Hard core 2nd. amenders

[2A_Tom]

There's nothing I see in that post that mentions gov. Where are you reading that any of the people you mention are shooting rounds off in a complex and are you saying you don't believe there's terror outside the boundries of government?

76 I appologize. It was a joke. You said the terrorists want our guns taken away, and I just mentioned a few names of liberals who for all intents and purposes want the same thing. Sorry I'm not a verry good joke teller. If you have to explainit it is not funny.

 

[beararms1776]

76 I appologize. It was a joke. You said the terrorists want our guns taken away, and I just mentioned a few names of liberals who for all intents and purposes want the same thing. Sorry I'm not a verry good joke teller. If you have to explainit it is not funny.

No apology needed BF. You didn't offend me in any way. I looked back at the post and I did see where you wrote out preceeding lines purple.

 

[rugertoter]

Tanks, cruise missiles and fighter jets are all well and good, but at the end of the day you need a few thousand ground-pounders to take and hold land. Stalingrad was held largely by poorly trained conscripts despite bombing runs, tanks etc. simply through sheer force of numbers. They died by the tens of thousands, but they held it.

And it's hardly a "novel thought" considering that it was fairly common to expect the citizenry to defend a nation pretty much since we've had nations to defend.

They were also not allowed to leave Stalingrad - by order of Stalin. He was quoted as saying that they will fight harder if their lives depended upon it. I don't really think they had much choice, do you?

 

[RockofStrength]

They were also not allowed to leave Stalingrad - by order of Stalin. He was quoted as saying that they will fight harder if their lives depended upon it. I don't really think they had much choice, do you?

No, they did not. Those poor souls were put through a meat grinder to halt the German advance. My point was not focused on the "will the militia fight" aspect but rather the "could said militia hope to compete with a well-equipped armed force" aspect.

I think others have put it better than I in both respects: though many might not, if enough Americans joined forces and fought with only the commercially available weapons and ammunition they can currently purchase they would have a fighting chance against any force no matter what heavy equipment they would face.

 

[NYFelon]

"you cannot invade mainland America. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."

-Itsoroku Yamamoto

 

[bingley]

"you cannot invade mainland America. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."

-Itsoroku Yamamoto

Isoroku, or 56, the age at which his father conceived him.

This quote is a bit out of context. Yamamoto studied in the United States, and so he appreciated the vast economic resources of our country. That was what he feared. It wasn't the possibility of facing grass root militia that gave him pause.

Da Bing

 

[88GT]

Isoroku, or 56, the age at which his father conceived him.

This quote is a bit out of context. Yamamoto studied in the United States, and so he appreciated the vast economic resources of our country. That was what he feared. It wasn't the possibility of facing grass root militia that gave him pause.

Da Bing

Of which one aspect of those "resources" was a large portion of the population armed and ready, willing, and able to defend their homes. China had some awesome economic resources as well, but that didn't stop Japan from invading them, did it? (One could argue it might have been the reason for the invasion.)

 

[jbombelli]

Isoroku, or 56, the age at which his father conceived him.

This quote is a bit out of context. Yamamoto studied in the United States, and so he appreciated the vast economic resources of our country. That was what he feared. It wasn't the possibility of facing grass root militia that gave him pause.

Da Bing

So when he said "... rifle behind every blade of grass..." he was talking about something totally different? Why would he not refer to what he was actually talking about? Why wouldn't he say "... because of their vast industrial resources..." if that's what he meant? Oh... wait... it couldn't possibly be in reference to our ability to make and distribute millions of guns for everyone to use...

Could it?

 

[bingley]

Of which one aspect of those "resources" was a large portion of the population armed and ready, willing, and able to defend their homes. China had some awesome economic resources as well, but that didn't stop Japan from invading them, did it? (One could argue it might have been the reason for the invasion.)

Again, we are talking about Yamamoto's opinion, not our interpretation of what "economic resources" may mean. (For the record, an armed population does not count as economic.) I frankly don't think he was concerned about the armed civilians.

China had natural resources, but its economy in the early 20th c. was not at all comparable to the US. In other words, the US could sustain a long war, and all our factories could churn our armament. Yamamoto recognized that Japan, lacking the same economic foundation, just could not prosecute war over a long term. As a consequence, he advocated a short war with quick, decisive battles to compel the US to truce and to stay out of Southeast Asia. (The US was attempting to cut Japan's oil supply from that part of the world.)

China, unfortunately, did not have the same strengths as the United States, and really suffered in the war against the Japanese. Today's China is quite different from the China of the 40s.

If you want to talk about an armed civilian population, China was a good example during the Cultural Revolution. The Red Guards -- a civilian militia, separate from the regular military -- were armed with AK47s. What happened to the Red Guards? When the regular army felt they had gone far enough, it crushed them within months.

The government will fear the people because of their votes in a democratic nation, not because of their rifles. The US military will be able to defeat members of INGO very easily, if it comes down to a contest of arms. As a consequence, I find the "insurrectionist" philosophy of some gun owners pitiably out of touch with reality.


Da Bing

 

[bingley]

"you cannot invade mainland America. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."

-Itsoroku Yamamoto

I just checked. He never said the quote. See the middle box of the page in the link below:

Isoroku Yamamoto - Wikiquote

Da Bing

 

[bingley]

So when he said "... rifle behind every blade of grass..." he was talking about something totally different? Why would he not refer to what he was actually talking about? Why wouldn't he say "... because of their vast industrial resources..." if that's what he meant? Oh... wait... it couldn't possibly be in reference to our ability to make and distribute millions of guns for everyone to use...

Could it?

The quote was misattributed. (See my previous post.) No wonder. The quote makes no historical sense whatsoever.

 

[88GT]

Again, we are talking about Yamamoto's opinion, not our interpretation of what "economic resources" may mean. (For the record, an armed population does not count as economic.) I frankly don't think he was concerned about the armed civilians.

China had natural resources, but its economy in the early 20th c. was not at all comparable to the US. In other words, the US could sustain a long war, and all our factories could churn our armament. Yamamoto recognized that Japan, lacking the same economic foundation, just could not prosecute war over a long term. As a consequence, he advocated a short war with quick, decisive battles to compel the US to truce and to stay out of Southeast Asia. (The US was attempting to cut Japan's oil supply from that part of the world.)

China, unfortunately, did not have the same strengths as the United States, and really suffered in the war against the Japanese. Today's China is quite different from the China of the 40s.

If you want to talk about an armed civilian population, China was a good example during the Cultural Revolution. The Red Guards -- a civilian militia, separate from the regular military -- were armed with AK47s. What happened to the Red Guards? When the regular army felt they had gone far enough, it crushed them within months.

The government will fear the people because of their votes in a democratic nation, not because of their rifles. The US military will be able to defeat members of INGO very easily, if it comes down to a contest of arms. As a consequence, I find the "insurrectionist" philosophy of some gun owners pitiably out of touch with reality.


Da Bing

And you somehow magically know his opinion on a completely bogus quote? That's rich.


EDIT: why would Factcheck feel the need to debunk the quote on firearms-related basis if Yamamoto didn't really mean to imply that American was well-defended by its populace?

 

[Titanium_Frost]

If you want to talk about an armed civilian population, China was a good example during the Cultural Revolution. The Red Guards -- a civilian militia, separate from the regular military -- were armed with AK47s. What happened to the Red Guards? When the regular army felt they had gone far enough, it crushed them within months.

Maybe perhaps because the Red Guards of the 60's in China were middle schoolers? I think I have a little more fight in me than some pimpled social outcast in the 8th grade.

 

[bingley]

And you somehow magically know his opinion on a completely bogus quote? That's rich.

I know the history, and I know his conflicted position in the road leading up to the war. That's what's called "context," and that's what I conveyed to the readers of this thread in my previous post. This sort of stuff is typically acquired through learning. It may seem like magic, but if you hit the books, you'll soon be able to do it, too, before you can say abdacadabra!

Da Bing

 

[JohnP82]

Nothing wrong with having your personal opinion. I may not like your opinion or agree with it, but I would never bash you for your thoughts. Nothing wrong with a good dicussion between two people with different views, but many times one of the parties gets carried away.

Anyway, welcome to INGO and hope you stick around and continue to participate.

 

[jbombelli]

The quote was misattributed. (See my previous post.) No wonder. The quote makes no historical sense whatsoever.

And yet, with your superior knowledge of history, there you were explaining what he meant by that, when he didn't even say it.

I have to say your credibility on the history topic is shot all to Hell.

 

[beararms1776]

Nothing wrong with having your personal opinion. I may not like your opinion or agree with it, but I would never bash you for your thoughts. Nothing wrong with a good dicussion between two people with different views, but many times one of the parties gets carried away.

Anyway, welcome to INGO and hope you stick around and continue to participate.

 

[bingley]

And yet, with your superior knowledge of history, there you were explaining what he meant by that, when he didn't even say it.

I have to say your credibility on the history topic is shot all to Hell.

Nope. I was explaining Yamamoto's attitude towards the United States. That's called context, and you have to put any quote into that context. Did I mistakenly believe that quote to be correctly attributed? Yes. But did I provide the correct picture of history? Yes. If you don't believe me, go read ten or twenty books on the Pacific War, and then we can have a productive conversation. You can pose real challenges instead of eating sour grapes.

History is not about getting every single little, insignificant quotes right. Those are factoids. History is about what the facts could mean in the bigger picture. Indeed, when I first saw that quote, I thought to myself, that's a really weird thing for Yamamoto to say; it would certainly be really unusual for him. My intuition, formed from an understanding of the Pacific War, was right. If you actually think my credibility has been shot to hell, I'd recommend that you learn a bit about history as a discipline, too.

I know many people really want that quote to be true. But wishing so does not make it so. Don't let politics get in the way of truth. Make truth your supreme mistress. This is the second time I'm saying this.

Good luck, and enjoy your studies.

Da Bing

 

[bingley]

Maybe perhaps because the Red Guards of the 60's in China were middle schoolers? I think I have a little more fight in me than some pimpled social outcast in the 8th grade.

Perhaps that's true, but unless except for those of us who served in Iraq or Afghanistan, many of the Red Guards tortured and killed more people, innocent adult people, than we will ever. (And that's a good thing.) What a tragedy it was.

I have to say teenagers look scarier and scarier as I age. I have been perfecting shaking my fist in the air and saying with disgust, "Kids these days!"

Da Bing

 

[88GT]

I know the history, and I know his conflicted position in the road leading up to the war. That's what's called "context," and that's what I conveyed to the readers of this thread in my previous post. This sort of stuff is typically acquired through learning. It may seem like magic, but if you hit the books, you'll soon be able to do it, too, before you can say abdacadabra!

Da Bing

I'm not disagreeing with the fact that economic resources are a consideration that must be made, but you still can't seem to grasp the fact that--legit comment or not--part of the stuff that Yamamoto knew Japan had to consider in determining the prudence of an American invasion necessarily had to include the ability of the people to fight back. Which like it or not, is somewhat independent of the strictly economic resources of the nation. It is the nation's ability/willingness to harvest and utilize those resources in a manner that is harmful to the invading nation that makes them dangerous, not simply having them. Canada is rich in resources, but who the hell considers them a threat? And once again, I go back to China. The people are the primary resources because without the people, there is nothing.


I'm well aware of how context works (just ask Rambone, I bug him about it constantly). But I also understand that logically, general premises must hold true in multiple scenarios, not just the one under discussion. Yours don't...or at least you haven't provided evidence that they do. And I do have evidence that contradicts them.


Perhaps in our next discussion, you can refrain from insulting my intelligence.