So you're saying that the original post may possibly be inaccurate...an NRA fantasy? Hey, I've had guns all my life. I mean ALL my life, and I used to play war when I was a little boy. Don't really know where I'm going with this, so I probably ought to stop. Sorry, I didn't set out to cause offense; I respect all the posters,
🙂
Don
The gun thing sounds like silly NRA propaganda to me.
I don't think the Japanese refrained from invading our west coast because of a few hunters with 30 ot 6 rifles.
I think they didn't invade because they had no reason to and even if they did it was a nightmarish proposition for them as a very small country which was already heavily involved in southeast Asia. They couldn't even feed the Armies they already had in the South Pacific let alone an invading force in North America.
Invading a country is a very expensive proposition. The Japanese didn't have unlimited resources to just do whatever they felt like.
You are free to believe whatever you want though.
Ah, Dave? Japan invaded China, last time I looked at a globe China was kinda big.
Just use some common sense. I know you guys want to believe this but some hunters with hunting rifles would not have changed their mind about invading if it made sense for them to do so. They took on Armies with a lot more fire power than a hunting rifle so they would have invaded if it made sense in terms of the risks and costs.
If the Japanese had looked over here and saw a viable chance of successfully invading and the potential gain in natural resources (why else would a country invade another country) justified the cost in money and men then they would have invaded. They would have been aware of the threat from armed citizens but they would have planned to deal with that. The Japanese at that time were not too worried about losing a soldier here and there to a citizen sniper; that would just be the cost of doing business.
Hey Don, just keep in mind that Dave K is anti-gun, he's scared of them.
Sons of Guns
Is filmed about 40 miles West of us, we tend to have a different opinion of what an armed citizen could do for the defense of the country then what appears to be the opinion of some folks out in California. 🙂
[flash width=420 height=345] http://www.youtube.com/v/dJLeO3bwAVg?version=3&hl=en_US [/flash]
TDD alone is an army of one that I certainly wouldn't mess with. Ammo up.
Dan-I know you guys really really want to believe this but use some basic logic. Whether I own guns or not or whatever my feelings about guns might be has nothing to do with it whatsoever.
The proposition is that the Japanese did not invade the West Coast because they were afraid of some hunters with rifles. This is simply ludicrous. Any Japanese General that admitted to Tojo that he was afraid of invading a place because of amateurs with hunting rifles would have been invited to commit Harri Kari; think about it for more than 10 seconds. The Japanese Army tackled much tougher objectives (like opposing Armies with actual artillery) than a few hunters with hunting rifles where it furthered their national interests.
I don't doubt Americans civilians with guns would have caused them a lot of trouble but I don't think that would have stopped them. Bombing Pearl Harbor was tough enough to do in secret but we would had a much higher likelihood of detecting the large invasion force that it would have taken to invade the US West Coast and I assume many of you are not familiar with just how difficult the California Coast would be to invade. Their supply lines would have been extremely long. I just don't think they saw much chance of prevailing due to the length of the supply lines, the difficulty of California's terrain (multiple mountain ranges going east) and the sheer size of the objective in land area versus the number of people a small country like Japan could ultimately field in yet another Army.
I don't own any guns because frankly a pipe shaped machine that can propel a piece of lead at high velocity bores me. I don't get all of the fascination but if you want your hunting rifles that is fine with me.
Uhhm... I'm not exactly sure how to put this, but I was actually agreeing with the K-man.:-)
Don
Dan-look at a map.
China is right next door to Japan, not across an Ocean.
Japan had plenty to do by 1941. An invasion of the West Coast would have been nearly impossible.
But believe your fantasy if it makes you feel better. 😉
Even the French had partisans making trouble for the Germans but they didn't keep them out of France or kick them out either. The most an informal guerrilla force can hope to do is cause trouble for the enemy and that is if they are well trained and organized.
Army Ants also an insult
yeah, and the entomologist that named the species Army Ants. I think he's insulting the army too.
Hunting rifles? LOL Squaresville man.
"Hunting rifles" sounds just like what the Brady Bunch would say.
BTW, I disagree with just about everything you have said, will ever say or really want to say about guns. At about 98%.
"Bores me" ROTFLMAO
Bummer.
Ah, Dave?
Japan had just destroyed the Pacific fleet, nothing stood in their way except the armed citizens of the US.
Fantasy?
Don't worry Dave, your neighbors will protect you if there ever is an invasion from China or maybe even Mexico.
Sons of Guns
Dan, most of the populace of Texas is right there with you.
While I'm sure there is truth in the logistics behind the non-invasion of Japan, Dave's argument about "a few hunters with 30.06 rifles is WAY off the mark.
It's a helluva lot more than a few and a myriad of calibers.
Notwithstanding that MOST hunters prize themselves on the "one shot one kill" idea of ethical hunting and would have no problem reaching out and touching someone at 250 to 300 yards.
We're not hitting bullseyes, just a man sized target and that's not that difficult with 60 year old weapons and projectiles.
Whether you're anti-gun or not, more folks own guns than don't. So if half own guns and you use the census of 2000, that's 150 MILLION folks with guns. Take 4 million from that assuming they're active military and you still have 146 MILLION folks with guns that can use them (which is part of basic training).
Don't eff with the US and American hunters.
Sons of Guns
:good:
"...I was actually agreeing with the K-man."
Not about everything.
🙂
Don
:good:
Sons of Guns
:good:
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 the British had lines of soldiers who shot in turns to minimize the effect of reload time. There was still, at least initially a disparity of arms in that fight. As advanced arms are captured, or civilian forces are augmented or relieved by regular military, that disparity would dissipate and dissappear. The civilian force would slow an invader enough to lessen any advantage it might gain over our military.
>... and it should be mentioned that they had military leadership and fought as a unit,...
And what makes you think that today's hunters and gunowners would not form into such groups. I think that in large part, small groups of friends and neighbors would quickly coalesce into small informal units and those small neighborhood units would in just a little more time join with similar groups to form larger, more organized units probably led by retired military personnel, and perhaps eventually by active or reserve military officers. Exactly as it happened 235 years ago.
>... they weren't just running around wild taking pot shots at Army platoons.
Initially that's exactly what happened. In fact, some of the more succesful units continued to fight a guerilla war throughout the revolution, which by definition is "running around taking pot shots at [enemy] 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 ...
You show a great deal of ignorance and contempt for hunters with this statement. Depending upon the basis, you can make reasonable comparisons.
"Dress up like a bush" That's called camouflage. You might be surprised to learn that fighting forces have utilized camouflage for as long as there have been wars.
"Drink beer" What, soldiers, sailors, and marines don't drink beer? What color is the sky in your world? Most hunters and gun owners I know are more responsible than to be handling weapons while intoxicated. I won't hunt or shoot with those who fit the stereotype you imagine. While such idiots do exist, they are only a stereotype in Hollywood and in the imaginations of ignorant pseudo intellectuals. You will probably find a higher incidence of substance abuse in most active military units than you will among the general hunting population. Hopefully those few :-/ soldiers, sailors, and marines who do have an occasional beer or two likewise are not intoxicated when required to handle weapons.
"Wait for a deer to trot by" You mean like choosing a good tactical location to set up an ambush? And you forgot about tracking, marksmanship, familiarity of arms, care and maintenance of equipment, familiarity of terrain, ability to navigate...
