Gun Control

[THORNHEART]

your a moron.

when people give up the freedom to police and protect themselves they put that power solely in the hands of the government and criminals.

all government eventually becomes corrupt and all criminals are corrupt already. think before you speak.

[natty dread]

your a moron.

[jefjef]

The 2nd amendment was written a long, long time ago when such measures would seem pretty normal throughout the world. IMO it's no longer relevant.

I think in the US it's really been taken to a strange extreme - there's not really any need for the majority of people to own a gun. Think the UK has it about right ... you can own a gun but very few people do as there's enough controls in place that it ensures that, as a rule, the only people who have guns are the ones who need one for their hobby/work AND aren't likely to shoot people.

A few get through the net, of course - gangsters and whatnot - but they're much easier to deal with as owning a gun in their case is illegal, so the police can prosecute them.

Don't have a problem with people owning guns as of such, but it's not something that I'd want and I'd not want to live somewhere like the US, where it's considered normal to own one.

Reality check.

Germany had private ownership of arms. When Adolf and the Nazi's took power one of the very first things they did was pass gun laws that required Gov permission via licenses to register and own a firearm. Surprise surprise that was used to ban and confiscate said firearms and disarm the citizenry. The First real US gun laws to hit the books are almost a mirror of the Nazi firearms registration laws.

It's incredible that people actually believe that those in power will always protect them from all enemies. Including their own government.

It's MUCH easier to control and oppress an unarmed population and governments know it. Heck even Japan disarmed and outlawed samurai's because they were a threat to the emperors power.

But yes. An unarmed citizenry is an easily conquered people.

[jonesthecurl]

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass."

Admiral Yamamoto

Yes we have seen the quote, however its authenticity is questionable. Admiral Yamamoto also didn't have as much say over strategic decisions as you might think. In fact He consistently argued against war with the USA. Which might cause us to come to the conclusion that he wasn't the one deciding to go to war.

Of course he wasn't the one that decided to go to war. He was the one to command the Perl Harbor attack. He was following orders. Yes he did argue against going to war. He knew they could only win a few early victories.

So using his quote to justify why Japan didn't invade the mainland doesn't make much sense does it? seeing as he didn't have a large say in the greater strategy of the Japanese empire.

That quote was a high ranked enemies educated opinion of war with the US. Adolf didn't want the US in the war either.

Again, http://factcheck.org/2009/05/misquoting-yamamoto/

We contacted Donald M. Goldstein, sometimes called "the dean of Pearl Harbor historians." Among his many books are "The Pearl Harbor Papers: Inside the Japanese Plans" (1993) and the best-selling "At Dawn We Slept: The Untold Story of Pearl Harbor" (1981). He is a professor at the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Pittsburgh. He told us the supposed Yamamoto quote is "bogus."

We make no argument either for or against gun ownership. But we do object to fabricating quotes and passing them off as historical fact.

[Snorri1234]

[Snorri1234]

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass."

Admiral Yamamoto

oh thats fake! some internet dude said so! shit, he wasnt even an admiral! My college professor probably started the lie, yeah and the History channel picked up on it. Hell of a conspiracy, it even made it into thethe history books! hell, how do we even really know WW2 happened at all? was it all a hoax???

Can you cite a credible source that proves the quote is real and not made up?

[Frigidus]

But yes. An uninformed citizenry is an easily conquered people.

Fixed. A country in which people care about the actions of their government and in which information flows freely can not be oppressed. An armed population can easily be oppressed if none of them give a shit.

[Frigidus]

Yamamoto appears to be Japan's Mark Twain. Another quote attributed to him that he didn't say: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isoroku_Ya ... iant_quote

[Snorri1234]

So you believe the reason japan never invaded the US mainland was because US civilians had guns and not the fact the it was already involved in a large land war in Asia?

Obviously. People having guns (and not even most people, gunownership in the strategic places like major cities isn't that big) IS FAR MORE IMPORTANT THAN REAL WARS YOU ARE FIGHTING!

[Koesen]

A country in which people care about the actions of their government and in which information flows freely can not be oppressed. An armed population can easily be oppressed if none of them give a shit.

Regardless of your opinion on gun control, this is true. There is a reason why the first thing every dictatorship does right after seizing power is to seize control of the public information channels. You don't have to defeat 300 million gun toting citizens if you can convince them everybody who disagrees with you is a traitor.

Gun ownership is neither about safety nor about freedom, cause compared to Europe Americans are considerably more likely to be murdered or jailed. And those who defend loose gun laws in the name of freedom are usually the first to accept it if their government listens to their phonecalls and reads their mail and locks people up without a trial.

Americans have guns because they want to. End of story. And that's fine, because it's their own country and they make their own rules.

[Baron Von PWN]

So you believe the reason japan never invaded the US mainland was because US civilians had guns and not the fact the it was already involved in a large land war in Asia?

Obviously. People having guns (and not even most people, gunownership in the strategic places like major cities isn't that big) IS FAR MORE IMPORTANT THAN REAL WARS YOU ARE FIGHTING!

I know! it was pretty silly of me, obviously the Japanese were just ready to send their supper secret samurai army at the US but then heard some Americans own guns and felt it would just be too hard.

[Phatscotty]

So you believe the reason japan never invaded the US mainland was because US civilians had guns and not the fact the it was already involved in a large land war in Asia?

Obviously. People having guns (and not even most people, gunownership in the strategic places like major cities isn't that big) IS FAR MORE IMPORTANT THAN REAL WARS YOU ARE FIGHTING!

I know! it was pretty silly of me, obviously the Japanese were just ready to send their supper secret samurai army at the US but then heard some Americans own guns and felt it would just be too hard.

its still funny to pretend that gun ownership had 0 to do with it

[Baron Von PWN]

So you believe the reason japan never invaded the US mainland was because US civilians had guns and not the fact the it was already involved in a large land war in Asia?

Obviously. People having guns (and not even most people, gunownership in the strategic places like major cities isn't that big) IS FAR MORE IMPORTANT THAN REAL WARS YOU ARE FIGHTING!

I know! it was pretty silly of me, obviously the Japanese were just ready to send their supper secret samurai army at the US but then heard some Americans own guns and felt it would just be too hard.

its still funny to pretend that gun ownership had 0 to do with it

Really it didn't. In order to prove that american gun ownership had any influence on Japanese strategic planing you would need more than a single questionable quote. Seriously what evidence do you have other than that single quotation? Is there any academic work suggesting it played any role in Japanese planning? Archives? Quotes from other Japanese officials? A book? something? anything?.

Using a single possibly fake quote as the reason for a lack of a Japanese invasion of the US is just so... stupid and ignores the real reasons as to why Japan didn't invade mainland US (it couldn't due to other strategic considerations).

[Phatscotty]

So you believe the reason japan never invaded the US mainland was because US civilians had guns and not the fact the it was already involved in a large land war in Asia?

Obviously. People having guns (and not even most people, gunownership in the strategic places like major cities isn't that big) IS FAR MORE IMPORTANT THAN REAL WARS YOU ARE FIGHTING!

I know! it was pretty silly of me, obviously the Japanese were just ready to send their supper secret samurai army at the US but then heard some Americans own guns and felt it would just be too hard.

its still funny to pretend that gun ownership had 0 to do with it

Really it didn't. In order to prove that american gun ownership had any influence on Japanese strategic planing you would need more than a single questionable quote. Seriously what evidence do you have other than that single quotation? Is there any academic work suggesting it played any role in Japanese planning? Archives? Quotes from other Japanese officials? A book? something? anything?

Using a single possibly fake quote as the reason for a lack of a Japanese invasion of the US is just so... stupid and ignores the real reasons as to why Japan didn't invade mainland US (it couldn't due to other strategic considerations).

well many others have provided many other pros to support my position, i think they are all great, and at least account for 1% of the reasoning. I mean really, aren't you completely disregarding the high possibility that it occured to hitler and the emperor that they could never conquer or defeat the united states, and that gun ownership was at least mentioned in that discussion? I mean even if we had 100% gun control, still, it would be mentioned (probably as a green light to invade USA).

Another way to say the same thing....don't you think, that if Germany had similar gun laws and a long generational gun ownership history and production (to that of the USA) that maybe the allies would have thought twice, or perhaps created a different strategy? around certain cities instead of through them? even one city? Maybe your dear Hitler might have been victorious? no?

[Baron Von PWN]

well many others have provided many other pros to support my position, i think they are all great, and at least account for 1% of the reasoning

however your original quote was something along the lines that the second amendment was fundamental for allied victory. 1%(I'm feeling generous) of the reasoning as to why japan didn't invade doesn't sound very fundamental to the course of the entire war.

[Phatscotty]

well many others have provided many other pros to support my position, i think they are all great, and at least account for 1% of the reasoning

however your original quote was something along the lines that the second amendment was fundamental for allied victory. 1%(I'm feeling generous) of the reasoning as to why japan didn't invade doesn't sound very fundamental to the course of the entire war.

I only said 1%, because that is all that I need to go against your rebuttal of 0%.


well many others have provided many other pros to support my position, i think they are all great, and at least account for 1% of the reasoning. I mean really, aren't you completely disregarding the high possibility that it occured to hitler and the emperor that they could never conquer or defeat the united states, and that gun ownership was at least mentioned in that discussion? I mean even if we had 100% gun control, still, it would be mentioned (probably as a green light to invade USA).

Another way to say the same thing....don't you think, that if Germany had similar gun laws and a long generational gun ownership history and production (to that of the USA) that maybe the allies would have thought twice, or perhaps created a different strategy? around certain cities instead of through them? even one city? Maybe your dear Hitler might have been victorious? no?

[BigBallinStalin]

well many others have provided many other pros to support my position, i think they are all great, and at least account for 1% of the reasoning

however your original quote was something along the lines that the second amendment was fundamental for allied victory. 1%(I'm feeling generous) of the reasoning as to why japan didn't invade doesn't sound very fundamental to the course of the entire war.

I only said 1%, because that is all that I need to go against your rebuttal of 0%.


well many others have provided many other pros to support my position, i think they are all great, and at least account for 1% of the reasoning. I mean really, aren't you completely disregarding the high possibility that it occured to hitler and the emperor that they could never conquer or defeat the united states, and that gun ownership was at least mentioned in that discussion? I mean even if we had 100% gun control, still, it would be mentioned (probably as a green light to invade USA).

Another way to say the same thing....don't you think, that if Germany had similar gun laws and a long generational gun ownership history and production (to that of the USA) that maybe the allies would have thought twice, or perhaps created a different strategy? around certain cities instead of through them? even one city? Maybe your dear Hitler might have been victorious? no?

American gun control laws weren't a very decisive figure in Japanese planning to invade the American mainland.

1) Industrial might/capacity:

Japan's industry was not as modern nor was it as self-sufficient as the United States. In fact, they had to import a lot of spare parts from the US if something of theirs broke. Also, the sheer size of the US "industrial capacity" compared to Japan's was an immense factor. The Japanese could only do so much with such limited industrial power.


2) Ongoing wars

The Japanese were bogged down in a war against most of mainland China and in South East Asia. Not only that, they also had to deal with the later possibility of an invasion from Russia.


3) Navies

The Japanese failed to sink those 3 American aircraft carriers. Had they done so, that would've bought them some time, but still they would be up against America's immensely larger capability to keep pumping out more navy vessels. The Japanese couldn't compete in a long-term race with the US.


4) Manpower
Compared to the US's, Japans was minimal. Had they somehow destroyed all fleets, how many men could they devote to invading the US? 1 million? That's not nearly enough, they couldn't pull it off.


The gun control laws didn't keep the US safe. Its industrial strength, navies, and geographic advantages kept it safe. That civilian gun-toting scenario is a minuscule factor compared to the rest.

[jaimito101]

well many others have provided many other pros to support my position, i think they are all great, and at least account for 1% of the reasoning

however your original quote was something along the lines that the second amendment was fundamental for allied victory. 1%(I'm feeling generous) of the reasoning as to why japan didn't invade doesn't sound very fundamental to the course of the entire war.

I only said 1%, because that is all that I need to go against your rebuttal of 0%.


well many others have provided many other pros to support my position, i think they are all great, and at least account for 1% of the reasoning. I mean really, aren't you completely disregarding the high possibility that it occured to hitler and the emperor that they could never conquer or defeat the united states, and that gun ownership was at least mentioned in that discussion? I mean even if we had 100% gun control, still, it would be mentioned (probably as a green light to invade USA).

Another way to say the same thing....don't you think, that if Germany had similar gun laws and a long generational gun ownership history and production (to that of the USA) that maybe the allies would have thought twice, or perhaps created a different strategy? around certain cities instead of through them? even one city? Maybe your dear Hitler might have been victorious? no?

American gun control laws weren't a very decisive figure in Japanese planning to invade the American mainland.

1) Industrial might/capacity:

Japan's industry was not as modern nor was it as self-sufficient as the United States. In fact, they had to import a lot of spare parts from the US if something of theirs broke. Also, the sheer size of the US "industrial capacity" compared to Japan's was an immense factor. The Japanese could only do so much with such limited industrial power.


2) Ongoing wars

The Japanese were bogged down in a war against most of mainland China and in South East Asia. Not only that, they also had to deal with the later possibility of an invasion from Russia.


3) Navies

The Japanese failed to sink those 3 American aircraft carriers. Had they done so, that would've bought them some time, but still they would be up against America's immensely larger capability to keep pumping out more navy vessels. The Japanese couldn't compete in a long-term race with the US.


4) Manpower
Compared to the US's, Japans was minimal. Had they somehow destroyed all fleets, how many men could they devote to invading the US? 1 million? That's not nearly enough, they couldn't pull it off.


The gun control laws didn't keep the US safe. Its industrial strength, navies, and geographic advantages kept it safe. That civilian gun-toting scenario is a minuscule factor compared to the rest.

Amen.

the attack on pearl harbour was to let the US stay out of the war, as Japan fully understood that if US got involved in the war fully, Japan would have no chance, they where spread to thin. At no point did a full invasion come into serious consideration.

So enjoy your guns, your highschool shootings, increased suicide rate, increased murders, and accidental gun deaths, but please dont put in some crappy excuse that it adds to your national security.

Actually following your line of thought, you could also state that it decreases your national security in times of crisis, disagreements with the governing might, and riots. wich at these point, seem more likely than being invaded by... the japaneese.

[Baron Von PWN]

well many others have provided many other pros to support my position, i think they are all great, and at least account for 1% of the reasoning

however your original quote was something along the lines that the second amendment was fundamental for allied victory. 1%(I'm feeling generous) of the reasoning as to why japan didn't invade doesn't sound very fundamental to the course of the entire war.

I only said 1%, because that is all that I need to go against your rebuttal of 0%.


well many others have provided many other pros to support my position, i think they are all great, and at least account for 1% of the reasoning. I mean really, aren't you completely disregarding the high possibility that it occured to hitler and the emperor that they could never conquer or defeat the united states, and that gun ownership was at least mentioned in that discussion? I mean even if we had 100% gun control, still, it would be mentioned (probably as a green light to invade USA).

Another way to say the same thing....don't you think, that if Germany had similar gun laws and a long generational gun ownership history and production (to that of the USA) that maybe the allies would have thought twice, or perhaps created a different strategy? around certain cities instead of through them? even one city? Maybe your dear Hitler might have been victorious? no?

No because your position is idiotic, all the other factors myself and other people have stated clearly show that american gun ownership would be least of the concerns for the Japanese.

on your second point, again no. Go around cities? really? you think they would let the Germans just keep a city because people inside might have guns? seriously this is just the dumbest thing I've ever heard in a discussion about WW2 .So our armies assault the heavily fortified German beaches,push back the German armies and civilian gun ownership is supposed to be the deciding factor? Ever hear about the battle for Berlin? the Germans basically just gave everyone who could hold a gun a gun. Did the soviets give a shit? no, they just attacked the city as they normally would and surprise surprise they won. I don't know why you think a civilian with a gun would somehow be more effective than a trained army.



A bunch of Generals are discussing an invasion

General A " ok, we need to take this city. We'll have to worry about the tank division that supposed to be in the area, as well as possible air suppport."
General B "we also have reports that there are several infantry divisions dug in around the city"
General A "it'l be tough but our boys'll do the job"
Private runs in out of breath "SIR! we've just discovered they have guns!!"
General A" my god! This changes everything!"
General B "We can't possibly win they have guns, we're totally fucked"
General A "let's just go around the city"
General B "good decision someone could've been killed!"

[Koesen]

Regardless of whether you believe everyone should be free to own guns, how can anyone seriously defend the idea that foreign powers that are willing to take on the American army, are afraid to face American citizens? Surely the army is considerably more powerful?

This is like saying someone who wrestles crocodiles chickens out at the sight of a newt.

[Frigidus]

Regardless of whether you believe everyone should be free to own guns, how can anyone seriously defend the idea that foreign powers that are willing to take on the American army, are afraid to face American citizens? Surely the army is considerably more powerful?

This is like saying someone who wrestles crocodiles chickens out at the sight of a newt.

To be fair, the same people also feel that they could take on the U.S. Army because they have guns. They actually state that as a reason for having guns.

[BigBallinStalin]

Regardless of whether you believe everyone should be free to own guns, how can anyone seriously defend the idea that foreign powers that are willing to take on the American army, are afraid to face American citizens? Surely the army is considerably more powerful?

This is like saying someone who wrestles crocodiles chickens out at the sight of a newt.

How big is this newt?

[jonesthecurl]

Regardless of whether you believe everyone should be free to own guns, how can anyone seriously defend the idea that foreign powers that are willing to take on the American army, are afraid to face American citizens? Surely the army is considerably more powerful?

This is like saying someone who wrestles crocodiles chickens out at the sight of a newt.

How big is this newt?

see this topic...http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 8&t=108523

[Phatscotty]

Regardless of whether you believe everyone should be free to own guns, how can anyone seriously defend the idea that foreign powers that are willing to take on the American army, are afraid to face American citizens? Surely the army is considerably more powerful?

This is like saying someone who wrestles crocodiles chickens out at the sight of a newt.

I do not think the fear levels of the average Joe soldier is the issue. The issue remains that invasion would not be wise, with high chance of failure/too heavy a risk/low rate of maintainability. The second amendment gets part of the credit. I don't even care how much, the credit is there.

[rockfist]

Regardless of whether you believe everyone should be free to own guns, how can anyone seriously defend the idea that foreign powers that are willing to take on the American army, are afraid to face American citizens? Surely the army is considerably more powerful?

This is like saying someone who wrestles crocodiles chickens out at the sight of a newt.

I do not think the fear levels of the average Joe soldier is the issue. The issue remains that invasion would not be wise, with high chance of failure/too heavy a risk/low rate of maintainability. The second amendment gets part of the credit. I don't even care how much, the credit is there.

I think that the idea is after defeating the Navy and Army, which they would have to do to invade, they would then have had to occupy a country where they did not resemble the 99% of the citizens, against what could have been a well armed insurgency. That would take massive numbers of troops to maintain that occupied territory, which as a smaller nation than the US they did not have.