Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
The fallacy of 'Behind every blade of grass' thinking
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="rhodesbe" data-source="post: 1837016" data-attributes="member: 2415"><p>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:<a href="http://www.okshooters.com/showthread.php?143862-China-condemns-U.S.-gun-ownership-as-human-rights-violation/page2" target="_blank"> http://www.okshooters.com/showthread.php?143862-China-condemns-U.S.-gun-ownership-as-human-rights-violation/page2</a></p><p></p><p>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 href="http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/misquoting-yamamoto/" target="_blank">a bogus attribution</a>) 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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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? </p><p></p><p>'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.</p><p></p><p>Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm not sure that all those guns and bullets amount to much. What do you think?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="rhodesbe, post: 1837016, member: 2415"] 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:[URL="http://www.okshooters.com/showthread.php?143862-China-condemns-U.S.-gun-ownership-as-human-rights-violation/page2"] http://www.okshooters.com/showthread.php?143862-China-condemns-U.S.-gun-ownership-as-human-rights-violation/page2[/URL] 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 [URL="http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/misquoting-yamamoto/"]a bogus attribution[/URL]) 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? [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
The fallacy of 'Behind every blade of grass' thinking
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom
