, the US would be a deathtrap to any invading army, even in the unlikely event that our primary military failed us. Move the goalposts around all you like, but we know that as a nation we are unconquerable.

There is a big difference between what our government is willing to do in a foreign country and what a disorganized resistance is willing to do to an invader. We'd be acting more like the Vietcong than the US Army.


You have no idea of what the hell you're talking about, because you're not part of the culture. These aren't the wackos you see on TV, in fact, you'll never see them on TV. They work, they pay taxes, they're normal people. They own guns, and there are millions of them here.

You actually believe you could shoot down a high level strategic bomber with a HOME MADE device?

Fine. You win. All Americans are ten-foot tall bullet-dodging invisible ninjas who can field-strip any make of Assault Rifle blindfold, and build tactical nuclear weapons from bits of string like Macguyver. No military force in the universe could ever be as well-trained or as well-equipped as some trailer-trash from the ass-end of nowhere. Kentucky on its own is more capable of prosecuting warfare than even the most dangerous and bloodyminded soldiers from anywhere in the world. Obviously each and every one of you is willing to strap on an explosive rig and carry a landmine straight up to enemy armour and detonate yourself for Libert And The Right To Bear Arms. Special Forces tactics are taught into you from infancy, and you all have access to an unlimited supply of weapons and ammunition capable of defeating any level of threat, from SpecOps soldier to Main Battle Tank. You can easily defend all your logistical efforts with the triple-A units you can build from drainpipes, and have a comprehensive communications net so hardwired that nobody could ever interrupt your communications. You would all instantly follow any instructions given to you by anyone who has any field experience, and would instantly defer to your neighbour if he asked you to, just because he's an ex Merchant Marine officer. You are immune to all threats against friends/family/non combatants, and would never succumb to ethnic cleansing. You are capable of fielding the largest ground force EVER SEEN and every man jack of them can guarantee killing at least one enemy soldier before he/she dies, because every last piece of welfare-claiming redneck trailertrash is an AMERICAN PATRIOT which automatically means they win no matter what.....

America is immune to invasion because nobody would ever want to have to deal with you. Its too tiresome.

BTW of course Soviet Russia had plans for US invasion. Why would they not?

And if you're so damn good, how come you lose wars?

Oh I forgot that part. Obviously I cant possibly have even the slightest clue about any o fthese subjects because I'm not a gun-owning American... OK.. you carry on thinking that.

Do you not realise how ludicrous some of your claims are?

"The state of Kentucky ALONE could defeat any army in the world" ....

Read it out loud....

You don't need to shoot it down. Strategic bombing doesn't win wars, we learned that in Vietnam. There are other types of aircraft that don't have trans-oceanic range that you could attack, on the ground. these, along with ground troops are what win wars.



Quit distorting what we're saying. WE WOULD SUFFER TENS OF THOUSANDS OF CASUALTIES. It might take years to drive out an invading army. The collateral damage would be huge, but if you think we're just going to roll over and die, no, you have no idea what you're talking about


Of course, that's why we'd win

There's a big difference between an army invading a foreign country and a resistance defending it's homeland. As I've been saying. Again and again.

Last edited by T-rav20 on 28 Nov 2008, 2:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

As a citizen of a foreign country, with a different culture, no you can't. Have you ever even visited america?