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.