Yes, I am saying that be virtue of rural peoples location and ties to the land they will be better off and more self sufficient. So, they will not be refugees.
They will be better fed as they have gardens, fields of crops and livestock to live off of.
They still tend to have larger families and usualy work with their neighbors in preward times taking in the hay and often loaning or working on one anothers vehicles or other projects. Small towns tend to be more close than cities.
And they tend to own more firearms than most city dwellers, as stated, they also tend to know how to use them much better.
And then you toss in the home town advantage, they will be fighting on familiar ground.
Can a town of rural folks defend against a mob of unarmed city dweller masses.
Which is it? A mob of refugees that the military couldn't hold? If they are in a refugee camp, they will not be armed. So that makes it all the easier.
If they are refugees from the city who have not been in a refugee camp then they will be on foot and will have traveled 100 or more miles on foot, over wilderness, if they were already starving how would they survive such a jouney on foot? And then how would they be able to fight with a group of farmers? How would they be able to have or carry the arms needed to fight? And if they took their families with them again how would they survive without food carrying some meager items and their women and children? If its summer we are talking 100 degree temperatures, if its winter it would be freezing add those factors to the mix.
Keep in mind, there are major differences between urbanites and rural people in the US. And in many rural areas, they are not overly fond of urbanites. People from the inner city, they are not to smart when it comes to being out of their enviroment the city. If you are talking the gang banger types, these would have some arms but they would turn marauder fighting other gangs, the remaining police or military on a small scale and of course terrorizing the civilian populance.
As I have already said and as Mo just said. People with horses have a valuable tool since gasoline and diesel would be no longer available. Another eason for rural people to defend their animals. Since machines are measured in "HORSE POWER" a farmer with a horse or a team of horses or even mules is ALOT more productive than a farmer without they would be well guarded. And I can see people knowing the difference would go with rat. <Again in the rural areas, rat would not be an option as there are other more criters available.> Remember in the US around farms deer are considered a pest they are that common.
Two last things,
A military commander would understand that without fuel which powers modern farm machinery being no longer available their productivity will drop. I would think they would do what they can to maintain productivity, and that would mean leaving them their horses to keep them the most productive they are able. After all it does no one benefit to turn a farm into something that barely supports the people that live there when with just a couple animals the place is able to support many more people. Thus, knowing this they would do their best to protect those regions, and gain some of the harvest of the area, yeah the old working together routine, local military commander "we protect you and you provide my troops with food." deal.
How many people would kill the goose that layed the golden egg? Foresight would say you get more food keeping your animals to work, rather than turning them into table fare.
Okay a couple more things,
The rural folks would be in better shape since they for the most part would be removed from prime targets than civilian centers and as stated, they are alot more self sufficient than most urbanite.
And then we have the urbanites who are the welfare types who are on the dole, like many of the refugees durring the Katrina event, they are universaly dispised by most other aspects of society. It is they who sit and wait and want government to take care of them. These folks will die in droves when aid does not come after a few weeks and they of course will turn to looting and fighting among themselves. I doubt few will survive a move via foot to a rural area.
Also, moving where the food is. How would refugees know where the food was or the animals were? It would be rumor and not concrete information. And even if someone knew of an area prewar. How would they know it was still there? Would you move on foot with your family 150 km across desert <I am using desert as an example as it is the norm here in Cali> for the off chance of finding a horse or two to eat on some farm? That is a pretty long gamble.
The odds are pretty long for refugees to even make it to the location of the rural farming areas is what I am saying. Their numbers would be cut down, and those who did would be in poor condition.
They would not be armed.
Government relocation, that could pose a problem but as stated, the military commander should realize he had better help protect the farm communities in his area or he and his men will not eat either. Refugees revolting in a refugee camp, and turning on the guards is a scenario but the communities should have some heads up and in that case the local town folk would probably attempt to stop the mob <a mob is usualy unorganized> before they came to town, if they were unsuccessful then they would probably be shot, after all it would then be an us of them, and the mob would have little reguard for horses, private property and they would be like locusts which would leave the town without supplies, so they would have the motivation to stop them.
As for farmer with shotguns. Yes, they have shotguns, they also have 30-30s and .303 enfeilds that have been turned into sporting rifles and lots and lots of 30-06s and .270s and 7mm Magnums and .308s, and alot of the rural areas also are in "free states" whhere you can own and carry a concealed weapon and own and use fully automatic weapons and they are not uncommon.
I would also say that traditionaly the US, more counyty people have military service than city people, so that would also be an advantage.
And again the rural folks would be much better fed and they would be more mobile since they would know the country, they would also have the HORSES to ride.
Those are alot of the aspects I see affecting the ability of this discussion.
And as for the government comming in and siezing peoples property. That was a part of why we broke with the whole colony thing with Britian and started the Revolution. We Americans don't take kindly to that sort of thing, so much so that it is even in our Constitution. The government can not come in a sieze your property. Do that in small rural town America and the soldiers will have people shooting at them. It will be just like the British retreat from Concord and Lexington, farmers from all around will be shooting at the troops from every tree and rock. And as stated you would be hard pressed to find a farm that doesn't have a heavy rifle in the 30 caliber range with a scope on it. A far more effective weapon than an M16. And alot of rural folk also have archery for the archery deer season, which would be well used for night operations against sentries.
Couple that with the fact that would American soldiers turn their guns on their own people who are doing nothing wrong but living their lives? And even more importantly, the troops in the immediate area would most likely be the rear party of the local National Guard unit. That would not happen, how on earth would those soldiers ever be able to show their faces to their neighbors again? And if they did, how safe would they and their families be?
I mean there are alot of factors and dynamics that affect this whole idea.