Civil Warfighters?

>>33868501
The guy on the far right looks like he posts on /k/

>>33868501

Both.

The 2nd would even be applicable to after defeating the invasive force, removal of the government.

>>33868522

GRU appreciates the information. Thank you for your cooperation.

>>33868501
Theoretically, armed civilians would fight in militias and as auxiliaries to the armed forces. Militias would be formed at the local level, aux would be volunteers on a unit-by-unit basis. Most likely, the aux forces would be locals augmenting their local NG units.

The draft would probably come back, so there would be an element of conscription in the mix, as well.

>>33868574

What about the initial stage of the invasion? Let's say you are chilling on your Texas porch when you notice a swarm of Il-76s with VDV pouring out of them. You are allowed to engage them alone, without any organised militia or anything alike, right?

>>33868501
>would armed civilians legally be allowed to fight the invaders as irregular combatants?
Wait a minute. Now thinking about this matter, but wouldn't that mean that any american irregular or militia boy could be shot dead if captured, according to the laws of war? Or is just said Militiamen and Irregulars have distinctive signs and uniforms for them to be included as lawful combatants? And if their organization is not recognized or legalized by their own government, they still counts as lawful combatants?

>>33868616

Yeah, this question is pretty much the reason I started this topic. I mean, there are literal shittons of privately owner firearms, but what if the government doesn't recognise Billy Bob in his trailer as an aux combatant?

>>33868615
The 2ed Amendment is for protection against tranny domestic and foreign, federal and local.

Yes, if a person knew what was happening they could shoot at invaders. The government would actually be encouraging it.

>>33868658

>protection against tranny
Good to know 2A has your backs against those filthy traps.

>>33868720
I'm my phone, anon.
Don't make fun, plz.

>>33868736

Sorry bro, had to.

>>33868736
Buddy, that just made it worse. Autocorrect adjusts to what you type most often.

>>33868501
In the occasion of the mainland US being invaded (as unlikely as it is) the civilian militia would act a lot more like insurgents in modern war than a standing military force. Generally using hit and run tactics or ambushes against supply lines or rear echelon forces and when pushed fading into civilian populations.

>>33868616
If a armed group has uniform markings like an armband or unit patch they must be treated as lawful combatants, that's why Hezbollah dosent get WALLED if they get captured.

>>33868658
KILL THE TRANNYS!

>>33869007
>>33868946
I assume if there's ever an invasion the US military can't handle they would have some sort of uniform instructions to keep militias legal, even if it's just a red white and blue armband

File: criterion.png (326KB, 333x646px) Image search: [Google]

326KB, 333x646px

>>33868501
>would armed civilians legally be allowed to fight the invaders as irregular combatants?
>allowed

does that even matter faggot? the whole tribe already had the mags ready and hit the paratroopers on landing. military base is 400 miles away. you think they are sending all the 10 ac-130s they have to come get your bitch ass?

>eastern eurofag
makes sense your a duckboy

>>33868574
This. Think of Vietcong and the NVA combine arms assualts during the Indochina Wars

File: 1493154619751.jpg (70KB, 1024x759px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 1024x759px

>>33868501
In a declared combat zone, any civilian who takes up arms forfeits their protection and becomes a lawful combatant per the LOAC, so yes, assuming anyone cares about LOAC in such a scenario, you may kill other lawful combatants or be killed by them without penalty.

>>33869253
this