In light of CA's new anti-gun law.... a question

[xBiffx]

A major nuclear power like the United States cannot be succesfully invaded and occupied. Why? Any nation trying it would suffer from a terminal dose of instant sunshine. Not even getting into the logistics of this. There isn't enough amphibious lift in all the worlds navies to actually make a serious attempt at invading US soil over the beach. By the way I am also including US amphibious lift. The us navy has more amphibious lift capability than all the rest of the navy's in the world combined. Maybe a Alien invasion like in the Battle: Los Angeles.

Again with the conventional way of thinking. This is why were are in trouble already, people thinking its going to happen like this. This is real life, not Hollywood.

 

[Lanyap]

You mean like World in Conflict: San Francisco?

I guess all those guys who like to run around naked in SF would have to strap on a real gun.

 

[fskimospy]

Again with the conventional way of thinking. This is why were are in trouble already, people thinking its going to happen like this. This is real life, not Hollywood.

Seriously, do you have any experience in real life with military matters?

 

[xBiffx]

Seriously, do you have any experience in real life with military matters?

Enlighten me, general.

I am saying that its likely that we aren't going to see a country with its organized armed forces invading US soil. What is more likely, and is already happening, are infiltrators that are a lot less obvious, perhaps organized, and less in number, i.e. foreign terrorists. This is more likely what we might see.

 

[fskimospy]

Enlighten me, general.

I am saying that its likely that we aren't going to see a country with its organized armed forces invading US soil. What is more likely, and is already happening, are infiltrators that are a lot less obvious, perhaps organized, and less in number, i.e. foreign terrorists. This is more likely what we might see.

That's really not how 'invasion' is normally defined, but whatever. I fail to see how an armed citizenry would aid in the apprehension of foreign terrorists.

 

[xBiffx]

I fail to see

QFT

 

[fskimospy]

QFT

Well by all means explain it to us. I'd love to hear your expert opinion.

 

[Lithium381]

That's really not how 'invasion' is normally defined, but whatever. I fail to see how an armed citizenry would aid in the apprehension of foreign terrorists.

Thats the traditional view of it, ie Normandy. But tactics change over time..... think back to the revolutionary war and even the American Civil War.... people used to line up column and row, march towards each other, get 50 yards away, and then open fire...... then we ended up in trench warfare in The Great War....pinned down by machine gun fire...

Vietnam brought us guerrilla warfare on a large scale..... etc

Biff's proposition may very well be a current strategy.

 

[fskimospy]

Thats the traditional view of it, ie Normandy. But tactics change over time..... think back to the revolutionary war and even the American Civil War.... people used to line up column and row, march towards each other, get 50 yards away, and then open fire...... then we ended up in trench warfare in The Great War....pinned down by machine gun fire...

Vietnam brought us guerrilla warfare on a large scale..... etc

Biff's proposition may very well be a current strategy.

Guerrilla warfare had actually been around for quite a long time before then, and had been employed with great success and on a large scale in the French invasion of Spain back in the beginning of the 1800's. (that's where the term comes from after all)

Biff's proposition is not a current strategy, at least not according to any source that I am aware of. Furthermore, I still fail to see how an armed population would be a significant help. I guess it would aid in the random gunman attacks, but bombs are by far the preferred method of terrorist activity and an armed population would do nothing to prevent them.

So not only is the scenario unlikely, but the solution doesn't address the problem. What was really happening was that he was opening his mouth about something he doesn't understand.

 

[JTsyo]

Guerrilla warfare had actually been around for quite a long time before then, and had been employed with great success and on a large scale in the French invasion of Spain back in the beginning of the 1800's. (that's where the term comes from after all)

Biff's proposition is not a current strategy, at least not according to any source that I am aware of. Furthermore, I still fail to see how an armed population would be a significant help. I guess it would aid in the random gunman attacks, but bombs are by far the preferred method of terrorist activity and an armed population would do nothing to prevent them.

So not only is the scenario unlikely, but the solution doesn't address the problem. What was really happening was that he was opening his mouth about something he doesn't understand.

What would happen is the citizenry would flip out and start shooting anyone they thought was a terrorist. You don't want citizen doing anything with their guns than defending themselves while there's still law and order. Once you allow them to go on the offensive you open a whole new door.

 

[xBiffx]

Guerrilla warfare had actually been around for quite a long time before then, and had been employed with great success and on a large scale in the French invasion of Spain back in the beginning of the 1800's. (that's where the term comes from after all)

Biff's proposition is not a current strategy, at least not according to any source that I am aware of. Furthermore, I still fail to see how an armed population would be a significant help. I guess it would aid in the random gunman attacks, but bombs are by far the preferred method of terrorist activity and an armed population would do nothing to prevent them.

So not only is the scenario unlikely, but the solution doesn't address the problem. What was really happening was that he was opening his mouth about something he doesn't understand.

Please, as if you are an expert on the subject. I can't know exactly how things could go down but I would imagine that an armed populace, regardless of said terrorists' methods would be much harder to fight than one with no guns at all.

You try to say I speak of stuff I have no idea about yet you ramble on thinking you are the expert of everything. This is conjecture, theory, and prediction here. Who can say they know what's going to happen besides the all knowing you of course.

 

[fskimospy]

Please, as if you are an expert on the subject. I can't know exactly how things could go down but I would imagine that an armed populace, regardless of said terrorists' methods would be much harder to fight than one with no guns at all.

You try to say I speak of stuff I have no idea about yet you ramble on thinking you are the expert of everything. This is conjecture, theory, and prediction here. Who can say they know what's going to happen besides the all knowing you of course.

Hahaha, nice. So you go from earlier claiming that nobody understands the situation, that you're talking about 'real life' to saying 'hell, nobody can really know!'

 

[Lithium381]

I can't know exactly how things could go down but I would imagine that an armed populace, regardless of said terrorists' methods would be much harder to fight than one with no guns at all.

Lets change gears, it seems a foreign invasion is not likely(though not impossible!), what about Government tyranny? Is that not also a purpose of the 2nd Amendment? If california passes a law saying we can only use single shot muskets...... except the police and military(and criminals) we would be hard pressed to protect ourselves from them.

 

[xBiffx]

Is that not also a purpose of the 2nd Amendment?

Actually that was the purpose of the second amendmentment. It just happens to also give us a secondary protection from a potential invader. The first being an organized militia/military.

California has already passed a half ass type law with the 10 round magazine limit. Sure its not single shot but when you get 10 before you reload and they get 100's (i.e. anything more than 10) it seems like you are already at a disadvantage. Again not single shot, but reloads are still gonna be a bitch.

 

[xBiffx]

Hahaha, nice. So you go from earlier claiming that nobody understands the situation, that you're talking about 'real life' to saying 'hell, nobody can really know!'

Nowhere did I ever say nobody understands. I simple said that people were likely wrong thinking about this "invasion" in conventional terms. Nobody can really know, I never said otherwise. I just indicated likelyhoods, never certainty. Quit trying so hard.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Actually that was the purpose of the second amendmentment. It just happens to also give us a secondary protection from a potential invader. The first being an organized militia/military.

California has already passed a half ass type law with the 10 round magazine limit. Sure its not single shot but when you get 10 before you reload and they get 100's (i.e. anything more than 10) it seems like you are already at a disadvantage. Again not single shot, but reloads are still gonna be a bitch.

I realize the 10 round magazine law is retarded, but playing devil's advocate, if California were invaded, I think the last thing you should be worried about is getting in trouble for having a 30 round mag

 

[Lithium381]

I realize the 10 round magazine law is retarded, but playing devil's advocate, if California were invaded, I think the last thing you should be worried about is getting in trouble for having a 30 round mag

Right, but where would we get them? Sure people maybe coming from other states to "help" but they're not exactly abundant over here.

 

[schneiderguy]

Right, but where would we get them? Sure people maybe coming from other states to "help" but they're not exactly abundant over here.

You can order them in "parts kits". They're legal as long as they're not assembled. I have ten unassembled 30 rounders in my closet :whiste:

 

[xBiffx]

You can order them in "parts kits". They're legal as long as they're not assembled. I have ten unassembled 30 rounders in my closet :whiste:

Same goes for my unassembled fission device. :sneaky:

 

[Darwin333]

As if pea shooters could stop a modern army. Only if you're stupid enough to fight with pea shooters like we do otherwise an armed citizenry would get raped from 40,000 ft.

Shrug, the insurgents in Iraq are absurdly outmanned and outgunned yet they have been able to inflict considerable damage.

 

[Darwin333]

What would happen is the citizenry would flip out and start shooting anyone they thought was a terrorist. You don't want citizen doing anything with their guns than defending themselves while there's still law and order. Once you allow them to go on the offensive you open a whole new door.

Bullshit. When law and order ceases to exist is when you will find your guns most useful. Trust me on this one.

 

[fskimospy]

Bullshit. When law and order ceases to exist is when you will find your guns most useful. Trust me on this one.

That's exactly what he said.

 

[Rainsford]

So the Army is at 40,000ft now? I thought that was the Air Force. I don't own pea shooters, I own the same guns the military does. Sure I don't own a tank, but a tank doesn't do much good room to room, building to building, unless you want to take out that building. Always an option I guess.

I think the point is still valid though. You might have (some of) the same guns. But you don't have the organization, the support infrastructure, the training, the high-tech backup, the high-level strategic planning, the tactical planning or your fellow soldiers at your back.

The idea that a bunch of guys in pickup trucks could REALLY stand up to a modern army is just silly, IMO.

 

[Rainsford]

Shrug, the insurgents in Iraq are absurdly outmanned and outgunned yet they have been able to inflict considerable damage.

Yes, and not come even remotely close to "winning" in any kind of traditional sense. Plus you could argue that their ability to inflict any kind of damage is at least as much due to their tactics and will to fight as it is to their actual gun ownership.

 

[Rainsford]

Lets change gears, it seems a foreign invasion is not likely(though not impossible!), what about Government tyranny? Is that not also a purpose of the 2nd Amendment? If california passes a law saying we can only use single shot muskets...... except the police and military(and criminals) we would be hard pressed to protect ourselves from them.

I would argue that the lack of proper weaponry would not be a major deciding factor in standing up to government tyranny. I'd say the biggest issues would be lack of organization and general rebellion skills (owning a rifle doesn't make you an insurgent), and the second biggest issue would be getting enough people on your side in the first place.

Depending on what kind of oppression we're talking about, history has almost always demonstrated that a large segment of the population supports it for one reason or another. The scenario you're talking about would involve "citizens" fighting back but for some reason the police and military, composed of regular Americans as well, would go right along with the tyranny. That seems unlikely, given the history of tyranny in the world.

In other words, it seems likely to me that in many possible cases, at least some percentage of citizens owning guns would use them to HELP the government oppress the people.