A well armed citizenry is an extremely effective deterrent to an invading force. It's one thing to fight an air/sea war and attempt to bring your enemy to the point of surrender which is what Japan tried with Pearl Harbor. But it is totally different to be an invading force with the intent of occupying foreign territory.

History has shown the effectiveness of armed citizens against an occupying force many times. The most recent example is still going on today in Iraq. The war may have started out with the US fighting the Iraq army until they surrendered but who are we fighting now? Who is responsible for killing hundreds and thousands of our soldiers in Iraq over the past several years? Not the "organized, effective military" of Iraq but very small groups of armed citizens/insurgents that are conducting very effective guerilla warfare against the military trying to occupy their land. And how effective are these armed citizens? Well right now they have the elected politicians of the most powerful country in the world on the verge of voting to turn tail and run from them.

So is the US armed population a deterrent to an invading army? Absolutely! Imagine a foreign army invading my state of Alabama...sure the citizens alone could not stop a well equipped army but once they had won the initial battle and moved in to occupy the state the armed citizens that were left could and would wage a guerilla war against the occupiers that would lead them to reconsider if it is worth it just as the US is doing now in Iraq.

Vietnam is another example of the effectiveness of armed citizens and look at the result of Russia invading Afganistan. Armed citizens have routinely changed the course of war long after their organized, effective military has failed them.

A military leader that would fail to take into account the armed domestic population of a territory that he/she intended to invade would be making a catastrophic mistake.

That is why I said what I did in a previous post. I admitted that I could not find the context and that the other possiblity is quite likely. Either way he said it and the quote is heavily used by pro 2nd-A folks so it couold definitely be biased.

As for the rest of his quotes; I did not claim to be an expert.
Also I don't believe evrything on the web so please don't insinuate that I do. I don't believe evrything in the Library either. Thanks.

I still think my point of an armed populace being a deterent to potential enemies is quite valid.

Even today in Iraq many people who previously owned guns just to protect their family. Now that they are unhappy with the current situation they are using their guns against "their" enemy. All over the middle east one can buy an AK-47 in a marketplace.

Re Gatormba



I don't think any invading army would have the guts to invade Alabama not after watching Top Gear drives across Alabama whilst trying to get each other killed or arrested

Top gear is a popular TV car magazine program in the UK. Hope you don't find it too offensive and can see the funny side. It was pretty funny though. Three Eurosnobs almost get killed!

Norad45 - For a real Eurosnob you should check out Jeremy Clarkson in Landrover versus Tank

My dialup is too slow for me to go back several pages in this thread to find out who said that America's citizens were armed to prevent England's government from staging a modern invasion. I'm sure you were kidding. Our armed citizenry is to protect us from OUR government.

An interesting article from Geoff Metcalf in the Federal Observer:

Snippet from "Freedom Isn't Free":

"The first three battles of the American War for Independence (our Revolution) were not fought over taxation without representation, separation from an abusive clueless King, or nationalism. The first three battles of our American Revolution were fought to resist gun control.

"General Thomas Gage, military governor of Massachusetts sent a force to confiscate weapons and capture patriot leaders.

"When the British confronted Captain Parker and his militia in Lexington, they arrived to confiscate powder and ball. They met resistance and the negative consequences of collecting ammunition (one round at a time…)."
(http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=10783)


Regarding gun control: Why do so many anti-gun people always use child gun deaths as their main argument?

I know that child gun deaths always seem to make the news, but how common are they really, compared to child deaths by other causes? I can't find much in the way of accurate figures, because they keep grouping them with gang-related deaths, which really skews the figures.

If someone can find some accurate figures, compare them against some of the following causes of death of children and young people:

*Deaths in motor vehicle accidents, the #1 killer of kids;
*Deaths from falls in the home, the #2 killer of young children;
*Deaths from being beaten or abused to death by their parents;
*Deaths from pregnancies in girls under 15 yrs of age;
*Deaths (eventually) from STDs acquired from unprotected sex;
*Deaths from smoking, starting at the age of 9;
*Deaths from recreational drug use.

Yes, it's unfortunate that they die, but I don't see anyone crusading for the abolishing of automobiles, stairs, balconies, etc.

Sue

Oh dear me, if I toss an empty enbloc clip on a rock and duplicate the 'ping' I can pick off most of the platitudes posted as easily as the poor german who thinks my M1 is empty. Was I alone in paying attention to the old COMBAT! series? Curling up with a video of Kurt Russell leading the Wolverines to Victory is well and good, but those same Soviets took how long to overwhelm the Ukraine, a nation with a long tradition of personal arms? The only ruskies anybody in the US of A is going to encounter is Tatiana the mail order bride in a far deadlier SUV without even People's Glorious Tractor Factory #5 driving experience. All weapons are potentially lethal. Good or bad, thats why they're called weapons.Look at the junk used by the majority of presidential assassins. We love to yodel down opponents with the swiss as example. Well, suprise, even they are looking at some measure of control with a rise in crime and shooting incidents.And whats all this now about our nail on chalkboard reaction to UK weapon laws? Is it our common history and language, not unlike discovering a close relative is gay or mentally defective and fearing contagion? People, this is a old, and at best wearisome social argument, and dragging out equally worn anecdotes and mythologies equally threadbare. Lets at least keep it civil in the forum. If I 've failed to insult anybody, I apologise.

When Yamamoto talked about a 12 month war, it was because he knew that if a victory could be forced on the US and Commonwealth within a year of Pearl Harbor (ie we give up after Australia falls or any number of scenarios), then he could win. And after that year, we'd be on a full fledged war time footing, and the great big boots of the sleeping giant would be stopping across the Pacific. But to achieve that, it would have ment stripping much of the Japanese Army aviation out of China and just beating on Australia without mercy while inderdicting all shipping and building a lot of landing barges.

It also means he would have to not have political clowns second guessing him and telling him the rules he could use.

That's a bit far fetched. The German MP-44 (Sturmgewehr) was altogether a far more advanced design, at least as reliable as the Garand and much more capable under most circumstances. Also, do not forget that many GIs preferred the M1 carbine to the Garand despite a much weaker cartridge and short range.



But think of this - just how much more would the Iraqi insurgents achieve if they actually had good leadership, better training, a proper command structure and a developed strategy? Right now the Iraqi resistance is still fairly chaotic. No comparison at all to organized, wide scale guerrilla war on the scale of Yugoslavian, Greek or French resistance during WWII or the Vietcong.

How many died before they got them?

The MP-44 is a full auto weapon so it is not on the same page as the other rifles we are talking about. Additionally it was only used at the end of the war 1944-45 and the majority of German infantry were still carrying Mausers.

But yes if I had to pick up any of the guns off the ground in WWII the MP's from Germany might be the best choice. It heralded the future of military weapons. You can see the DNA of both the AK-47 and M-16.
Awesome gun for sure.

As for an armed populace detering invaders; maybe it won't actually deter them from invading but they will regret it eventually. Yes many would die but that is not the point. American's, who enjoy being free and are gun owners would not stand idly by and let an invading force occupy our land without a fight. And yes if the time came many of us would yell; "WOLVERINES"

To be fair though, the Garand is a semi auto, so it cannot be compared to a bolt action like the Lee-Enfield.