The World’s Largest Army… America’s Hunters!

Below is an an excerpt from an e-mail I received from my father. I would give credit to the blogger whose work it is (see update) but no link was included in the e-mail. I am pretty sure that the original blogger was primarily making an anti-gun control point and not a national defense point, but the national defense implications are clear to those of us with a non-interventionist bent. My thoughts below.

A blogger added up the deer license sales in just a handful of states and arrived at a striking conclusion:

There were over 600,000 hunters this season in the state of Wisconsin. Allow me to restate that number: Over the last several months, Wisconsin’s hunters became the eighth largest army in the world more men under arms than in Iran, more than France and Germany combined. These men deployed to the woods of a single American state, Wisconsin, to hunt with firearms, and no one was killed.

That number pales in comparison to the 750,000 who hunted the woods of Pennsylvania and also Michigan’s 700,000 hunters, all of whom have now returned home safely.

Toss in a quarter million hunters in West Virginia and it literally establishes that the hunters of those four states alone would comprise the largest army in the world. And then add in the total number of hunters in the other 46 states.

It’s millions more. The point? America will forever be safe from foreign invasion with that kind of home-grown firepower.

Hunting…it’s not just a way to fill the freezer; it’s a matter of national security.

That’s why all enemies, foreign and domestic, want to see us disarmed. This is a lot of food for thought, when we next have to consider gun control.

I FEEL GOOD THAT I HAVE AN ARMY OF MILLIONS WHO WOULD PROTECT OUR LAND AND I CERTAINLY DON’T WANT THE GOVERNMENT TAKING CONTROL OF OUR FIREARMS OUR RIGHT TO POSSE THEM.

For the sake of our freedom, don’t ever allow gun control or the confiscation of our guns.

For the sake of the argument, let’s say that not everyone who purchased a hunting license actually hunted although due to the expense involved I suspect that number is relatively small. Also let’s concede that not everyone of those license holders actually owns their own gun although I would expect that number to be more than balanced out by the number who own more than one gun. At any rate, I suspect that license sales are a fairly accurate rough estimate of gun owning hunters.

So my question to all the interventionist hysterics who babble about us praying to Mecca or our wives and daughters wearing Burqas if we don’t bomb far off Muslim countries is this: which one of those countries is going to invade and subdue us? What country are they so worried about invading us that they think we need to spend roughly half the world’s allotment on national “defense?” The interventionists’ lack of faith in their fellow Americans has always baffled me. Do they really believe all these red-blooded American hunters are just going to lay down their arms and take a knee towards Mecca at the first sign of trouble? What is more likely is that they haven’t even thought about it in these terms. They are just repeating fear mongering boilerplate.

Interventionism has never been about the actual defense of this country. It has always been about maintaining our exagerated military stance in the world. The Chicken Little interventionists can relax. The big bad Muslim boogie man ain’t coming to get you any time soon, and to the degree that Islam in America is a problem, it is an immigration issue, not a national defense issue.

The longer I have been a non-interventionist the more I have come to believe that even the obligatory “strong national defense” stance is counter productive. Strong enough to do what? Defend the homeland from invasion? We’ve got that covered. The whole rhetoric and debate takes for granted the current paradigm of America’s grossly disproportionate military position in the world. To shake this dynamic up I think us non-interventionists need to challenge the paradigm at a fundamental level. We should be having a debate about whether we even need a minimalist standing army at all or if we could get by with just a militia, not whether we need 11 aircraft carriers vs. 10.

Update (even before the first posting): I put “America’s hunters world’s largest army” into Yahoo to see if I could find the original blog post. This post from Liberty News online, attributed to anonymous, seems to be a likely culprit, although the original title was American Hunters.

 

delicious | digg | reddit | facebook | technorati | stumbleupon | chatintamil

20 thoughts on “The World’s Largest Army… America’s Hunters!

  1. Bruce

    I guess they’d claim that a bunch of .30-06′s don’t protect you from a Nuke-tipped ICBM.

    The massive spending on defense is clearly designed to maintain strong influence in international affairs, not out of the necessity to literally defend the homeland from conquest by another state.

  2. Matt Weber

    I wonder if anyone really thinks that the US is in danger of being conquered. Even GWB only talked about how the terrorists wanted to scare us and that if we gave in they would win.

    Interventionism, though, seems to me to be today mostly a way to justify using all those weapons we build.

  3. RedPhillips Post author

    Bruce, which Muslim country that they are always fretting about has nuked tipped ICBMs?

    Also, if it is necessary for the US to spend half the world’s defense budget to protect itself against phantom ICBM’s does that mean every other country in the world is nakedly exposed? Surely all those other countries that are allowing us to spend half are grossly ill prepared to defend themselves.

    “The massive spending on defense is clearly designed to maintain strong influence in international affairs, not out of the necessity to literally defend the homeland from conquest by another state.”

    Which is precisely my point, and which makes it not really about “defense.” Maybe we should rename it the “strong influence in international affairs” budget.

  4. Bruce

    Red, we’re in agreement. I think we spend way too much on “defense.” I work for the Military-Industrial-Congressional complex. The amount of waste is stunning.

  5. Feltan

    Red,

    We are largely in agreement on non-intervention. However, there is little nexus between political will and military power/preparedness. If our nation’s leaders intend to be aggressive overseas, it is a miscalculation to do so with an ill prepared military. And, unfortunately, history shows that trying to limit military power in no way constrains political leaders from being adventuresome.

    This is all laid out rather nicely in a book entitled “America’s First Battles, 1776 -1965.” The point that is reinforced in this book is that ill prepared US forces pay for their inexperience and poor preparation in blood – lots of it. Furthermore, political decisions to go to war rarely take into consideration the state of military preparedness. Virtually every conflict we have been in is a “come as you are” affair; sometimes we have done well, oftentimes not so much.

    It is alluring to think that an armed population is a significant deterrent to invasion. But a patriotic armed mob is not an Army (nor an Air Force or Navy), and its only application is the scenario when enemy troops are marching on U.S. soil. National interests can be damaged or destroyed long before we see enemy troops on our shore. Modern economies and a nation’s well being can be crippled by actions far less intrusive than an invasion. It is a good thing to have an armed population, but I see that as an application against domestic tyranny far more than deterring an external threat.

    Non-intervention, a topic on which we agree, is a political decision. It is a political decision that historically, and counter intuitively, completely decoupled from the amount of military spending and preparedness. While a vast armed populace will give someone pause, that someone should be the politicians that get us into unconstitutional and unnecessary foreign adventures.

    Regards,
    Feltan

  6. RedPhillips Post author

    Actually Feltan, I think you are mistaken. I think there is a close association between perceived military might and the willingness of the political leadership to use it. Everyone has heard the famous quote from Madeline Albright about (paraphrased) “What is the point of having this wonderful military if we can’t use it.”

    Prior to WWI we spent very little on defense. In a brief period of time prior to WWI our military spending increased exponentially facilitating our very unwise entry into WWI. Had we still been spending the small amount on defense that we spent a decade or so prior, I think it is safe to say we wouldn’t have meddled in WWI. I’ll look for a link to the actual numbers but they are stunning.

    I consider this my Field of Dreams theory of military capability. If you have it, you will use it.

  7. Feltan

    Red,

    It is a popular notion. I am not sufficiently full of myself to think there is nothing to it, but as I stated above American history tend to argue against it.

    For example, the saga of Task Force Smith in Korea circa 1950. We were completely unprepared for such a fight and entry into the Korean War, but that didn’t stop us from getting involved. The same can be said for the Revolutionary War, the Civil War and the Spanish-American War. Politicians made those decisions without regard to military preparedness.

    Only recent history in Iraq and Afghanistan suggests we are more likely to pull the trigger because we are ready to do so. However, after 9/11, I suspect we would have sent the local chapter of the Hell’s Angels into Afghanistan if that is all we had available to deploy.

    Regards,
    Feltan

  8. RedPhillips Post author

    Here is the link.

    http://conservativetimes.org/?p=5683

    Here is the relevant part.

    “There is nothing inherently or historically conservative about our national standing military. It was a Republican-led effort that ignored everything the American founders wrote about the dangers of standing armies and centralized the state militias into a national army, the outlawed state militias. Shortly after the Militia Act of 1903, in one ten year span before WWI, the military budget rose from $2 million to $53 million—a 2,650% budget increase. The whole program was carried out by Progressives which at that time dominated the Republican Party.” (There is a problem with the second sentence, but it is in the original.)

  9. RedPhillips Post author

    OK Feltan, so what’s the answer then? Do we have a big army just in case our leaders plunge us into a war? Or do we reduce the temptation by having a minimalist army?

  10. debra

    Let’s leave the foreign interventionist issue aside — as it relates to gun ownership and national security — and talk about real and imminent danger to our national well-being in the relentless attack on our Constitution coming at us from the left and from encroaching Sharia, working in tandem to subdue us.

    Who needs foreign invasion when all it takes is a little bit of patience, Gramsci-style, mixed with a population schooled over time to snuff out racism, intolerance, and discrimination at the slightest whiff. And yes, that includes “snuffing out” America’s hunters who DON’T buy into the lies of the left.

    I’d say that the red-American hunters of America understand the dangers of the approaching police state and are acting accordingly.

    When news stories about Police Captains who are stripped of their rank because they refuse to attend a non-work-related “meet and greet” at the invitation of the local Mosque because to do so violates his faith, when such stories and similar ones make the rounds, and all this added to the reality of TSA gropings, fortress-hard data centers in Utah, FEMA camps, the stated agenda of the radical left, the power of the leftist media to shape opinion, and so on, why any rational American would think that something evil this way comes; enemies domestic rather than foreign worry them, I’d say.

  11. Bruce

    Or at least half right. I’m not sure we should be using drones against other countries that we haven’t declared war on.

  12. Feltan

    Red,

    Well the answer to your question is more art than science, more opinion than fact.

    As I stated above, in my opinion, this is largely a political question. I don’t mind a large and robust military in the hands of leaders who don’t want to go poking around third world hell holes. Additionally, on the opposite side of the coin, an interventionist leader can get us in a world of trouble with very little in the way of military capability (our intervention in Vietnam started off with just a handful of advisors). So, the focus must be on the civilian leadership. As a veteran myself, I can attest that most people in the military do not want to be deployed to hostile environments.

    Also, to promote non-intervention, I believe the vast majority of troops stationed overseas need to be brought back to States. I am puzzled why we still have troops stationed in Europe under NATO auspices. Why? While I maintain that the size of the military is of secondary importance with regard to foreign interventions, the stationing of troops on foreign soil is, to me, a much larger risk – forward deployed combat power leaves a lot of room for mistakes or mischief.

    Regards,
    Feltan

  13. RedPhillips Post author

    “Considering that the majority largely exists as a job corps for recipients who would otherwise be on welfare”

    I do think that the military and the defense industry has become a jobs program of sorts, and I do think that the hardest part about a massive scale back of our military would be the economic displacement it would cause, but I don’t think your assessment re welfare is correct. The military actually screens for intelligence, aptitude, HS graduation, lack of criminal record, lack of drug use, etc. so people in the military are probably less likely to be on welfare in the real world than are people who fail to qualify.

  14. RonL

    Those hunters can do nothing about a container ship or jetliner used as a delivery vehicle for a nuke. They can do nothing to stop the spread of Islam and its handmaiden Jihad in America, now that enough people have settled and enough have converted.
    Stopping immigration makes a lot more sense than anything we are now doing in Iraq or Afghanistan. It is a necessary step, but just one step.

  15. RedPhillips Post author

    Ron, we don’t check every container that comes into this country as it is. My understanding is that this would be too difficult, and would bring commerce to a screeching halt. And to the degree that we do, it is not a military function as far as I know.

    I really have never understood the whole military interventionist plan from the start. It seems to me that the underlying assumption of many interventionists is that one billion + Muslims need to be beaten into abject submission. We have neither the will nor the means to do that. So I don’t understand what interventions like Iraq and Afghanistan are supposed to accomplish. How did Iraq make nukes in container ships less likely?

  16. Servando Gonzalez

    Good article, but it misses and important point.

    This country will never be invaded by a foreign enemy because already has been invaded and is under the control of an anti-American domestic enemy. This is an enemy composed of Wall Street bankers, oil magnates and CEOs of transnational corporations and their minions, with headquearters at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in Manhattan. Currently, America is a conquered country.

    The author is making the same mistake as Senator McCartyhy did some time ago. When he found out that the State Department was full of traitors, he logically concluded that they were secret agents of international communism. He was wrong. All of them were secret CFR agents.

    Currently, after the implosion of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War they artificially created, the same CFR agents created the new enemy: the War on Terror, that is, Muslim terrorists under their control.

    As Tsun Tzu wisely advised, only the ones who know their enemy like themselves will win all the battles. If we keep fighting the mirage of Muslim terrorism, the battle for America’s soul is lost. And it is lost because this is not a conventional war, with battle tanks, planes, and plenty of guns in the hands of hunters, but a battle in the people’s minds, a PsyWar.

    Finally, I have to confess that I am scared. And it is not because of this domestic enemy, but because Americans have been brainwashed to believe that just by changing the puppet in the White House everything will be okay.

    I sincerely hope I am wrong about this, because, as president Reagan said, America is the last line of defense.

    Servando Gonzalez, author of “Psychological Warfare and the New World Order: The Secret War Against the American People.”

  17. Nathan Clark

    You fools! It’s our stinking government we need protection from. That’s what the 2nd amendment is for!

  18. Pingback: The World’s Largest Army… America’s Hunters! | Conservative Heritage Times | On the Edge Again

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>