The "porcupine" defense strategy looks interesting, but isn't it flawed in one key respect: an invading enemy
would target one (perhaps prominent) householder with massive force, and take him out - then move on to
the next "rebel leader". What's to motivate individuals to come to one anothers' assistance, at mortal risk
to themselves? - is not collective action vitally necessary in even a defensive war?
Voluntary collective action is always an option, and could be provided by defense companies as mentioned. But no, it isn't "vital". Switzerland has for nearly
three centuries defended itself by having every male resident keep weapons in his house and train annually
in their use. Not once has that country been invaded, even when surrounded by Axis forces 1940-45. The Swiss
example is far from perfect, but it supports the concept very well.
The question is well posed. Individuals
will use deadly force when their own lives (or that of their families) are in immediate peril; but to risk their
lives by seeking targets to assassinate - no, not generally. The Porcupine Defense will not work.
Nothing prevents a group of friends
going out on a hunt together, to bring down enemy targets.