Am I missing something here? We'd present a helluva resistance, but to think that we are partially or completely unconquerable is hubris of the first degree. That approach has ended very badly for numerous prior civilizations and/or states.
Sweet. Hunters.
...
v.
Group maneuvers, tanks, arty, airstrikes, ballistic missiles, snipers, mines,...all the way down to real hand-to-hand combat.
?
Am I missing something here? We'd present a helluva resistance, but to think that we are partially or completely unconquerable is hubris of the first degree. That approach has ended very badly for numerous prior civilizations and/or states.
-Nate
Not sure how accurate that number can be. I know tons of guys who say they are hunters and haven't ventured into the fields or woods for years. Base it on licenses sold? Even if the number is somewhat accurate what is that ad trying to say? Somehow these people who own a gun and may or may not shoot it once a year are going to be opposition to an invading force?
Sweet. Hunters.
...
v.
Group maneuvers, tanks, arty, airstrikes, ballistic missiles, snipers, mines,...all the way down to real hand-to-hand combat.
?
Am I missing something here? We'd present a helluva resistance, but to think that we are partially or completely unconquerable is hubris of the first degree. That approach has ended very badly for numerous prior civilizations and/or states.
-Nate
Liked it as well. The "Americans Buy Enough Guns" statement though gives fodder to the anti-gun activists regarding the volume of guns out there...but it's a great statistic regarding the freedoms that exist here that many countries don't have as well.
Sweet. Hunters.
...
v.
Group maneuvers, tanks, arty, airstrikes, ballistic missiles, snipers, mines,...all the way down to real hand-to-hand combat.
? Afghanistan? Viet Nam? North Korea? Moro? Zulu (large standing army if not modern weapons)? Boxers? Oh, I almost forgot our Revolution, was that 3%?
Am I missing something here? We'd present a helluva resistance, but to think that we are partially or completely unconquerable is hubris of the first degree. That approach has ended very badly for numerous prior civilizations and/or states.
-Nate
There are a group of people in southern Asia that are barely beyond the stone age that have given several "great civilizations" a helluva time. Just sayin'...
At some point, a conquering force has to conquer the citizens. An unarmed citizenry is conquered with the defeat of its government since it has no options. With an armed society, not only does the conqueror have to defeat the government, but also the citizens, who have more options to decide how difficult that task will be.
I dunno Afghanistan has been kickin *** a loooooong time now, what are they called again.. oh ya... "Graveyard of Empires".
So far nobody has wanted to even test the theory with us.
... remember there were less than a dozen Wolverines.
I love history. Please tell me the nations that have had complete freedom of arms for their populace, I don't remember reading about those. I do remember a few who had the hubris to believe that their standing armies were sufficient to conquer nations or the world. Neither in order nor complete, Romans, British in India, Transvaal, France, America, Napoleon, Kaiser Wilhelm and Hitler.
Even if it was half, it would still be a REALLY big number.I wonder how true that quote would actually be.
Who were these people? Ukrainians?Wasn't too long ago people were talking about how great Putin was.
Somehow these people who own a gun and may or may not shoot it once a year are going to be opposition to an invading force?
Wasn't too long ago people were talking about how great Putin was. I wonder how many would fall in line if he promised to invade simple to depose Obama, restore the Confederate battle flag, and imprison liberals?