The topic of America's ability to defend herself from invasion/occupation/foreign armies comes up from time to time. It was hinted around at in this current thread: http://www.okshooters.com/showthread.php?143862-China-condemns-U.S.-gun-ownership-as-human-rights-violation/page2
Undoubtedly, someone always mentions a quote, attributed to Admiral Yamamoto during WWII: ""You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass." (which incidentally, is a bogus attribution) The sentiment is that private gun ownership in America provides some function of national security, besides recreation and personal defense. I always wonder how much of this is jingoism, and how true it is.
I tend to think it provokes a false sense of security. I'm no conspiracy theorist, have no impression of clear and present danger, nor am I a new operator to this theater. However, when the 2nd A'ers rationalize an army of deer rifles as being a substantial threat to a foreign army, I think it is laughable.
No matter how many millions of rifles and billions or rounds of ammo are floating around the mainland US, the presumption that the folks holding them are skilled, disciplined, trained, and allied enough to deploy them in the name of self defense is a stretch. Looking at recent history, Iraqi insurgents had significant amounts of Class III combat weapons, high explosives, RPGs, and artillery shells at their disposal. Yet, they were not able to repel a trained and highly motivated American military. Since Americans are somewhat lesser armed than having those potent weapons, should we really expect semi automatic handguns and rifles are sufficient to hold a modern invading army at bay?
'Behind every blade of grass', maybe. A tangible source of defense? err, no. A properly equipped modern military might be harassed by armed resistance, but marginalizing the military value of those weapons wouldn't be difficult.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm not sure that all those guns and bullets amount to much. What do you think?
Undoubtedly, someone always mentions a quote, attributed to Admiral Yamamoto during WWII: ""You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass." (which incidentally, is a bogus attribution) The sentiment is that private gun ownership in America provides some function of national security, besides recreation and personal defense. I always wonder how much of this is jingoism, and how true it is.
I tend to think it provokes a false sense of security. I'm no conspiracy theorist, have no impression of clear and present danger, nor am I a new operator to this theater. However, when the 2nd A'ers rationalize an army of deer rifles as being a substantial threat to a foreign army, I think it is laughable.
No matter how many millions of rifles and billions or rounds of ammo are floating around the mainland US, the presumption that the folks holding them are skilled, disciplined, trained, and allied enough to deploy them in the name of self defense is a stretch. Looking at recent history, Iraqi insurgents had significant amounts of Class III combat weapons, high explosives, RPGs, and artillery shells at their disposal. Yet, they were not able to repel a trained and highly motivated American military. Since Americans are somewhat lesser armed than having those potent weapons, should we really expect semi automatic handguns and rifles are sufficient to hold a modern invading army at bay?
'Behind every blade of grass', maybe. A tangible source of defense? err, no. A properly equipped modern military might be harassed by armed resistance, but marginalizing the military value of those weapons wouldn't be difficult.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm not sure that all those guns and bullets amount to much. What do you think?
