Worlds Largest Army!

[Mr VJP]

          The second amendment is all that stands between us and a total collapse of the United States of America.

    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.      

[Doc]

Lol.... The only problem with that is that most of the members of that "army" are graying, balding, pot-bellied, old guys that have only enough stamina to nap at the base of a tree for a few hours during opening day morning. Also, they are armed with only shotguns and bows and muzzleloaders and some deer rifles. Not exactly the Rambo types or the kind of army armed with the kind of equipment that would be needed to defeat cruise missles. Let's hope that we never have to rely on that army for our freedom  .

On the other hand, having an unimpeded 2nd amendment right and a well stocked civilian population might give gang members and potential home invaders something to think about. That is something near-and-dear to my heart since I live 1000' away from the highway and well out of ear-shot of my nearest neighbors. Actually there are a lot of us rural people who one might think would be easy pickings for some of these criminal types ...... except for one thing. It is almost a certainty that each of us country folks owns a gun or 6 and knows exactly how to us them. That's why those guys stay in the city where people are terrified of guns and cheerfully support all kinds of ordinances disarming law-abiding citizens.

[steve863]

Lol.... The only problem with that is that most of the members of that "army" are graying, balding, pot-bellied, old guys that have only enough stamina to nap at the base of a tree for a few hours during opening day morning.

You got that right, Doc!  Most don't have enough stamina to walk the 150 yards to their tree stands either.  They need an ATV to get to it!  LOL

[Lawdwaz]

I'd fight for the Cause!!

My needs for battle other than small arms & ammo:  Egg salad sangwiches (w/green olives) Thermos of coffee, cigars and a assortment of Little Debbie products.

[nyantler]

Just glad to be armed so I can at least go out fighting.. if invaded.. beats cowering under a table in the basement waiting to be captured and beheaded...

[Mr VJP]

Lol.... The only problem with that is that most of the members of that "army" are graying, balding, pot-bellied, old guys that have only enough stamina to nap at the base of a tree for a few hours during opening day morning.

You got that right, Doc!  Most don't have enough stamina to walk the 150 yards to their tree stands either.  They need an ATV to get to it!  LOL

It's true, that seems to be the case in NY state.  But many other states, including the ones listed, have a much younger hunting and gun owning population, because kids there are raised to go hunting and their parents already go.  These kids will also grow up to be better soldiers than city kids if they choose to join the military.

[G-Man]

A fine example is the movie Red Dawn(they're remaking it by the way) invade the us? lots of people with guns.... and some pretty good woodsmen mixed in as well.

[Fantail]

Your mission soldier; leave no gut pile behind.  :-\

I'm thinking if, I wasn't isolated and a modern enemy patrol came into range I could take out 2, maybe three before I bought the farm. Then it's up to who else is with me. By myself I think what skills I have would be best served providing food and improvised shelter.

Who hasn't heard something like 'if the shtf im comming to your house'. I might say, 'ok what are you going to bring?' Then you get the puzzled look.

http://www.imdb.com/find?s=all&q=red+dawn

North Korea?  :  Well, maybe it'll be decent.

[Doc]

I saw the movie, Red Dawn and I have to say that as entertaining as it was, I didn't for minute confuse any of it with any form of potential reality. It was very entertaining to believe for an hour and a half in a fantasy scenario of a bunch of highschool kids all of a sudden becoming expert marksmen and award-winning military strategists. But lets not let fantasy get confused with even a hint of reality.

I really don't think that I would fare very well with my old Ithaca Deerslayer against an out-of-control United States military or any other well organized and equipped military force. How many hunters actually possess any kind of fully automatic rifle and an adequate ammo supply capable of lasting longer than 15 minutes against a full assault? I suspect that a band of hunters would have a real problem holding out even against the old Iraqi Republican Guard .....  ;D . Sure I would try, but anyone who has taken any note of the modern weaponry possessed by almost any military power foriegn or domestic, has to admit that the average hunter is at a complete and hopeless disadvantage and only slightly better equipped than a group of irate citizens brandishing pitchforks and hoe-handles. I wonder if I could shoot down a cruise missle with my shotgun  .

So as a good reason for supporting the 2nd amendment, national security probably is not a very realistic one. You want a good reason for the 2nd amendment today, you might better be looking at personal home defense. There is something that is not only a current and very real issue, but also a reason that truly does make practical, realistic, and very necessary sense. Especially when you consider how totally inadequate police response times are. Your personal and family protection are indeed completely in your own hands. Armed you likely will be able to defend yourself. Disarmed you and your family are probably dead. That seems like a much more urgent reason for the right to bear arms than national security.

[Mr VJP]

While I agree home defense is also a great reason to own guns, it is not the reason the 2nd Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights.

It is true, most armed Americans would not be a match for a well trained and properly equipped military force.  But that is because we have allowed our own government to make that our reality. 

Do you think the government doesn't have "civilian weapon inferiority" in mind every time they ban any type of weapon that might give us a fighting chance if we had to use them against a military out to kill us all?  They don't seem to care if it's a foriegn enemy either, though I assume they would start taking all volunteers into the US military if it were.

This is what happens when people think "reasonable" gun control has no drawback.  Lock up criminals, don't criminalize citizens for owning an inanimate object of any type unless it is used unlawfully.

[nyantler]

I saw the movie, Red Dawn and I have to say that as entertaining as it was, I didn't for minute confuse any of it with any form of potential reality. It was very entertaining to believe for an hour and a half in a fantasy scenario of a bunch of highschool kids all of a sudden becoming expert marksmen and award-winning military strategists. But lets not let fantasy get confused with even a hint of reality.

I really don't think that I would fare very well with my old Ithaca Deerslayer against an out-of-control United States military or any other well organized and equipped military force. How many hunters actually possess any kind of fully automatic rifle and an adequate ammo supply capable of lasting longer than 15 minutes against a full assault? I suspect that a band of hunters would have a real problem holding out even against the old Iraqi Republican Guard .....  ;D . Sure I would try, but anyone who has taken any note of the modern weaponry possessed by almost any military power foriegn or domestic, has to admit that the average hunter is at a complete and hopeless disadvantage and only slightly better equipped than a group of irate citizens brandishing pitchforks and hoe-handles. I wonder if I could shoot down a cruise missle with my shotgun  .

I'm sure that was kind of what was thought about the Vietnamese.. when we went into Vietnam... and they faired pretty well against the greastest military in the world... Although I'm wondering as well how I would do with my round balls and wooden arrows against even an M-16...I might have had a better chance during the Revolutionary War

[WNYBuckHunter]

I wonder if I could shoot down a cruise missle with my shotgun  .

That could be called "Extreme Sporting Clays"  ;D

[steve863]

It is true, most armed Americans would not be a match for a well trained and properly equipped military force.  But that is because we have allowed our own government to make that our reality. 

Do you think the government doesn't have "civilian weapon inferiority" in mind every time they ban any type of weapon that might give us a fighting chance if we had to use them against a military out to kill us all?  They don't seem to care if it's a foriegn enemy either, though I assume they would start taking all volunteers into the US military if it were.

This is what happens when people think "reasonable" gun control has no drawback.  Lock up criminals, don't criminalize citizens for owning an inanimate object of any type unless it is used unlawfully.

Too funny!!  So do you think civilians should be allowed anti-aircraft weapons, missiles, nuclear weapons, etc. to fight off a modern day military force??  You can keep dreaming I guess.  I have said it before and will say it again that things said, believed and written 200+ years ago don't exactly apply in the same context today.  Whether you want to accept it or not, the 2nd amendment is one of these things that does not apply in the same context today.  NO bloody way that it would have been written the way it was, if the type of weapons available today were available back then.  You can take the most conservative minds out there today, and I guarantee you that they would not write a document to allow civilians to possess the same weaponry as a modern day military force.

[nyantler]

According to the 2nd ammendment we have the right to keep and bear "ARMS"... there was no mention of what kind of arms... the limitations in the type of arms has been passed done by more and more gun laws over the past 200 years.. Our forefathers had it right.... the government later began restricting our gun rights to negate the 2nd ammendment's affectiveness to do what the forefathers had in mind ... defend ourselves against a rogue government.

We gun owners are the last ... best .. defense against such a rogue US government.. even if our choice of arms has been limited by that government... at least giving us a chance to go out fighting if need be and not be enslaved by another tyrannical government if it should come to that.

[Mr VJP]

It is true, most armed Americans would not be a match for a well trained and properly equipped military force.  But that is because we have allowed our own government to make that our reality. 

Do you think the government doesn't have "civilian weapon inferiority" in mind every time they ban any type of weapon that might give us a fighting chance if we had to use them against a military out to kill us all?  They don't seem to care if it's a foriegn enemy either, though I assume they would start taking all volunteers into the US military if it were.

This is what happens when people think "reasonable" gun control has no drawback.  Lock up criminals, don't criminalize citizens for owning an inanimate object of any type unless it is used unlawfully.

Too funny!!  So do you think civilians should be allowed anti-aircraft weapons, missiles, nuclear weapons, etc. to fight off a modern day military force??  You can keep dreaming I guess.  I have said it before and will say it again that things said, believed and written 200+ years ago don't exactly apply in the same context today.  Whether you want to accept it or not, the 2nd amendment is one of these things that does not apply in the same context today.  NO bloody way that it would have been written the way it was, if the type of weapons available today were available back then.  You can take the most conservative minds out there today, and I guarantee you that they would not write a document to allow civilians to possess the same weaponry as a modern day military force.

I love anti 2nd Amendment responses like this.  Extreme to the point of ridiculous. 

:

First of all, the 2nd Amendment has no provision for less civilian gun rights as the centuries pass by. 

Second, people of wealth are already allowed to own (or more precisely impossible to ban) any of the weapons mentioned already, if they have been crafty enough to buy and rule their own country.  Are you aware how many countries like that exist in the world currently?

How about allowing American citizens to own any shoulder fired rifle or shotgun they want, as well as handguns and magazines of any capacity?  Would that be too funny?  It seems some people are happy with a right to own just hunting rifles and shotguns.  Thankfully, there are some people who realize that is not what the founding fathers had in mind when they put that amendment in the Bill of Rights, 2nd only to Freedom of Speech and Religion.  Am I to believe those rights, along with all the others, do not apply in the same context today either?  There are certainly enough Constitutional nay sayers who would have me believe that too.

If the 2nd Amendment is no longer verbatim, neither are the rest of them!

[Localqdm]

I don't know, I think Mr vjps got a point.  Well we may not be an 'army' and might not be able to stop an invasion or win a conventional battle, what military wants to hold this piece of land in an ongoing guerrilla fight against 100 million guns, even if they are shotguns.  Not a pretty picture.

[hunter]

I once read an article where the author said he supported the right to own any gun that could be towed behind your truck. I thought it was funny but could see his point as well.

[steve863]

It is true, most armed Americans would not be a match for a well trained and properly equipped military force.  But that is because we have allowed our own government to make that our reality. 

Do you think the government doesn't have "civilian weapon inferiority" in mind every time they ban any type of weapon that might give us a fighting chance if we had to use them against a military out to kill us all?  They don't seem to care if it's a foriegn enemy either, though I assume they would start taking all volunteers into the US military if it were.

This is what happens when people think "reasonable" gun control has no drawback.  Lock up criminals, don't criminalize citizens for owning an inanimate object of any type unless it is used unlawfully.

Too funny!!  So do you think civilians should be allowed anti-aircraft weapons, missiles, nuclear weapons, etc. to fight off a modern day military force??  You can keep dreaming I guess.  I have said it before and will say it again that things said, believed and written 200+ years ago don't exactly apply in the same context today.  Whether you want to accept it or not, the 2nd amendment is one of these things that does not apply in the same context today.  NO bloody way that it would have been written the way it was, if the type of weapons available today were available back then.  You can take the most conservative minds out there today, and I guarantee you that they would not write a document to allow civilians to possess the same weaponry as a modern day military force.

I love anti 2nd Amendment responses like this.  Extreme to the point of ridiculous. 

:

First of all, the 2nd Amendment has no provision for less civilian gun rights as the centuries pass by. 

Second, people of wealth are already allowed to own (or more precisely impossible to ban) any of the weapons mentioned already, if they have been crafty enough to buy and rule their own country.  Are you aware how many countries like that exist in the world currently?

How about allowing American citizens to own any shoulder fired rifle or shotgun they want, as well as handguns and magazines of any capacity?  Would that be too funny?  It seems some people are happy with a right to own just hunting rifles and shotguns.  Thankfully, there are some people who realize that is not what the founding fathers had in mind when they put that amendment in the Bill of Rights, 2nd only to Freedom of Speech and Religion.  Am I to believe those rights, along with all the others, do not apply in the same context today either?  There are certainly enough Constitutional nay sayers who would have me believe that too.

If the 2nd Amendment is no longer verbatim, neither are the rest of them!

Anti 2nd amendment?  Why don't you stop with your patriotic mumbo jumbo and read what I wrote.  Name one damned modern conservative thinker who would be comfortable with allowing civilians to own the weapons I mentioned?  Even Justice Scalia who is as conservative as you can find these days came far short of stating that the many gun laws that are already on the books should now be overturned in his statements in the Heller case last year.  Anyone with half a brain realizes that many gun laws do make sense and are there for a reason.  You of course want anarchy.  I surely don't trust my government completely neither, but maybe I do trust it more than I would some mad at the world yahoo nutjob who was allowed to have cruise missiles just because he thinks the 2nd amendment allows him to.

[Doc]

It's quite a tough balancing act isn't it? We want the right to bear arms supported without question, and yet there are weapons these days that should not be freely owned by just anyone. We do recognize mental disease exists (some blatent and some subtle and camoflaged) and there does have to be some pretty hefty and thorough safeguards levied to ensure that a mentally defective cannot get and use weapons that would make his deranged state deadly on masses of people. By the way ..... is there anyone here that disagrees with that thought?

So where do we draw the line? I'm not prepared to say. I think it is just one of those things that "you know it when you see it". I don't want to see tanks, bazookas, stinger missles, grenade launchers, flame-throwers, land-mines, and many other kinds of military pieces of hardware legalized for Average Joe Homeowner or for Joe Militia either. However, I do want to be able to adequately protect my home and family against home invaders and roving gangs that would do me or my family and friends harm. How do you write all that into law? Well, that's a challenge. But there does have to be lines drawn. I think any sane-thinking person has to admit that. How all that squares with the 2nd Amendment, I'm not sure. But I'm sure that there are some legitimate scholars who will continue to argue that point for a long time to come. Personally, I think the legal arguments are a bit over my head, but I do see a very fuzzy but definite line somewhere that is based in common sense that protects my rights to self-protection as well as the rights to the protection that society needs.

[steve863]

Well said, Doc. 

[hunter]

I saw a tv show where the owner of Dillion reloading had a private plane or jet with a licensed GE mini gun which I think is a full auto machine gun or grenade launcher mounted to the aircraft. I also remember years ago when Joan Rivers was moving back to NYC to host a tv show her first stop was NYPD headquarters where she recieved training and a carry permit in the same day. Try that if you're a truck driver or nurse. While I do think the 2nd ammendment was intended to allow us to be able to defend against army strength opponents, I would concede there might be need for some structure. But fast foward to where we are now. Even after passing training courses and background checks many of us are issued restricted permits that render them useless. Some locales refuse to issue CCW permits except for bussiness or work and they are restricted for those purposes. But if you're a celebrity or rich no problem.

[Doc]

Yup .... there are those who would totally eliminate the right to bear arms, and there are those who would extend the right to bear arms up to and including weapons of mass destruction. Both extreme positions are crazy and the right balance lies somewhere in between those extreme positions. A little bit of common sense goes a long ways toward finding that "right balance".

[First-light]

Yup .... there are those who would totally eliminate the right to bear arms, and there are those who would extend the right to bear arms up to and including weapons of mass destruction. Both extreme positions are crazy and the right balance lies somewhere in between those extreme positions. A little bit of common sense goes a long ways toward finding that "right balance".

That my friend is a good lesson in life!

[Mr VJP]

Hey Steve, I notice you didn't even try to address one other thing I wrote in that post.  How come?  No retort to any of the rest of it?

I read, and understood perfectly what you said in your prior post, and then responded.  You accused me of not reading what you posted.  I never said anyone should be able to buy any weapon they wanted, nor did I say they couldn't be checked and approved or denied.

If you read what I posted you either didn't have a response, or chose to resort to more mindless accusations of extremism rather than defend your position.  It's easy to understand why you can't see what has happened to the 2nd Amendment rights of American citizens.  Like my posts, you may have read the amendment, but either don't understand it, believe it should be restricted, or do not agree with it. 

I have read many of your posts that agree with lots of infringements on various 2nd Amendment rights that Americans freely exercised just 50 years ago without any issues.  But I guess the words don't mean what they did just a half a century ago, do they?  Maybe the whole Bill of Rights no longer means what it did 50 years ago.  Maybe the entire US Constitution should be ignored today too.

It's not gun owners that this country needs to fear in the 21st Century.  It's people of zeal, maybe well meaning, but without understanding, who believe insidious encroachment on our freedom and rights, is justified.  Why do they do that?  Because they are scared and think giving up some rights will buy them safety and security.  They are wrong.  Dead wrong!  They are the people that will bring anarchy to America, not those who believe in freedom and what the US Constitution, and the Bill of Rights protects.

[nyantler]

I can agree with the idea that restrictions need to be placed on any citizen having the right to own a tank, rocket launcher, cruise missle, etc. Where the problem lies is that it doesn't seem to stop there. There is a constant bombardment of new laws being tabled every day that have little to do with anything other than limiting law abiding citizens gun rights... new definitions of assualt weapons, limits on shells allowed in pistol clips and rifle clips... who can carry and when... none of which stop criminal activity, yet reduce 2nd amendment rights of law abiding citizens... yes, it is common sense to not allow the everday Joe to carry a grenade launcher... but making it hard for an already law abiding gun owner to keep the gun that he already has... is where common sense starts to take a nose dive... it would be nice if we could keep the 2nd amendment somewhere in between, but as long as we allow our government to pick and choose what is common sense and what is not.. we will continue to lose more and more of gun owner rights... gun owners have handed over more of their rights than they have maintained over the years... to me that is not a good trend.