but with the US they have this deep in their cultural DNA

because actually people's millitia was a factor in the american revolutionary war

so rednecks will forever keep latching onto that

but its not only that the warfare has evolved so much that professional units will shell the fuck out of any rednecks

but also that even in that war in the first place, the militia was only succesfully when engaged supporting the bulk of professional forces to provide additional number advantage factor

it wasnt able to do anything against the british on its own

it was only after american military reorganization and when that militia itself got some actual training and was properly engaged that americans started achieving successes

>engage a military squad

that's what the insurgency is about and many of them succeded in the course of history?

>all those civillians are then legitimate military targets under international law and you can legally shell the hell out of them
yeah, that's kinda the mistake poland made in 1944
>they have this deep in their cultural DNA
I seriously doubt it's as much for "patriotic"/safety reasons as for them just wanting to shoot their guns. Sure they'll say they want guns because "muh patriotism" and "muh safety", but I doubt that's an honest reason. If guns were no fun to shoot with they'd forget about them. That's the genuine reason - fun. Strongest american value.

and these "rednecks" form militias all over the USA, actively shoot and traintogether

>that's what the insurgency is about and many of them succeded in the course of history?
like?

have you read what I said?

are you even remotely familiar with the american revolutionary war?

are you?

there was a professional american army that won the war

I mean not professional in the modern sense but actual standing army, not the militia

Washington didn't command the militia

you need sources?

The problem with insurgencies is they can be counterproductive. Poland lost an insufferable damage from Warsaw uprising . In political terms, in cultural terms and obviously in humane aspect. If those people lived poland would be a whole different country now

the problem with civillian insurgencies is that you can't win against an actual army, he isn't able to provide a single fucking proof

Yeah, you sometimes can (I wonder how often though). And you can make things at least somewhat harder for the occupying army.
The problem is, when you have a hammer in your hand, everything becomes a nail. Equip people with guns and they will seek an opportunity to use them.

First years of syria?

>First years of syria?

why "first years" only? state what is the outcome of the war: a professional army defeated the civillian insurgence

Now

But in first tears rebels had adventage

And army defended syria and now dominate mostly becouse of russian help

But without it syria might fail

it does help because the civilians can easily arm themselves, thats like last ditch tier though after occupation of soil has happen

>because the civilians can easily arm themselves
Well, you see, that's the problem. Civilians are not soldiers. They are more useless during a real war than you might think. In Poland we have some experience with this.
The second thing is a question, if civilians should participate in active fight during a war at all. I'd argue that sending an untrained civilians to a fight is not worth it. Too much of a price to pay. It would be much better for the cause (whatever it is) if they lived and kept the idea going on.

the point is like i said to form an insurgency, regardless of how effective they are compared to a real army if even 5% of the few hundred million guns we have are used properly its going to be advantageous

and like i said this is implying that american soil has been reached, not to say theyll be sent to the front lines

it also means our production capability for guns is higher also

advantages aside, dunno if you read what I said earlier but nvm

what is the probability that the US gets invaded in this century?

meanwhile thousands people die every year

not very high but its just a side benefit

if you want to talk directly about guns

and do you think that "side benefit" outweighs people getting killed all the time over some totally stupid shit

1. there are like 30k gun deaths a year, the over whelming majority of them are suicides and those that are murders are almost all from gang violence