An Interesting Read on the 2A & Homeland Defense
This is a discussion on An Interesting Read on the 2A & Homeland Defense within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; I found this article very interesting and hopeful.
December 26th, 2010 06:12 AM
An Interesting Read on the 2A & Homeland Defense
"I've noticed that everyone that is pro-abortion has already been born." - Ronald Reagan
"When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny." Thomas Jefferson
You are only paranoid until you are right - then you are a visionary.
January 1st, 2011 09:17 PM
i enjoyed reading the comments more than the article. don't get me wrong, i thought the article was great. but the comments were funny. those people who think all those hunters have no effect on our national security and keep foreign invaders out.
like someone said, i think oceans do keep SOME foreign invaders out. not all. look at russia.. all they have to do is cross a small straight and roll through alaska and canada. if china wanted to do the same thing, i'm sure russia would have no problem turning their backs and let china roll through russia to do the same. the saudi's did turn their back to let israelis attack baghdad. so whats to stop russia from letting china do the same. especially if russia wanted to join them. however, alaska is in a very stratigic location and i think canada would be a nice buffer zone in which most of the war would wage.
but my point is, i would like to think hunters are very pro america being that we are one of the few countries that lets people own guns... and if there ever came a time to defend america on our own soil, they would be more then obliged to rise to the occasion. and if they did so, as shown in afghanistan, its not technology that wins wars. its resources and people. its hard fighting terrorists because of their unconventional fighting and lack of uniforms. i would imagine fighting our hunters would be similar.
my opinion, meaning almost nothing, i don't think it will ever happen though. unless our guns were taken away. effectively voiding the whole entire point of having hunters defend this country.
January 1st, 2011 09:42 PM
Some of these thoughts about armed individuals protecting us from invasion actually made sense a few decades back.
Nowadays, and really since the mid-60s, with intercontinental ballistic missiles armed with 50 megaton H bombs, and more recently with Stealth Bombers capable of carrying nukes, and with many ships armed with Tomahawk missiles capable of carrying small nukes, we have a deterrent which makes individual arms an unlikely necessity as protection from invasion.
Mexican migrants/drug lords/human traffic runners are the standout possible exception, but every nation would become green glass mighty fast if they attempted such.
We really aren't facing the sort of invasion Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto famously warned his superiors against.
January 7th, 2011 10:04 PM
Hopyard is probably correct, except for a Mumbai style attack, in which CCW Joe will be the first responder .
S&W M&P 9c
Ruger LCR + P (.38)
Taurus M851 (.38)
January 7th, 2011 10:20 PM
I disagree with Hopyard, yes we have all this technology nowadays, yet we still have not completely won in Afghanistan, having the technological upper hand did us no good in Vietnam, it did the ruskies no good in their war in Afghanistan when planes, helicopters, tanks, apc's and smart bombs lost to dedicated mujuhideen on horseback with bolt action rifles and a handful of shells. As a whole, I think we would be in much dire straits then in the past, but I still believe that the armed American citizen is a major setback to any invading force. Wars are not won by planes and trains and automobiles with smart bombs, automated controls, and all the fancy smancy crap. They are won by men and women on the ground. At some point the opfor would still have to invade on foot and the surviving American citizens would fight as hard if not harder than our military to keep ourselves free.
"The value you put on the lost will be determined by the sacrifice you are willing to make to seek them until they are found."
January 7th, 2011 10:27 PM
Would an invader who wishes to occupy the country use nukes? I can see using nukes to retaliate against a country or to just wipe it off the map. But if they actually want to invade would it be in their interest to use nukes?
January 7th, 2011 10:29 PM
Would the government be on the side of the people? Would they surrender to save themselves like the French government in the second world war?
They are won by men and women on the ground. At some point the opfor would still have to invade on foot and the surviving American citizens would fight as hard if not harder than our military to keep ourselves free.
January 7th, 2011 10:34 PM
An "invasion" , always requires boots on the ground.... sooner or later. And they don't want to devastate it if they plan to occupy it.
I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts. --- Will Rogers ---
Chief Justice John Roberts : "I don't see how you can read Heller and not take away from it the notion that the Second Amendment...was extremely important to the framers in their view of what liberty meant."
January 7th, 2011 11:34 PM
I may be out of line and wrong, if I am Hopy please correct me, but I think his point was if a Nation ever tried to invade the US we (the US) would launch all sorts of nuclear unpleasantness on that Nation. That is the bigger deterrence.
Using the Russia analogy, if Russia were to try an invasion then Russia would become a nuclear waste land. Negating any kind of war on our soil.
Last edited by hk45c; January 8th, 2011 at 01:15 AM.
Reason: iPhone autocorrect got me
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
If not me, then who?
January 8th, 2011 01:33 PM
Originally Posted by mlr1m
That is why they(our Government) came up with Haarp.
HAARP will zap the upper atmosphere with a focused and steerable electromagnetic beam. It is an advanced model of an "ionospheric heater." (The ionosphere is the electrically-charged sphere surrounding Earth's upper atmosphere. It ranges between 40 to 60 miles above the surface of the Earth.)
Put simply, the apparatus for HAARP is a reversal of a radio telescope; antenna send out signals instead of receiving. HAARP is the test run for a super-powerful radiowave-beaming technology that lifts areas of the ionosphere by focusing a beam and heating those areas. Electromagnetic waves then bounce back onto earth and penetrate everything -- living and dead.
HAARP publicity gives the impression that the High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program is mainly an academic project with the goal of changing the ionosphere to improve communications for our own good. However, other U.S. military documents put it more clearly -- HAARP aims to learn how to "exploit the ionosphere for Department of Defense purposes." Communicating with submarines is only one of those purposes.
The mental-disruption possibilities for HAARP are the most disturbing. More than 40 pages of the book, with dozens of footnotes, chronicle the work of Harvard professors, military planners and scientists as they plan and test this use of the electromagnetic technology. For example, one of the papers describing this use was from the International Red Cross in Geneva. It even gave the frequency ranges where these effects could occur -- the same ranges which HAARP is capable of broadcasting.
The following statement was made more than twenty-five years ago in a book by Brzezinski which he wrote while a professor at Columbia University:
"Political strategists are tempted to exploit research on the brain and human behavior. Geophysicist Gordon J.F. MacDonald, a specialist in problems of warfare, says accurately-timed, artificially-excited electronic strokes could lead to a pattern of oscillations that produce relatively high power levels over certain regions of the earth ... in this way one could develop a system that would seriously impair the brain performance of very large populations in selected regions over an extended period"
I would rather die with good men than hide with cowards
If you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans
Don't ever think that the reason I'm peaceful is because I don't know how to be violent
M&Pc .357SIG, 2340Sigpro .357SIG
January 8th, 2011 02:02 PM
Not out of line. You correctly stated my point. Besides, there is no nation capable of floating an invasion force; not China, not Russia even at the top of Soviet might, not any power in Africa or Latin America or SE Asia.
Originally Posted by hk45c
There is no reason for us, with our size, our nukes, and economic power, and with our geography, to fear an invasion. The only place one could possibly come from is the informal one we experience with unlawful migrants from Mexico, but that is a different situation than what Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto was arguing against with his high command and political leaders.
By jwarren in forum Defensive Carry Guns
Last Post: November 3rd, 2011, 09:36 AM
By Thanis in forum Defensive Rifles & Shotgun Discussion
Last Post: May 14th, 2010, 02:40 AM
By ontarget1911 in forum Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion
Last Post: July 8th, 2008, 01:06 AM
By Alien Nation in forum Defensive Rifles & Shotgun Discussion
Last Post: June 11th, 2007, 11:26 AM
By Bravo3 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
Last Post: December 22nd, 2004, 10:26 PM