Mr. Leary
Glamping Excursionaire
:coffeedrink:
The world's largest army...
- Thread starter Corey
- Start date
:coffeedrink:
K2ZJ
Explorer
I think there are two points missing from this so far.
1st, would our own military fire on us? How many of the military men and women would refuse to fire on US citizens. So would the full might of our military come down on these "hunters".
2nd, how many times throughout history has an attacker been thwarted by a smaller less equipped army? How much harder does someone fight to protect their home/land vs someone attacking it?
Looking at modern wars, how many troops do we have in Iraq and Afghanistan vs how many people we are fighting? Yes they use different tactics, which was mentioned earlier, but I remember a statistic that there were 10K extremists in Afghanistan we were fighting and there were 30k+ troops there. We out number then 3:1 and can't beat them? That also would go against the largest army idea though...
1st, would our own military fire on us? How many of the military men and women would refuse to fire on US citizens. So would the full might of our military come down on these "hunters".
2nd, how many times throughout history has an attacker been thwarted by a smaller less equipped army? How much harder does someone fight to protect their home/land vs someone attacking it?
Looking at modern wars, how many troops do we have in Iraq and Afghanistan vs how many people we are fighting? Yes they use different tactics, which was mentioned earlier, but I remember a statistic that there were 10K extremists in Afghanistan we were fighting and there were 30k+ troops there. We out number then 3:1 and can't beat them? That also would go against the largest army idea though...
Viggen
Just here...
Interesting read through. I think both sides of the argument have decent points. The average hunter might not have tactical skills but if you can get a good, smart leader, you can help override that a little bit. In modern, hit and run warfare, a smaller and more agile force has a large advantage over a large army. Small groups/ patches of resistance have the advantage in that they do not require a long supply chain and are thus more mobile. That advantage alone is worth a lot. There have been examples in history where a larger, poorly equipped and led force was victorious based off of numbers alone (USSR during WWII) and examples where a well lead, larger force was unsuccessful against a smaller, less equipped force (Arab Revolt WWI, Vietnam, etc...).
There seems to be an assumption that none of the hunting license holders would be expected to deploy back to their military bases at a time of invasion. Are US military personnel exempt from the requirement to have a hunting licence?
Another assumption seems to be that all hunters remain exclusively in their own state. How many of Michigan's 700,000 are also counted amongst Wisconsin's 600,000? I've held permits for both states (and Minnesota) simultaneously.
There is also an assumption, in the putative 'revolt', that a significant majority of hunters would be willing to fire on the US military that so many of them are former members or relatives of members of. I would bet that this revolution would experience as much incoming from deer rifles as from M4s.
Stats are great fun but counting the same people too many times and expecting them to fire on their loved ones is perhaps asking a little too much of them.
Another assumption seems to be that all hunters remain exclusively in their own state. How many of Michigan's 700,000 are also counted amongst Wisconsin's 600,000? I've held permits for both states (and Minnesota) simultaneously.
There is also an assumption, in the putative 'revolt', that a significant majority of hunters would be willing to fire on the US military that so many of them are former members or relatives of members of. I would bet that this revolution would experience as much incoming from deer rifles as from M4s.
Stats are great fun but counting the same people too many times and expecting them to fire on their loved ones is perhaps asking a little too much of them.
Honu
lost on the mainland
how many of those hunters are parents that will protect heir kids ?
All soldiers have not killed people ? And many people that have killed people in defense never wanted to but did whats needed !
Beter to have a chance than none at all
Dwh brought up a good point not all our fat nothings
A few of my buds have a bit of a gut 20 lbs extra and are also retired spec ops guys ?
One bud older vietnam vet flat out scary guy if you are on the wrong side has killed enough a few more wont bother him
All soldiers have not killed people ? And many people that have killed people in defense never wanted to but did whats needed !
Beter to have a chance than none at all
Dwh brought up a good point not all our fat nothings
A few of my buds have a bit of a gut 20 lbs extra and are also retired spec ops guys ?
One bud older vietnam vet flat out scary guy if you are on the wrong side has killed enough a few more wont bother him
Last edited:
Honu
lost on the mainland
About as funny as trying to take on the british with just a bunch of farmers and such
And yet our country has done this in the past and why we are who we are lets not forget
I have read with interest the naysayers reasons that the Militia mentioned in the 2nd amendment ( all the armed citizens of the U.S.) would ineffective and doomed to failure. I have one question for them. Have they ever disturbed a hive of bees or kicked over a nest of fire ants? Will they organized or trained? No, they will however have the slight advantage of matching weapons. Will they effective? Yes both will be very able to repel the threat to their community by one very simple tactic, total, blind, unreasoning, relentless attack by the entire community. It is my belief and hope that America would react the same way to such an attack. When I joined the Military, I swore an oath to protect this nation "against all enemies both foreign and domestic" Although I have long ago left active service, that oath is still active!