There are a couple of sites that show the quote "You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass." attributed to Japan’s Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto are bogus--except for the pro-gun sites that go around quoting it...
Anyway, beside the fact that invading the US would be a logistical nightmare (just look at all the work that went into D-Day), they would like to think that a nation that invaded China during the "age of War Lords" (which as Matthew White points out should clue you in that it was a pistol packer's paradise). So, they offer some serious nonsense as to why they didn't attack the US mainland as an argument for unrestricted access to firearms...
From FactCheck.Org,
Misquoting Yamamoto
Advocates of gun rights often argue that in World War II Japan was deterred from invading the U.S. mainland by a fear of American citizens with guns in their closets. They frequently quote Japan’s Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto as saying: "You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass."
But this quote is unsubstantiated and almost certainly bogus, even though it has been repeated thousands of times in various Internet postings. There is no record of the commander in chief of Japan’s wartime fleet ever saying it.
How do we know? 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."
In an exchange of e-mails he said:
Prof. Goldstein: I have never seen it in writing. It has been attributed to the Prange files [the files of the late Gordon W. Prange, chief historian on the staff of Gen. Douglas MacArthur] but no one had ever seen it or cited it from where they got it. Some people say that it came from our work but I never said it. … As of today it is bogus until someone can cite when and where.We included this in an update to an Ask FactCheck item we posted May 10, debunking an error-filled "gun history lesson" circulating by e-mail.
We make no argument either for or against gun ownership. But we do object to fabricating quotes and passing them off as historical fact.
Posted by Brooks Jackson on Monday, May 11, 2009 at 2:50 pm Filed under The FactCheck Wire. tagged with social issues.
See also
- Isoroku Yamamoto Quotes
- Isoroku Yamamoto's sleeping giant quote
- FactCheck.org : Gun Control in Australia
Way ahead of you, Laci. That one never sounded plausible to me. Yamamoto did spend a number of years in the United States, and in his evaluation, a long war with this country would result in a loss.
ReplyDeleteBut it was obvious who posted his article. Disparaging remarks about gun-rights people with piles of facts about a minor point? Yup, that's Laci. It could have been Dog Gone in days gone by, but she doesn't post here much any more.
Tell us, Laci, were you a member of a militia when you owned your gun? If not, that would make you a hypocrite.
ReplyDeleteWhat I find most disturbing about truly stupid fucking comments like yours, Billy, is not that you're a moron but that you apparently don't understand how Laci's--and many other peoples'--argument (with lots of citations from the folks who actually lived in the period and, like, wrote the document; something which your crowd HATES to go looking for when advancing their own assertions) that this:
Delete"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
is wrongly interpreted by gunzloonznation as allowing moronz like you and Greggie to haz all teh gunz, of any sort, that you want* does not mean "I WANT ALLA YER GUNZ TOOKED AWAY!!"
* Curiously you fools spend very little time screeching about how you aren't allowed to have things like .50 BMG's and the like without serious restrictions and regulation.
We are allowed to have .50 rifles that shoot the BMG round. The machine gun itself does require a lot of silliness to own legally, but we're working on the core issues first. The trouble that we have with your side is that you can't be trusted. If we allow the view to prevail that owning and carrying guns is a privilege, your next step will be to restrict that privilege. Whatever the government giveth, the government can take away.
DeleteAny rifle chambered in .50 BMG is illegal to possess for 12 percent of the U.S. population, (who are otherwise currently allowed to possess firearms) as is any ammunition suitable for such an aforementioned rifle. Such prohibition extends to the residents of California.
DeleteGreg Camp:
"The trouble that we have with your side is that you can't be trusted. If we allow the view to prevail that owning and carrying guns is a privilege, your next step will be to restrict that privilege. Whatever the government giveth, the government can take away."
Every action committed or perpetuated by a member of the citizenry is committed at the discretion of the State. The government provides/guarantees Life, Liberty, and Property for/to the masses by means of police forces, public schools, FDIC oversight, heath services, food safety regulation, employment/labor laws, public roads, and unemployment benefits, and therefore all members of a civilized society are very much the creation of the state. Due to the non-existence of individual rights, the framers of the Constitution deemed it necessary to establish legal protections for certain activities (such as speeches made by a public official, and the right of a Congressionally-funded State-sanctioned Militia to acquire, proliferate and possess lethal armaments) (and rather erroneously bestow bestow the label or "right" upon them) which they deemed necessary to limit the authority of the FEDERAL government.
Unfortunately, the U.S. allows the mentally challenged to vote, and the bizarre notion of "Rights" persists there.
E.N., find me an American writer, politician, thinker, or so forth who holds your view. The truth is that Americans, both in our leaders and in our population, generally believe that individuals have rights. What I say is in line with generations of my fellow citizens.
DeleteThat doesn't make me right a priori, but certainly, I'm a part of our cultural traditions, and you're not. This means that right or wrong, my side will win. Your view is dying out. You have a few countries left--North Korea, some central Asian nations, and so forth--where your social philosophy clings to existence. Syria is falling now.
As with another of your kind, it would be best for you to keep an easily concealable handgun around to shoot yourself when your enemies close in on you.
Greg:
Delete"E.N., find me an American writer, politician, thinker, or so forth who holds your view. "
Michel Bloomberg (NYC Mayor), Cass Sunstien (Writer, Former Chief ORIA), Diane Feinstien (CA Senator), Marion Barry (Former DC Mayor, DC Council 8th Ward), Dick Lugar (IN Senator), Lincoln Chafee (Former RI Senator, Current RI Governor), Justice Ginsberg, Justice Kagan, Justice Sotomyor, Justice Breyer, Former Justice Stevens, Former Justice Souter.
Deceased: Jhon Chafee (RI Governor, Senator), Strom Thurmond (Presidential Candidate, SC Governor, Senator), Chief Justice Warren Burger, and the infamous Nixon.
Only the perpetually simian younger generations (those in the streets of Benghazi, Cairo, Tripoli, Damascus, Jerusalem, Istanbul, Beijing, Paris, Harare, Warsaw, Berlin, London, Moscow, Leningrad, Astana, Rome, Mogadishu, NYC, LA, Sacramento, and DC) will support the ridiculous "cause" of individual freedom. This phenomenon is common to all societies, and is inherited by a new generation as it is outgrown by their predecessors.
As for handguns, here is a video of one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K73kKODFyzw
Imagine if these where available to the general public? In the U.S. this would require no special paperwork, as there technically is no suppressor (the cartridges themselves being silent, with no gasses emitted).
Well, lookie here, you give us the cast of anti-gun-rights characters. Now let's compare them to the list of politicians, even, who support gun rights. By the way, Marion Barry is probably not someone you want on your side.
DeleteBut the point here is that Americans, both the shining lights of the culture and the average citizen, support gun rights along with many other rights. Note that my question wasn't limited to gun rights. I asked about your notion that individuals have no rights at all. Show me American thinkers who agree with that. That'll be a short list, even including Father Coughlin.
Looking at the details of the PSS silent pistol, though, I'm not sure I'd want one. A thirty caliber handgun with a muzzle velocity of 660 ft/sec? Interesting, but get back to me when it shoots something serious.
Pooch, Greg is right, a minor point. Somebody said it and you're quoting it. The fact is, it a factual statement that someone isn't getting credit for. Another minor point.
ReplyDeleteorlin sellers
Laci:
ReplyDeleteI say that Orlon Zipper is a fucking moron.
You may quote me on that and then, well, I guess it's a fact.
Who's the moron? Someone should look up the meaning of "misquoting".
Deleteorlin sellers
Oh, shit, I got caught up in the moment and forgot that I wanted to say that Laci, mikeb302000, Laci the dog or dog gone have not, to my knowledge ever suggested that OWNING a gun is now or ever has been dependent upon being in a militia.
ReplyDeleteI know how worked up you fellas get whenever you perceive that you're penis substitutes are in gonna be subject to confiscation* and how the spittlefleckin' may make it difficult to read what's in front of you but I would have to see something written by one of us that indicated that ownership of teh gunz REQUIRES that one be in a militia. I'm sure that will be coming fortwith.
* despite the fact that I don't think that such a proposal--confiscating allayaall's gunz--has ever been put forward by mikeb3020000 or anybody else who writes posts on this blog
Apparently you don't read what Laci writes, then. He keeps whining that the 2A does not protect an individual right, but a collective right for those in the militia. He's a hypocrite for owning a firearm without being part of a militia. Dog Gone agrees with him and that makes her a hypocrite, too.
Deletemikeb, on the other hand, only wants to violate the 2A for some people, but not others. mikeb believes that some people deserve to own firearms, like the rich and famous, while others don't deserve the same protection, and Dog Gone agrees with mikeb as well, that there should be heavy restrictions on the ownership of firearms. She thinks there should be drug testing via hair samples (even the curly ones), psychological testing, and being able to demonstrate a need to exercise rights protected by the 2A. This makes her even more of a hypocrite because she owned a firearm without doing those things that she would burden others with.
You, democommie, I'm not sure exactly what your position is. It's so hard to follow your train of though, made up words, the excessive use of the letter Z, and the footnotes at the bottom of your comments to explain your comment, most of the time I don't waste my time reading your comments.
He only serves to bastardize it's own "cause". If it would make a coherent argument, we might make valuable progress with these computer-trained rednecks.
DeleteStating that there exists no individual right to possess firearms, and engaging in such behavior yourself does not make one a hypocrite, so long as you do not claim a individual right for yourself (unless you can demonstrate a reason and legal theory behind such a claim).
It is likely that Dog Gone had a valid reason to possess a firearm (society would be at a loss if she was killed), something many of you cannot truthfully apply to yourselves.
The fact that you refer to human beings as "it" shows your attitude toward us. But you've just landed yourself in a contradiction. You've said in the past that private citizens must rely on the government alone to protect them, but here you say that Dog Gone had a good reason for having a gun. She's not a "state actor," is she? How can a mere subject like her have any justification in being armed?
DeleteClaiming that she would be a loss to society, but we would not, also shows your screwed up thinking. Would you care to provide any evidence to support that assertion? What has she done that makes her so much more important than any other citizen?
It's not a minor point that you guys like to repeat bullshit stories cause they sound cool.
ReplyDeleteSomeone here likes to repeat bullshit stories, to be sure, but that's not I. As I said above, this one has always sounded questionable.
Delete"Apparently you don't read what Laci writes, then. He keeps whining that the 2A does not protect an individual right, but a collective right for those in the militia."
ReplyDeleteI DO read what he writes, you whining clown. You, like the rest of the gunzloonz who come here equate his saying the 2nd Amendment is not a carte blanche permit for you to have any and all gunz that are available IS THE SAME AS HIS SAYING THAT EVERYBODY'S GUNS SHOULD BE CONFISCATED. Sorry, Billy, it' just that simple. That you're too fucking stupid to read plain english or so caught up in your gunzfantasies is YOUR problem.
"You, democommie, I'm not sure exactly what your position is. It's so hard to follow your train of though, made up words, the excessive use of the letter Z, and the footnotes at the bottom of your comments to explain your comment, most of the time I don't waste my time reading your comments."
Well, shit, Billy, I don't actually give a fuck whether you read them or not. I just love making fun of you and your whining clownposse.
You and Greggie and Orlon Zapped and a few of the other idiots who comment here keep conflating other people's notion that there might be some reasonable form of REGULATION of gunz--particulary teh handcannonz--with a concerted effort to CONFISCATE YOUR GUNZ. Greggie still likes to trumpet this assertionbout me, a on a regular basis, despite being told that I, personally, don't want to confiscate everybody's gunz. He is a fucking LIAR, but then sensible folks already know that.
Laci:
I see that one of the gutless anonylegion of sockpuppets is putting your personal stuff out there again. Nothing says courage like having gunz and still lacking balls.
Speaking of lacking balls, I see that Laci is letting himself be defended by a mental patient that's lacking meds instead of defending himself.
Deletewhining clownposse LULZ
Democommie, it's so cute to watch you call others cowards for making anonymous posts while you use a pseudonym.
DeleteAs Bill said, your position isn't clear. You rant and cuss and abuse the English language, but in the end, you arrive at no point. I doubt you've thought the matter through enough to have a position. Regarding your continual assertion that I lie, you're invited again to prove it. Any time you're ready, I'll be pleased to go through your claim point by point. We can do it right here--are you still able to post articles?--and see what others think.
Or you can continue to be a coward by making nonsense comments and running away.
Still waiting, Democommie.
DeleteWhat I like about that pseudo-quote from Yamamoto is the self-aggrandizing, Red-Dawn thinking that goes into it. Gun nuts are truly delusional.
ReplyDeleteYou're the one who keeps bringing up that movie. Quit projecting, Mikeb. (And pardon the pun.)
DeleteThe entire issue on gun control is moot, or it should be. Lets take a look at the last part of Article II of the Constitution. "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It is beyond me as to why any elected official who is supposed to be educated, and familiar with the Constitution, can in any way misconstrue the meaning of the words "shall not be infringed."
ReplyDeleteThe president took an oath upon entering the White House to "protect and defend" the Constitution. To Push the agenda of gun control is in direct violation of his oath and should be looked at as treason.
You have all heard the arguments on both sides of the issue. Gun control advocates claim that Americans do not need so called "assault rifles" with high capacity magazines for hunting or to defend ourselves or our property. This is probably true, but I must point out to you that "the right to bear Arms" has nothing to do with hunting, or to stop home invasion. It has only one purpose, to stop any enemy, from threatening our liberty. That is it. The enemy could come from another country or be born here on our own shores.
Today our rights are being shredded by the people who we have given our trust to, the very people we have elected. The argument on gun control tells us that we have in place a system of defense to protect our lives and homes, but if you pay attention to the news you will see increasing violence by the very ones who are supposed to protect us.
If we are to survive as a free nation the people need to know that we do hold the power in this country, just like the founding fathers intended it. The second Amendment is designed to accomplish just this, to keep the government under control. If you think that our "vote" can do this, just look at what our elected officials are doing to us today. If we are to slip back into slavery why should the brave men and women who have fought and paid the price for our freedom have done so.
It is up to us here today to make the choice, freedom or slavery. What do you choose?
Thanks for your comment. I especially liked that "freedom or slavery" bit.
Delete