"-we don’t want to take away guns and that we are pro second amendment"
- Thread starter DaleA
- Start date
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Not to divert but there are two WWII statements that are 'quoted' by gun folks that have no or little truth and thus are counterproductive.
The first is the Yamamoto quote. It cannot be sourced. The Japanese plan was to establish a defensive ring in the Pacific and they thought that if they inflicted losses on the Pacific Fleet and took the Philippines, we would negotiate rather than go to a total war. Yamamoto and others thought that if it was a long war, then our industrial capacity would lead to an inevitable war of attrition that they would lose. They did think later that by inflicting heavy losses on land and sea, they would lead us to negotiations. They also hoped still for a decisive naval battle that might slow up and force negotiations. That failed at Leyte Gulf but the ground battles at Okinawa were terrible and feed into the bomb decisions.
In fact, we did negotiate and allow the Emperor to continue as a figure head of state. Japan regained its independence in a few years.
The second is that Switzerland maintained its independence from the Nazis because of its militia organization (arguing for ours). It is true that they organized to resist invasion and form a national redoubt in the center of the country. However, they had no useful Air Force or armor. More telling were the plans to blow up tunnels that the Nazis used to send troops and material to Italy. They were used freely by them. Also, the Swiss provided trade and war materials to the Nazis and cooperated in their war effort in that manner.
The Nazis had plans to invade Switzerland and never did as they didn't have to. A counter example was Sweden. It wasn't invaded either as it cooperated for the most part. It didn't have the militia story, just cooperation. That was the crucial factor. Sweden would have resisted also. However, neither country could have stood alone. It just wasn't worth the trouble of invasion. The Nazis worked with them.
So both cliches, if used to 'defend' the 2nd Amend. can be easily dismissed by someone with historical insight.
The first is the Yamamoto quote. It cannot be sourced. The Japanese plan was to establish a defensive ring in the Pacific and they thought that if they inflicted losses on the Pacific Fleet and took the Philippines, we would negotiate rather than go to a total war. Yamamoto and others thought that if it was a long war, then our industrial capacity would lead to an inevitable war of attrition that they would lose. They did think later that by inflicting heavy losses on land and sea, they would lead us to negotiations. They also hoped still for a decisive naval battle that might slow up and force negotiations. That failed at Leyte Gulf but the ground battles at Okinawa were terrible and feed into the bomb decisions.
In fact, we did negotiate and allow the Emperor to continue as a figure head of state. Japan regained its independence in a few years.
The second is that Switzerland maintained its independence from the Nazis because of its militia organization (arguing for ours). It is true that they organized to resist invasion and form a national redoubt in the center of the country. However, they had no useful Air Force or armor. More telling were the plans to blow up tunnels that the Nazis used to send troops and material to Italy. They were used freely by them. Also, the Swiss provided trade and war materials to the Nazis and cooperated in their war effort in that manner.
The Nazis had plans to invade Switzerland and never did as they didn't have to. A counter example was Sweden. It wasn't invaded either as it cooperated for the most part. It didn't have the militia story, just cooperation. That was the crucial factor. Sweden would have resisted also. However, neither country could have stood alone. It just wasn't worth the trouble of invasion. The Nazis worked with them.
So both cliches, if used to 'defend' the 2nd Amend. can be easily dismissed by someone with historical insight.
I always rather liked the Yammamoto "quote", though there is no proof he ever said it, it is the kind of thing he might have said.
Both sides pre-war plans were for a decisive surface action somewhere off the Philippines, where one battle fleet would sink the other, resulting in the loser seeking peace. We felt we would win, and so did they. When the British proved that an aerial torpedo attack in a shallow harbor was possible, the Japanese plan changed, and Yammamoto and his staff came up with the attack on Pearl Harbor. There was NEVER any plan to invade mainland USA.
With regard to the Swiss and the Swedes, I don't think "cooperate" is the right word. Both nations were neutral. Maintaining neutrality and continuing to do business the same way is not "cooperating".
Germany got most of its iron from Sweden, and it was shipped through Norway to Germany. They didn't need to invade and occupy Sweden, because Sweden maintained its neutrality, and sold iron ore to Germany just the same as they had before the war.
Norway WAS neutral, and the original German war plan did not include invading Norway, until the BRITISH proved they were willing and able to violate Norwegian neutrality (the Altmark affair). Once that happened, the Nazis decided they needed to occupy Norway, to keep the British out.
I'm sure there was a plan to invade Switzerland, if needed, but it was never needed. And while true the Swiss didn't have much in the way of armor or an air force (and a lot of what they did have was equipment bought from Germany) the terrain and natural resources of Switzerland meant that any military assault would not be even remotely cost effective. Switzerland was more valuable as an independent neutral than it would have been as a conquered territory.
Both sides pre-war plans were for a decisive surface action somewhere off the Philippines, where one battle fleet would sink the other, resulting in the loser seeking peace. We felt we would win, and so did they. When the British proved that an aerial torpedo attack in a shallow harbor was possible, the Japanese plan changed, and Yammamoto and his staff came up with the attack on Pearl Harbor. There was NEVER any plan to invade mainland USA.
With regard to the Swiss and the Swedes, I don't think "cooperate" is the right word. Both nations were neutral. Maintaining neutrality and continuing to do business the same way is not "cooperating".
Germany got most of its iron from Sweden, and it was shipped through Norway to Germany. They didn't need to invade and occupy Sweden, because Sweden maintained its neutrality, and sold iron ore to Germany just the same as they had before the war.
Norway WAS neutral, and the original German war plan did not include invading Norway, until the BRITISH proved they were willing and able to violate Norwegian neutrality (the Altmark affair). Once that happened, the Nazis decided they needed to occupy Norway, to keep the British out.
I'm sure there was a plan to invade Switzerland, if needed, but it was never needed. And while true the Swiss didn't have much in the way of armor or an air force (and a lot of what they did have was equipment bought from Germany) the terrain and natural resources of Switzerland meant that any military assault would not be even remotely cost effective. Switzerland was more valuable as an independent neutral than it would have been as a conquered territory.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Both countries let troop movements through their territory. That's a touch more than neutral.
No action that the Nazis attempted were cost effective. They thought they could produce food with resettled Germans in the Russian lands and that was a tremendous flop.
When the Nazis found out that the Swiss had secret defense plans with the French (oops), they contemplated invasion but didn't need to.
In any case, it was the utility of them being 'neutral' that was the decided factor against invasion. Same with the Swedes. It wasn't till 1943 that that they started to feel like invasion fears abided.
No action that the Nazis attempted were cost effective. They thought they could produce food with resettled Germans in the Russian lands and that was a tremendous flop.
When the Nazis found out that the Swiss had secret defense plans with the French (oops), they contemplated invasion but didn't need to.
In any case, it was the utility of them being 'neutral' that was the decided factor against invasion. Same with the Swedes. It wasn't till 1943 that that they started to feel like invasion fears abided.
spacemanspiff
New member
I finally watched the video interview from Variety.
Apparently one of their goals is to pass a law requiring all guns to be locked up. Not sure how they expect enforcement of such a law.
And then when she said something about how people go to Indiana to buys guns from retail stores and then bring them back to Chicago and sell them for 5x their original value, would love too see the source for that information.
It looked like she was more enthusiastic about how she was being treated like a celebrity doing a photo shoot.
I will have to look up more videos, as I recall one of those kids saying during that big March for Our Lives event that they would not stop until they had banned all guns. Can't recall exactly who said it.
Apparently one of their goals is to pass a law requiring all guns to be locked up. Not sure how they expect enforcement of such a law.
And then when she said something about how people go to Indiana to buys guns from retail stores and then bring them back to Chicago and sell them for 5x their original value, would love too see the source for that information.
It looked like she was more enthusiastic about how she was being treated like a celebrity doing a photo shoot.
I will have to look up more videos, as I recall one of those kids saying during that big March for Our Lives event that they would not stop until they had banned all guns. Can't recall exactly who said it.
I am not that familiar with Variety magazine. I know it mostly from old movies where they splash a copy of Variety magazine on the screen with a headline usually showing the star of the movie has succeeded.
I was very much surprised that the overwhelming number, (in fact almost all) of comments to the Variety story (there are 42 comments today 10/22/2018) are pro-gun and NOT pro-gun control. It cheered me up.
I was very much surprised that the overwhelming number, (in fact almost all) of comments to the Variety story (there are 42 comments today 10/22/2018) are pro-gun and NOT pro-gun control. It cheered me up.
Since there is no 'gun registry' in the USA, and even if enacted tomorrow, it would mean nothing because of the guns already in people's possession, I don't get the 'they are gonna take our guns away' argument..How would they do that? Search every household in the US? Confused. 
So you say...I think an argument could be made that there is one. But at the moment, it is fractured, disjointed, not even remotely all inclusive or currently accurate. But that could be changed. All it takes is a law or two and some money.
First point, leaving aside, for the moment, those states that actually DO have a registration system, every gun that has passed through an FFL dealer in the last 50 years has had a record created. 4473 form, at a minimum, for every sale. Dealer's bound book for inventory, etc. Currently these records are on paper, and are held by the dealers, but they do exist. Dealers who go out of business are required to send their records to the ATF, and they are warehoused. CURRENTLY, the ATF cannot compile those records onto computers, but as I said, all it takes is the govt deciding it needs doing and providing the money to do it with.
Every gun sold that has gone through the "instant check" system, there is a record, of YOU buying a gun. Not a "J. Doe 123 Mainstreet hometown USA bought S&W .38 cal ser# xxxxxx" record (though there ARE state records that do that in some places) but a record that J.Doe bought a gun...
And while there are laws covering what the govt can do with that data, and how long then can keep it, etc., forgive my doubt about the govt always following all their rules, all the time...
We don't have a comprehensive, cohesive nationwide system available to LEOs at the their fingertips, YET, but the basic building blocks are in place, and have been for some time.
Sure, there are millions of old guns that are totally "off the books", and doing house to house searches to find them isn't likely (not even remotely cost effective in so many ways..AT THIS TIME), but they don't need to.
Not arguing but not true. That instant check means J. Doe has passed the back ground check, not that ‘J’ bought a gun. He probably does it to buy a gun but it doesn’t mean that happened. You are correct retailers have records, but they are local, not ‘government’ records. I just rankle when I hear, ‘they are gonna take our guns away’...just not accurate. Focus on meaningful things, imho.
Agreed, its not a certainty J.Doe bought a gun, but why run the check if he isn't? Will dealers even run the check without the a commitment to a sale, when the check is passed? Granted, J.Doe could change his mind, after the check, and not buy a gun, but for gun control purposes, it doesn't matter.
the name will be in the database because the check was run, and they will assume he bought a gun, because of that, and the only time it will make a difference is when they search his house, find no gun, and claim he had one, anyway. Remember we're talking a future here where the law has "taken them away"...
And, I'm not so sure that the dealers 4473s aren't legally "govt records", just held at the dealers location. Certainly they are not the dealer's private property, otherwise he would be able to dispose of then any time he felt like it, and that's not the case.
The ATF (or other LEOs) can view the records during the course of an investigation (though they do have to physically visit the dealer to do so, unless he voluntarily provides them to the LEO office. And the ATF can "inspect" all records without a specific investigation, on a scheduled basis.
So, here's the thing, the records exist, but not in a centralized computer system at this time. The problem is that the situation could change.
IF there ever is a law(s) that do "take our guns away" don't expect the current standards of criminal justice and citizens rights to be applied as they are today.
Agree but as I mentioned, using this 'fear' as a political sound bite does nothing more than rile up the base, on both sides of the issue.
BTW..I was in my small, local gun shop, waiting for my BG check to come through..waiting with another gent. When Jason announced we were both 'good to go', the other gent said he changed his mind and walked out(?)..yup, very strange, I thought, as I passed my CC over...
The phrase "I'm a gun owner, but..." is the new "I'm not a racist, but..."
It came into use following the 2012 Sandy Hook elementary school shooting. As far as I can tell, it was first used in a strategy pamphlet distributed by Mayors Against Illegal Guns. It suggested using that phrase so as not to sound intimidating. They were also behind the push to rebrand "gun control" as "gun safety."
Whenever someone uses that phrase, it should be an instant indicator that they're reading from a scripted set of talking points.
It came into use following the 2012 Sandy Hook elementary school shooting. As far as I can tell, it was first used in a strategy pamphlet distributed by Mayors Against Illegal Guns. It suggested using that phrase so as not to sound intimidating. They were also behind the push to rebrand "gun control" as "gun safety."
Whenever someone uses that phrase, it should be an instant indicator that they're reading from a scripted set of talking points.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Shakespeare wrote, in The Merchant of Venice, "The Devil can cite Scripture for his purpose." This refers to Jesus' encounter with Satan, recounted in Matthew 4:1-11. Satan tries to goad Jesus into displays of His power by quoting from Scripture.JERRYS. said:
As one pastor expresses it,
We can extrapolate from this to the gun control issue, and see that the anti-gun forces (which we can liken to Satan) attempting to use language (akin to "scripture') against us. After all, only a maniac would oppose "gun safety," right?
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=silver tongued devil