If only the people took as much interest in their other rights... if it comes down to people vs. government in the US, I've come to believe in the last few years that people's only hope is that the army stands with them.

 

I think America has a paranoia with being attacked when it really has never been at war on home territory.

Repeating myself again: Japan did not invade California during WW II because they believed the populace was armed. (and they were right)

Have you read this thread?

 

But I do believe that many of weapons that can be bought legally in the US should be banned as they do not pertain to self-defence or hunting.

I am trying to think of a weapon such as that, but, despite a lot of years using guns, knives, hatchets, slingshots, arrows, clubs, and more, I cannot think of a single one that has no application to either self-defense or hunting. Some are certainly better than others, but they all "pertain."

 

If only the people took as much interest in their other rights... if it comes down to people vs. government in the US, I've come to believe in the last few years that people's only hope is that the army stands with them.

I don't remember the tactical term; It's akin to "mutually assured destruction", but there's a point at which tacticians decide that the fight isn't worth it. If they knew that they would have to kill 1 out of every 2 Americans if we were to rise up against the government, they may just lay down their weapons and hand over the country. Or they may not. Especially if being led by a nutcase the likes of Hitler. I tend to agree with you, if our military were against us, it would seem almost an impossible battle. I hope it never comes to that. But remember, the military is made up of Americans, mostly American patriots, and I doubt that all of them would follow orders to attack their countrymen.

I am trying to think of a weapon such as that, but, despite a lot of years using guns, knives, hatchets, slingshots, arrows, clubs, and more, I cannot think of a single one that has no application to either self-defense or hunting. Some are certainly better than others, but they all "pertain."

I can think of a few that he might be referring to; .50cal barrett sniper rifle, chain guns (any automatic weapon really), large caliber (howitzers & the like). It's hard to justify the necessity of things like this for hunting or home defense, but I refuse to engage the conversation from that angle. We do not need to justify ownership of ANY gun for ANY purpose. We are Americans, and as said many times, our ownership of guns is not (or should not be) contingent on their use or purpose. Actually, I think that we should be allowed to have anything the military has, for no other reason than "I want it", or if you're candid, "because I don't trust the government".

 

When I think about going into a gun store and saying, "I wouldn't want to buy anything more lethal than what the police use against the citizens" it gives me a chuckle. Even the cop in Kenneth City has stuff that honest citizens can not have.

 

Repeating myself again: Japan did not invade California during WW II because they believed the populace was armed. (and they were right)

Have you read this thread?

I did, but I didn't quite understand it.

Strantor, thanks for understanding what I was trying to say. I see your point and its validity. I wish that we could all hold all our governments to account and actually know in full what forces it can use against its citizens. Looking back at past conflicts (French and Russian Revolutions are what I know), there was a great conflict between serving the King (the concept of personal loyalty) and doing what is morally right, hopefully these issues are more clear now, with one problem uncertain - besides the army which really serves the country and not the government, the government does employ thousands of private contractors to fight specifically for them. I do find that to be an issue.

 

We set up Japan to invade us at Pearl Harbor as an excuse to join the allies and get into WWII. Essencially we went to japan and cut off all the oil supplies for no reason at all. That by honor made then attack us to get oil from the axis. They were a fall guy. Also they couldn't invade CA because their carriers and navy would have to leave to far from their own waters. They barely made it to HA much less CA.

 

Oh, that clears up why Japan didn't invade California. I guess it wasn't the threat of hundreds of thousands of armed citizens.

 

Thanks for your replies. Wanted to know what's on your minds

No, the society did not change, guns did, and we are the worse off for it. That is what I meant by a possibility of lowering chances of mass murder in 2 minutes - cannot kill 12 people with a 2 barrel shot-gun.

If banning them would prevent them from being used, then why do many cities and states that banned them not seen the always promised reductions in crime, including crimes involving semi-automatic weapons? Why do we have any crime at all involving fully-automatic weapons when those have been effectively banned since 1934?

I am not disputing the right of an individual to defend him/herself. But I do believe that many of weapons that can be bought legally in the US should be banned as they do not pertain to self-defence or hunting.

And that is a position that is at fundamental odds with the founding principles and the Bill of Rights. People keep trying to insist that the 2nd Amendment is only for the purpose of protecting hunting rights or personal self-defense. It isn't. So banning guns for anything other than those purposes fundamentally means banning them for the very purposes that the 2nd Amendment was written for. Now, you may think that the Bill of Rights is outdated, but it is still (supposedly) the framework for our system of laws, so you first need to do away with that obstacle.

At a risk of offending some-one, I think America has a paranoia with being attacked when it really has never been at war on home territory.

While I will concede the intent of your point, I seem to recall Tony Blair apologizing on behalf of Great Britain for occupying Washington, D.C. and burning many of the public buildings, including the Capitol and the White House. BTW - I thought they he did it was, for lack of the right word, classy.

But the point is largely without relevance, in my opinion. Just because, for whatever combination of reasons, you have been fortunate not to suffer attacks and tyranny and oppression to the degree that so many others have, does that mean that you should assume that it could never happen to you?

Furthermore, it's not paranoia of being attacked from outside that is the driving principle behind the philosophy. Now, you may still believe it is unjustified paranoia to be so concerned about our own government turning tyrannical, but at least get the focus of the paranoia straight.

My grandfather was a hunter, so I can only accept guns for hunting, anything else crosses the border with me.

This is the kind of rationale that we have been talking about, the "I don't see why you need therefore you shouldn't have it" mentality. It would be like me saying that my grandfather was a cross-country skier so I can only accept skies for going cross-country, anything else, especially these skies that let you go downhill at reckless speeds and result in injury and death when people run into trees or other innocent people, crosses the border with me. Who needs them? They should be banned.

I've lived in large violent cities and never feared for my life or felt the need to carry a gun, but may be I am naive.

Neither do most people. The fraction of people that have carry permits is tiny and the fraction of people that have permits that actually carry is almost as small.

 

Oh, that clears up why Japan didn't invade California. I guess it wasn't the threat of hundreds of thousands of armed citizens.

Most certainly not!

How is an agressor supposed to go offensive if he cannot/does not have the logistics to support his operation?

In this case, the Japanese would've had no troubles about landing in California due to an armed population. Their buddies, the Germans held most of Europe whilst being attacked by resistance groups. They did this by destroying any town where troops were attacked.

What makes you think that the Japanese wouldn't just bomb a town or city into submission? If anything, the Japanese were better equipped to do this, as they had heavy bombers, whereas the Germans had light bombers for Blitzkrieg - which is why they lost other battles such as the Battle of Britain.

No, the real reason the Japanese didn't invade was the logistics. Take a look at the distance between Japan and the west coast.

About 5'000 miles!

How on earth would a task force be able to travel that kind of distance - and back again (presuming this was a first strike, and they hadn't secured any ports)?

You might argue, ah- but the allies managed it the other way!

True, but circumstances were very different. The allies had neighbouring countries to support, such as Australia, parts of China, Phillippines etc. A one way trip, refuel here and then go on to attack Japan. The Japanese didn't have this advantage, and so it was almost impossible for them to invade the US.

One has to remember that the greatest single factor in warfare is logistics.

It doesn't matter who has the biggest/most battleships/aircraft/tanks, if you can't get fuel to them. Or ammunition. Or food for the troops.

How long would you be prepared to fight, if you didn't have food?

I believe it is a farce to think that the population could've held off the Japanese if they had the means to attack. As I mentioned earlier, there's not much you can do against several squadrons of heavy bombers.

The fact of the matter is that the Japanese made a huge error when they attacked Pearl harbour. If the US's aircraft carriers had been there, then yes, it would be entirely feasible that they would continue their attack.

But history decided differently, and so they got caught up in a conflict they couldn't win.

Oil and fuel was the factors which won the allies the war, both in the pacific and in Europe. Once the Germans couldn't hold Stalingrad (and the oil fields beyond), they had almost no means to fuel their war machine as oil fields had been lost in Lybia during El Alamein. Similarly, the Japanese had no means to refuel and keep their fleet mobile which the allies could.

In the end history has chosen this route for us, and perhaps we should be grateful that it has.

 

Yikes! One sarcastic response proves the opposite of my position.
Everybody...turn in your guns (including you criminals!). They have no deterrent value.

 

Sarcasm isn't clear on the internet.

I'm not saying they have no deterrent value, just that the Japanese wouldn't have thought it a bigger problem than the other armed countries they had occuppied, fighting against trained forces.

As someone already said, logistics were the reason.

The US is/has always been in a very strong position. Being and entire continent is kinda the ultimate form of island defense.

We had a massive advantage being a few miles from France, what sort of advantage do you have being 5'000 miles from anywhere?


And I'm not saying everyone should turn in their guns? As I said earlier they are tools for a job, but you wouldn't find someone playing around with a drill.

 

You don't have kids, do ya? You have to keep an eye on the buggers.

I will disagree on a minor point, the Japanese were not fighting from Japan. They had a lot of islands between here and there. They were hoping to dissuade the US from getting in the war by removing our offensive capabilities, but in this they severely misjudged the USA (a common enough mistake, Saddam made the same blunder).

They would have made the war last longer, but I suspect we would have still been at their doorstep a year later than it turned out. Many countries seem to underestimate this countries willingness to fight, as well as our industrial capabilities. I suspect it is cultural. We got a lot of it from Britain, though the melting pot has changed it up a bit.

 

But perhaps part of the problem lies in your sucess?

As a nation, you haven't had the fight brought to your very homes since the rev. war.

By a foreign force, since independence.

How can one be so sure of their willingness to fight if it happened so many centuries ago?

In Europe, the world war (and the Great war) brought devestation to the entire continent, fighting in our very streets.

The US on the other hand suffered a few forest fires from a single Japanese aircraft.

The past century has seen the birth of a superpower, indeed, on could argue a superpower built by war.

Before the Great war, America was a good place to be, but didn't play a major part in world politics, unlike Britain, France, German.

However, with the production of arms and loands for European wars, the US rose to become the might which it is today - arising clear from the war-torn Europe.

My thinking is that America certainly has the 'willingness' to fight, if for nothing else, then to boost its economy, but would it have the same will power if the fight was brought to it?

 

But perhaps part of the problem lies in your sucess?

As a nation, you haven't had the fight brought to your very homes since the rev. war.

By a foreign force, since independence.

How can one be so sure of their willingness to fight if it happened so many centuries ago?

In Europe, the world war (and the Great war) brought devestation to the entire continent, fighting in our very streets.

The US on the other hand suffered a few forest fires from a single Japanese aircraft.

The past century has seen the birth of a superpower, indeed, on could argue a superpower built by war.

Before the Great war, America was a good place to be, but didn't play a major part in world politics, unlike Britain, France, German.

However, with the production of arms and loands for European wars, the US rose to become the might which it is today - arising clear from the war-torn Europe.

My thinking is that America certainly has the 'willingness' to fight, if for nothing else, then to boost its economy, but would it have the same will power if the fight was brought to it?

The fact is sparky without the US entering WWII All of EU is speaking german right now. The US staged pearl harbor forcing the japaneese to attack. Then we attack back from both fronts. If the US had not entered the pacific arena or the Atlantic Arena, the Nazi's don't have to break up their army into multiple fronts.Then let us not forget americas long legend of being the world police. One nazi officer in retreat from the US said it was impossible to defeat the Americans because they all want to be damn hero's.

About having war at your door, please don't get any news from TX or MX this decade. Also no one is dumb enough to invade a country whos constitution says on line 2 "We gun nuts"

 

<snip>

The US staged pearl harbor forcing the japaneese to attack. Then we attack back from both fronts. If the US had not entered the pacific arena or the Atlantic Arena, the Nazi's don't have to break up their army into multiple fronts.

<snip>

A nice paranoid point of view, but not necessarily true. I do not buy into that theory. While not a history buff, I have done my share of study on the subject. There was nothing staged about Pearl Harbor, we have the war dead to prove it. Fact is, if Japan had pulled off what they were aiming for the war would have lasted a lot longer.

Germany was royally P.O. that Japan jumped the gun. Like many people outside the USA, Japan misjudged us badly, and thought that if our offensive capabilities were blunted we would back off. I think Germany knew what would happen, and was hoping to avoid it as long as possible. If Hitler had not pulled the attacks from the RAF bases and moved onto the cities, they may have even won. They were weeks away from total strategic air control, and gave it away. It lost them the war. Thank you Hitler.

Many people in other countries think the USA likes war, which I don't believe to be the case. We are not afraid to fight, and don't back down easily. When we (the USA) commit totally we are among the best in the world at war, this is not the same thing as liking it.

Sparky, if you had said the continental USA I might have agreed, but Hawaii is a state (it was a valuable territory then, one of several Japan attacked).

 

Nazi's didn't fight in WW2 - they were a political group - Germans fought in world war 2.

I'm very sorry, but I'm not aware of any German campaign in the Pacific.

As for the reason the US entered the war with Germany - does the sinking of the Lusitania have nothing to do with it?

There is also the possibility that the war might have been won without American help. Let's not forget where the real turning points of the war were - North Africa and Stalingrad.

North Africa (more specifically El Alamein) was the first major defeat of German forces by the British. By the end, Rommell had only 16 tanks and 250 men.

There is no doubt that the Battle of Britain was won by the RAF. However, overall it only resulted in a stalemate, with both sides trying to bomb each other into submission.

Therefore, it must be the Russian victory at Stalingrad which proved the real turning point in the war. Stalin was very clever to literally move the bulk of the Russian industry east - far behind the front.

Russia was incredibly well armed and defeated the Germans at Stalingrad, preventing Germany from reaching the important oil fields in the east. Without this, the German war machine ground to a halt, and began retreating when Russian lauched the offensive.

Here's the thing. It was Hitler's impatience which lost Germany the war. His demands were insane, such as creating the second front, and limiting the development of high-tech machinery later in the war.

Although the D-day created an active front, which gave some relief to the Russians in the East, a more decisive factor was that much resources were actually in Norway, as the RAF has dropped tonnes of equipment along the beaches to convince the Germans that the invasion would be through norway and not France.

But the Russians were already advancing - how easily would they having taken Berlin without the other front? Not easily, but they could still have done it.

So this raises the question, could the war have been won without American intervention? In the Pacific, I believe not. However, in Europe I believe there is a chance it could have happened.

Perhaps it would be more realistic to say, if it wasn't for American intervention, we'd all be speaking Russian by now?

 

Yep, I did mention that though.

It wasn't so much someone winning the war, as Hitler who lost it!

I read somewhere that it could have been as little as three days.

Still, it was Hitler's actions as opposed to American intervention which lead to the victory?

 

Something interesting for you, when we lived in Scotland, my dad showed me holes in the walls of hangers which were created by German fighter cannons, they're still there!

My grandfather showed me where there was a pumping station which got bombed near Loch Ness - he was in the Home Guard at the time. He was within two weeks of being sent to the far east before the nukes were dropped and the war ended in Japan.

 

I'm not saying we staged the whole things, we just passed a bunch of political policies that forced japan to attack us. DC knew it was coming, The Japaneese even sent us a letter hours before the attack declaring war but the translators took an hour too long to translate it. Its very political, the main and #1 reason Japan attacked the US was not to weaken our military it was a measured responce to us cutting off their petrol supply.