It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Guns bought this year in the U.S. could outfit 2 armies...

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 1 2009 @ 11:26 PM
link   
So if you are wondering why we are no longer hearing about gun ban legislation, this might be why. The People of America are armed to the teeth!

"Guns purchased legally in the United States this year could outfit two armies – and not just any armies, the armies of China and India, according to new government reports cited by a website for sport-shooting enthusiasts. "
www.worldnetdaily.com...

This is a pretty staggering statistic.

Also this:

"You also bought 1,529,635,000 rounds of ammunition in just the month of December. Yeah, that is right, that is billion with a 'b.' This number takes no account of reloading or reloaded ammunition," the report said.


I can't exactly remember who said it but I believe that it was one of the high ranking Japanese military commanders during WWII. When asked about invading the U.S. he said it would be impossible, because "There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." That was in the 1940's, the amount of guns held by U.S. citizens now, it's probably 4x the amount of the 40's.




posted on May, 1 2009 @ 11:27 PM
link   
"You cannot invade the mainland United States.
There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."

- Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto
(Japanese Navy)



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by downtown436
 



Yep he said it a few years before they attacked Pearl Harbor.

He said it at a banquet in D.C. I believe.



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 12:00 AM
link   
It just makes me proud to be an american that we are loaded to the teeth with guns. God bless our forefathers for putting the right to bear arms in the constitution.



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 04:05 AM
link   
reply to post by downtown436
 


Star and Flag for you. Guns are the last thing standing between us and them.



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by justsomeboreddude
 


Darn right, that was some splendid thinking ahead on the part of those who founded the U.S.A.

I'm glad to be part of it too.



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 01:31 PM
link   
Guns can't do much against a tank or an F-22 dropping bombs on your little behinds,i thinks its great you have guns and all.But if push came to shove...they wouldn't save you from an invading army.Or the American army initiating martial law etc.



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Solomons
Guns can't do much against a tank or an F-22 dropping bombs on your little behinds,i thinks its great you have guns and all.But if push came to shove...they wouldn't save you from an invading army.Or the American army initiating martial law etc.


Maybe so... But they have to get out of the tanks and land those planes sometime!!

[edit on 2-5-2009 by daddyroo45]



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by daddyroo45
 


lol true! I guess the point i was making is yes guns can protect you and your family,but when it comes down to modern warfare the odds are stacked against you.The militias back in the 18th century were just as well equipped as the armies.In the 21st century its a different story all together.



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Solomons
 


With the Obama administration and Congress wanting to prosecute anyone who followed an order under President Bush to placate their constituents, what chance do you think the U.S. Army would actually follow an order to attack the U.S. populace?



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II
 


I dont think your army would attack the american population,so i agree with you.Whether or not they would attack "domestic terrorists" is another story...



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 02:03 PM
link   
Actually, the biggest threat I see to the U.S. populace in this fashion is Obama's election pledge to build a well funded and armed private army that'll answer directly to him.



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Solomons
 


B.S.

Sorry but a dude with an ak-47 can take out an f-22. There are a lot more dudes with guns, than f-22's around here.



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by downtown436
 


Damn if it was thats easy why aint they falling out the sky like raindrops?



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Solomons
 


You're right, a gun won't do diddly squat against an M1 Abrams or f22, but how it could devastate infantry, and the bases the planes have to land at, and, worst of all, supply lines. There isn't an army in the world that would stand to invade a cheesed off america.



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Solomons
 


I'm thinking of a parked f-22, not one that is flying.



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Solomons
Guns can't do much against a tank or an F-22 dropping bombs on your little behinds,i thinks its great you have guns and all.But if push came to shove...they wouldn't save you from an invading army.Or the American army initiating martial law etc.


Believe me sir, if they started using tanks and F-22's on the citizens, you will see militias begin to retaliate with rocket launchers, grenades, c4, landmines etc. Don't think just because those things are illegal, no one in America has them. I know a few people who do and if it gets to the point where the corrupt government has to start using those forces, they are well prepared to use them.



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 09:22 PM
link   
It's stuff like this that makes me long to be back home in the good ol US of A again.




posted on May, 3 2009 @ 09:53 PM
link   
I have actually thought about what the us people without the might of the us army, navy air force etc could do about an invasion.

The things I alone thought of convinced me 100% that if Americans were desperate enough... i.e. Bombers were attacking our city's and Tanks landing...

WE could improvise to a point that we could hold America...

At our disposal we have

8,186 Passenger Planes, Jumbo Jets (think 9-11) think also we aren't retarded and know how to use remote control systems

8,186 massive air borne fuel bombs

209,000 Other aircraft as well, this includes crop dusters

247,000,000 + Registered vehicles... including Jeeps, Suv's, Hummers


Helicopters, we have thousands and thousands of helicopters, helicopters plus guns and bombs = we can take out big Russian tanks

Bombs, we have plenty of gun powder and fertilizer and oil and gas and ... Explosive potential won't be a problem

In fact... while on that subject I believe we have massive stockpiles of radio active waste...

Cruise ships, oil tankers, shipping vessels... we have a Navy once outfitted...

Rockets?

Last i checked we had companies like Boeing still right...NASA, a private space agencies...

satellites... yeah we have lots of private satellites up there


Oh yeah, while we hold that heart land, it supplies 1/3 of the worlds food... enjoy keeping those supply lines up while trying to feed a few Billion people



ROFL

I don't know how this conversation ever gets going...

We with our army can barely hold Afghanistan and not go bankrupt...

How the heck will you crush a continent (counting on Canadians and Mexicans to be cool)




They only invasion this continent could ever see is a demographic largely peaceful one, anything else would be a logistical nightmare and next to impossible



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 01:02 PM
link   
I find the high number of guns being purchased encouraging, due to the fact that more people are protecting themselves.

The question that came to mind though was the distribution of those weapons? Are most of them being sold in cities along the coasts or in the heartland. Both have implications.

People in the large coastal cities may be hedging bets against riots caused by swine flu or terrorism making the government hard up for control.

People in the Midwest may be motivated by things like Obama being elected (think: a largely republicanized area buying a ton of guns when a democrat is elected...among other things I'm sure).

As for this invasion, the only way any invasion would work against the US would be through the use of nukes to take out major population centers. It could be done, but would take decades of using aerial mines on the country.

What motivation would there be though? Its not like we have a lot of oil (even the Strategic Reserve only holds enough for our country for 3 days). We have some metals, and timber, but a lot of the really good stuff is taken out. Maybe they'd be coming after our coal...

It made sense to look at invasion in the 1930-1940's. You had a nation that was still just beginning to tap into its resources. Almost 70 years later a lot of what made that nation attractive is gone. Then there are all the guns to add in.

Now to talk about the other idea: The ability of the citizenry to defend itself against its own government.

F-22's and Abrams only can attack targets they know about. This information can be gained largely from satellites, but only if the groups HQ'd in the country. By going into major cities you'd get a large area with many buildings, requiring that human intelligence gathering methods be used. And don't think they can just pay someone off, since what they use to pay them off has to first have the faith of someone to be worth something.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think that the citizenry would have an easy day and just romp the US military in one go, but there are a lot of things in their favor, for example:

+Geography: Citizens know where the bases are and the electrical grids that supply them. Also, citizens have the multiplier of knowing the terrain better than the military could

+Asymmetric Warfare: Its been working good for the Taliban in Afghanistan for quite sometime. Killed one major superpower and has been a pain in the neck to another. Americans would have the added ability to know what routes military resupply routes are going to take, and are already armed to the teeth with similar hardware to the military.

+Hard to infiltrate: Likely what would happen in the situation x scenario that I've seen put out would be that people would fall into city/county militias. This would mean that everyone would know each other and be able to vouch for one another. This would make it incredibly difficult to infiltrate these "City Armies".

There are of course some obvious negatives:

--Communications: Internet, cell phones, and most radio stations would be shut down or made unavailable to the public if this instance came out. This could basically paralyze the citizenry to HAM radios and short distance walkie talkies (which aren't encrypted in most cases).

--Numbers: Yes, this is a negative in my book. By having the larger force, Its harder to coordinate attacks. Then there is feeding and clothing them....

--Medical: Doctors are likely to join up a citizen army, but there is a problem: They can only operate so long as they have the supplies to do so. Most doctors aren't taught the old methods of diagnosing that don't involve MRI's and X-Rays. This means that many doctors will only be able to give first aid and give superficial examinations. This will prove horrific if the Military uses a bio weapon.

In the end, I put my money on the citizenry only because they know the supply routes (the Interstates and Federal Highways) between bases, the electrical and petrochimical transport routes, and where command and control flows from. They can take action against all of these and paralyze the Military. But that is only if they can get over the communications problem and coordinate. Not to mention there would be great loss of life.




top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join