Stay in touch with the latest and widest range of Japan News with JapanToday's News Alert newsletter.
Up to the moment news in your inbox everyday. Subscribe now!
NEW USER REGISTRATION
Already a JapanToday registered user?
Login to update your settings to subscribe to News Alert.
Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday.
Letters and numbers only; 5 to 50 characters. This cannot be changed later.
You will be sent an email to activate your account before you can log in.
Yes, I would like to receive news alerts from JapanToday
mikesboMay. 08, 2013 - 10:14AM JST
I remember Akihabara before all of the anime/manga/kibakei stuff. I liked it much more as a place of electronics and computer geekvana. A lot of that is still there, but it's not like the old days with all of the specialized cubby-hole shops that seem to be fewer and fewer each time I visit.
Posted in: The past, present and future of maid cafes
mikesboJan. 28, 2013 - 11:38AM JST
Why is it only "gun" violence matters? Is every other type of violence somehow OK? There are people who don't want the public (US) to have guns. That is the agenda, not stopping violence. More people are killed with hammers per year than with so-called "assault rifles." You are very nearly as likely to die brushing your teeth as to be killed in a "mass murder" like Sandy Brook.
America IS different than Japan. What works there WILL NOT work in America. Australia and the UK have gun bans, and their murder rates, assault rates, home invasion rates went WAY (69% in the case of Australian murders) up.
What's more, the purpose of 2A is to arm the people AGAINST the government: "When a government fears the people, there is liberty. When a people fears its government, there is tyranny." That purpose is probably lost on most Americans, but if things get truly bad enough, it is the government fearing (respecting) the people which matters, not an actual 1776-style revolution. The problem is, people (liberals) in the US will not realize this until it is too late, and it is already getting late.
The US gov wants a top-down authority-driven model like Japan, but the reason it works in Japan is because of Japan's particular and homogeneous culture. It can not work in the US, and all that confiscating guns form law abiding citizens will do is to insure they're unarmed when criminals, who will not turn them in, come a calling (e.g. home invasions up 29% in Australia).
Most people in the US are, in truth, not for gun control, at least "not for me" (just everyone else). Even those who "support" it will head to the gun store and buy one if they feel threatened. Liberals are hypocrites, and do not realize that if a law is not for everyone, it is for no one.
Posted in: In Japan, gun ownership is a privilege, not a right
mikesboSep. 24, 2012 - 09:30AM JST
There is no such thing in the world today as "unregulated capitalism" (other than what are called "black markets"). They are all "regulated", which is to say controlled and manipulated by various states.
Japan and China are very different from what they were a century-or-so ago. China is much, much wealthier and a greater military force, while Japan is less wealthy relatively, and much, much less a military force. What's more, the Chinese people (at least as evidenced by these protesters) are looking for China to go out and get payback for what happened four generations ago, i.e. not to anyone marching around with signs today, as well as for China to basically do what Japan tried to do 100 years ago.
This is one faction in a very large country, so who knows what China will, collectively, do. Two things are certain, and this is perhaps what China is banking on, the US is too broke to go to war to defend Japan and too dependent upon China as its great "trade partner"/"US debt financier."
The American century is over.
Posted in: Chinese leaders may come to regret anti-Japan protests
mikesboJan. 17, 2011 - 07:23AM JST
Posted in: Arizona shooting once again ignites gun control debate
mikesboJan. 16, 2011 - 11:09AM JST
Junnama, the final authority is the people. That's what 2A is all about. Whether they/we abdicate, as you obviously have (assuming you're American), or not is another matter.
mikesboJan. 15, 2011 - 03:00PM JST
"Oh and interpretation of the constitution is the responsibility of the supreme court"
Absolutely not! The constitution was written to be understood and interpreted by everyone. Why have 2A otherwise?
mikesboJan. 11, 2011 - 02:44PM JST
The G18 is the only full auto model. Look it up at Glock's website, again censored URL, because "it contains potentially offensive content." It's a magazine, not a clip, and a 33rd magazine in a semi-auto pistol is, tautologically, a semi-auto pistol with a 33rd magazine, period.
As for the G18 and "assault weapon", that term is very loosely defined. Basically, it has been used to describe any black, scary-looking gun. Typically, semi-automatic carbines like the AR-15, which resemble the select-fire assault rifle versions used by the military. So, whatever.
mikesboJan. 11, 2011 - 02:06PM JST
Haha, Rat, good one...
mikesboJan. 11, 2011 - 01:57PM JST
"So that said, why didn't that law prevent the carnage this time?"
I wasn't there. Some have said people were unarmed because it was a liberal event. I speculated it may have been a "gun-free zone." Perhaps, as Zenny says, it was "unsafe" to fire, so those with CCW acted responsibly and physically restrained him (which disproves other comments I've seen here) rather than risk hitting others. I don't know.
mikesboJan. 11, 2011 - 01:44PM JST
"How was it that noone else was armed?"
I can only speculate, but it's likely it was a "gun-free zone", which means the criminal was the only one armed.
mikesboJan. 11, 2011 - 01:42PM JST
The last was to Paul, although clipped again for some reason.
mikesboJan. 11, 2011 - 01:34PM JST
As I said, if 1 in 5 in that crowd had been armed, the shooter, with his semi-auto G19, would have fired 1 or 2 rounds as opposed to emptying the magazine, as I believe he did, before being stopped.
mikesboJan. 11, 2011 - 01:22PM JST
"In an age of exploration and flintlocks, they won."
That was state-of-the-art at that time. 2A was intended to give the average citizen, males of fighting age (~16-50), the militiaman, the same weapon as the army. That would be laws, M14's, P90's, M16's, M1A's, M60's, and all the rest today.
"You can't just chop it in half and cherry pick the bit you like."
I most certainly am not ignoring any part of it:
"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."
"regulated", does not mean government controlled. "Militia" refers, as I have said, to all men of fighting age. "the right" is not granted here, but acknowledged as pre-existing. "shall not be infringed", what could be more clear?
"Laws change. Laws get adjusted."
This is my point. 2A reads exactly as it did when written. It has not been changed. If you don't like it. Change it. Remove it. Don't ignore and violate it.
"You are talking about anarchy."
It is you who are talking about anarchy. I'm talking about the government, everyone, under the rule of law, not ignoring it because they don't "feel" it applies any longer.
mikesboJan. 11, 2011 - 01:10PM JST
"A 33-round magazine really does effectivly turn the Glock 19 semi-automatic (which has an eight round minimum) into an assault weapon."
No. You could argue that a Glock 18 is an assault "weapon" (many would argue it is not, owing to the low power of the 9x19 round, short barrel, etc.), but key to the definition is being select-fire, semi and full-automatic.
mikesboJan. 11, 2011 - 01:02PM JST
Gun control/registration is the first step to confiscation. History proves it. For you to say, "It will be different this time!", is not convincing for me.
But fine, as I have said, gun control is illegal. I'm not pouting about "losing my guns", I'm talking about who will watch the watchers, ones who have broken their own laws.
And then there is liberty. Is the government your servant or you its? Safety? "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away." Who is responsible for your safety? Your family's? The government, or you? Benjamin Franklin had an excellent quote on that topic:
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
If you disagree with all of this then I say you're right to have left the US. Good luck to you.
mikesboJan. 11, 2011 - 12:40PM JST
"dang it, its not that hard to understand."
Exactly, and yet you don't get it. REALITY, as you put it, is a government outside the rule of law. You may be OK with that, but I'm not. The constitution was never meant to be read and interpreted only by the supreme court (the government), but by everyone. In fact, all elected officials, and military personnel for that matter, are sworn to uphold it, defend it.
koriyamaboy, I'm sorry, but you're not even making sense.
mikesboJan. 11, 2011 - 12:21PM JST
"Gun control is not only or even mostly about taking away guns."
You're fooling yourself.
Even if you yourself actually feel this way, others, most I would say, don't. Even if these others also feel the way you do, the job is then to convince, and name calling and bickering is not the road to reaching that goal. And even if that were to succeed, it's still against the law.
mikesboJan. 11, 2011 - 12:15PM JST
The fact we've allowed our government to dance around and violate one of its central tenants is where my concern lies. If you want to force gun registration, or to make it illegal, then change the law, the constitution. I'll fight that effort, but if you win out, I won't have a leg to stand on.
If it can get away with violating that one, the one inserted originally to control it, to make it fear its citizens, what then can it not get away with? Again, quis custodiet, ipsos custodes.
mikesboJan. 11, 2011 - 11:48AM JST
I forgot one, although I already answered it:
"What the devil have you got against registration?"
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes.
mikesboJan. 11, 2011 - 11:46AM JST
"In fact, if he had not had a gun at all, he would not have even tried it!"
Did you miss the part about illegality and criminals?
"Gun control espouses either option."
So you seriously believe outlawing black BMWs would reduce gang crime?
"A stauch defender of the 2nd amendment can be pro-gun control!"
'shall not be infringed' means just that. If you don't like it, work to get it changed, but don't fool yourself, gun-control is about getting to gun confiscation, at which point only criminals will have them. Even if, in fantasy land, you could confiscate them all, you wouldn't solve the problem.
May. 23, 2013 - 09:46AM JST
I've said this many times before : It's either them (The Muslims) or us.
Posted in: Anti-Islamist protests flare after British solider butchered near London barracks
May. 23, 2013 - 09:43AM JST
She's a whore and the husband should have given the other guy a serious arse whopping!
Posted in: Yaguchi apologizes for illicit affair
Damn, that's gotta sting coming home and finding the wife en flagrante delecto in your own…
May. 23, 2013 - 09:40AM JST
China for sailor said: WTF is wrong with these people..? This country..? What kinds of Kids…
Posted in: Youth arrested for hitting 16-year-old girl with baseball bat
Company officials have also sent a harshly worded protest letter to each of the five experts…
Posted in: Nuclear watchdog agrees Tsuruga nuclear plant sits atop active fault