Originally Posted by Insomniac

But how many of said armed people have the guts and the skill to take on soldiers. Apart from texans ofc

If you can hit them with a bullet, anyone can. And will.

Think of fear as a factor though. This guy has his wife and kids in his house as well. He has a nice car, a nice life. If he picks up his hunting rifle and starts taking potshots at the soldiers, he'll kill a few and then they'll storm his house, kill him, his wife and his kids, then burn the building down.

And if he doesn't? They'll take his car, his house, his kids, his wife. It's a lose-lose.

I know I'd be out there fighting.

Originally Posted by The Other Guy

And if he doesn't? They'll take his car, his house, his kids, his wife. It's a lose-lose.

I know I'd be out there fighting.

I'd be hoping he had enough sense to put his wife and kids in the car and get the h*ll out of there before "they" knocked on his door, preferably torching the house before he left so it wouldn't be available to the enemy.

And if he choose to make an "Alamo" he still ought to send his wife and kids off in the car.

But I don't like to think about what a problem armed militia could represent to the regular US troops moving in to take on an invading force...
A guy with checkered luberjack-shirt, blue jeans, and a shotgun could be the target for both sides, not knowing wich side he was actually on.

Originally Posted by The Other Guy

And if he doesn't? They'll take his car, his house, his kids, his wife. It's a lose-lose.

I know I'd be out there fighting.

Actually they tend to be real good to collaborators.

There is no way that they could hold their ground. I've ran it through my head mutiple times. Speaking on real terms here, imagine an enemy trying to take the major gang cities and the projects? Compton, Trenton, LA... And to bring up an old thread, with gangs in the US military learning urban warface techniques and teaching it to fellow gang members in the cities, an invasion force would be fighting a somewhat, if not completely organized fighting force in those areas.

Now, we could be caught off gaurd, but we'd be able to bounce back. Everyday citizens, think about it, many non-military people play tactical airsoft, even though it'd be a bit different, know how to move in those sort of scenarios and have skills similar to the military training. Also, there are hunters all over the US, what makes you think they wouldn't be able to load a few .20 gauge rounds and fight back?

I've had many conversations with people about this, and I find it very interesting.

Originally Posted by justin1552

Speaking on real terms here, imagine an enemy trying to take the major gang cities and the projects? Compton, Trenton, LA... And to bring up an old thread, with gangs in the US military learning urban warface techniques and teaching it to fellow gang members in the cities, an invasion force would be fighting a somewhat, if not completely organized fighting force in those areas.

In such case invasion force will use means to destroy dangerous parts of cities permanently. Most likely, using air and MLRS strikes.

Originally Posted by justin1552

Everyday citizens, think about it, many non-military people play tactical airsoft, even though it'd be a bit different, know how to move in those sort of scenarios and have skills similar to the military training.

Airsoft gives some skills in terms of tactics, but it ignores bunch of threats which can occur in real situation. For example - indirect fire of artillery, mines, air strikes, etc.. Add to it basic surviving, since most of airsoft `battles` continue for hours, not for days, and after `combat` people return to their comfortable and safe home.

Originally Posted by justin1552

Also, there are hunters all over the US, what makes you think they wouldn't be able to load a few .20 gauge rounds and fight back?

I'll suggest those hunters to load rifles, not shotguns. And even in that case they won't have sufficient fire density to suppress group of enemy armed with full auto assault rifles...

I see a lot of what you're saying and in retrospect it makes total sense. But what about using an enemy's weapon against him. If you can kill one of their troops, without alerting others, like say he has to take a piss or something, you can still pillage the body for ammunition, and if it's a modern fighting force of say.... Irag or Iran, just for example. You can take the dead soldier's AK, the grenades, extra ammo, and even though it's highly unlikely, their uniform, if there's no blood on it, and possibly get more ammunition and set up a sabotage op. And once again, it's highly unlikely for that to happen, but never underestimate the power of one's basic survival instincts.

You're also right about the air strikes and eliminating high-resistance areas. You may have seen it, but there's amovie called Red Dawn that shows a bunch of high school teens that take their school's football team name and start wageing guerilla warfare against the inavding enemy. It reminds me a lot of this.

Originally Posted by justin1552

And once again, it's highly unlikely for that to happen, but never underestimate the power of one's basic survival instincts.

Instinct is not enough to survive. Some skills are needed too.

Originally Posted by justin1552

You may have seen it, but there's amovie called Red Dawn that shows a bunch of high school teens that take their school's football team name and start wageing guerilla warfare against the inavding enemy. It reminds me a lot of this.

Yap, I have seen `Red Dawn` movie.
There are two basic factors, which determine success of guerrilla warfare:

1. Support of civilian population - including food, clothes, information.
2. Existence of Large Land - i.e., territory somewhere near enough, controlled by friendly forces, which provide resources and overall management and coordination actions in strategic level. OR - friendly and near enough neighboring country which helps with resources and sanctuary for wounded or tired guerrillas. Poor control of borders by invasion force is required to meet this factor.

True. Well, that's my take on it. I like what you bring to the table as well.