Jump to content
MosinRob

Buddy of mine found this.. Thought I'd share.....

Recommended Posts

I thought I'd share this with you... The truth about the second amendment, and the registered firearm carriers of the US...

 

True story and most people will never know it.

 

Here’s an interesting side bar. After the Japanese decimated

our fleet in Pearl Harbor Dec 7, 1941, they could have sent their

troop ships and carriers directly to California to finish what they

started. The prediction from our Chief of Staff was we would not

be able to stop a massive invasion until they reached the

Mississippi River. Remember, we had a 2 million man army and

war ships…...all fighting the Germans.

So, why did they not invade?

 

After the war, the remaining Japanese generals and admirals were

asked that question. Their answer…...they know that almost every

home had guns and the Americans knew how to use them.

 

The world's largest army... America's hunters! I had never

thought about this....

 

A blogger added up the deer license sales in just a handful of

states and arrived at a striking conclusion:

 

There were over 600,000 hunters this season in the state of

Wisconsin ..

 

Allow me to restate that number.

 

Over the last several months, Wisconsin 's hunters became the

eighth largest army in the world.

 

More men under arms than in Iran ..

 

More than in France and Germany combined.

 

These men deployed to the woods of a single American state

to hunt with firearms, and no one was killed.

 

That number pales in comparison to the 750,000 who hunted the

woods of Pennsylvania and Michigan 's 700,000 hunters, all of

whom have now returned home.

 

Toss in a quarter million hunters in West Virginia and it

literally establishes the fact that the hunters of those four

states alone would comprise the largest army in the world.

The point?

 

America will forever be safe from foreign invasion with that

kind of home-grown firepower.

 

Hunting -- it's not just a way to fill the freezer. It's a matter of

national security.

*************************************************

 

That's why all enemies, foreign and domestic, want to see us

disarmed.

 

Food for thought when next we consider gun control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a nice, feel good quote. But the Spanish Conquistador explorers decimated the indigenous population with what amounted to a boatload of hooligans with good weapons against a civilization with clubs. The 2A really hasn't protected any right to own firearms that could stand against an invasion.

 

Would the Japanese have invaded with shotguns, handguns and semi-auto rifles? Would American hunters put down an invasion force of fighter and bombing aircraft, artillery and armored vehicles? Don't you think the sheer distance to cross the Pacific with an invasion force and no nearby base to mobilize from is the real reason we've enjoyed an unprecedented invasion free history?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a nice, feel good quote. But the Spanish Conquistador explorers decimated the indigenous population with what amounted to a boatload of hooligans with good weapons against a civilization with clubs. The 2A really hasn't protected any right to own firearms that could stand against an invasion.

 

Would the Japanese have invaded with shotguns, handguns and semi-auto rifles? Would American hunters put down an invasion force of fighter and bombing aircraft, artillery and armored vehicles? Don't you think the sheer distance to cross the Pacific with an invasion force and no nearby base to mobilize from is the real reason we've enjoyed an unprecedented invasion free history?

 

It depends on the tactics employed. I think it would end up just being like the war for independence. We'd have a main defense force, or army, the ones with the materiel would be like, the Army, the Reserves, and the National Guard.

 

But Washington made extensive use of militias to use hit-and-run tactics to damage supply-lines, and cause overall trouble for the British. Not to mention the Vietcong, IRA, and the Nazi Werewolves both had a lot of success using unconventional tactics on home soil. Hell, Washington himself had to use similar tactics to defeat the British since they had superiority in both numbers and supplies.

 

Hell, the best anti-tank weapon fielded by the USSR in WWII wasn't an explosive, it was the molotov cocktail. Though I believe Second Amendment Rights should not be infringed in anyway, I do believe that in the event of invasion, American gun owners would still play a vital role in the defense of the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would American hunters put down an invasion force of fighter and bombing aircraft, artillery and armored vehicles?

 

I can tell you from personal experience in Iraq that a handful of insurgents with small arms and homemade explosives make quite an effective threat. If the Iraqis had actually taken their time as marksmen instead of just spraying and praying ... or if they had hunting rifles instead of short-range AK's, we would have seen far more casualties.

 

If the theory of small arms and hunting rifles being little more than an annoyance, to people with tanks, aircraft and heavy weapons, why have the Taliban been giving us a bloody nose for a good 13 years? Last I checked, the Taliban didn't have a single tank, but the good ones can shoot and they are brave as all hell.

 

Sometimes it really is the size of fight in a dog.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Makes a good story but remember our army was not at war with Germany at the time of Pearl Harbor so it was not overseas or unavailable. Probably the logistics had far more to do with it. No fueling depots between Hawaii and the US mainland, a huge land mass to occupy that would have take the entire Japanese army to try and control. The need for more land based equipment then the Japanese army possessed. Those are just a few of the problems of invading the US mainland off the top of my head. Real thought would bring up a hundred more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Makes a good story but remember our army was not at war with Germany at the time of Pearl Harbor so it was not overseas or unavailable. Probably the logistics had far more to do with it. No fueling depots between Hawaii and the US mainland, a huge land mass to occupy that would have take the entire Japanese army to try and control. The need for more land based equipment then the Japanese army possessed. Those are just a few of the problems of invading the US mainland off the top of my head. Real thought would bring up a hundred more.

 

That, and the fact that the Japanese didn't want a war with the US. They wanted our Pacific Fleet out of the way so they could claim resources in the Western Pacific without a fight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An insurgency needs organization to become a genuine threat to the enemy. This encompasses a lot of things including logistics, chain of command, coordination of operations, and other factors. Comparing any group of hunters to an "army" is pretty much folly. They would only be a speed bump to a modern army at best. Critical to the organization is having the leadership to get things done. The only insurgency that liberated itself from a foreign invader with minimal outside help in modern times I can recall was Marshal Tito's in Yugoslavia.

 

Pearl Harbor was the result of Japan's need for oil but that's a discussion for another thread. Whatever Japan's plans were for continued offensive operations against the US were pretty much screwed after the Battle of Midway. That marked the limit of Japanese expansion and they were on the defense after that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True story and most people will never know it.

 

Here’s an interesting side bar. After the Japanese decimated

our fleet in Pearl Harbor Dec 7, 1941, they could have sent their

troop ships and carriers directly to California to finish what they

started. The prediction from our Chief of Staff was we would not

be able to stop a massive invasion until they reached the

Mississippi River. Remember, we had a 2 million man army and

war ships…...all fighting the Germans.

 

 

I guess I'm having a hard time remembering that. This really is a story most Americans will never know. Because if true, most Americans were taught wrong!

 

How did the Japanese decimate our fleet if they were all fighting the Germans at the time?

 

Interesting...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with others, I doubt the Japanese based their decision on whether to invade or not invade the CONUS wasn't based on how many hunters or household guns there are in the US. They wanted us to turtle up and build a defensive shell so they could exploit the western Pacific through imperialistic expansion. They would have been quite content with a "contained" USA that is too afraid to go out and bring the fight to them.

 

Their biggest mistake was underestimating the US population's patriotism, willingness to fight, and further reversal of the popular isolationist views of the time (which were already turned around via our involvement in Europe).

 

All that being said, if they did go forth with a full on invasion, planning would definitely involve consideration of an armed populace. As they say, its not just the weapon, but the person wielding it. Can the gun owning population of the US stand up to a full on invading professional military? That is the question. Takes much more then just having some guns, though it is a huge head start!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I guess I'm having a hard time remembering that. This really is a story most Americans will never know. Because if true, most Americans were taught wrong!

 

How did the Japanese decimate our fleet if they were all fighting the Germans at the time?

 

Interesting...

 

Rob's history is a bit off.

 

At the start of WWII the US Army was about 200,000 troops. The draft started in 1940 brought the size of the Army to about 1.5 million by the time of Pearl Harbor. We weren't fighting Germans until after Pearl Harbor. There were a few incidents while we escorted convoys as far as Newfoundland (I think) and we had some troops in Greenland and Iceland. The first time we engaged the Germans in a large scale operation was at Kasserine Pass in Tunisia in February 1943 (my father was there).

 

The Japanese main target at Pearl was to be the carriers which fortunately, for us, were out at sea. They took out battleships and cruisers which soon proved not impeding us much. The days of capital ships slugging it out with gunfire were pretty much over. The Battle of the Coral Sea was the first naval engagement where the ships never came in sight of or fired on one another. All attacks were carried out by aircraft from carriers. This battle was pretty much a draw. This was followed by Midway which was fought the same way and was our first major victory against Japan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rob's history is a bit off.

 

At the start of WWII the US Army was about 200,000 troops. The draft started in 1940 brought the size of the Army to about 1.5 million by the time of Pearl Harbor. We weren't fighting Germans until after Pearl Harbor. There were a few incidents while we escorted convoys as far as Newfoundland (I think) and we had some troops in Greenland and Iceland. The first time we engaged the Germans in a large scale operation was at Kasserine Pass in Tunisia in February 1943 (my father was there).

 

The Japanese main target at Pearl was to be the carriers which fortunately, for us, were out at sea. They took out battleships and cruisers which soon proved not impeding us much. The days of capital ships slugging it out with gunfire were pretty much over. The Battle of the Coral Sea was the first naval engagement where the ships never came in sight of or fired on one another. All attacks were carried out by aircraft from carriers. This battle was pretty much a draw. This was followed by Midway which was fought the same way and was our first major victory against Japan.

In the title i said it was a re-post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can tell you from personal experience in Iraq that a handful of insurgents with small arms and homemade explosives make quite an effective threat. If the Iraqis had actually taken their time as marksmen instead of just spraying and praying ... or if they had hunting rifles instead of short-range AK's, we would have seen far more casualties.

 

If the theory of small arms and hunting rifles being little more than an annoyance, to people with tanks, aircraft and heavy weapons, why have the Taliban been giving us a bloody nose for a good 13 years? Last I checked, the Taliban didn't have a single tank, but the good ones can shoot and they are brave as all hell.

 

Sometimes it really is the size of fight in a dog.

 

2 quick points.

 

First, I am not disagreeing with you regarding our current enemy. They are committed, tenacious, and willing to die for their beliefs. Not an easy foe to defeat. Comparing the Taliban/AQ/your average third world fighter to most American hunters is like comparing apples to a venti mocha late with soy milk and a twist of lemon.

 

The people we are fighting "over there" are used to hard life. The Afghanis have been fighting one war or another on their soil since at least the 80's. They dont have AC, heat, electricity, running water. They don't need $200 boots and $400 jackets to stay warm outside. They are hard people, that can make hard decisions in order to win.

 

We, on the other hand, are mostly soft. Three days in the cold/wet/heat, without a meal, a shower, or the internet and most people in the US would be so demoralized they would happily walk into enemy hands for some shelter and food. Most of the Americans you meet are not the Jed Eckert type. Most Americans would not know how to build a landmine, terrain associate, grow and store food, read a map, fix an engine, butcher an animal, build a shelter, place an IED, patch a wound, or design an ambush. Most of us can set a DVR, order McDonalds, and text message with the best of them though.

 

Yes, I know the above doesn't apply to everyone in the US. I also know that on sites like this the opposite is typically true, and the majority of people here could do a lot of the things we need to survive. However WE are in the significant minority in this nation.

 

Second, the Iraqi and Afghani "Insurgents" are not fighting a viscious, maurading, conquering army. If our goal was to wipe out the population, break their backs, take territory, hold it and actually conquer nations in the Middle East/SW Asia and we had politicians and command staff with the intestinal fortitude to do it, it would have been a much different war in Iraq, and would be a much different war in Afghanistan (and probably Iran, Syria, Jordan, and Pakistan by now as well).

 

We are fighting a war and trying to remain the "White Hats". To do this we limit the ROE that would keep our men and women the safest and in return we remain in the "favor of the rest of the "civilized" world. The use of arty, armor, aviation platforms, even individual weapons such as rockets, 203 rounds and frags that have any chance of civilian casualty or property damage are seriously underused due to the fear of collateral damage and the following disapproving snickers, finger wagging, and cries of "Imperialism" by the rest of the planet.

 

A million hunters armed with AR's, bolt guns, lever guns, black powder, bows and arrows (keep in mind that those numbers stated in the OP don't reflect only Americans hunting with modern firearms) would be no match for a modern, well equipped, well trained, invading force with armor, arty, a solid communications network, aerial support, satellite surveillance, and - here is the important part - a Government and Command Staff determined to break our backs and rule us.

 

Yes, there would be a guerilla campain that would last years. There would be holdouts, fighters, and resistance. We would kill a lot of the enemy, but without assistance from a legitimate modern military, it would be a holding action destined to lose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Afghanis have been fighting one war or another on their soil since at least the 80's.

 

The 80's?

 

Afghanistan is where empires go to die. The Persian Empires, Alexander the Great, the Seleucids, the Indo-Greeks, Turks, Mongols, British and Soviets all walked out of Afghanistan with their tails tucked between their legs. (How could a guy like Gengis Khan not defeat them?)

 

You are correct, we engage them in a PC manner that's fit for the general public's consumption and viewing on CNN news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The 80's?

 

Afghanistan is where empires go to die. The Persian Empires, Alexander the Great, the Seleucids, the Indo-Greeks, Turks, Mongols, British and Soviets all walked out of Afghanistan with their tails tucked between their legs. (How could a guy like Gengis Khan not defeat them?)

 

You are correct, we engage them in a PC manner that's fit for the general public's consumption and viewing on CNN news.

 

Correct. Afghanistan has a bloody and violent history.

 

I was referring specifically to the men we are currently fighting, many who grew up or fought during the Soviet Occupation years, and have been at war since the 80's against a technologically superior enemy, and the comparison of those men to us.

 

We freaked out when we couldn't get gasoline for a week after a hurricane and went without electricity for 10-14 days. Do you truly think we could fight a Guerilla war against a modern invading army?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you truly think we could fight a Guerilla war against a modern invading army?

 

Nope. But neither situation will ever happen. No one is going to invade us and no one would have the temerity to fight if they did. Today we are watching America drift off into global irrelevance, apart from its habitual destructiveness. It is slowly suiciding itself.

 

I think Abe nailed it: "America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." - Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

We freaked out when we couldn't get gasoline for a week after a hurricane and went without electricity for 10-14 days. Do you truly think we could fight a Guerilla war against a modern invading army?

 

While I believe the original post is based on a quote that was never uttered nor do I believe the Japanese based any decision on guns owned by the American public, I do believe that if an army were to invade and shut off the power and food, they'd have a REALLY big problem on their hands. Unless that army was willing to slaughter millions, they'd have riots on their hands the likes of which have never been seen anywhere at any time all the while some small percentage of folks would be actively taking heads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those animals are a bunch of cowards. They would wet their pants the moment they were facing those that have the ability, the permission, the will, and the means to fight back.

 

EXACTLY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those animals are a bunch of cowards. They would wet their pants the moment they were facing those that have the ability, the permission, the will, and the means to fight back.

I meant it as a light hearted quip. These kids can not hold their pants up long enough to react to contact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...