The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: Solus on December 20, 2010, 07:53:36 PM
-
Received this in an email so I don't know how accurate it is, but I like the thought anyway.
I don't spend my fall weekends tramping around the woods in pursuit of a buck, but a lot of my friends and neighbors do.
This blogger adds up all the hunters in just a handful of states, and comes to a striking conclusion:
The state of Wisconsin has gone an entire deer hunting season without someone getting killed. That's great. There were over 600,000 hunters.
Allow me to restate that number. Over the last two months, the eighth largest army in the world - more men under arms than Iran ; more than France and Germany combined - deployed to the woods of a single American state to help keep the deer menace at bay.
But that pales in comparison to the 750,000 who are in the woods of Pennsylvania this week. Michigan 's 700,000 hunters have now returned home. Toss in a quarter million hunters in West Virginia , and it is literally the case that the hunters of those four states alone would comprise the largest army in the world.
His 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.
*************************************************
I love my country
It's the Government I'm afraid of.
God Bless America
-
It is said that's the reason the Japanese didn't invade during WWII
-
His point? America will forever be safe from foreign invasion with that kind of home-grown firepower.
Admiral Yamamoto said "there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass" if Japan tried to invade the continental US.
Now if we can just keep our own freaking politicians in check....
-
Both cookie and kmitch nailed it.
To this day, even our gov't knows foreign invasion won't happen, for this very reason. However, our gov't has forgotten why there is so many of us.
"Governments like control -- the only real power governments have to fall back on if necessary to preserve their authority is the use of force. That is not as easy or effective against an armed population. So governments around the world seek to disarm everyone except their own military and LEO forces. This had been the case for thousands of years. It is still the case today. The only time governments want their average citizens to be armed historically is when the threat of losing their authority to foreign invaders is greater than the risk from their own population."
Zoogster
"How long would the Nazis have kept it up...if every Jew they came after had met them with a gun in his hand?"
Walter Mathau - Fail Safe - 1964
-
Admiral Yamamoto said "there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass" if Japan tried to invade the continental US.
Now if we can just keep our own freaking politicians in check....
Yamamoto reportedly made that statement many years after the war in a conference of WW II Vets, US and Japanese when asked why Japan did not invade the west coast of the US, knowing as they did, that there could be no naval defense and that our ground forces were not prepared for war, particularly an invasion.
The rest of his answer was that "We were to smart to step into that quicksand"
-
It is said that's the reason the Japanese didn't invade during WWII
much as I wish that were true it just aint. The real reason there is no way in hell logistically the Japs could hope to succeed in that. Too much ocean , too much 'stuff' in the US.
Besides according to ARFCOM the hunters are 'just a bunch of Fudds' anywayz
:P
-
Solus, Just to set the record straight, Yamamoto was shot down by Army Air Force P 38 Lightnings when he left his base in Rabaul. I believe it was in '43. You are correct about this quote however.
-
I'm going to be a pessimist here. NOTE: I am making broad generalizations below and I'm sure you'll have plenty of individual data points that refute this but I will posit that I'm correct in the broad sense.
If we had a "Red Dawn" event tomorrow, I don't think you could count on even a very small percentage of people to take up arms. That is a pipe dream.
I grew up a hunter and have been to many deer camps and pheasant hunts through my life. A very large percentage of hunters are not into self defense, independence as we see on forums like this. They really know very little about guns, only view them as a tool, know nothing of tactics. They have fieldcraft skills but this doesn't make them a FIGHTER. That is mindset and to confuse the two is a big mistake.
+ A disgustingly small percentage of people actually take the time to vote
+ Getting people to call their congresscritters against a bill is like pulling teeth
+ How many people join the NRA...yes we have 4M members but that is ridiculously low
+ Try to get someone to volunteer to do something at church, Cub Scouts, school...almost impossible. They'd rather be home being sedated by watching "Dancing with the Stars" or reading People magazine. Tripe.
Do we have the potential of a large armed force? Yes. Are hunters more likely than the average Berkely hippie to take up arms? Yes. But that is a far cry from a trained, motivated force to resist tyranny.
Depressing rant off.
-
much as I wish that were true it just aint. The real reason there is no way in hell logistically the Japs could hope to succeed in that. Too much ocean , too much 'stuff' in the US.
Besides according to ARCOM the hunters are 'just a bunch of Fudds' anywayz
:P
Interesting thought since they tend to specifically seek out these "Fudds" when looking for men to put through sniper school. I guess being a skilled woodsman and shooter only count when it benefits them?
Of course you are talking about a government agency.... ::)
-
I agree with what you say KPR, but that is why it is up to people like us to be force multipliers. Most people are lazy sheep. But given the proper scare, and the right leadership, you could accomplish a lot with them. Just remember, all sheeple are useful in one way or another. Even if it is for cannon fodder.
-
Interesting thought since they tend to specifically seek out these "Fudds" when looking for men to put through sniper school. I guess being a skilled woodsman and shooter only count when it benefits them?
Of course you are talking about a government agency.... ::)
ack screwed the pooch on that one (apologies to Alf the Wunder Beagle) - meant ARFCOM aka AR15.com
head hung in shame
seems to me a bunch of hunters might be about the equivalent of the old colonial militia - two or three shots then run away
well these days 2 or 3 magazines ...
-
Agree that IF you could get enough like minded people together, the best option is true guerilla-style warfare. Well placed ambushes, long distance, multiple shooters with interlacing fields of fire, maximum one magazine, displace and high tail it out of there. Blend back into the people and be seen as nothing more than one more of the sheep.
Conventional warfare or force on force is the stuff of mall ninja fantasies and is a very quick way to a dirt nap.
Tinfoil hat off.
-
I don't know about the numbers, and no one can really say what they'd do for sure in most any situation until it's upon them. However, I know there are a lot of guns out there in a lot of people's hands who know how to use them relatively well, at the least. I don't think any sane person really wants to shoot someone or plans to, but, given a situation that calls for it and ultimately is between that person and their family's life and the life of someone who wishes them harm, I think most people (even ones who you think absolutely wouldn't) would pull that trigger without hesitation.
Now, there is a big difference between working as an organized group to fend off invaders at the country level and standing right next to your family to defend them. But at some point with an enemy army on the doorstep, those two scenarios start to become one and the same. The defenders almost always have the greater motivation to win because, if they lose, they lose everything.
I also think that one motivated person with a bolt action hunting rifle would be a lot more effective against invaders than two of your typical AR 15 toting tacticool "range soldiers." That hunter has some experience in the woods, has used his rifle in all weather conditions (usually in less than ideal conditions) and knows what it's like to look through the scope at a living creature before taking its life. I don't want the last part of that sentence to be taken wrongly. There is a huge difference between taking the life of an animal and taking the life of a person (never have, hope I never do), and, for the record, I don't think hunting leads to killing people (more than likely the opposite, in my opinion). However, there is a big difference in hunting and punching paper in beautiful weather.
Even if hunters don't organize at the national level but almost every house or neighborhood is reasonably defended, invaders would still have a tough time. Especially, if our actual military put up a good initial front.
-
ack screwed the pooch on that one (apologies to Alf the Wunder Beagle) - meant ARFCOM aka AR15.com
head hung in shame
seems to me a bunch of hunters might be about the equivalent of the old colonial militia - two or three shots then run away
well these days 2 or 3 magazines ...
I don't know about the numbers, and no one can really say what they'd do for sure in most any situation until it's upon them. However, I know there are a lot of guns out there in a lot of people's hands who know how to use them relatively well, at the least. I don't think any sane person really wants to shoot someone or plans to, but, given a situation that calls for it and ultimately is between that person and their family's life and the life of someone who wishes them harm, I think most people (even ones who you think absolutely wouldn't) would pull that trigger without hesitation.
Now, there is a big difference between working as an organized group to fend off invaders at the country level and standing right next to your family to defend them. But at some point with an enemy army on the doorstep, those two scenarios start to become one and the same. The defenders almost always have the greater motivation to win because, if they lose, they lose everything.
I also think that one motivated person with a bolt action hunting rifle would be a lot more effective against invaders than two of your typical AR 15 toting tacticool "range soldiers." That hunter has some experience in the woods, has used his rifle in all weather conditions (usually in less than ideal conditions) and knows what it's like to look through the scope at a living creature before taking its life. I don't want the last part of that sentence to be taken wrongly. There is a huge difference between taking the life of an animal and taking the life of a person (never have, hope I never do), and, for the record, I don't think hunting leads to killing people (more than likely the opposite, in my opinion). However, there is a big difference in hunting and punching paper in beautiful weather.
Even if hunters don't organize at the national level but almost every house or neighborhood is reasonably defended, invaders would still have a tough time. Especially, if our actual military put up a good initial front.
One of the Revolutionary war battles down south (I forget which ) used that to great advantage.
The militia fired 1 or 2 volley's at the British, then turned and "ran" , reloading on the run they "fled" over a knoll where the Brits ran straight into a line of reloaded/reformed Militia and waiting Continentals who decimated them ;D
-
I'd hate to be on the other end of even CAs gun owners, let alone us back in the 40s.
-
Solus, Just to set the record straight, Yamamoto was shot down by Army Air Force P 38 Lightnings when he left his base in Rabaul. I believe it was in '43. You are correct about this quote however.
Works for me.
I heard the story that the statement was made at the WWII Vets conference by a Japanese officer and I just used the name given in the previous post.
-
One of the Revolutionary war battles down south (I forget which ) used that to great advantage.
The militia fired 1 or 2 volley's at the British, then turned and "ran" , reloading on the run they "fled" over a knoll where the Brits ran straight into a line of reloaded/reformed Militia and waiting Continentals who decimated them ;D
Battle of the Cow Pens in SC. General Gauge (might have that wrong) - they didn't really go over the knoll. As I understand it it was NC and VA Riflemen in front firing at the guys in the tall hats, followed by the Militia with the Continental Regulars at the back. By the time the Riflemen and the Militia had fired their volleys - there weren't enough British officers and NCO's to control the formation. General Gauge's brilliance in this battle was not expecting anyone to do more than he was capable of.