The Right To Bear Arms

[Dubya]

Calisphere - JARDA - Relocation and Incarceration of Japanese Americans During World War II

"On December 7, 1941, Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. The next day, the United States and Britain declared on Japan. Two months later, on February 19, 1942, the lives of thousands of Japanese Americans were dramatically changed when President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066 (view the Order). This order led to the assembly and evacuation and relocation of nearly 122,000 men, women, and children of Japanese ancestry on the west coast of the United States — but not in Hawaii, despite the bombing of Pearl Harbor.

Racism and Prejudice

Japanese Americans in Hawaii were not incarcerated because they made up nearly 40% of the population and a large portion of the skilled workforce. The fact they were not incarcerated suggests that the removal of Japanese Americans on the west coast was racially motivated rather than out of "military necessity." Agricultural interest groups in western states, and many local politicians, had long been against Japanese Americans, and used the attack on Pearl Harbor to step up calls for their removal.

The United States was fighting the war on three fronts — Japan, Germany, and Italy — compared to the number of Japanese Americans, a relatively small number of Germans and Italians were interned in the United States. But although Executive Order 9066 was written in vague terms that did not specify an ethnicity, it was used for the mass incarceration of Japanese Americans. The government claimed that incarceration was for military necessity and, ironically, to "protect" Japanese Americans from racist retribution they might face as a result of Pearl Harbor. (These reasons were later proved false by the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians in the 1980s.)

In fact, Japanese Americans and other Asian Americans had long been characterized as a foreign "Yellow Peril" that was a threat to the United States. Prejudice against Japanese Americans, including laws preventing them from owning land, existed long before World War II. Even though Japanese Americans largely considered themselves loyal and even patriotic Americans, suspicions about their loyalties were pervasive. Before Pearl Harbor was bombed, President Roosevelt secretly commissioned Curtis Munson, a businessman, to assess the possibility that Japanese Americans would pose a threat to US security. Munson’s report found (as cited in Ronald Takaki, Strangers from a Distant Shore, page 386) that "There will be no armed uprising of Japanese" in the United States. "For the most part," the report says, "the local Japanese are loyal to the United States or, at worst, hope that by remaining quiet they can avoid concentration camps or irresponsible mobs."

Despite these findings, however, thousands of families in California, Oregon, and Washington were soon incarcerated in government camps. The government — and popular sentiment — understood that German Americans were not necessarily Nazi sympathizers, and could distinguish Italian Americans from Mussolini’s Fascist regime, but they had a more difficult time separating Japanese Americans from Imperial Japan.

The majority of those interned — nearly 70,000, over 60% — were American citizens. Many of the rest were long-time US residents who had lived in this country between 20 and 40 years. By and large, most Japanese Americans, particularly the Nisei (the first generation born in the United States), considered themselves loyal Americans. No Japanese American or Japanese national was ever found guilty of sabotage or espionage."

Everything you have posted so far has inflated numbers and this article doesn't even have good facts, because Japanese were removed from Arizona, too (122,000 vs 110,000). It's the same propaganda about concentration camps.

The University of California is not a legitimate enough source on the facts of the matter for you? You stink of desperation, asshole. It must be clear by now - even to you - that you are defending the indefensible. Give it up and try being a real American for a change.

You post blogs that have two different numbers on the same page and talk about sources? All you have to do is study the subject from an objective source and compare it to what you post. There is obvious bias in what you choose to use as links.

 

[Dubya]

The mistake we sometimes make is that we attempt to use logic and facts in answer to ones emotional belief (faith if you will) and it is senseless to argue faith with logic or facts because faith will always trump reality.

You have the Emperor of Japan telling his people to spy. You have the Japanese in the dominant situation in the Pacific. You have the ability to transmit information on the west coast to Japanese submarines. You have the obvious logic that a nation like Japan would be stupid to not have agents in America.

I don't think you people can get it though your heads how dangerous the world was back then. It isn't like any kind of danger we have ever faced.

 

[Unkotare]

The mistake we sometimes make is that we attempt to use logic and facts in answer to ones emotional belief (faith if you will) and it is senseless to argue faith with logic or facts because faith will always trump reality.

You have the Emperor of Japan telling his people to spy. You have the Japanese in the dominant situation in the Pacific. You have the ability to transmit information on the west coast to Japanese submarines. You have the obvious logic that a nation like Japan would be stupid to not have agents in America.

I don't think you people can get it though your heads how dangerous the world was back then. It isn't like any kind of danger we have ever faced.

Now you are just repeating lame arguments that have already been proven baseless several times. And stop trying to talk as if you were even alive at the time, poseur. Your position is wrong, un-American, and indefensible. Repeating failed points won't change that.

 

[PaulS1950]

There was no evidence, no warrants, no trial, just the loss of everything they owned - stores, homes jewlery, furnishings and of course guns - they were allowed a suitcase or bag each. It was an unlawful and Un-American act.
You don't punish an entire population because a few of them may be criminals. You can't even punish the criminals without a trial first.

 

[Dubya]

"Yellow Peril" - There has always prejudice in America and still is today. I understand the farmers in California were happy, but the issue was competition, which tells me the Japanese there were good farmers. There may have been farm workers too, competing for jobs, because there were large amounts of Japanese imigrants who weren't American citizens. This is just a typical play the race card tactic.

If you deny that race was the determining factor in this case, you have taken your un-American dishonesty to a new low. Read the (direct) quotes from US Supreme Court Justices on the matter, you disgraceful punk.

I have provided source after source, quote after quote, and fact after fact. You have brought nothing but your own disingenuity and lack of character.

You haven't provided anything, including a mind. If Japan was full of Scots Irish, they would have done the exact same thing on the west coast. Their ethnicity only made them stand out and be easier to round up.

 

[Unkotare]

Just to refresh your memory:

"Japanese Americans in Hawaii were not incarcerated because they made up nearly 40% of the population and a large portion of the skilled workforce. The fact they were not incarcerated suggests that the removal of Japanese Americans on the west coast was racially motivated rather than out of "military necessity." Agricultural interest groups in western states, and many local politicians, had long been against Japanese Americans, and used the attack on Pearl Harbor to step up calls for their removal."

Oops, there goes that 'had to do it' argument.

 

[Unkotare]

"Yellow Peril" - There has always prejudice in America and still is today. I understand the farmers in California were happy, but the issue was competition, which tells me the Japanese there were good farmers. There may have been farm workers too, competing for jobs, because there were large amounts of Japanese imigrants who weren't American citizens. This is just a typical play the race card tactic.

If you deny that race was the determining factor in this case, you have taken your un-American dishonesty to a new low. Read the (direct) quotes from US Supreme Court Justices on the matter, you disgraceful punk.

I have provided source after source, quote after quote, and fact after fact. You have brought nothing but your own disingenuity and lack of character.

If Japan was full of Scots Irish, they would have done the exact same thing on the west coast.

This line of false reasoning has been debunked already. All the German-Americans on the East coast were not thrown into concentration camps despite the fact that there - in contrast to the case with Japanese Americans - there really were spy rings and actual espionage going on.

You fail again.

 

[Unkotare]

Just to refresh your memory:


"The broad provisions of the Bill of rights. . . are [not] suspended by the mere existence of a state of war. Distinctions based on color and ancestry are utterly inconsistent with our traditions and ideals. Today is the first time, so far as I am aware, that we have sustained a substantial restriction of the personal liberty of citizens based on the accident of race or ancestry. It bears a melancholy resemblance to the treatment accorded to members of the Jewish race in Germany This goes to the very brink of constitutional power."

—Associate Justice Frank Murphy, Concurring Opinion, Hirabayashi v. U.S., 1943

"This is not a case of keeping people off the streets at night as was Hirabayashi... It is a case of convict*ing a citizen ... for not submitting to imprisonment in a concentration camp solely because of his ancestry."

—Associate Justice Owen J. Roberts, Dissenting Opinion, Korematsu v. U.S., 1944

"[There have to be] definite limits to military discretion, especially where martial law has not been declared. Individuals must not be impoverished of their constitutional rights on a plea of military necessity that has neither substance nor support."

—Associate Justice Frank Murphy, Concurring Opinion, Ex Parte Endo , 1944

 

[Dubya]

If you deny that race was the determining factor in this case, you have taken your un-American dishonesty to a new low. Read the (direct) quotes from US Supreme Court Justices on the matter, you disgraceful punk.

I have provided source after source, quote after quote, and fact after fact. You have brought nothing but your own disingenuity and lack of character.

If Japan was full of Scots Irish, they would have done the exact same thing on the west coast.

This line of false reasoning has been debunked already. All the German-Americans on the East coast were not thrown into concentration camps despite the fact that there - in contrast to the case with Japanese Americans - there really were spy rings and actual espionage going on.

You fail again.

Dumbass! You have already been told and it was proven by figures that the Japanese on the east coast didn't go to internment camps. They weren't a threat on the east coast. There were restrictions to going near certain areas. There were also German and Italian foreign enemy nationals allowed freedom on the east coast with the same restrictions. Almost all the Japanese in America were on the west coast, except for Hawaii which was a territory.

 

[Unkotare]

If Japan was full of Scots Irish, they would have done the exact same thing on the west coast.

This line of false reasoning has been debunked already. All the German-Americans on the East coast were not thrown into concentration camps despite the fact that there - in contrast to the case with Japanese Americans - there really were spy rings and actual espionage going on.

You fail again.

Dumbass! You have already been told and it was proven by figures that the Japanese on the east coast didn't go to internment camps. They weren't a threat on the east coast. .

Pay attention, idiot. I said 'German-Americans' on the East coast.


The whole 'threat of espionage' argument has been blown up in your face several times now.

 

[Lakhota]

 

[P@triot]

Wednesday morning, the White House accused the NRA of using children as "pawns in a political fight," because we pointed out in an advertisement that while President Obama's children are protected by armed guards at school, their father had shown little interest in armed protection for anyone else's children. We said Obama was being hypocritical. The White House said our ad was "repugnant and cowardly."

NRA-ILA | Hypocrisy and Theatrics as Obama Launches Campaign Against Second Amendment

 

[P@triot]

The Men Who Support Your RIGHT To Bear Arms:

• George Washington
• James Madison
• Thomas Jefferson
• Alexander Hamilton

The Men Who Do NOT Support Your Right To Bear Arms:

• Adolf Hitler
• Joseph Stalin
• Fidel Castro
• Barack Obama

 

[P@triot]

"The philosophy of gun control: Teenagers are roaring through town at 90MPH, where the speed limit is 25. Your solution is to lower the speed limit to 20." -Sam Cohen

 

[Dubya]

Wednesday morning, the White House accused the NRA of using children as "pawns in a political fight," because we pointed out in an advertisement that while President Obama's children are protected by armed guards at school, their father had shown little interest in armed protection for anyone else's children. We said Obama was being hypocritical. The White House said our ad was "repugnant and cowardly."

NRA-ILA | Hypocrisy and Theatrics as Obama Launches Campaign Against Second Amendment

Your NRA ad is way over the line and if you don't know that, you're way over the line and lack proper judgment. It isn't the President's job to place security in schools. 18 states allow guns in schools and that means 32 states don't. There is nothing stopping a community which allows guns in schools raising their property taxes slightly to pay for security. There is nothing stopping a state legislature changing the laws of that state to allow guns in school. The fact is most schools in states that allow guns in school don't want security in the schools. They don't want anyone with a gun around their children.

This is a state and local matter and shouldn't involve the federal government.

 

[Dubya]

Just to refresh your memory:

"Japanese Americans in Hawaii were not incarcerated because they made up nearly 40% of the population and a large portion of the skilled workforce. The fact they were not incarcerated suggests that the removal of Japanese Americans on the west coast was racially motivated rather than out of "military necessity." Agricultural interest groups in western states, and many local politicians, had long been against Japanese Americans, and used the attack on Pearl Harbor to step up calls for their removal."

Oops, there goes that 'had to do it' argument.

It only suggests that to an idiot like you. Hawaii wasn't a state and they could restrict the Japanese from getting near sensitive military installations, so there was no problem with sabotage or espionage. I'm sure they believed there were Japanese agents in Hawaii, but if they were denied access to sensitive information, the agents could be used to help crack Japanese codes by feeding them misinformation. We had the ability to locate signals in those days and we most certainly were using that ability. Regardless of the language or codes involved, the communication all comes down to the dots and dashes of Morse Code, which is intercepted and copied rather easily by trained people. I was trained to do it when I was around 9 years old by someone who was in communications in the Air Force. You simply scan the frequencies for chatter. Any coded message stands out, because it doesn't make sense, meaning the letters don't spell recognizable words. The people are equipped with a parabolic antenna that can measure the strength of the signal, therefore it's direction can be determined. They are equipped with communication to other stations so the frequency of the transmission can be communicated. They plot the location by determining the intersection of the signal directions from as many stations as possible. Communications requires electricity, which means it has to be done with batteries or direct power and the batteries are heavy. Once you find the location of the communication, you can determine who is doing it. If the agent isn't in a position to give out sensitive information, they aren't a threat and they can be set up to report misinformation where specific words can be used to crack their code.

I can think of two sensitive locations in Hawaii and they could be secured well enough to be out of visual range. The west coast is a very different story, there were sensitive locations all over the place. Information that a carrier made it back to a shipyard and was being repair was critical information in WWII. How is it possible to secure 100,000+ Japanese from dozens of sensitive locations, let alone what information they could pick up from servicemen running their mouths?

President Franklin D. Roosevelt authorized the internment with Executive Order 9066, issued February 19, 1942

Source: Japanese American internment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Battle of the Coral Sea, fought from 4–8 May 1942, was a major naval battle in the Pacific Theater of World War II between the Imperial Japanese Navy and Allied naval and air forces from the United States and Australia. The battle was the first action in which aircraft carriers engaged each other, as well as the first in which neither side's ships sighted or fired directly upon the other.

Although a tactical victory for the Japanese in terms of ships sunk, the battle would prove to be a strategic victory for the Allies for several reasons. Japanese expansion, seemingly unstoppable until then, was turned back for the first time. More importantly, the Japanese fleet carriers Shōkaku and Zuikaku – one damaged and the other with a depleted aircraft complement – were unable to participate in the Battle of Midway, which took place the following month, ensuring a rough parity in aircraft between the two adversaries and contributing significantly to the U.S. victory in that battle. The severe losses in carriers at Midway prevented the Japanese from reattempting to invade Port Moresby from the ocean. Two months later, the Allies took advantage of Japan's resulting strategic vulnerability in the South Pacific and launched the Guadalcanal Campaign that, along with the New Guinea Campaign, eventually broke Japanese defenses in the South Pacific and was a significant contributing factor to Japan's ultimate defeat in World War II.

Source: Battle of the Coral Sea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You obviously can't look at those dates or use your brain to figure out there were Japanese agents on the west coast of the United States and in Hawaii. You're a fool trying to make something out of nothing.

 

[P@triot]

Wednesday morning, the White House accused the NRA of using children as "pawns in a political fight," because we pointed out in an advertisement that while President Obama's children are protected by armed guards at school, their father had shown little interest in armed protection for anyone else's children. We said Obama was being hypocritical. The White House said our ad was "repugnant and cowardly."

NRA-ILA | Hypocrisy and Theatrics as Obama Launches Campaign Against Second Amendment

Your NRA ad is way over the line and if you don't know that, you're way over the line and lack proper judgment. It isn't the President's job to place security in schools. 18 states allow guns in schools and that means 32 states don't. There is nothing stopping a community which allows guns in schools raising their property taxes slightly to pay for security. There is nothing stopping a state legislature changing the laws of that state to allow guns in school. The fact is most schools in states that allow guns in school don't want security in the schools. They don't want anyone with a gun around their children.

This is a state and local matter and shouldn't involve the federal government.

The only thing "over the line" is your complete inability to read and comprehend. At no point did I, or the NRA, claim that it was (and I quote you here) "the president's job to place security in schools".

We are both pointing out the hypocrisy of the idiot Obama and his dumbocrats. The man is looking to ban assault weapons while his family is heavily guarded by assault weapons. It's speaks volumes that both you and he are too fucking stupid to see the irony/hypocrisy of that.

 

[expatriate]

We are both pointing out the hypocrisy of the idiot Obama and his dumbocrats. The man is looking to ban assault weapons while his family is heavily guarded by assault weapons. It's speaks volumes that both you and he are too fucking stupid to see the irony/hypocrisy of that.

It is ridiculous to compare the security surrounding the president of the united states and his family with that provided private citizens. Bringing that necessary security provided for the president into the national debate on gun control is what is hypocritical.

 

[Dubya]

Wednesday morning, the White House accused the NRA of using children as "pawns in a political fight," because we pointed out in an advertisement that while President Obama's children are protected by armed guards at school, their father had shown little interest in armed protection for anyone else's children. We said Obama was being hypocritical. The White House said our ad was "repugnant and cowardly."

NRA-ILA | Hypocrisy and Theatrics as Obama Launches Campaign Against Second Amendment

Your NRA ad is way over the line and if you don't know that, you're way over the line and lack proper judgment. It isn't the President's job to place security in schools. 18 states allow guns in schools and that means 32 states don't. There is nothing stopping a community which allows guns in schools raising their property taxes slightly to pay for security. There is nothing stopping a state legislature changing the laws of that state to allow guns in school. The fact is most schools in states that allow guns in school don't want security in the schools. They don't want anyone with a gun around their children.

This is a state and local matter and shouldn't involve the federal government.

The only thing "over the line" is your complete inability to read and comprehend. At no point did I, or the NRA, claim that it was (and I quote you here) "the president's job to place security in schools".

We are both pointing out the hypocrisy of the idiot Obama and his dumbocrats. The man is looking to ban assault weapons while his family is heavily guarded by assault weapons. It's speaks volumes that both you and he are too fucking stupid to see the irony/hypocrisy of that.

Reading has nothing to do with it. I've seen the ad several times and it isn't about assault weapons and was put out before any assault weapons ban was proposed. It's saying the first family has security and Obama won't give that security to your children. It breaks the rule of talking about the President's children and the subject is not a federal issue but a local one. States and local schools are suppose to provide security if they want it and most don't. The ad is stupid, period.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bKw7ZsQgtc]Protection For Obama's Kids, Gun-Free Zones For Ours? - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Unkotare]

Hawaii wasn't a state and they could restrict the Japanese from getting near sensitive military installations, so there was no problem with sabotage or espionage.

Hawaii was essentially a huge military installation at the time. No better place for espionage and/or sabotage. And there were many, many more Japanese concentrated in one place, undoubtedly with many well entrenched into the local economy and society. Very much closer to Japan and Japanese holdings and in a much better location for reporting and communicating information (as you yourself argued before you realized that residents of Hawaii were largely not sent to FDR's concentration camps, you ignorant shit). This, combined with the FACT that only a relatively tiny fraction of German Americans had their Constitutional rights abrogated despite their far larger numbers overall AND on the East coast where actual spy operations were active, completely and totally blows your stupid 'it was necessary' argument right out of the water.

"Japanese Americans in Hawaii were not incarcerated because they made up nearly 40% of the population and a large portion of the skilled workforce. The fact they were not incarcerated suggests that the removal of Japanese Americans on the west coast was racially motivated rather than out of "military necessity." Agricultural interest groups in western states, and many local politicians, had long been against Japanese Americans, and used the attack on Pearl Harbor to step up calls for their removal."