American Hunters, The Back Bone of America

OK vicvanb, enough is on the edge...

What do you have in the way of firearms and what do you intend to do to defend them if the need arose - generally speaking of course?

If I am off base with this question, please disregard as necessary and explain where I'm off base. I really mean that!
 
Chism G said:
1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53. (District Of Columbia vs Heller)

How does a Democracy get to the point of disarming a Country without totally changing the language in this Amendment? I’m convinced that there will never be confiscation of legally owned firearms in this country.

I'm packed and ready to leave for the Deer Lease early next week.

Glenn[/QUOTE

The liberals know that they can't do away with the second amendment, not yet, so they do what they do best, regulate and tax. They will make it as expensive and as difficult as possible to get the ill pills that come out the end of the barrel. If I understood my lead supplier, the EPA shut down a lead plant recently hence the price spike and wait time!!!
Click to expand...
 
Wilbur said:
What do you have in the way of firearms and what do you intend to do to defend them if the need arose - generally speaking of course?

If I am off base with this question, please disregard as necessary and explain where I'm off base. I really mean that!
Click to expand...

You're not off base
 
vinny said:
You're not off base
Click to expand...

I don't think I am...but vic's answer may show that a lot of us are...off base for the moment that is. I've learned a lot from him and will continue to do so as long as he cares to participate.
 
Something to think about.

How many of us would actually fire in anger at a 20 year old American man in uniform?
 
Remember the Rusian Revolution

vicvanb said:
Hopefully it will never come to that--but a bunch of untrained hunters with deer rifles versus helicopter gun ships, missiles , artillery, laser guided bombs, machine guns, tanks...? Really?
Click to expand...

They only had pitchforks and shovels....

I can not see our government resorting to posse commutates.

But just in case I will be ready. The Afgans took down Russian Hines helicopters' with rebar and steel cable

Nat Lambeth
 
Wilbur said:
What do you have in the way of firearms and what do you intend to do to defend them if the need arose - generally speaking of course?
If I am off base with this question, please disregard as necessary and explain where I'm off base. I really mean that!
Click to expand...

I have never found you to be "off base."

I'm as invested in private ownership of firearms by citizens of the USA as anyone on this forum. There are lots of good reasons why we should never give our firearms up, but the belief that we could defend the homeland against invaders with our deer rifles is not among them.

My comments were directed at the observation that the Japanese were afraid to invade us in World War Two because we had too many guns.

It may comfort a bunch of 60-70 year-old men (like me) to think that they can defend the country with their deer rifles, but the world has changed since the 1940s--a lot. High Tech warfare has made ground soldiers pretty ineffective. And the foreign powers likely to invade us now would strike first with nuclear weapons.

As always, just my opinion. Yours may differ.
 
alinwa said:
LOL!
read your history vicvanb,
Click to expand...

I already have. The trouble with predicting the future by reading about the past is that things change. This ain't your father's warfare anymore. We live in the era of high tech weapons. Deer rifles make us a wee bit undergunned.
 
Would that this were true :) it would sure make war "clean" but ask anyone with real military experience, it will always be "boots on the ground" that decide the conflict. Nukes are meaningless in large quantity as they destroy the livability of the entire planet and carpet bombing 'til the trees are gone doesn't work......... in the end the hunters with the deer rifles ARE an army.

Yes opinions vary but I value the opinions of history and truth over dreams and visions of "new tech." (Of which there is none to speak of!)

opinionby
al
 
alinwa said:
Nukes are meaningless in large quantity as they destroy the livability of the entire planet...
Click to expand...

Right--the North Koreans and Iranians are very concerned about the environment. Greenpeace is very prominent over there.
 
Look at what we are facing in Afghanistan, that is the equivilant
of deer hunters. They have been holding off modern armys
for years, sometimes with homemade muzzleloaders. And remember that the US soldier
will not blindly follow orders. That is what the Oathkeepers.org group is trying to remind
them of.
 
vicvanb said:
I have never found you to be "off base."

I'm as invested in private ownership of firearms by citizens of the USA as anyone on this forum. There are lots of good reasons why we should never give our firearms up, but the belief that we could defend the homeland against invaders with our deer rifles is not among them.

My comments were directed at the observation that the Japanese were afraid to invade us in World War Two because we had too many guns.

It may comfort a bunch of 60-70 year-old men (like me) to think that they can defend the country with their deer rifles, but the world has changed since the 1940s--a lot. High Tech warfare has made ground soldiers pretty ineffective. And the foreign powers likely to invade us now would strike first with nuclear weapons.

As always, just my opinion. Yours may differ.
Click to expand...

I notice that you didn't answer the question, but rather diverted to where you wanted to go. Also, what is being discussed here isn't invasion by a foreign power, but rather self defense from our own government. As far as defending ourselves with "deer rifles", I would suspect that the majority of firearms purchased in the last few years are not "deer rifles", but rather more of a military style which seems to bother the ill informed public.
Also, as to whether high tech will always defeat determined ground soldiers, the Afghans seem to be holding their own fairly well. Certainly, we all would prefer that we won't have to deal with this scenario, but then I don't know of too many who really wanted to die in battle.

Rick
 
Greyfox said:
I notice that you didn't answer the question, but rather diverted to where you wanted to go.

Also, as to whether high tech will always defeat determined ground soldiers, the Afghans seem to be holding their own fairly well.
Click to expand...

Asking a man how many guns he has is like asking a rancher how many cows he owns. Where I come from you just don't do that. Besides, how many are enough?

The Afghans did what they did only because the USSR and the USA did not unleash their full arsenal against them. If we had, do you really think they could have defeated us? Any foreign power that attacks our homeland will not show us the same mercy we showed in Viet Nam, Iraq and Afghanistan.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Greyfox said:
Also, what is being discussed here isn't invasion by a foreign power, but rather self defense from our own government.
Click to expand...

I guess you didn't read Post #9 by "stool." That was what I responded to.
 
vicvanb said:
I guess you didn't read Post #9 by "stool." That was what I responded to.
Click to expand...

Yes, I did read that and I'll give you that some of the posts were regarding foreign attacks. However, you would have to be a complete idiot to think that's what most of us are concerned about. Also, I didn't see that Wilbur asked for #s. And he did ask what you intended to do about defending our right to keep and bear. You chose not to answer.

As far as full scale attacks on our nation, that's what we do have the military for. Granted things have changed since WWII. However, a bunch of little brown guys made the mighty US military look pretty bad in Vietnam and if we are not in Afghanistan to win, then why are we there? If a foreign power's goal is to make the USA a radioactive hazardous waste dump, then that is probably possible. But what would be the point? Same in Afghanistan. If the military just wanted to destroy, then they have the tools.

Rick
 
Vicvanb: I for one have seen all those movies, where they shoot the Enemy and leave the better Weapon on the ground. I for one would pick it up and all there amo, KNOW I HAVE WHAT THEY HAVE! Got It?

And another thing my rifles go threw so called bulletproof vests, so if you have ever watch a swat team in single file of say five guys, there in a world of hurt! Don't come to my house, I'll be waiting. And yes I will know in advance when not to be there.

Joe Salt
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top