Not surprising, let's be honest the Japanese during WW2 probably didn't have the best reputation (cough Unit 731, Rape of Nanjing, treatment of Allied POWs) that would lead to them wanting to have these former psychopaths have guns again.
Which ironically led to them getting rid of their entire military, replacing it with a self defence force and having to have the US stationed there permanently which built up resentment thanks to some of the actions of soldiers stationed there.
I think they did the same to Germans too if memory serves right, only thanks to the Berlin Airlift happening so quickly after, it made them backtrack quickly to Germany NEEDS a military again.
I've visited the museum in the titular city, and it's clear they're trying hard to turn it into a grift similar to the Holocaust grift.
They can talk about how horrible it was though literally six months later, after losing months-long battle at Xuzhou, the KMT military intentionally broke the levees on part of the Yellow River to flood large sections of land. It caused at least twice as many deaths as the agreed-upon Nanjing massacre death toll over the course of the flood's existence. Sure, it stopped the Japanese from reaching China's military core and reusing the transit systems but it's a mildly poor justification for the damage it caused.
Oh the Nationalist military in China were WOEFULLY bad, their self inflicted body count was massive, the main reason why the commies gained enough support after the war to take over.
Plus they can try with the Rape of Nanjing but then you'll have to also mention that thousands were saved thanks to foreign emissaries especially a Nazi party member
Personally I feel like Nanjing grift is more the CCP trying to deflect how much damage they've done to the country themselves. Because thinking about all the things under Mao could practically dwarf the amount of slaughtering Imperial Japan did.
And also having a longstanding deathwish against Japan
You know that the Allied powers were disarming not just the Japanese military but the Japanese CIVILIANS right? i thought you would understand that the civilians are not the military nor the government. The whole argument over civilians having the right to have guns is so that they can fight the government is it not? and yet the Allied powers obviously didnt believe in that as they disarmed the Japanese civilians
Yeah the 'victorious side' was retarded with that belief, it's only fortunate America had it written centuries earlier as the 2nd ammendment and even THEN there's been constant gun grabs.
You only need to look up the Battle of Okinawa to see why they wouldn't trust CIVILIANS with weapons either.
They had the same issue in Germany too that led to the 'werwolf' paranoia for a while not to mention there were still a few legitimate traps placed for allied soldiers by resentful Germans after WW2.
It was stupid not to repeal it all later though when it was confirmed they wouldn't want to murder you all when they got their guns and swords back as that stifled having more home grown experience with weapons.
What SHOULD have happened was they were converted culturally and then had rights restored,
So basically "we will only allow you weapons once we've brainwashed you to think the way we want you to think"
Gee i wonder if that doesn't set any bad precedence. Like i dont know.... Leftists taking away guns from right wingers and deciding to only give the guns back after they've brainwashed right wingers to become leftists
I think the problem is you're assuming all cultures are equal and hence deserve the same constitutional rights. Nah. I wouldn't trust quite a few nationalities to freely own guns
If not all cultures are equal, then America doesn't have the right to impose its values on to every other country because other cultures would naturally be better off under different type of governance and not every country or culture would fit the American style of governance .Yet America has continuously justified every war its been in as "trying to fight the evil authoritarians" and acting like other countries are less moral for not having the "free democracy or republic" that America does. Claiming you fight for freedom and acting like everyone else is morally inferior for having less freedom, whilst you also ban citizens of another country from owning weapons is the height of hypocrisy.
And actually, America has been interfering with other countries affairs since day one. One of America's founding fathers Thomas Jefferson even supported the French revolution and helped rewrite some of the new French constitution, just because he didn't like monarchy even though the French revolution was literally a proto communist revolution
And people need to stop supporting the narrative that America was "fighting for freedom" in ww2 cause they clearly were not. Yet a lot of ww2 propaganda involves demonizing the Axis countries as being controlled by "authoritarians" and "dictators" (i mean the words "Nazi" and "fascist" have basically become stand in words for "authoritarian" for normies) and this is used as a big part of justifying the Allies as the "good guys"
Maybe if the US didn't spread Democracy, but instead spread Republicanism they'd have more success.
Give everyone their own US constitution with all the ammendments.
It's more embedded into the culture, going farther back. When Japan underwent the Meiji "Restoration" they were trying to maintain stability, sword use was restricted to officers, guns were not easy to obtain just yet.
I'm not surprised that this concept would be renewed and expanded under Allied occupation post-WWII. The whole point was defanging a beaten dog.
When Shinzo Abe was assassinated, a silly newspaper editor said that this was the first time that a Japanese Prime Minister had been assassinated with a gun.
A cursory glance of the history of Japanese Prime Ministers will reveal the truth - that numerous gun-involved assassinations have taken place, but the last one was in 1936.
That another assassination didn't take place until 2022 probably has something to do with the Allied-imposed gun ban on Japan.
A US president hasn't been assassinated with a gun in like 60 years and that was an inside job organized by the CIA and other members of the government. If you don't count that then we go back even further than 1936.
Japan also has the lowest rates of violence and highest conviction rates now, without firearms, and that's entirely to do with their correctly xenophobic immigration policies. Also their Confucian background discourages people from "rocking the boat" when it comes to being a disruptive piece of shit like our Western activists are.
I would argue the UK is a better argument for arming keeping US citizens armed since they are no longer a homogeneous culture/race.
Asserting Judeo-Capitalist / Judeo-Bolshevist conspiracy. No, "I'm just asking questions" is not a good enough excuse for me to pretend I don't understand how your are trying to cultivate a National Socialist recruitment ecosystem.
They banned guns and a former PM gets assassinated anyways by a gun...
Not surprising, let's be honest the Japanese during WW2 probably didn't have the best reputation (cough Unit 731, Rape of Nanjing, treatment of Allied POWs) that would lead to them wanting to have these former psychopaths have guns again.
Which ironically led to them getting rid of their entire military, replacing it with a self defence force and having to have the US stationed there permanently which built up resentment thanks to some of the actions of soldiers stationed there.
I think they did the same to Germans too if memory serves right, only thanks to the Berlin Airlift happening so quickly after, it made them backtrack quickly to Germany NEEDS a military again.
I've visited the museum in the titular city, and it's clear they're trying hard to turn it into a grift similar to the Holocaust grift.
They can talk about how horrible it was though literally six months later, after losing months-long battle at Xuzhou, the KMT military intentionally broke the levees on part of the Yellow River to flood large sections of land. It caused at least twice as many deaths as the agreed-upon Nanjing massacre death toll over the course of the flood's existence. Sure, it stopped the Japanese from reaching China's military core and reusing the transit systems but it's a mildly poor justification for the damage it caused.
Oh the Nationalist military in China were WOEFULLY bad, their self inflicted body count was massive, the main reason why the commies gained enough support after the war to take over.
Plus they can try with the Rape of Nanjing but then you'll have to also mention that thousands were saved thanks to foreign emissaries especially a Nazi party member
Personally I feel like Nanjing grift is more the CCP trying to deflect how much damage they've done to the country themselves. Because thinking about all the things under Mao could practically dwarf the amount of slaughtering Imperial Japan did.
And also having a longstanding deathwish against Japan
Yep, they're pulling a North Korea.
You know that the Allied powers were disarming not just the Japanese military but the Japanese CIVILIANS right? i thought you would understand that the civilians are not the military nor the government. The whole argument over civilians having the right to have guns is so that they can fight the government is it not? and yet the Allied powers obviously didnt believe in that as they disarmed the Japanese civilians
Most of the allied powers don't believe in civilians having the right to have guns in the first place.
Yeah the 'victorious side' was retarded with that belief, it's only fortunate America had it written centuries earlier as the 2nd ammendment and even THEN there's been constant gun grabs.
Exactly my point
Yes that's what I was inferring
You only need to look up the Battle of Okinawa to see why they wouldn't trust CIVILIANS with weapons either.
They had the same issue in Germany too that led to the 'werwolf' paranoia for a while not to mention there were still a few legitimate traps placed for allied soldiers by resentful Germans after WW2.
It was stupid not to repeal it all later though when it was confirmed they wouldn't want to murder you all when they got their guns and swords back as that stifled having more home grown experience with weapons.
The Allied powers claim "we're freeing them from authoritarian rule" and "we're fighting for freedom" whilst banning the civilians from having guns .
I mean Japanese women were killing their babies and bundling them up in blankets with live grenades and explosive devices
It's 1/2 dozen vs 6 in this case, they couldn't be trusted with weapons but technically every free man has a right to defend themselves.
What SHOULD have happened was they were converted culturally and then had rights restored, but that's fairy land where government isn't crooked
So basically "we will only allow you weapons once we've brainwashed you to think the way we want you to think"
Gee i wonder if that doesn't set any bad precedence. Like i dont know.... Leftists taking away guns from right wingers and deciding to only give the guns back after they've brainwashed right wingers to become leftists
I think the problem is you're assuming all cultures are equal and hence deserve the same constitutional rights. Nah. I wouldn't trust quite a few nationalities to freely own guns
If not all cultures are equal, then America doesn't have the right to impose its values on to every other country because other cultures would naturally be better off under different type of governance and not every country or culture would fit the American style of governance .Yet America has continuously justified every war its been in as "trying to fight the evil authoritarians" and acting like other countries are less moral for not having the "free democracy or republic" that America does. Claiming you fight for freedom and acting like everyone else is morally inferior for having less freedom, whilst you also ban citizens of another country from owning weapons is the height of hypocrisy.
And actually, America has been interfering with other countries affairs since day one. One of America's founding fathers Thomas Jefferson even supported the French revolution and helped rewrite some of the new French constitution, just because he didn't like monarchy even though the French revolution was literally a proto communist revolution
Yes, and?
And people need to stop supporting the narrative that America was "fighting for freedom" in ww2 cause they clearly were not. Yet a lot of ww2 propaganda involves demonizing the Axis countries as being controlled by "authoritarians" and "dictators" (i mean the words "Nazi" and "fascist" have basically become stand in words for "authoritarian" for normies) and this is used as a big part of justifying the Allies as the "good guys"
Comment Reported for: Rule 12 - Intentional Falsehoods
I don't see why.
Maybe if the US didn't spread Democracy, but instead spread Republicanism they'd have more success. Give everyone their own US constitution with all the ammendments.
So that is why Godzilla keeps on attacking Tokyo. The Japanese are defenseless without their guns.
Godzilla, not Gunzilla.
It's more embedded into the culture, going farther back. When Japan underwent the Meiji "Restoration" they were trying to maintain stability, sword use was restricted to officers, guns were not easy to obtain just yet.
I'm not surprised that this concept would be renewed and expanded under Allied occupation post-WWII. The whole point was defanging a beaten dog.
When Shinzo Abe was assassinated, a silly newspaper editor said that this was the first time that a Japanese Prime Minister had been assassinated with a gun.
A cursory glance of the history of Japanese Prime Ministers will reveal the truth - that numerous gun-involved assassinations have taken place, but the last one was in 1936.
That another assassination didn't take place until 2022 probably has something to do with the Allied-imposed gun ban on Japan.
A US president hasn't been assassinated with a gun in like 60 years and that was an inside job organized by the CIA and other members of the government. If you don't count that then we go back even further than 1936.
BuT dO yOu kNoW tHe NaZiS dIsArMeD tHe JeWs BeFoRe Ww2?
Japan also has the lowest rates of violence and highest conviction rates now, without firearms, and that's entirely to do with their correctly xenophobic immigration policies. Also their Confucian background discourages people from "rocking the boat" when it comes to being a disruptive piece of shit like our Western activists are.
I would argue the UK is a better argument for arming keeping US citizens armed since they are no longer a homogeneous culture/race.
i mean i wouldn't want someone i'm occupying after a 5 year war to be armed either.
This looks like one of those stupid unpopular laws that will require replealing the post ww2 constitution to fix.
Comment Reported for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
Comment Removed for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
Asserting Judeo-bolshevism & Judeo-Capitalist conspiracy.
Comment Reported for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
Comment Removed for Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
Asserting Judeo-Capitalist / Judeo-Bolshevist conspiracy. No, "I'm just asking questions" is not a good enough excuse for me to pretend I don't understand how your are trying to cultivate a National Socialist recruitment ecosystem.
Comment Removed for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
Asserting Judeo-Bolshevism.
Also they weren't even fighting jews. This is Japan. They didn't believe in Aryanism or National Socialism.