Ive looked and looked and I cannot find a single reliable reason to think the Japanese didnt invade the US due to "Americans being armed". It seems to be complete bull**** made up by someone like Hendricks for consumption by other Hendricks to pat themselves on the back about their gun ownership.

Interestingly I can find many many strategically sound reasons why they didnt invade sourced much better including the strain their forces were already under while engaged in China and the inadequacy of the Japanese fleet to hold superiority in the Pacific if the American Atlantic fleet were re-organised to retake it, let alone the logistical difficulty of landing a sizeable enough force. Its not like the crazies who flew planes laden with explosives into ships as a suicide weapon and those that ordered the tactic were all that worried about the casualties by the end of the war.

The closest I can get are chain emails sourcing it to an unnamed Japanese general 15 years after VJ day. There are seemingly zero sources that even name the general let alone sources that offer a primary source such as a book they wrote or a newspaper article from the time etc.

The guns aren't as available in the US. As I said, they are mostly taken apart and they come without ammunition. And yes, I agree, the other factors play a much bigger role than the guns per se. But that doesn't mean that guns do not have an influence.

"Has been going on forever, will go on forever" is simply not an argument. First of all, a gun is a force multiplier. It's a tough thing to kill 25 children with a knife, it's a lot easier with a gun. I can walk into a room with 5 big guys and shoot them all, quite a different story if I only have a knife or a baseball bat.

Taking away the instrument of a crime can be successful. For example, I think it was during the 80ies, they changed the gas pipes in England so they could no longer be used for suicide. Just found the study, here's the abstract:

"Between 1963 and 1975 the annual number of suicides in England and Wales showed a sudden, unexpected decline from 5,714 to 3,693 at a time when suicide continued to increase in most other European countries. This appears to be the result of the progressive removal of carbon monoxide from the public gas supply. Accounting for more than 40 percent of suicides in 1963, suicide by domestic gas was all but eliminated by 1975. Few of those prevented from using gas appear to have found some other way of killing themselves. These findings suggest that suicide is an intentional act designed to bring an end to deep, though sometimes transient, despair, chosen when moral restraints against the behavior are weakened and when the person has ready access to a means of death that is neither too difficult nor repugnant. This view of suicide has implications for its prevention and, by analogy, for the prevention of crime. That blocking opportunities, even for deeply motivated acts, does not inevitably result in displacement has not been so clearly shown before, and the demonstration considerably strengthens the case for opportunity-reducing or "situational" means of crime control. "

So you see, making guns less available could lead to less crime and fewer deaths. People that wanted to kill themselves (a pretty strong urge, I guess) did so in fewer numbers because their gas system at home was changed. Imagine what it would do if Johnny's gun wasn't available for him to shoot his mother.

Yup, and I'm fine with all of that.

Listen, the bottom line is this: First of all your wondrous armed rebels had their chance to overthrow the government over real issues and with a seriously armed and organized force once and they LOST! Secondly, any rational person should be freaking happy they lost because they were fighting for the freaking right to own slaves, ffs! Thirdly, and most importantly, the only time in US history that a President actually was unseated it wasn't done with guns and tanks, it was done only with the simple stroke of a pen. The notion of needing an armed citizenry to oversee a government made up of essentially your neighbors is a right-wing fantasy.

The Federalist papers are not the Constitution and you can't assume the thoughts of some framers extend to all.

It's far more likely that the second amendment provided for a right to bear arms to protect against a probable English invasion and as a protection against Native American and slave insurrections (AKA militia purposes).

A pretty bad decision, imo. Redefine "Militia" as "everybody" ????? Profit.

If a "revolution"is to succeed in the U.S., it would definitely need the support of a significant portion of the military. Since they already have weapons, the rednecks with AR-15s are superfluous.

Please stop with this meme, because your knowledge of military history is as bad as your knowledge of tactics. Japan was never planning on invading the US, that had nothing to do with the war. They wanted to control the Asia-Pacific, not North America.

I can't believe people are actually using that argument. People have some weird fantasy that they would all be Wolverines and would be able to stop the army. In reality, their AR-15s would be completely useless against tanks, planes, etc and they would all be slaughtered.

The president isn't the only government homie, and guns have been used many, many times to fight the gov as documented itt.

Which has been successful more often, guns, or the use of the laws and the courts?

I'd also love to see a list of the 'many, many times' the gov has been fought with guns.

Yes, guns are used all the time to fight against the government. That's a problem because the vast vast majority of people who use them in that way are crazy/stupid.

Somewhere around 150 cops a year are killed in the line of duty. I'd guess most by guns.

Courts aren't really an option when facing a lynch mob with police officers in it.

A list of civil rights era defenses has been posted twice already itt. A wiki article you should consider:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deacons...se_and_Justice

Feel free to educate yourself.

lol

They were probably trying to put people in concentration camps, so they deserved it.

Who taught you history? After Nixon lost his SC case, it wasnt untill Leon Jaworski showed up with a sack full of tools and a Big Mac that Nixon decided to comply with the subpoena.

Millions also love doing Meth, should we allow that to continue?

Yes. Definitely. Coke and heroin too.

Things anti-gun thugs don't know about:

LAPD
NYPD
Afghanistan
Vietnam
etc

No, we should take a bunch of guns and stop them.

Sorry, which caliber of firearm did Jaworski use to force Nixon to comply?

Thmubsup

Irony is unbelievable in that post

How about letting untrained or unlicensed people fly jetliners?

This really does sound more like an onion article than reality

http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/2043869...#axzz2GTE513JF

Basically in wake of the 2nd subway push related murders in the last few months, Mayor Bloomberg wants people to keep them in perspective as isolated tragic incidents, after all millions of people ride the subway every year so it's clearly very safe. It's just a case of a couple mentally ill people acting crazy.

Pro gun people are ironic, fearing the government who gave them their guns in the first place. lol

The government gives everyone their guns. Ok dude, might be time to take a break.