Originally posted by Hortlund
Two questions.
1) How well do you think an "armed citizenry" would fare against an invader? It might have worked in 1776, but in 2007, most invaders come armed with tanks and aircraft.
You have to remember, much of that armed citizenry is ex-military for one thing, and for two, much of the total citizenry is highly educated. That's two things we have going for us.
We also have (and this might seem a little arrogant, but look at our history), a population almost completely blessed with the "plucky gene." Now it might not always show, but just about every single one of us here, no matter what race or creed, is descended from someone who went through a lot of hell to make it over here, and make it once they got here.
That only tends to come out when times are tough, but when times are tough you can see that. If you'd been here after 9/11, you'd have noticed. If we are ever invaded, you will notice.
Finally, our geography and infrastructure is perhaps the best suited for defense on the planet. Assuming all our air support was destroyed, that might take away our advantage in the latter, but it wouldn't take away the former. Moutains, hills, and wooded areas are still very much all over the place. It's a partisan's dream.
Invading America would be an absolute nightmare, and a large part of the reason is that in EVERY town you visited, you'd have to expect to be shot at. You can't say the same about England.
2) How well do you think an "armed citizenry" would fare against a government trying to disarm them? If the government really really wanted they could and would go Waco on all your tulips and take your guns.
They would fare infinitely better than an unarmed citizenry.
