Georgia town passes law requiring citizens to own guns and ammo

[NJarhead]

The law requires the head of every household to own a gun and ammo to “provide for the emergency management of the city” and “provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants.” The law is also meant to pre-empt any future attempt by the federal government to confiscate guns, according to the council’s agenda.


http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/02/17567999-georgia-town-passes-law-requiring-citizens-to-own-guns-and-ammo#comments


:applaudit:

[Mach1]

:flipoff: hopey

[fansince'76]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-js-BWwSJ0QY/TgfWufeikzI/AAAAAAAALyI/mKYZ3TpSab8/s400/GUNS+AND+BIBLES%252C+OBAMA+CARTOONS.jpg

[Dwinsgames]

I understand the logic , and love the fact people are ( in some places anyways ) taking this serious enough to pass measures .....

but at the same time , I do not like laws that force people to do anything when it comes to ownership or a ban of said items ...

it always has been a choice and IMO should always be a choice ...

I chose to own guns , I would not want anyone to try and force me to give them up but at the same time if I did not want a gun I would not want anyone to force me to have one either ...

Freedom to bear arms for me is like Freedom of speech .. I can talk if I want to but they can not force me to talk if I do not want to .... it is not a freedom if it is forced

again I understand the logic of it and personally have no problem with it because I own them anyways but IS IT any better forcing someone to have something they do not want than keeping something from someone they do want ?

[NJarhead]

I understand the logic , and love the fact people are ( in some places anyways ) taking this serious enough to pass measures .....

but at the same time , I do not like laws that force people to do anything when it comes to ownership or a ban of said items ...

it always has been a choice and IMO should always be a choice ...

I chose to own guns , I would not want anyone to try and force me to give them up but at the same time if I did not want a gun I would not want anyone to force me to have one either ...

Freedom to bear arms for me is like Freedom of speech .. I can talk if I want to but they can not force me to talk if I do not want to .... it is not a freedom if it is forced

again I understand the logic of it and personally have no problem with it because I own them anyways but IS IT any better forcing someone to have something they do not want than keeping something from someone they do want ?

If you read down in the article, it says that people will have the right to defer.

[Dwinsgames]

If you read down in the article, it says that people will have the right to defer.


that is my fault for not reading the article , just the quoted part and commenting ...

[NJarhead]

that is my fault for not reading the article , just the quoted part and commenting ...

We've all done it at one time or another.

[Dwinsgames]

We've all done it at one time or another.


I know I have to many times to count , I know better ( that is the bigger problem ) LOL

[steeldawg]

I dont know why that would make anyone happy thats a huge second amendment violation.

[Mach1]

Because it infringes on your right to keep and bear arms. :doh:

[steeldawg]

Because it infringes on your right to keep and bear arms. :doh:

I dont know if your agreeing with me or trying to take a shot at me?

[Mach1]

I dont know if your agreeing with me or trying to take a shot at me?

So your not happy that someone is upholding the 2nd?

[steeldawg]

So your not happy that someone is upholding the 2nd?

That not the right to bear arms if you force everyone to bear arms. The right works both ways if you have the right to bear arms you also need the right to not bear arms otherwise your not giving everyone a right to do something your just forcing them.

[Mach1]

The 2nd only works one way. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand.

If you read the article they have the right to defer. So nobody's forcing them do to anything.

[st33lersguy]

Another town in Georgia passed a law just like this back in 1982. There have been 4 murders by gun shot since then, 3 in a gun-free zone at the local school

[steeldawg]

The 2nd only works one way. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand.

If you read the article they have the right to defer. So nobody's forcing them do to anything.

Are you serious? I know they can defer i was saying why would you be happy if they were passing a law requiring citizens to own guns. Do you not understand by requiring citizens to own guns you are infringing on their 2nd amendment right. Do you really believe that if they passed a law that everyone had to carry a firearm that would not be infringing on the right to bear arms.

[Seven]

Are you serious? I know they can defer i was saying why would you be happy if they were passing a law requiring citizens to own guns. Do you not understand by requiring citizens to own guns you are infringing on their 2nd amendment right. Do you really believe that if they passed a law that everyone had to carry a firearm that would not be infringing on the right to bear arms.

I lol'd.


Another town in Georgia passed a law just like this back in 1982. There have been 4 murders by gun shot since then, 3 in a gun-free zone at the local school

If more people carried crime would absolutely go down. I CC, but I would open carry if the regulations/laws didn't vary so much from place to place. I'd be a walking deterrent along with every other citizen who walked around with a firearm on his hip. Would rage murderss increase? Yeah, they probably would. But would mass shootings and pre-meditated crime all but disappear? You better fucking believe it would.

[Mach1]

Are you serious? I know they can defer i was saying why would you be happy if they were passing a law requiring citizens to own guns. Do you not understand by requiring citizens to own guns you are infringing on their 2nd amendment right. Do you really believe that if they passed a law that everyone had to carry a firearm that would not be infringing on the right to bear arms.

http://ts4.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4722046891328839&pid=1.7

[Seven]

http://ts4.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4722046891328839&pid=1.7

:rofl:


Do you not understand by requiring citizens to own guns you are infringing on their 2nd amendment right.

1. Read the article. As has already been discussed there is an option to defer.

2. Even if it was required, it wouldn't infringe on their right to bear arms. I mean seriously, what the fuck kind of logic is that? That doesn't even make sense in the candyland world you usually post from.

[GoSlash27]

Why are we fighting over something that *hasn't* happened?

[GBMelBlount]

Run along folks.

You are not supposed to debate things until *after* they happen. :nono:

[tube517]

http://ts4.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4722046891328839&pid=1.7

:rofl2:

[Mach1]

Run along folks.

You are not supposed to debate things until *after* they happen. :nono:

Here ya go. A little distracting though. :chuckle:

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/625491_10151447820327740_1340227276_n.jpg

[steeldawg]

:rofl:



1. Read the article. As has already been discussed there is an option to defer.

2. Even if it was required, it wouldn't infringe on their right to bear arms. I mean seriously, what the fuck kind of logic is that? That doesn't even make sense in the candyland world you usually post from.

Ya i read it i already addressed that theres an option to defer defer but it doesnt matter because when he posted the thread he didnt realize that ther was that option hence the title of the thread. The logic is perfectly sound, requiring citizens to own guns absolutely infringes on a persons right who doesnt want to own a gun! Forcing people to own guns is the same violation of a persons rights as someone preventing citizens from owning guns. I dont know how requiring citizens to do something wether they want to or not would be considered a right? Lol we are going to make you bear arms because its your right, ya that makes perfect sense.

[Dwinsgames]

Ya i read it i already addressed that theres an option to defer defer but it doesnt matter because when he posted the thread he didnt realize that ther was that option hence the title of the thread. The logic is perfectly sound, requiring citizens to own guns absolutely infringes on a persons right who doesnt want to own a gun! Forcing people to own guns is the same violation of a persons rights as someone preventing citizens from owning guns. I dont know how requiring citizens to do something wether they want to or not would be considered a right? Lol we are going to make you bear arms because its your right, ya that makes perfect sense.

when I was 18 I was forced to register with selective services ( I enlisted anyways but was still forced to register prior to my voluntary enlistment ) ...

it is ok for the government to make it mandatory to register for selective service ( a nice word for potential draft ) but it is not ok to make it mandatory to arm yourself against a criminal society ?

not saying , just saying

[GoSlash27]

when I was 18 I was forced to register with selective services ( I enlisted anyways but was still forced to register prior to my voluntary enlistment ) ...

it is ok for the government to make it mandatory to register for selective service ( a nice word for potential draft ) but it is not ok to make it mandatory to arm yourself against a criminal society ?

not saying , just saying

That's why we had a "conscientious objector" status.
I don't know that compulsory armament is necessarily a violation of the 2nd Amendment, but it certainly seems contradictory to the concept of freedom.

And again, if we're all in agreement that this law doesn't do that... why are we arguing about it? Not only arguing, but actually getting personal?

[steeldawg]

when I was 18 I was forced to register with selective services ( I enlisted anyways but was still forced to register prior to my voluntary enlistment ) ...

it is ok for the government to make it mandatory to register for selective service ( a nice word for potential draft ) but it is not ok to make it mandatory to arm yourself against a criminal society ?

not saying , just saying

No its not ok its a ridiculous outdated law why would we want another, but the point is we have the right to bear arms and we have the right not to bear arms both are protected under the same constitution are they not?

- - - Updated - - -


That's why we had a "conscientious objector" status.
I don't know that compulsory armament is necessarily a violation of the 2nd Amendment, but it certainly seems contradictory to the concept of freedom.

And again, if we're all in agreement that this law doesn't do that... why are we arguing about it? Not only arguing, but actually getting personal?

Im not arguing about this law, I was saying why would you want a law that did that? because when he originally posted the thread thats what he thought. I mean there is so much arguing for how they dont government touching their guns, but then have no problem with the government forcing guns on people its completely ridiculous.

[GoSlash27]

Im not arguing about this law, I was saying why would you want a law that did that? because when he originally posted the thread thats what he thought. I mean there is so much arguing for how they dont government touching their guns, but then have no problem with the government forcing guns on people its completely ridiculous.

I'd avoid using "they" as a sweeping generalization. I certainly wouldn't support such a law and I don't think it's a good idea at all. #1 because I'm just as much against the government forcing people to do things they don't want as I am against the government forcing people to not do things they do want. But #2 (and perhaps more importantly) the #1 show on TV is "here comes Honey Boo-Boo" and 4% of voters believe that the lizard people are spraying them with chemtrails. My only hope is that they're at least smart enough to realize that they're too dumb to handle firearms and the government won't force them to...

[Dwinsgames]

I'd avoid using "they" as a sweeping generalization. I certainly wouldn't support such a law and I don't think it's a good idea at all. #1 because I'm just as much against the government forcing people to do things they don't want as I am against the government forcing people to not do things they do want. But #2 (and perhaps more importantly) the #1 show on TV is "here comes Honey Boo-Boo" and 4% of voters believe that the lizard people are spraying them with chemtrails. My only hope is that they're at least smart enough to realize that they're too dumb to handle firearms and the government won't force them to...


some of the dumbest people ( IQ wise ) are some of the best with a firearm ... it does not take book smarts to handle a firearm safely and effectively

all the book smarts in the world never taught 1 person common sense

common sense is the best kind of sense to have around firearms

just my take

[GoSlash27]

some of the dumbest people ( IQ wise ) are some of the best with a firearm ... it does not take book smarts to handle a firearm safely and effectively

all the book smarts in the world never taught 1 person common sense

common sense is the best kind of sense to have around firearms

just my take

Likewise, some of the dumbest people (IQ wise) are also some of the worst with firearms. Having a low intelligence on paper doesn't confer common sense. Some people are just plain stick- dumb.
And there are other people who are very intellectual but don't have the common sense of a turnip.
Either way, I don't think forcing them to keep guns against their will is a smart idea.

[Dwinsgames]

Likewise, some of the dumbest people (IQ wise) are also some of the worst with firearms. Having a low intelligence on paper doesn't confer common sense. Some people are just plain stick- dumb.
And there are other people who are very intellectual but don't have the common sense of a turnip.
Either way, I don't think forcing them to keep guns against their will is a smart idea.


nor do I as I said in my first post in this thread ( before I read the article ) I do not like laws forcing people to do anything against their will ( with exceptions to things like speed limits )

something such as owning a firearm ( or not owning one ) should be a choice , but that choice should be of their own not of someone else's mandate

[Seven]

some of the dumbest people ( IQ wise ) are some of the best with a firearm ... it does not take book smarts to handle a firearm safely and effectively

all the book smarts in the world never taught 1 person common sense

common sense is the best kind of sense to have around firearms

just my take

Great post. I've worked with a lot of guys who aren't even able to hold a meaningful conversation with me but could draw, drop three live targets and call it in before I've even got my first hornet out of the chamber. And I practice plenty. But I know a number of dudes that shoot seven days a week. And I'm not talking 20 feet at the range either. And I would trust any of these "unintelligent" guys over someone that I've shared elegant conversations with any day of the week. It doesn't take a genius to handle a firearm safely. Hell, it doesn't take a genius to handle a firearm brilliantly. I'm glad you made that point because it's 100% accurate. Personal gun safety doesn't require book smarts whatsoever.

[GoSlash27]

Great post. I've worked with a lot of guys who aren't even able to hold a meaningful conversation with me but could draw, drop three live targets and call it in before I've even got my first hornet out of the chamber. And I practice plenty. But I know a number of dudes that shoot seven days a week. And I'm not talking 20 feet at the range either. And I would trust any of these "unintelligent" guys over someone that I've shared elegant conversations with any day of the week. It doesn't take a genius to handle a firearm safely. Hell, it doesn't take a genius to handle a firearm brilliantly. I'm glad you made that point because it's 100% accurate. Personal gun safety doesn't require book smarts whatsoever.

It's not "100% accurate". Being dumb as a pile of rocks doesn't mean someone will automatically be a good shot or have enough common sense to avoid blowing his own head off (or yours) accidentally. For every guy like you describe, there's another idiot who would use his lighter to look inside a gas can.

[Seven]

It's not "100% accurate". Being dumb as a pile of rocks doesn't mean someone will automatically be a good shot or have enough common sense to avoid blowing his own head off (or yours) accidentally. For every guy like you describe, there's another idiot who would use his lighter to look inside a gas can.

Where did I say it's "automatic" that someone who isn't particularly smart will handle a gun safely? Nowhere. Nor did Dwins. All we're saying is that gun safety and proficiency does not require book smarts. Of course being dumb doesn't "automatically" mean someone can handle a firearm. But being smart doesn't either.

[Dwinsgames]

Where did I say it's "automatic" that someone who isn't particularly smart will handle a gun safely? Nowhere. Nor did Dwins. All we're saying is that gun safety and proficiency does not require book smarts. Of course being dumb doesn't "automatically" mean someone can handle a firearm. But being smart doesn't either.


this

[GoSlash27]

Where did I say it's "automatic" that someone who isn't particularly smart will handle a gun safely? Nowhere. Nor did Dwins. All we're saying is that gun safety and proficiency does not require book smarts. Of course being dumb doesn't "automatically" mean someone can handle a firearm. But being smart doesn't either.

Well since I never said that, I'd say that makes us even ;)

[Seven]

Well since I never said that, I'd say that makes us even ;)

Fair enough, but what point were you trying to make? I must have missed it.

And how was my assessment of Dwins' post being 100% accurate not correct?

[Dwinsgames]

no equation is without flaw when the human factor is involved .... errors are common place , some you just do not have the opportunity to fix , gun safety has no room for error IMO

[Mach1]

All the book smarts doesn't make a good president either. See exaple..

http://www.politifake.org/image/political/1207/57-states-obama-nitwit-obama-politics-1342225344.jpg

Who would you rather go shooting with? A dumb redneck or a politician?

[steeldawg]

I'd avoid using "they" as a sweeping generalization. I certainly wouldn't support such a law and I don't think it's a good idea at all. #1 because I'm just as much against the government forcing people to do things they don't want as I am against the government forcing people to not do things they do want. But #2 (and perhaps more importantly) the #1 show on TV is "here comes Honey Boo-Boo" and 4% of voters believe that the lizard people are spraying them with chemtrails. My only hope is that they're at least smart enough to realize that they're too dumb to handle firearms and the government won't force them to...

I used the word they because i was trying not to include you in the group of people i was refering to. This is exactly what i was saying to the people who constantly badger me on here is that a law forcing citizens to own guns is against our rights just as forcing citizens to disarm.

[GoSlash27]

Seven,

Fair enough, but what point were you trying to make? I must have missed it.
#1 Forcing people who don't want guns around to keep them is just as tyrannical as taking guns away from people that want them. #2 There are people out there who are too stupid/ ignorant/ irresponsible to handle anything more dangerous than safety scissors, and forcing them to keep guns around is a bad idea.

Steeldawg,
I understand that. I was just using myself as an illustration. What I'm sayin' is that there are lots of people who are staunch supporters of the second amendment who don't want people armed against their will. Probably the majority. So using the word "they" is a generalization.

[NJarhead]

Ya i read it i already addressed that theres an option to defer defer but it doesnt matter because when he posted the thread he didnt realize that ther was that option hence the title of the thread. The logic is perfectly sound, requiring citizens to own guns absolutely infringes on a persons right who doesnt want to own a gun! Forcing people to own guns is the same violation of a persons rights as someone preventing citizens from owning guns. I dont know how requiring citizens to do something wether they want to or not would be considered a right? Lol we are going to make you bear arms because its your right, ya that makes perfect sense.

Oh? I read the article before posting and the title of the thread is the title of the article. Don't tell me what I do/don't realize. Worry about what YOU do/don't realize!

- - - Updated - - -


No its not ok its a ridiculous outdated law why would we want another, but the point is we have the right to bear arms and we have the right not to bear arms both are protected under the same constitution are they not?




Show us where it says that.
That's in-line with the ridiculous idea of "Freedom from Religion." That doesn't exist either.

[Mach1]

I used the word they because i was trying not to include you in the group of people i was refering to. This is exactly what i was saying to the people who constantly badger me on here is that a law forcing citizens to own guns is against our rights just as forcing citizens to disarm.

Yet aren't you one of the ones that steadily defends the government forcing people to buy obamacare?

[steeldawg]

Oh? I read the article before posting and the title of the thread is the title of the article. Don't tell me what I do/don't realize. Worry about what YOU do/don't realize!

- - - Updated - - -



Show us where it says that.
That's in-line with the ridiculous idea of "Freedom from Religion." That doesn't exist either.

Are you saying we dont have the right not to bear arms? Are you saying we dont have the right to be free from religion? Wow you people are scarier than the voters who believe in lizard people. I believe its still the RIGHT to bear arms and not mandatory to do so, and peoples right not to have a religion is protected the same as peoples right to whatever religion they choose.

- - - Updated - - -


Yet aren't you one of the ones that steadily defends the government forcing people to buy obamacare?

No again you never pay attention, I said I didnt even like obamacare, but the stuff you were saying about it relating to businesses was factually incorrect.

[Mach1]

Are you saying we dont have the right not to bear arms? Are you saying we dont have the right to be free from religion? Wow you people are scarier than the voters who believe in lizard people. I believe its still the RIGHT to bear arms and not mandatory to do so, and peoples right not to have a religion is protected the same as peoples right to whatever religion they choose.

- - - Updated - - -



No again you never pay attention, I said I didnt even like obamacare, but the stuff you were saying about it relating to businesses was factually incorrect.

Why the f*** do you think I asked?
Also it was only incorrect in your fantasy rainbow unicorn world. Just because obamy said it doesn't make it true.

[steeldawg]

Why the f*** do you think I asked?
Also it was only incorrect in your fantasy rainbow unicorn world. Just because obamy said it doesn't make it true.

Please dont high jack this thread with more of your obama hate, there are plenty of issues regarding citizens and government that do not boil down to obama and obamacare.

[Mach1]

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSIC1wAC52mJEj38NJnx41b7w20cFlCm PDMdgFtxWrJPpzj2Ft-9A

[Seven]

Please dont high jack this thread with more of your obama hate, there are plenty of issues regarding citizens and government that do not boil down to obama and obamacare.

Referencing a relevent parallel = hijacking a thread?

You're something else.

[X-Terminator]

Referencing a relevent parallel = hijacking a thread?

You're something else.

Yeah, but I don't want to see this thread end up becoming about Obamacare either. No issue with the parallel, but let's keep it related to the topic at hand.

[LLT]

Originally Posted by steeldawg
I used the word they because i was trying not to include you in the group of people i was refering to. This is exactly what i was saying to the people who constantly badger me on here is that a law forcing citizens to own guns is against our rights just as forcing citizens to disarm.


Yet, aren't you one of the ones that steadily defends the government forcing people to buy obamacare?


I think that is a legitimate question....care to explain how you justify one but not the other?

[Seven]

Seven,

#1 Forcing people who don't want guns around to keep them is just as tyrannical as taking guns away from people that want them. #2 There are people out there who are too stupid/ ignorant/ irresponsible to handle anything more dangerous than safety scissors, and forcing them to keep guns around is a bad idea.

I don't know... seems to work out pretty well in Switzerland.

[GoSlash27]

I don't know... seems to work out pretty well in Switzerland.

Actually, it's not done in Switzerland. Only members of the militia are required to keep their firearms at home, and conscientious objectors are exempt from that.

[GoSlash27]

Show us where it says that.
That's in-line with the ridiculous idea of "Freedom from Religion." That doesn't exist either.
The Bill of Rights was never intended to disparage rights that weren't specifically enumerated.
http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-09/

[GBMelBlount]

Is this law going to force anyone to do anything they don't want to do?

[NJarhead]

Are you saying we dont have the right not to bear arms? Are you saying we dont have the right to be free from religion? Wow you people are scarier than the voters who believe in lizard people. I believe its still the RIGHT to bear arms and not mandatory to do so, and peoples right not to have a religion is protected the same as peoples right to whatever religion they choose.



I just asked you to show me where it states that. You seem to have a lot to say, but poor comprehension of what you read. Like telling me what I did/didn't realize, for instance. You also can't seem to comprehend the intent of this law and the fact that they're not going to force anyone to buy/own/operate a firearm.

Your lizard people quote was cute. Don't ever lose that sense of humor, it's just precious.

[LLT]

That not the right to bear arms if you force everyone to bear arms. The right works both ways if you have the right to bear arms you also need the right to not bear arms otherwise your not giving everyone a right to do something your just forcing them.


The ordinance in the town of Nelson, population 1,300, contains no penalties, has exemptions for felons and the mentally ill and allows anyone to opt out.

What part of the above statement leads you to believe that they are being "forced"?

[Wallace108]

What part of the above statement leads you to believe that they are being "forced"?

Exactly. No one is being forced to own a gun. The law isn't an attempt to force people to do something they don't want to do. If the intent was to force people to own guns, they wouldn't have made it so easy to opt out. Here's what it's really about (from the article in the original post):


The law is also meant to pre-empt any future attempt by the federal government to confiscate guns, according to the council’s agenda.
It's not a law to force people to own guns. It's a preemptive measure to stop the government from confiscating guns.

More than anything, it's just symbolic. Similar to what a town in Maine did:


Maine town to take symbolic vote on mandatory gun ownership

DURHAM, Maine (Reuters) - Residents of a Maine town are expected to vote on Monday on whether each household should be required to own a firearm, a decision that has thrust the tiny town of Byron into the heated national debate on gun control.

...

"It was never my intention to force anyone to own a gun who doesn't want to. My purpose was to make a statement in support of the Second Amendment (to the U.S. Constitution)," said head selectman Anne Simmons-Edmund, who proposed the ordinance and said it would be put for a vote on Monday.

http://news.yahoo.com/maine-town-symbolic-vote-mandatory-gun-ownership-090734324.html

[GoSlash27]

There is literally nobody in this thread that is confused on that point, which is why I asked upstream why everyone seems so intent to argue about it.

[Wallace108]

There is literally nobody in this thread that is confused on that point, which is why I asked upstream why everyone seems so intent to argue about it.

We're at our happiest when we're fighting about something. :chuckle:

[Seven]

Exactly. No one is being forced to own a gun. The law isn't an attempt to force people to do something they don't want to do. If the intent was to force people to own guns, they wouldn't have made it so easy to opt out. Here's what it's really about (from the article in the original post):


It's not a law to force people to own guns. It's a preemptive measure to stop the government from confiscating guns.

More than anything, it's just symbolic. Similar to what a town in Maine did:

Great post.

[NJarhead]

We're at our happiest when we're fighting about something. :chuckle:

No we're not.



:chuckle:

[steeldawg]

Im not talking about this law specifically, i said why would you want a law the required citzens to own guns because that would be unconstitutional. I realize this law allows people to opt out, my concern was that people would actually want a law that forced people to own guns and judging by alot of the comments on here people actually would, and that is scary.

[Dwinsgames]

it is the PEOPLES responsibility to keep this a sovereign nation is it not ?

how are you to do that unarmed ?

oh rely on the Government ?

are the people not the government ?

The Citizens of this Country are the only reason the Japs did not invade the mainland US in WW2 , it was not out of respect for the civilian population , it was however out of fear of the civilian population

just sayin ...

[steeldawg]

it is the PEOPLES responsibility to keep this a sovereign nation is it not ?

how are you to do that unarmed ?

oh rely on the Government ?

are the people not the government ?

The Citizens of this Country are the only reason the Japs did not invade the mainland US in WW2 , it was not out of respect for the civilian population , it was however out of fear of the civilian population

just sayin ...

Um, LOL. No, never. There were never any serious plans for Japan to invade the United States other than the Aleutian Island-reuse. With their lack of maritime lift, air superiority/supremacy, and huge numbers of troops tied down in China and just holding their new possessions in the Pacific rim, the Imperial Japanese armed forces had no more capability to invade the U.S. than they did the planet Mars. American firearm ownership would have been a very small concern. This a FREE country and i would like to keep my right to decide weather i want a deadly weapon in my house and around my children, if you like guns that is great and that is your right, but what is good for you is not good for me.

[Mach1]

Um, LOL. No, never. There were never any serious plans for Japan to invade the United States other than the Aleutian Island-reuse. With their lack of maritime lift, air superiority/supremacy, and huge numbers of troops tied down in China and just holding their new possessions in the Pacific rim, the Imperial Japanese armed forces had no more capability to invade the U.S. than they did the planet Mars. American firearm ownership would have been a very small concern. This a FREE country and i would like to keep my right to decide weather i want a deadly weapon in my house and around my children, if you like guns that is great and that is your right, but what is good for you is not good for me.

Oh rly

http://www.americanclarion.com/wp-content/plugins/php-image-cache/image.php?path=/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Rifle_Grass.jpg

[Dwinsgames]

Um, LOL. No, never. There were never any serious plans for Japan to invade the United States other than the Aleutian Island-reuse. With their lack of maritime lift, air superiority/supremacy, and huge numbers of troops tied down in China and just holding their new possessions in the Pacific rim, the Imperial Japanese armed forces had no more capability to invade the U.S. than they did the planet Mars. American firearm ownership would have been a very small concern. This a FREE country and i would like to keep my right to decide weather i want a deadly weapon in my house and around my children, if you like guns that is great and that is your right, but what is good for you is not good for me.


someone should brush up on their history ... because you honestly are misinformed

[steeldawg]

Oh rly

http://www.americanclarion.com/wp-content/plugins/php-image-cache/image.php?path=/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Rifle_Grass.jpg

Ya really,There was no interest in invading the US mainland because that wasn't the aim of the Japanese. They were more interested in colonial expansion to China, but had been shut out by the Americans and Europeans, except for Manchuria.

The Japanese were more interested in advancing their colonial interests in the Malay and Dutch East Indies. The American warships presented the only real threat to the Japanese expansion (and Americans had generally been the only country to oppose Japanese colonialism as the US (and US corporations) sought to expand themselves into China. The Malay area was rich in natural resources that the Japanese generally lack. As far as fearing the well-armed American populace, instead of the American military, it’s hard to believe that the Japanese military would have treated them differently than the Chinese, who waged both large-force and guerilla-style operations against Japanese forces with great vigor and frequency. I don’t know what the distribution of guns was like in China before and during the Japanese invasion, but remember that China had been through twenty years of warlordism and civil war before the 1937 outbreak of hostilities, so there were certainly plenty of modern weapons and military veterans in the population.

[Dwinsgames]

Ya really,There was no interest in invading the US mainland because that wasn't the aim of the Japanese. They were more interested in colonial expansion to China, but had been shut out by the Americans and Europeans, except for Manchuria.

The Japanese were more interested in advancing their colonial interests in the Malay and Dutch East Indies. The American warships presented the only real threat to the Japanese expansion (and Americans had generally been the only country to oppose Japanese colonialism as the US (and US corporations) sought to expand themselves into China. The Malay area was rich in natural resources that the Japanese generally lack. As far as fearing the well-armed American populace, instead of the American military, it’s hard to believe that the Japanese military would have treated them differently than the Chinese, who waged both large-force and guerilla-style operations against Japanese forces with great vigor and frequency. I don’t know what the distribution of guns was like in China before and during the Japanese invasion, but remember that China had been through twenty years of warlordism and civil war before the 1937 outbreak of hostilities, so there were certainly plenty of modern weapons and military veterans in the population.


again instead of pretending to know , do your research .... you are wrong


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CSLWIx420j4

[Dwinsgames]

True story and most people will never know it.

Here’s an interesting side bar. After the Japanese decimated our fleet in Pearl Harbor Dec 7, 1941, they could have sent their troop ships and carriers directly to California to finish what they started. The prediction from our Chief of Staff was we would not be able to stop a massive invasion until they reached the Mississippi River . Remember, we had a 2 million man army and war ships…...all fighting the Germans. So, why did they not invade?

After the war, the remaining Japanese generals and admirals were asked that question. Their answer…...they know that almost every home had guns and the Americans knew how to use them.

The world's largest army... America 's hunters! I had never thought about this....

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 in France and Germany combined.

These men deployed to the woods of a single American state 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 Michigan 's 700,000 hunters, all of whom have now returned home.

Toss in a quarter million hunters in West Virginia and it literally establishes the fact that the hunters of those four states alone would comprise the largest army in the world.
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.

[steeldawg]

again instead of pretending to know , do your research .... you are wrong


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CSLWIx420j4

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/misquoting-yamamoto/
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_did_Japan_not_invade_the_US
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-control-in-australia/

There is alot more on the subject so why dont you do your research. The premise that japan did not invade america because of an armed populace is ridiculous, the japanese war strategy in world war II is widely documented they were in no way intersted in invading the US. This guy is full of it for one he makes the statement that "japan did not invade because every citizen was armed" that is just a false a statement in itself. Also this guy cites no references or mentions any of japans war strategy.

[Dwinsgames]

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/misquoting-yamamoto/
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_did_Japan_not_invade_the_US
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-control-in-australia/

The is alot more on the subject so why dont you do your research. The premise that japan did not invade america because of an armed populace is ridiculous, the japanese war strategy in world war II is widely documented they were in no way intersted in invading the US.

so we are supposed to believe an organization that did not come into existence until many many years AFTER the mans death ( and has no way of validating it or refuting it ) they just have an opinion on the matter ?

I prefer to listen to people that where actually BORN when it all came into play not ones that where born 20-30-40 years later ...

[steeldawg]

so we are supposed to believe an organization that did not come into existence until many many years AFTER the mans death ( and has no way of validating it or refuting it ) they just have an opinion on the matter ?

I prefer to listen to people that where actually BORN when it all came into play not ones that where born 20-30-40 years later ...They get there information from historical record not from the word of someone who was born during that time. So basically historical fact is not enough for you because the people presenting the facts werent born then, where do you think the facts come from. The information comes from the Center for Military History which is cited directly in the third article i posted, its a matter of record not opinion. But believe whatever nonsense you want to, ya japan didnt invade the US because it was hunting season, ok im sure that was it :thumbsup:

[Dwinsgames]

But believe whatever nonsense you want to, ya japan didnt invade the US because it was hunting season, ok im sure that was it :thumbsup:

nobody said they did not invade because it was hunting season ... do you always make it up as you go along or is it just a part time hobby ?

[steeldawg]

nobody said they did not invade because it was hunting season ... do you always make it up as you go along or is it just a part time hobby ?


That was a a jab, but it doesnt matter, the point is that the japanese where not detered from invading by an armed populace this a matter of record. And the quote that people like to throw around about a rifle behind everyblade of grass is generally accepted as fabricated by historians. So no I dont make things up I go to historical fact thats where i get my information, you give me a guy on youtube and tell me the facts are wrong. But again believe whatever you want.

[GoSlash27]

Sorry folks, but Steeldawg is right on this one.
The Japanese never intended to invade mainland America. They just wanted to incapacitate our Navy long enough for Germany to establish control over Europe. That way, we wouldn't be able to contest their "Asian co-prosperity sphere" until it was too late.