Defensive Carry banner

2A invalid defense against modern army.

10K views 214 replies 64 participants last post by  Thanis 
#1 ·
I think it is nieve to think you have some modern example of a determined modern army being held in check by armed civilians. It is illogical to think of 2A, and small arms, to be a desiding factor in keeping U.S. safe from a determined modern army.

I did not want to take a different post off track, so I started this one and want to quote a few people who posted in a different thread.

"An armed populace cannot defeat a modern army". I'm sure there are many Russian veterans of Afghanistan that would disagree with that one.
and the soviets who were in Afganistan and the US while in Vietnam
...Huh, it seems that we handled the British just fine, just as the Afghanis handled the Russians. How quickly history is forgotten......
I see a flaw in these comments. First wars from 1700s to WW2 just don't count as modern. Next, in the often quoted examples, we are talking about modernish civilish armies vs a third world nations. As for USSR vs Afganistan, or USA vs Vietnam, they were proxy wars.

Population and resources would work against a sistuation, like say United States under attack on U.S. soil. There would be a disruption of the food supply. Only so many people can live off the land. Modern farming and the ability to transport those supplies to grocery stores are critical. An incredable number of U.S. citizens are dependant on medication to simply live. Supplies of drinkable,water would run out in 3 to 7 days for the vast majority of the population. Electricity and modern electronics (including your car) would be things of the past.

Those are just a few targets to consider that will kill off millions of U.S. citizens. Once those bodies are lying around, a vast number of issue develop from diseases to lesser know problems like wild dog packs.

Then consider every example in modern times of a modern army invading a country. To varying degrees, from the USSR to USA, from Korea to Afganistan, the "modern" army played nice.

Once an army gets on U.S. soil, I'm very doubtful you are going to have a Red Dawn situation. The invading army is going to wipe out resistance in a way all but unimaginable. Think kurds being gassed is a close example.

I think it is nieve to think you have some modern example of a determined modern army being held in check by armed civilians. It is illogical to think of 2A, and small arms, to be a desiding factor in keeping U.S. safe from a determined modern army.
 
See less See more
#2 ·
It's all been said before Thanis...

right before the first shot was fired at the most powerful standing Army and Navy in the world at some small field in Massachussetts a few hundred years ago.

After a bunch of civilians kicked their tails, it wasnt even brought up until those that fought died of old age and their childrens children forgot about it.
 
#3 ·
The British of 1700s are not the same as a modern army. The logistics of the 1700s and 1800s are vey different. In addition, from untold number of cities and battles lost to just the events of Valley Forge. Our country's birth was far from certain.

The Revolutionary War is a poor example.
 
#18 ·
The fact that we are sitting here discussing it proves otherwise...
No, just because it is mentioned does not make it valid. Using that logic, people still believe the earth is flat it is makes it right because we are still talking about it.

...You do know that we won right?
No, not really. It was a draw and due to logistics, local rule won over. By 1812, if not for France / Napoleon, it is unclear what control a foreign power (either France or U.K.) may have played in our early independence. Then in the Civil War, if not for British abolitionists, it is unclear how it would have played out into the 1900s. English interests broke American isolationism in WW1. Treaty of Versailles served French and British interests more then ours, and was contrary to many U.S. suggestions (even the United States Senate refused to ratify). WW2 was in part due to the Treaty of Versailles, and again, the U.S. served the U.K. interests.

Now with all that said, I'm not stating we are not a great nation, not that there were many other valid reasons for being involved in European conflicts after American isolationism of the 1800s.

But then our freedom from the Empire gets very cloudy once you consider modern banking and question if bailouts are not just another form of tax.

I'm not seeing how the points of your reply contrast:

I think it is nieve to think you have some modern example of a determined modern army being held in check by armed civilians. It is illogical to think of 2A, and small arms, to be a desiding factor in keeping U.S. safe from a determined modern army.
 
#5 ·
From a military standpoint, Washington was not really much of a commander at all... he lost all the time. But he did win the last one, and that was the one that ended up counting...
 
#7 ·
In my six decades of experience, I have learned one thing for sure..."Never, say never!".
There are over 300 million firearms in this country...:blink:
 
#15 ·
The only problem is when you break it down there are many of those owned by people who would turn and run when the SHTF. Some too old to take up arms, some disabled etc.. And with the diversity of people you WILL have a number of ''turncoats''.

I own a couple dozen of those 300 million and I can't think right now of that many people I would hand them off to that would be proficient enough to use them in battle let alone willing.

I think at this time I am with Thanis on this one.
 
#22 ·
CBXMan, I see your logic, however this to would then strengthen my OP indirectly, as I'm questioning how a belief that small arms ownership by civilians is a factor keeping U.S. safe from a determined modern army is valid in a 2A conversation when:

A) What "Modern Army" should be scared of?

B) What difference would small arms make, and what example really exists, that a determined modern army can b held in check by armed civilians?

2A, or small arms ownership, justification as it could stop an invading army is an invalid argument in support of 2A. It might have been a reason once, but no longer.
 
#10 ·
One Nuke launched from a sub off the coast of the U.S. that explodes X # of miles up in the atmosphere and the resulting EMP knocks nearly everything out
all cell phone communication
TV
The Internet
The Power Grid
Radio
The electronics in automobiles
Grampas pacemaker

the list goes on and on and on.

Firearms will still be fully operational though but, structured, civilized society and the ability to organize through any modern means of communication will evaporate almost immediately.
 
#30 ·
Its amazing to see how many people have no actual knowledge of technology. The internet was developed as a redundant communication method in the event of a nuclear attack. Get the facts straight before posting something on the internet and making yourself really look like someone who doesn't know what they are talking about for all the world to see.
 
#23 ·
Now imagine we could use the full force of our military (and I'm not even talking WMD), like how MacArthur wanted to take care of Korean War and like he was allowed to make war in WW2.

Nothing that has happened since WW2 holds as much weight as it appears.
 
#13 ·
OK Everyone go to your favorite video store and find "The Russians are coming, The Russians are coming."

Get your popcorn and be prepared to laugh your beer up out your nose.

There's a message in that film; for real.
 
#16 ·
The military would not follow orders again like the civil war in shooting our own people. Im a Veteran I would never follow an order to shoot a fellow american who was fighting for freedom and rights.

I sworn to defend the constitution, not the govt.

Most of the military will choose sides and it will not be following some radical agenda of a president and its staff.
 
#28 ·
I've stated 2A, civilian small arms ownership, is not a valid factor.
You think that 90 million guns in this country wont be a factor.?

Even if just 3 % participated in the effort, that is still 2,700,000 armed,dangerous and ticked off Americans willing to do battle.

What army could stand that? Not to mention the large expanses of land that must be occupied. Heck, it takes a week to go from the East Coast to the West Coast.

No Sir, I believe you are all wet on this one.
 
#29 ·
You think that 90 million guns in this country wont be a factor.? Even if just 3 % participated in the effort, that is still 2,700,000 armed,dangerous and ticked off Americans willing to do battle...
A small fraction of the U.S. military rolled the 4th largest army in the world. This was the 4th largest army on their own soil, trained, experienced in warfare, with tanks, artillery, anti-aircraft, all sorts of small arms, etc.

Rolled, and history. Now imagine if the U.S. military tried, without concern to civilian casualities.

If anything has been demonstrated by modern history, when a modern army attacks, a civilian with a firearm is a dead combatant (and that is against an invading army that does not have the full support of their nation).
 
#33 ·
I don't understand why some people have to even think of the scenario where the entire US Military, or any foreign military, would be up against the armed citizens of this country.

Ain't gonna happen that way at all. All of our forces would never turn against us citizens. Some may, but, we, the citizens, will also have those, who would not turn against us, on our side. We would not be alone.

If we were confronted by a foreign military, then obviously we still have our own military force to fend them off.

Nuclear conflict? No, we wouldn't stand a chance against that type of warfare with our small arms. However, nuclear bombs do not discriminate. The effects of the nuclear bombs would affect both sides of the conflict the same way unless these attacks came from another country.

To me my 2a rights keep me from falling to a tyrannical government, the one we are currently watching emerge.
 
#35 ·
I don't understand why some people have to even think of the scenario where the entire US Military, or any foreign military, would be up against the armed citizens of this country.Thought

Ain't gonna happen that way at all. All of our forces would never turn against us citizens. Some may, but, we, the citizens, will also have those, who would not turn against us, on our side. We would not be alone.

If we were confronted by a foreign military, then obviously we still have our own military force to fend them off.

Nuclear conflict? No, we wouldn't stand a chance against that type of warfare with our small arms. However, nuclear bombs do not discriminate. The effects of the nuclear bombs would affect both sides of the conflict the same way unless these attacks came from another country.


And here's your food
To me my 2a rights keep me from falling to a tyrannical government, the one we are currently watching emerge.
You see there is food for thought in this thread.

This is an interesting thread and will hopefully get a wide variety of opinions.
 
#36 ·
2A invalid defense against modern army.
I think it is nieve to think you have some modern example of a determined modern army being held in check by armed civilians. It is illogical to think of 2A, and small arms, to be a desiding factor in keeping U.S. safe from a determined modern army.

I did not want to take a different post off track, so I started this one and want to quote a few people who posted in a different thread.

Lets just say you are right. Are you trying to make a point or just stating what you believe? Are you of the lie back and take it point of view? I'm confused by your post.

Michael




I see a flaw in these comments. First wars from 1700s to WW2 just don't count as modern. Next, in the often quoted examples, we are talking about modernish civilish armies vs a third world nations. As for USSR vs Afganistan, or USA vs Vietnam, they were proxy wars.

Population and resources would work against a sistuation, like say United States under attack on U.S. soil. There would be a disruption of the food supply. Only so many people can live off the land. Modern farming and the ability to transport those supplies to grocery stores are critical. An incredable number of U.S. citizens are dependant on medication to simply live. Supplies of drinkable,water would run out in 3 to 7 days for the vast majority of the population. Electricity and modern electronics (including your car) would be things of the past.

Those are just a few targets to consider that will kill off millions of U.S. citizens. Once those bodies are lying around, a vast number of issue develop from diseases to lesser know problems like wild dog packs.

Then consider every example in modern times of a modern army invading a country. To varying degrees, from the USSR to USA, from Korea to Afganistan, the "modern" army played nice.

Once an army gets on U.S. soil, I'm very doubtful you are going to have a Red Dawn situation. The invading army is going to wipe out resistance in a way all but unimaginable. Think kurds being gassed is a close example.

I think it is nieve to think you have some modern example of a determined modern army being held in check by armed civilians. It is illogical to think of 2A, and small arms, to be a desiding factor in keeping U.S. safe from a determined modern army.
 
#43 ·
If the Regular Army Were to follow an Unconstitutional/Unconscionable order from a Tyrannical President against the oaths the Officers have and enlisted have taken, the main line of defense for the Citizens of the State would be the States National Guard (Same Weapons/Same Training). They answer to the Governor of the State and have to be released to the Fed. They can only do policing type duties in a State while under the Governors’ Control. The 50 governors would have to support the Police State and turn over their guard to the President to do something Unconstitutional. Now even after all of these events where any one of them is not likely, how many Active Military or National Guard would be a part of this and actually take up arms against the civilian population for the sake of a tyrannical Govt. If ordered to most Active Military would walk over to the National Guard Commanders and join to defend their State, their Family and their Friends . The Officers are not sworn to follow the president they are sworn to uphold the Constitution Period....

As far as 2A goes it would not be lines of civilians on a Front Line, it would be a guerilla war against the Military supply lines. No invasion is needed the bases are already here. The problem in Iraq and Afghanistan is we are not fighting an Army we never were. The Fighters blend in with the Civilians, when they are not fighting you don’t know who they are. Assuming ALL of the Uniformed Soldiers (National Guard and Regular Army) were to join in a tyrannical Govt. A war in the US would be much the same as the French Underground during WW2 strike, blow up rails, disrupt supply lines and disappear.

The Constitution has safeguards (Freedom of the Press, RTKBA, Separate but equal branches, Governors Control of the Army/Air National Guard) to keep all of this above from happening.

A number of Enemies have considered invading the US, the Japanese had a Standing Army that was Larger and More powerful than ours before Pearl Harbor Army on Army it would have been easy for them the invade the west coast to Colorado before our industries kicked in. Adm. Yamomoto talked Hirihito out of invading the US because the Imperial Army would find a Rifle behind every Blade of Grass. The Soviets looked at Many Red Dawn type scenarios and wrote them all off for the same reason. Just because shots have not been fired by Civilians to Defend our Borders, does not mean that 2a has not protected us.
 
#45 ·
I honestly don't think any military domestic or foreign can stop a large group of determined armed civilians. They may have the technology to conduct a respectable war, but no technology can take place of brilliant minds and tactics.

A foreign military may have planes, tanks, and other tools at their disposal while we only have small arms, but what is to stop a small group from making say home made explosives or even commandeering military vehicles? This sounds like a Red Dawn scenario to me. There is a reason the United States hasn't been invaded yet by a foreign military force.
 
#68 ·
I honestly don't think any military domestic or foreign can stop a large group of determined armed civilians...
Correct.
Thus the push for gun control. The ones in power know and understand this simple concept. Others...well...They ought to just go ahead and surrender their weapons now since they would be ineffective, and just get it over with.
So I take it both of you are against the war in Iraq / Afghanistan. In addition, clearly, the South won the Civil War.
 
#46 ·
I honestly don't think any military domestic or foreign can stop a large group of determined armed civilians.
Correct.
Thus the push for gun control.
The ones in power know and understand this simple concept.

Others...well...
They ought to just go ahead and surrender their weapons now since they would be ineffective, and just get it over with.
 
#84 ·
I concur, H.G.

It will be a cold day in hell before I'd just roll over.
 
#48 ·
Everyone is kinda ignoring the huge logistical problems that are involved in trying to take over the US. One the electricity would not be allowed to stay out because it would make things just as hard on an invading army as it does on the populace, especially when dealing with vast amount of land there is in the US.

The other issue is people are ignoring the differences between the Iraq situation and the US would be. There are many Iraqi's that are glad that the US helped them overthrow the Bath party and are willing to work with us to try and bring their own populace under control. I do not believe there are many countries in the world that would rally any significant amount of our population into helping them control our country. This means they have to try and use their army to cover large sparsely populated (in most places) areas. That means its pretty hard to take a large force because people will simply move out of the way and resist somewhere else. If you send a small groups to town then small arms could cause disruptions since you are dealing with a small number of soldiers who probably don't have access to a tank since there are thousands of towns in the united states and the population centers would get priority for that type of equipment.

I will admit as others have said if their goal is just to wholesale kill everyone its hard to stop because they would just nuke huge areas but there is not a whole lot to be gained from this. They could also just take out our power grid and water and let large numbers of people die but again there is not much for them to gain from that and it would leave a nasty logistical mess to clean up.

Just some thoughts, its hard to say how things would play out and I would think since a potential invading army would have as much trouble answering these questions as us, it would provide at least some hesitation.
 
#49 ·
I don't know about modern armies, but as for terrorist, we all know they like populated areas, like malls and shopping districts. That's where I'll be if asked to fight.
I believe in the post 9/11 world that this is a more likely scenario, and armed citizens would play a role in protecting others, much in the way the Israelis use civilian volunteers to safe guard the population. If a Mumbai type scenario happened here, it will be in large cities/urban centers with large crowds. LEO and armed civilians will be the first responders, not the military.

It is foolish to think that a civilian army could stand head to head and fight them on their terms. It would have to a guerrilla war and one that wore them down to the point of making it too costly or unprofitable.
I have discussed this with my Brohter many times,and we have come to the conclusion that if a foreign army or our owne under the tyranical control of our government were to attack us, it would be time to head to the hills and dig in and prepare for the resistance to begin. It will be guerrilla warfare that Amercians would have to resort to inorder to prevail, just as our fore fathers did against the British, just as the Afghans did against the Soviets and the Vietnamese did against our army. To a degree the OP is correct, we couldn't stand head to head against the a modern army, but that doesn't make the 2A obsolete, just makes the task more difficult to accomplish. A truely civilian militia, whcih the National Guard is not, would have to organize and find experienced mena and women hopefully with training, to step up and lead and train us. Just my opinion.
 
#69 ·
"“You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.”

Japan’s Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto

Hmmm....
Yes, often quoted, from WW2, and not modern warfare.

Best answer provided by:

...Any modern army with technology even slightly more advanced than handguns, rifles and even automatic weapons would crush any semblance of defense. That is why we need a standing army and the high technology weapons that comprise part of our defense. However, what most seem to miss is that the intelligence capabilities of a modern army would easily dismss those people adopting that cutesy phrase, hiding behind blades of grass. Noble, for sure, but ridiculous as a defense of the United States....
 
#51 ·
There would be problems for a conventional land army taking over the continental United States. Could it be done? Maybe. The logistical problems would be enormous.

But, assuming it's possible, heck, assuming it happened, does that make the Second Amendment irrelevant?

Not just "NO", but "HELL NO".

Even if "we the people" as an armed populace couldn't defeat a conventional army in a series of pitched battles, no army ever made (or that ever will be made) could be everywhere at once.

Stamping out us, doing the guerilla thing, with our zillions of weapons ("rifle behind every blade of grass") is probably impossible...no nation or even group of nations would be willing (or able) to support the kind of effort required for very long.

Ask the Soviets who were in Afghanistan. Ask the us who were in Vietnam...or the French before us...or the Japanese before them.

And on and on.

The will to resist subjgation is key, but the availability of arms is something that makes conquest enormously more difficult.
 
#52 ·
Anyone who believes what has been posted regarding "modern" armies and their invincibility are poor students of history.

For reading, I suggest the book I am reading now, "horse soldiers". It is the story of the Brave Green Berets who comprised the first wave of american soldiers who went into Afghanistan to fight the taliban alongside the northern alliance soldiers. These men fought a "modern" army consisting of the latest Russian military hardware (T-55, 72 tanks, BMP vehicles, and ZSU-23 antiaircraft guns, etc) with little more than mounted cavalrymen armed with RPGs and AK-47s, often only carrying less than 100 rounds per man. Fathers showed up for battle with their sons behind them, unarmed so that if dad went down, there would be a son to pick up his rifle and keep fighting.

This group kicked the crud out of the taliban until more conventional forces arrived to finish them. All the green berets did was call in air support, which often missed until they got laser targeting devices shipped over months later. Until then, it was very much a low tech versus "modern army" war.

So never say never. If a people do not want to be conquered, they will not be conquered no matter what happens.
 
#54 ·
Now, to answer the electrical issues:

Yes, computers, cell phones, televisions and a whole lot of digital stuff would be fried instantly. Power grids, power plants and other equipment may be tripped offline during the event, but would be brought back in a matter of hours. They would trip due to the extensive ground fault protections they have built in, but inevitably, these systems would come back. The EMP pulse can be thought of as a massive lighning strike; initially the voltage pulse would knock everything offline, but it would be brought back because the pulse, like lightning would not be sustained. We know this in the power industry, and have prepared for it. Also, any cars manufactured prior to about 1980 would not be affected because of the nature of their electronics, which could handle such a pulse. Still, anything that wasn't grounded properly, or wasn't battery isolated with a lead-acid type battery would still be most likely fried. But as far as the electrical power not coming back?

A lot of fear tactics. Believe me, if we can come back from mother nature's most furious attacks, we can come back from anything man can dish out.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top