Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Your claim then allows for you to violate people's rights in the name of safety. That just seems strange coming from a conservative like yourself.

---

Again, it is a tough decision.

To me, the good of the many outweighs the good of the few. Japanese-Americans could be compensated for financial losses, but not so with anyone who might have died as a result of nefarious actions of a subset of those Japanese-Americans.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

ABATTBQ87 said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

ABATTBQ87 said:

---

Quote:

---

I think we can all agree that if we have fewer guns in the country, we'd have fewer gun deaths. I'm still not going to allow the government to violate the second amendment

---

I don't agree with that at all

---

There is some evidence to support this claim. There would be fewer suicides by gun.

---

great, more suicides by hanging or overdoses, hooray liberals!

---

I'd imagine more people survive suicide attempts by hanging and overdose than by gun. Hooray, we've lowered the death rate and therefore it's justified.


You do realize this discussion isn't about guns, right?

---

you brought it up

I also said I wouldn't allow the 2nd Amendment to be violated. Good grief.

It's amazing how much power you'll yield to the government when it's not you or your children having their rights taken away.

Surely you'll understand when the government comes and does that to you. You know, the good of the whole over the few and all.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

It's amazing how much power you'll yield to the government when it's not you or your children having their rights taken away.

Surely you'll understand when the government comes and does that to you. You know, the good of the whole over the few and all.

---

This response could lead to blowing this whole thread up, so I'll save those thoughts for myself. In light of the Japanese-Americans rights, though, I've already stated that was wrong but that in the context of the time, it was a necessary action. Admittedly, this is an aspect of WWII that I have not studied deeply - were there reparations for those directly impacted? For some reason I'm thinking that is how this was rectified, but might be wrong on that point.

But I will say it's amazing how easily you brush off potential death of any number of American citizens all to protect the rights of a subset of that citizenry.

How much is your freedom and the freedom of your children worth right now for future pay offs?

If we think they're spies, monitor them. You don't get to just throw them in prison because it's easier.

Sapper Redux said:

---

It would absolutely make sense to investigate people with connections to Japan. It makes no sense to just throw American citizens into detention because of their race.

---

That's how it worked in Hawaii. Certainly a location where a spy could do a lot more harm than on the West Coast.

https://time.com/5802127/hawaii-internment-order/

Quote:

---

But in this story the real unsung hero is Emmons. Historians who have examined his conduct concluded that while Emmons gave lip service to the need for an evacuation, he really staged a shrewdly calculated deliberate delaying action, raising one obstacle after another to any mass evacuation scheme. This required no small degree of moral courage. His predecessor, Gen. Short, had been relieved of command after Pearl Harbor and vilified for his failures. If Emmons had been a soldier of lesser character, he might have sought to win favor and elevation in rank or position by appearing a willing hand implementing the orders from Washington. The path he followed carried no small risk of having his career blighted or ended by obstructing Washington's plan. But he held to his course of preventing mass evacuation. He was also fortunate. The U.S. Navy's victory at the Battle of Midway in June 1942 lifted the threat of invasion. By July, Emmons proclaimed the conduct of Hawaii's Japanese population was "highly satisfactory." In the end, after scaling down the target figures drastically, Emmons transferred only 1,875 Hawaiian residents of Japanese ancestry to the mainlandprotecting the other 98%.

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

ABATTBQ87 said:

---

Quote:

---

I think we can all agree that if we have fewer guns in the country, we'd have fewer gun deaths. I'm still not going to allow the government to violate the second amendment

---

I don't agree with that at all

---

There is some evidence to support this claim. There would be fewer suicides by gun.

---

so they'd just use another means.

agracer said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

ABATTBQ87 said:

---

Quote:

---

I think we can all agree that if we have fewer guns in the country, we'd have fewer gun deaths. I'm still not going to allow the government to violate the second amendment

---

I don't agree with that at all

---

There is some evidence to support this claim. There would be fewer suicides by gun.

---

so they'd just use another means.

---

Correct. Please recognize that I clearly stated that I'll fight for the 2nd amendment. It is amazing how any mention of guns immediately causes people to miss the point because "Won't someone think of the gun!" mentality.