You're foolish to believe that if another country was seriously planning to invade CONUS they wouldn't factor in an armed civilian population.

... served as the CINC of the Soviet Navy through most of the Cold War (1956 - 1988) and was responsible for the creation of the modern Soviet Navy. He wrote a book in 1978 "Red Star Rising at Sea" that deals with the logistics (mostly amphibious resupply) of a Soviet invasion of North America. One of the inhibiting factors he mentions is the high proliferation of privately armed US and Canadian citizens. He maintains that the the proliferation of civilian militias would make it much more difficult to maintain sufficient maritime supply to a Soviet beachhead. Effectively, every part of America is capable of mounting a resistance.

During the Cold War, a Soviet General was asked if the Soviet Union and it's Warsaw Pact allies could successfully invade and occupy the US, to which he replied that it would be impossible to occupy the US because of the right of americans to own firearms, he went on to say that it would be a bloodbath for the Soviet soldiers because resistance would be everywhere.

Admiral Yamamoto stated that invading CONUS would be impossible because there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.

Admiral Yamamoto is reported to have stated that invading CONUS would be impossible because there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.

Apparently there isn't any actual proof he ever said that

you are correct.

if you've got something to say, then say it here, otherwise, don't waste my time.

I got my copy at Naval War College in Rhode Island, but I'm sure you can get a copy from Amazon.

...fiction

The emphasis placed on this by gun-rights fanatics is nothing more than self-aggrandizing bullshit. What the hell would your little arsenals do against military armaments? It's adolescent fantasy stuff.

So, it 'would do' more than you seem to think, I guess.

Hell, American civilians are better armed than the Afghani's, and they kicked the soviets the fuck out by making rifles out of rail road ties with hand files and shit.

That's a hypothetical in which I probably die.

You might also want to ask those of your neighbors that are old enough about *these* people:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslav_Partisans

Something has seriously fucked with your ability to learn from history. You might want to lay off the plonk for a while...

and yet their high rate of gun ownership did factor in to our plans.

Weird that the US military would take such matters in to account.

I think his logic is as compelling as that of a NRA poster child.

It's just ridiculous.

The entire gun lobby honestly believes they can and do have the Constitutional right to overthrow the goverment. THEY DON'T. That's called TREASON. That IS in the Constitution.

But heh, keep thinking like so many gun toting tea baggers that they can beat a billion dollar military industrial complex.

resistance to a foreign invasion is not treason.

He went on to mention that he doesn't think the federal government is a threat, at least not right now.

The IMPLICATION is clear. It could be.

Ever heard of the Patriot Act, free speech zones, Total Information Awareness? They were a bunch of warmongering fascists, and there's another one running for office right now. In a tight race.

The implications are clear. Or should be.

You live in the country that produced Fred Phelps and David Duke.

How is the above an untrue statement?

I'm sure exterminated populations the world over thought the same way.

except in your deluded mind from watching Red Dawn too often.

Sometimes governments go bad. Hasn't it been about 70ish years since we had to kick the snot out of your countrymen for doing so?

Mikey seems to have forgotten about that...

why aren't all you bad asses with the guns doing something about the governmental abuses we already have, illegal wiretapping, indefinite detention, surveillance by drones and satellites, all those restrictions on your 2nd amendment rights? Why aren't you putting an end to all that?

Democracy is preserved by these three things, "the soap box, the ballot box, and finally the ammo box". Last time I checked I can still vote and speak my mind freely so it's a bit childish to ask why we haven't resorted to the third one yet.

have lost the debate, they start with the NRA talking points meme.

that doesn't mean it could or could not matter. Since you don't understand anything about military science or military history, I don't know what Red Dawn have anything to do with anything.

hanged if you win.

the U.S. Constitition (which takes precedence over a State constitution). Maryland might not hang you but the Feds will.

Last edited Sun Oct 7, 2012, 02:48 PM - Edit history (2)

If the federal government breaks that compact so severely that its destruction is necessary, it is no longer a legitimate authority, and its labels of "treason" and "loyalty" have no substance. After all, many writers, protesters, and activists have been executed under the duly-enacted laws of dictators.

King George III lost the right to govern the American colonies by despotic abuse.
Louis XVI lost the right to govern the Kingdom of France by clinging to absolute monarchy.
Saddam Hussein lost the right to govern the Iraqi Republic by acting as a violent dictator.

The entire point of the American Revolution was that the people are the sovereigns, and that the governors serve at their pleasure. The Declaration of Independence is not law, but I believe it makes this abundantly clear: "...Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government..."

It's not time to fight, not by a long shot, but it is the right of the people to fight when pressed. A government can be illegitimate -- the will of the people cannot.

then it could be because it is deemed to be in violation of the constitution--treasonous.

If we are going to have a society based on guns, then let's just admit we're uncivilized and throw out rule of law and our courts. When you have a military many times more powerful (and costly) as all those in the rest of the world, there's really not much need for the people paying for that and packing heat,too. What?, they don't trust that their military can do their job???? On the one hand, the Right is so concerned about big government and about value. On the other, they're the biggest proponents of heat ownership. I don't get the connection. Maybe they should fire the military and pack a few more uzies with the savings.

I was walking down the street in Ann Arbor the other day and this dude (a civilian) was walking with a holstered gun. It gave me the willies. So, what the Right wants is for everyone in Ann Arbor to be walking down the street with a side arm??
What the hell sense does that make??? Go ahead, make our day!

Clowns give me the willies, but they're not inanimate...

Just for my own education, are you saying that the only thing that can give one the willies is something animate? If so, I didn't know that. Thanks! In these days of charged sensitivities, one has to be very careful about what words he uses and how he uses them. I mean, jeez, whole elections are lost simply because some idiot spoke "inelegantly."

No One Person is any less Equal than the Sum Total of The Government. We are not subjects of some King. We are a SELF governing Nation, inidivsable with Liberty and Justice For All.

Should we admit our treason to England, and ask to be taken back into the fold?

P.S. Apparently the Afghani's haven't received your memo. You'd better go tell them in person. You know... get skin in the game.

create a more perfect union, set forth a Bill of Inalieanble Rights laying the groundwork for a country where all are equal under the law.

Some of our fellow "countrymen" seem hell bent on tearing down those rights.

We have one who started to post last week that I tangled with, who believes in more surveillance, more police powers, which even I, as a cop, doesn't believe in, more power for the govt..
I think you know whom I'm referring to, G_____4Anything.

it could be but I'm not going to speculate on it.

but the reasons for such are in my profile for all to see.

Switzerland survived WW2 with all their military age males and civilian population intact or dying of natural causes.

No battlefield KIA, no concentation camps.

All thanks to the fact that their civil defense preparations were so thoroughly organized down to the family level, where you're likely to find at least one service rifle- and skilled shooter(s)- in the family of a military aged male, every villiage, every town.

There are easier targets elsewhere in Europe, in contrast to a free country.

Finland, twice in 20th century. In contrast to the Balkan republics. Didn't keep the invaders out, but they did keep Finland free and somewhat intact, while inflicting steady, painful losses on Russian invaders. Thanks to their regular army and militia system.

US in WW2. The US Navy was in no position to protect our coastline on the evening of December 7 as it had been before dawn that same day. Why should the western US be immune to the same Imperial land invasions which China, Korea, the Phillippines, Indochina, Burma had endured/would endure? It would be because the Japanese had condsidered invasion, but had chosen not to do so.

It's apocyphal that Admiral Yamamoto ever said his 'rifle behind every blade of grass' statement. He was KIA anyway, hence no position to provide pithy interview statements after the war. However, after 1945 when US Navy and FORMER Imperial Navy officers had a chance to compare notes during a particular joint naval exercise, a statement along those lines was given to a US officer by a former Imperial naval officer. Having looked this up years ago, I don't have details and documentation at hand, but there is some basis to the claim that our heritage of individual arms keeping was counted as at least one reason not to invade- that's just two generations ago. (From memory, I believe the US officer is now deceased, but this anecdote was documented in a community newspaper feature, maybe a Lutheran church periodical. If anybody's really curious, it could be chased down to the extent possible online into the bounds of plausibility/fact, including officer's names, place, time etc.)


The fact that the people of a particular country have access to guns and skill to use them is not a guarantee that they'll never be compelled to use them. But that fact informs the invasion calculus- and the price to be paid- by an aggressor. History instructs that popular arms keeping equates to Freedom insurance.

I notice all your posts try to sound as if you were living somewhere in the US and as if the path this country takes make shit difference to you.

Perhaps you should change your frames of reference to make it "in your country" and "You Americans" so as not to mislead your many avid followers.

It's pretty obvious that you don't even grasp the basics of our Constitution and are way the fuck out of touch with the past decade of SCOTUS decisions.

Stick to something you understand like pasta, cheap wine and woefully underpowered, unsafe cars.

I think both of his many avid followers have figured it out.

you can't deal with what I'm saying. You could address what I say straight up, but instead you use that ploy.

I'm as American as you are. My opinions are as valid as yours. Where I happen to live right now has no bearing on it. You don't know enough about me to judge.

Armed citizens of the US fighting off a tyrannical government in the 21st century is fantasy land. Armed citizens of the US fighting off an invading army is also fantasy land. That's my point. It's all self-aggrandizing bullshit.

There were quite a large number of people in power in France and the United States back in the Fities and Sixties that shared your attitude about the effectiveness of armed
civilians versus armies

Books by people like Frances FitzGerald, Bernard Fall, David Halberstam, and Neil Sheehan can explain to you what happened when they put that attitude to the test....

You don't bother posting your POV on most issues because you're trying to gin up traffic = revenue on your Italian blog. Saying "here's my solution" and posting a link to your for profit blog is not joining in the discussion!

Which, based on two of your Blog posts transferred here by DU members has a definite racist tinge to it.

Stop trying to use DU for your own personal profit and enter the discussion without trying to con people into going to your probably racist blog you liar.

IIRC you've already been thrown off DKos and lord knows what other websites for your "hijinks".

To his credit and in spite of pressure to do otherwise, Skinner runs one the very few sites on the entire web that allows both sides of the 2nd amendment to have their say. You are abusing that tolerance

I have quite a bit to say about gun control. You know that, so why would you say I'm only trying ti gin up traffic to my for-profit blog? You also know I have no advertising on my blog and therefore make no profit on it. So, that makes you a nasty piece of work and a liar.

...or whatever name you're going by:

http://www.blogger.com/profile/11818934498607763309

I also built my 8yo son a kydex holster for his new 1911 airsoft pistol.

ever seen the victim of real child abuse Mike? You just accused a member of child abuse because they were doing a father/son activity, pretty low even for you. You really need to apologize and delete your post.
Child abuse? You have no idea what real child abuse is.

by what measure do you consider child abuse? Have you ever witnessed real child abuse? Have you ever had to pick up the broken body of a child that's been burned, beaten, sexually abused, mentally abused, tortured, murdered?
If not, then what the hell do you know about child abuse? Teaching your children about firearms is not child abuse by any stretch of the imagination.

I have seen and dealt with real child abuse far too many times and that's why your post highly offends me.

Oh wait, you don't have a rep because YOU DON'T LIVE IN THIS COUNTRY AND HAVEN'T FOR MANY YEARS.



I would guess not since your legal and ILLEGAL GUN OWNERSHIP

anyone who claims 100+ million armed citizens count for nothing is likewise insane.

I really haven't seen anyone claim the former except as strawmen or deliberate misrepresentations.

I have seen plenty claim the latter though.

Once again, Mike, it doesn't matter whether you think the civilian population can or will make good soldiers or not.

It doesn't matter at all.

All that matter is that this is what the second amendment indicates the founders intended. That the people shall keep and bear arms suitable for military use in case of emergency.

Will they succeed? Will they fail? Will they be too busy watching television?

IT DOESN'T MATTER.

The second amendment secures the ability.

That is all that matters.

It's only a matter of time before the government acts upon that.

Another thing that's too bad is that your argument is so weak that you need to fall back on the 2A. If what you believed about guns made sense, you wouldn't have to.

And there's plenty of 2A support.

Besides that we have the right to life, liberty, and happiness. Why would anyone say that personal ownership of life saving devices is out of date. Living never gets dated.

you've forgotten how our govt. works, the people are the govt. Mike, therefore the people have to act upon it and there is very little support for amending or abolishing the 2A.
It's your argument that is weak and has very little support in the country.

The 2A has about as much relevance today as the 3A. Eventually both will be understood to be anachronistic and meaningless.

Anachronistic? Maybe. Meaningless? Not a bit. The meaning of the 3rd Amendment is that the United States cannot seize your home in peacetime to turn it into a barracks. That is still a prohibited act in 2012. We clearly disagree on the meaning of the 2nd, but whatever it is determined to be, it applies today as surely as in 1790.

Now, out of curiosity, let's assume you're correct and that the 2A is anachronistic. Was it enforceable in 1790? Can you give me an example of something the 2nd Amendment prevented the Congress from doing at that time?