Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I can't help but think of the story about a Reserve Naval Mobile Construction Battalion that went to 29 Palms to play war games with active duty Marines.
The RNMCB unit won...
When the Marine Captain (O4) wondered how his people got beat so badly, the Navy lieutenant (O4) said something like "Well, captain, all my people are from Montana, Idaho, Washington, Alaska, Oregon, and Wyoming. If they can track and shoot a whitetail deer or a black bear, your Marines are, sad to say, easy!"
Was the story true? Damifino, but it was common in the RNMCB I was in. Could it have been true? Probably.
Could the Seabees win against Seals, Green Berets, Rangers, etc.? Probably not, but those kinds of troops are really quite rare. The drop-out rate during initial training is quite high.
Could hunters from the rural areas of Western (and many Eastern) states make life miserable for an armed, invading force? Given the number of firearms, ammunition, compound bows, hunting arrows, crossbows, and sneaky people (many of whom were trained by military units), I believe so.
Just my opinion, based on Veterans and hunters that I have known.
Could I participate? At my age, not for very long, but I would do the best I could for as long as I lasted. My wife would likely be right beside me, doing her part.
Keep in mind that the "Invade my home, you die!" attitude can be expanded to cover the entire country. THAT attitude is what would make life miserable for an invading force!
You do understand that hunters go into a territory that favors a species of animal...
Animals that have a keen sense of smell. Excellent hearing and vision through evolution that can detect natural predators... right?
You do realize there are people.... everyday... in this country.... who enter territory with natural odds stacked against them.... to go in undetected and successfully bag said animals... right?
Think about that for a minute.
Armed civilians. Entering Bambis AO undetected. To sit for hours. Undetected. Using natural surroundings for camouflage and masking agents to hide human scent.
To bag and tag Bambi.
A foreign invasion would be suicide for any military foolish enough to attempt to invade this nation. I don't care if it's Russia China all of the middle east whoever.
Hillbillys hunting dumb animals?
Yeah... real challenging...
Quote:
Originally Posted by NY_refugee87
Case in point re historical examples.
Vietnam.
Peasant farmer communist army. With a handful of VC supporters met the most well equipped and technologically superior military to exist at the time. Armed with Chicom AK47s and SKS and RPG7s.
These combatants blended in with the civilian populous.
They set some of the nastiest anti personelle traps ever.
Read first hand accounts of Vietnam veterans sometime. An entire platoon ambushed in jungles by a handful of peasants to make a mad dash for tunnels after taking out half the platoon via small arms fire and booby traps like pungee pits, mines, etc.
The only reason the US lost in Vietnam was because the will of the people back home to continue the war wasn't there. It was dozens of dead Vietnamese for every dead American. The US could have won that incident had it had support for it back home.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NY_refugee87
Afghanistan. Cave dwelling goat herders held off the Russians and still are holding their own against the most advanced well trained, and well equipped militaries in the world. You think only US troops are over there?
There's British and other European troops over there.
With MOAB JDAM Reaper Drone strikes.
Special Forces units.
C130 gun ships A10 warthogs for air support.
Tanks. Although tanks become rendered useless in mountainous terrain both in AFG and Korean war.
European and US troops aren't wiping out entire villages/towns/cities of civilians.
Great lengths are taken to avoid civilian casualties. This makes it easy for al-qaeda to get around and makes it harder for the US to crush their will to continue fighting.
Again, little support back home.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NY_refugee87
Let's go back to the revolutionary war...
You had a populous of former pilgrims who have duked it out with natives/pequoits etc. They said enough is enough to hell with the king and what happened?
A formal standing army came and got slaughtered. There is recorded documentation describing colonial Americans as not being "gentlemen" by standing in a field to fire volleys back and forth. There were people conducting ambushes in the cover of forests.
In short. Never ever underestimate the power of asymmetrical warfare.
I'll put money on it. A trained formal army gets its rear end handed to it entering rural America where folks stalk and successfully bag game. Home field advantage is quite the advantage.
Military tech back then was a lot more on par with what the civilians had access to.
and no... it wasn't American militias that won the war. Even our generals saw militias as more a headache. They were always the first to cut and run.
The UK had a much bigger war going on in Europe. The US was just a pain in the rear colony that they threw a few troops at but kept their main focus elsewhere. As another poster pointed out, had the UK known the real extend of America and it's resources, they would've sent a lot more and better troops here and sacrificed elsewhere in the world instead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cape Cod Todd
If it had come down to it don't you think that militias would have been formed as a line against the invading Japs. They would have fought along side the regular army to prevent the invasion.
Over the centuries we have so many examples where a small group of determined men stood firm against overwhelming odds.
Of course there is a huge difference in firepower between a civilian AR15 and a military version despite what the Left tells us but still if America was invaded today I believe that if called on there would be plenty of men and women that would bring their sporting and hunting rifles to fight alongside our military just as was done in 1776, 1814, 1865 and other instances.
If the you know what hit the fan I'm sure there would be many that would surrender outright but there would be some that would rather fight.
Militias mean nothing against a modern army. The US army would tell them to stay home, they'd be more of a hindrance. Would love to see a bunch of a hunters legit think they could hold off a tank battalion...
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
And yet Afghanistan has held off both the Soviet Union and the U.S.
Afghanistan wasn't invaded by WWII Japanese.
They would have gone on an ethnic cleansing spree. Something we'd never do.
Regardless, it's dozens of dead Afghans for every Russian/US.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NY_refugee87
Says you. I stated what all is required to be a successful hunter. Same that makes for a successful special forces operator.
Going into an area undetected? Check.
Ability to maneuver within the AO undetected? Check.
Ability to read maps, terrain, natural features for modern tech devices have batteries that die? Check.
Similar. Not the same.
I'd say it's quite a credible statement. But if hunters weren't that effective I'm sure hunting would have gone the wayside long long ago.
OMG YOU'RE HILARIOUS!!!!
No you foolish person... they are absolutely nothing alike... Children can successfully hunt... not even in their teens. Hunting an animal does not take a great deal of skill.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NY_refugee87
I doubt it. Especially when we wound up with France coming to aid later on... there'd had been alot more dead red coats than colonial Americans that's for sure.
You apparently don't know much history. There was a world war going on. America was only one front. There was an international conflict going on between GB, France, Spain, the Dutch, Jamaica, Gibraltar, and India. The colonies were just a small aspect of that and one of the least important. The Brits didn't send their best troops here. Even then, the Brits almost managed to squash the rebellion multiple times, even with France and Spain providing the US with weapons and troops and the Dutch sending weapons and other goods. The Brits eventually decided to cut the colonies loose so they could focus on India.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rstevens62
Yeah, kind of like the American Revolution, the colonists didnt stand a chance against the mighty British!
Military technology far outpaces civilian tech in more modern times compared to back in the times of the revolution.
The revolution had three world powers supporting it, the French, the Spanish, and Dutch.
Had Great Britain not had more pressing matters to attend to, they could've crushed the rebels. They were fighting a war on 3+ fronts. North America was considered the least important.
Most of you apparently don't know how brutal the Japanese were. Your hunters would be an annoyance, maybe slow them down, but ultimately stand no chance. The Japanese, in retribution for this annoyance, would have zero hesitation slaughtering the entire population of civilians in problem areas.
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.
What tosh. What utter nonsense. What drivel. Imperial Japan had neither the desire nor the means to support an invasion across the Pacific. Pearl Harbor was at the extreme range of their capacity for an airstrike.
Quote:
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 ship. All fighting the Germans.
Not in 1941, they weren't. You may want to crack the books.
Quote:
After the war, the remaining Japanese generals and admirals were asked that question. Their answer…
And this is where you produce a citation. I'll spare you the time and let you know that the Yamamoto quote is bogus.
Yeah, kind of like the American Revolution, the colonists didnt stand a chance against the mighty British!
Not until they fielded an actual army of their own, no.
Armies aren't "men with firearms". Not even "trained men with firearms". Armies are 99% organization and procedure and educated leaders and established practices and organizational knowledge. You can't line up 500 men with rifles and say "You're now an infantry battalion." No matter how good shots they are.
The civilian militias in recent history have mainly been good at shoving around civilians in their own communities - the ethnic cleansing in ex-Yugoslavia provided a fine example.
Last edited by Dane_in_LA; 02-16-2019 at 10:42 AM..
The Montana State Constitution, Article II, Section 12. RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS:
"The right of any person to keep or bear arms in defense of his own home, person, and property, OR IN AID OF THE CIVIL POWER WHEN THERETO LEGALLY SUMMONED, shall not be called in question, but nothing herein contained shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons." (caps accent added)
Open carry is legal statewide, with restrictions.
(sigh)
No restrictions on open carry are stated. None.
But you couldn't help changing your own state Constitution before you even finished your post, could you?
Quote:
Mainly, it is not allowed to carry your weapon into places where alcohol is served, banks, courthouses,
Might be nice. But the state constitution you quoted, says nothing of the kind. You are simply airing a laundry list of things you personally want, and trying to pretend it's legal to impose your wishes on others by force of law, even though the state Constitution you quoted expressly says people's right to open carry SHALL NOT BE CALLED INTO QUESTION.
Quote:
or where the management says no.
If I don't want someone to carry a gun in my house, or in my store, I can forbid him entry. And call the cops on him for trespassing if he comes in anyway. But I cannot take his gun away.
The owners of the bars you mentioned, and the banks, can do the same.
The people running the courts, however, face a different situation. Some legal situations might require someone to enter a courtroom. In such cases, forbidding him to enter the courtroom while open carrying, would itself be a violation of his rights.
I've written elsewhere that you can only take away a person's gun if (a) you do it, (b) he sues you for violating his right (which SHALL NOT BE CALLED INTO QUESTION) to open carry, and (c) a jury decides that in his particular case taking away his gun was justified, and lets you walk despite your violation of his right.
And no one has yet refuted that. (Smearing, insulting, and namecalling does not constitute refutation.)
Keep guns for purposes explained by those who wrote and ratified the Second Amendment. Be ready to use them for those purposes.
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 ship.
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 knew 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
by repealing the Second Amendment to our Constitution or otherwise minimizing it.
As a avid supporter of the 2nd amendment, I must say although the sentiment is correct but your history is all fubar at best.
For one, US was not fighting anybody when Japan attacked on Dec. 7, 1941. Had a Japanese invasion been a concern, we certainly would have had plenty of time to allocate our military resources.
To think a tiny country with little resources could possibly take on the industrial giant with vast land is ludicrous.
The only reason the US lost in Vietnam was because the will of the people back home to continue the war wasn't there. It was dozens of dead Vietnamese for every dead American. The US could have won that incident had it had support for it back home.
European and US troops aren't wiping out entire villages/towns/cities of civilians.
Great lengths are taken to avoid civilian casualties. This makes it easy for al-qaeda to get around and makes it harder for the US to crush their will to continue fighting.
Again, little support back home.
Military tech back then was a lot more on par with what the civilians had access to.
and no... it wasn't American militias that won the war. Even our generals saw militias as more a headache. They were always the first to cut and run.
The UK had a much bigger war going on in Europe. The US was just a pain in the rear colony that they threw a few troops at but kept their main focus elsewhere. As another poster pointed out, had the UK known the real extend of America and it's resources, they would've sent a lot more and better troops here and sacrificed elsewhere in the world instead.
Militias mean nothing against a modern army. The US army would tell them to stay home, they'd be more of a hindrance. Would love to see a bunch of a hunters legit think they could hold off a tank battalion...
Afghanistan wasn't invaded by WWII Japanese.
They would have gone on an ethnic cleansing spree. Something we'd never do.
Regardless, it's dozens of dead Afghans for every Russian/US.
OMG YOU'RE HILARIOUS!!!!
No you foolish person... they are absolutely nothing alike... Children can successfully hunt... not even in their teens. Hunting an animal does not take a great deal of skill.
You apparently don't know much history. There was a world war going on. America was only one front. There was an international conflict going on between GB, France, Spain, the Dutch, Jamaica, Gibraltar, and India. The colonies were just a small aspect of that and one of the least important. The Brits didn't send their best troops here. Even then, the Brits almost managed to squash the rebellion multiple times, even with France and Spain providing the US with weapons and troops and the Dutch sending weapons and other goods. The Brits eventually decided to cut the colonies loose so they could focus on India.
Military technology far outpaces civilian tech in more modern times compared to back in the times of the revolution.
The revolution had three world powers supporting it, the French, the Spanish, and Dutch.
Had Great Britain not had more pressing matters to attend to, they could've crushed the rebels. They were fighting a war on 3+ fronts. North America was considered the least important.
Most of you apparently don't know how brutal the Japanese were. Your hunters would be an annoyance, maybe slow them down, but ultimately stand no chance. The Japanese, in retribution for this annoyance, would have zero hesitation slaughtering the entire population of civilians in problem areas.
I agree, but that should have never been allowed by citizens...today, if tyranny gained power, the citizens would be unable to remove them from power by force.
A bunch of hunters stand zero chance against a trained army.
The hunters would’ve been slaughtered.
The army would then slaughter families to make a point.
The US wasn’t invaded because it is too far from Japan for them to be able to maintain supplies and fresh troops.
Tell that to the British who fought the Americans in the revolutionary war. They may have a different tale to tell.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
