An Army

Those numbers would probably be on the conservative side. I know plenty of folks who do not have a hunting license but still have plenty of guns.

inherited several rifles from my granddad. He never had to worry about a background check either. Alot of guys are out there just like me and we're not on any list of licensed hunters. Who knows what the real numbers are regarding guns owned in this country.

It's quite a leap of faith to beleive that a loose group of hunters is going to be willing or able to take on a trained and organized Army. Deer don't shoot back ... or drive tanks, have air support, etc ...

No doubt in my mind that if we would have had Japenese soldiers marching across America, the gun owners would have been out in force.

And of course those who did not have a gun, would be lining up at the gun store to buy one.

Are you serious? American gun owners not willing to take on a force invading our soil??! I think you underestimate your fellow citizens. I have a feeling that our military would provide an officer for small groups of militia to fight gorilla style. Have you seen pictures of the Lybian rebels....they don't look very organized or well equipt.

That is one thing I have noticed about the Arab Spring. I did not see many people with guns. Mostly rocks and rubble. I would have assumed they all had AK-47 rifles over there.

The biggest problem facing our citizen militia is the numerous gun calibers that Americans enjoy so much. The supply chain is so choked down to a handful of stores. It would only take hours for the ammo to be sold out.

I don't think people would be going down to the hardware store to pick up some ammo and some dynamite.

JRL

Most except the cowards will resist and we have many combat vets living yet. An armed citizenry is an imposing force to any aggressor. That provision of the second amendment is the only reason this country has survived. No freedom would exist without it and we cannot regain control of our own government without the second amendment guaranteeing that our Constitution be followed after elections. So far we have not need the armed citizens to enforce our Constitution but if needed it's there. Why do you think there is and has been such a drive to disarm us. Safety for the individual and the masses? really. Percentage wise, firearm caused death by criminals or accident are very low numbers when even compared to the common flu, let alone comparing it to auto deaths. Again, An armed citizenry is an imposing force to any aggressor, foreign or domestic.
jud

Never underestimate the resolve of a people under attack.

From "The Midway Miracle"

Because the Lexington had been sunk and the Yorktown heavily damaged at Coral Sea, Nimitz was left with two serviceable carriers: the Enterprise (CV-6) and Hornet (the Saratoga [CV-3] would not arrive from the West Coast in time for the coming battle). Fortunately for the Americans, however, the Japanese had overlooked major targets when they bombed Pearl Harbor. Besides failing to knock out the fuel depots, they did not destroy the dry docks, and on 28 May the Yorktown -- which the Japanese thought they had sunk -- floated into Dry Dock No. 1 and was soon swarming with workmen. The next day she eased into her berth as the repairs continued. The carrier returned to sea on the 30th. One estimate had been that it would take three months to put Yorktown back into prime condition, but in an amazing feat, repairmen were able to put her in service in only three days.

Yeah ... no problem with joining an organized fighting force ... but calling a group of hunters "the world's biggest Army" is a stretch beyond belief. It takes more than owning a gun to be a soilder ... and an Army is more than people with guns ... That post is almost insulting to soilders.

Even though an unorganized force, America's hunters/gunowners, for the most part would take up arms to defend their homeland against better organized and better armed foreign invaders, knowing full well that the invaders will shoot back.

Almost insulting to soldiers???

Who do you think made up the army that won the war giving this nation its freedom?

For the most part, it was men who had not been formally trained as soldiers but who were nearly all hunters. They were largely local groups of neighbors who joined together in a somewhat organized force, sometimes fighting alongside the organized Continental Army and sometimes not. This undergunned, less organized, informally trained, but more determined informal army defeated the army which at the time had the most advanced arms, the best training, and the most resources of any military at the time.

The first American soldiers were not soldiers at all except by need. As it was in the 1770s, it would have been in the 1940s, and would be today.

Your statement is almost insulting to the heritage of the American soldier and sorely undersetimates the abilities of many American hunters (many who are ex-military), and sorely underestimates the resolve of the American who would fight to protect home and Country.

I didn't know that Gordon. Thanks for that amazing and inspiring bit of history.

Almost insulting to soldiers???

We have seen the power of an armed populace to disrupt a powerful military in Iraq and Afghanistan. Only in those cases about 95% of the populace is more or less glad to have the soldiers and 5% isn't. If the Japanese military had invaded the US mainland, they surely would have found the percentages reversed.

Still, the presence of guns in US civilian hands isn't the reason they didn't invade. The fact is that they were overextended taking the South Pacific islands they did. They counted themselves lucky with Pearl Harbor and never even attacked Hawaii again, much less the mainland.

Almost insulting to soldiers???

Who do you think made up the army that won the war giving this nation its freedom?

Those were different times, fought with guns that could fire one shot, then took 20 seconds to reload ... and it should be mentioned that they had military leadership and fought as a unit, they weren't just running around wild taking pot shots at Army platoons. You can't compare a modern Army to guys that dress up like a bush, drink beer, and wait for a deer to trot by ...

I doubt that the Japs would have made it to the other side of California. No way they would have made it to the Mississippi River.

No doubt an armed populace could make a lot of trouble for an invading Army.

I doubt that is the reason they didn't invade, though. The USA is a huge country; Japan is relatively small. It would be a huge undertaking not just to invade but also to occupy and control such a large land area. They couldn't have handled it. They may have been able to march to the Mississippi River but then what?

The main problem the British had in the Revolutionary War was they could occupy the larger Cities but they never could effectively control the countryside for extended periods of time over large areas. The Japanese would've had the same problem.

Besides I don't think they were really interested in conquering the USA mainland. They were mostly interested in controlling the eastern Pacific.

I guess it makes us feel macho and like big men to think we could've repelled them and maybe so but that isn't the reason they didn't invade.

I tend to agree. California, terrain-wise, would be a tough nut to crack for an invading Army at that time if our Generals had an ounce of common sense.

I would think their best hope would be to invade Southern California but then they would have to get out of the L.A. Basin (San Diego County is also very mountainous). Then cross the Mojave Desert; that would be a logistical problem and a hit and run type force of defenders could have caused them a lot of trouble. Then Nevada is mountainous desert.

It seems like a really difficult problem.

If they tried to invade the San Francisco Bay Area they would have to get into the Bay before they landed but if they succeeded at that they probably could get to Sacramento but then they have to cross the Sierra Nevada.

All the while the US Army and local citizens are shooting at them.

> 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 in other localities, so why did they not invade?

I guessing they didn't invade after Pearl Harbor because they only had a 1.7 million man army and 80% of them were fighting a ground war with China at the time.

One of the reasons the Japanese soldiers were so brutal was they were dropping huge Armies down on those islands with almost no supply chain. The average Japanese soldier was hungry.

"Flyboys" is a good book which explains a lot of what happened in the Pacific.

The American leadership was very concerned after Pearl Harbor because they did not bomb the power plant which is sign of invasion. They were worried about a Japanese invasion of Hawaii, not the US mainland. Even then the Japanese didn't even undertake to invade Hawaii probably because they were mostly interested in trying to cripple American military power; not take over territory that didn't suit their needs or interests.

You are right about that, they would not make it over the mountain for hell's sake.