mnealtx 0
Recommended Posts
mnealtx 0
Well, if that ever happens I'll probably be on the other side of the Atlantic, so whether I'm in front or behind might be somewhat academic. Incidentally, are Joe's popguns capable of shooting down jet aircraft or penetrating tank armour?QuoteQuoteI'd imagine any power capable of successfully invading the US is not going to be deterred by Joe Public and his popgun.
You've no idea how extensive Joe's popgun collection is - and if we ever have to use it, I hope you'll be standing behind us rather than in front.
Neither plane nor tank can stay 'buttoned up' forever. They're also not very useful without support crew to refuel/rearm them.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
DZJ 0
A serious question about the 'Guns against tyrannical government' argument - had the protestors at Kent State been armed, would they have been entitled to return fire on the National Guard?
QuoteWell, if that ever happens I'll probably be on the other side of the Atlantic, so whether I'm in front or behind might be somewhat academic. Incidentally, are Joe's popguns capable of shooting down jet aircraft or penetrating tank armour?
Chances are if we get invaded, so will GB, so you might think about arming/training yourself and standing up to the fight. Your country has a proud heritage of doing so. Or, you could go join the French, I suppose.
The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.
QuoteA serious question about the 'Guns against tyrannical government' argument - had the protestors at Kent State been armed, would they have been entitled to return fire on the National Guard?
Entitlement is a matter that depends on the point of view. The US Government would say no. OTOH, we say that the Patriots at Lexington were fully entitled to fire on the Redcoats.
The Patriots beat the Redskins 52-7 last October, so the Redskins were probably too embarassed to complain.QuoteEntitlement is a matter that depends on the point of view. The US Government would say no. OTOH, we say that the Patriots at Lexington were fully entitled to fire on the Redcoats.
Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
DZJ 0
QuoteQuoteNote the word capable. The Japanese had no capability and no intention of invading the mainland US, so Yamamoto's point is moot.QuoteQuoteI'd imagine any power capable of successfully invading the US is not going to be deterred by Joe Public and his popgun.
Really? You'd be wrong.Quote"You cannot invade the mainland United States.
There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."
- Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto
(Japanese Navy)
Then you should have said that in your initial post and not tried to make your point look better in retrospect by changing it.How could I have been clearer? The word 'capable' appears perfectly plainly in my original post. And the point remains that Japan was not capable of a mainland invasion. The point on intention is secondary.I'd say a Japanese land invasion of a close continental neighbour doesn't prove much about an opposed amphibious invasion across thousands of miles of ocean. It took Britain and her allies four years to put Overlord together, and that was only across a short stretch of the English Channel.QuoteJapan certainly had the capability to invade the US - amply demonstrated by their invasion of China.
Afraid I don't see how that follows.QuoteThe fact that Yamamoto's quote even exists proves that they had the intention, as well.
piper17 1
The Japanese invaded and occupied the Aleutian Islands, part of the United States, during WWII.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling
QuoteHow could I have been clearer? The word 'capable' appears perfectly plainly in my original post. And the point remains that Japan was not capable of a mainland invasion. The point on intention is secondary.
Japan invaded China, expelled Mac from the Phillipeanes, lobbed shells off Seal Beach (south of LA), and of course blew the shit out of Pearl. If Japan isn't "capable," then no one is.
And that was the point. No one can invade the US. No one would even think of it, aside from the writers of Red Dawn. (and that of course turned out crappy for the Russians)
yarpos 4
errrr.....AR15, Kalashnikovs, 50 cals etc etc are not popguns....many of the US joe publics are extremely expert
regards, Steve
the older I get...the better I was
the older I get...the better I was
vpozzoli 0
Quote
Is there any military in the world with that capability?
'course there is. Otherwise why would you need MAD (mutual assured destruction) or even NATO for that matter?.
Vale
Then you should have said that in your initial post and not tried to make your point look better in retrospect by changing it.
Japan certainly had the capability to invade the US - amply demonstrated by their invasion of China. The fact that Yamamoto's quote even exists proves that they had the intention, as well.
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites