Sixty-eight years ago today, Sunday, Dec. 7, 1941 – a date that will live in infamy – the United States was attacked by the Japanese Imperial Navy at Pearl Harbor, at the cost of more than 2,000 lives.
My father, who never talked about the war because he was in it, did tell me this once: When he heard about Pearl Harbor “I couldn’t get my hands on a gun fast enough.”
It was a different time then in America. It was not unusual to find a Model 94 Winchester or even a bolt-action 1903 Springfield in the average household, especially across the West. There is no polite or diplomatic way to say this: What happened that morning so many decades ago grabbed “the greatest generation” of America by the jugular and really pissed them off. Here was a generation of Americans who had endured the Great Depression as children and still understood that uniquely American “Code of the West.” This was a generation grown up on the imaginary exploits of William S. Hart, Tim McCoy, a new kid named John Wayne, and even the likes of film gangsters George Raft, James Cagney and Humphrey Bogart, all of whom reminded us visually that when someone hits you with a fist, you hit him back with a chair just as hard as you can.
There has been considerable debate as to why the Japanese never tried to invade mainland America. One plausible version is that Japanese supply lines would have been impossibly long and could not have been maintained. Another is that they were never interested in anything from us but concessions in the Far East.
And then there is the unverifiable story that certain Japanese military leaders wanted no truck with a mainland invasion because – and this has been attributed to different people including Admiral Yamamoto – they knew, or at least feared, that there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.
Whether this story is true – and if it isn’t, it should be – there may be something to the notion of deterrence that has prevented foreign armies from trying to land troops on our shores, whether they were Japanese, Germans or even United Nations blue helmets. The British tried it in 1812. Anybody recall how that worked out?
Fifteen years had passed since VJ day, most of those at the meeting were WWII veterans, and men who had fought each other to the death at sea were now comrades in battle who could confide in one another. Someone at the table asked a Japanese admiral why, with the Pacific Fleet devastated at Pearl Harbor and the mainland US forces in what Japan had to know was a pathetic state of unreadiness, Japan had not simply invaded the West Coast. Commander Menard would never forget the crafty look on the Japanese commander's face as he frankly answered the question. “You are right,” he told the Americans. “We did indeed know much about your preparedness. We knew that probably every second home in your country contained firearms. We knew that your country actually had state championships for private citizens shooting military rifles. We were not fools to set foot in such quicksand.” - Clipmarks.com, unverified
The United States is a rather well-armed camp. By some estimates, 90 million American gun owners own something in excess of 250 million guns. Thanks to the current political climate, where fears of gun-grabbing measures on Capitol Hill are combined with the very real threat of reduced police services and more early-released felons on our streets due to budget shortfalls, there are more guns being purchased every day by people just like you and me.
In December 1941, there were fewer people and certainly fewer guns, but on a per capita basis, more people had them and knew how to use them. They were not one or two generations removed from the philosophy that firearms are as much a part of the American fabric as mom’s apple pie, baseball and self-reliance. Having guns in the home was like having garden tools in the shed.
The past several years, of course, have seen growing attempts to clamp down on gun ownership. Whether spurred by the commendable desire to reduce crime and accidents, or by an insidious combination of fear and elitism, the effort to disarm America has been mounted, and has been shown to be an absolute failure in terms of achieving its desired, or at least publicized, public safety goal.
Alan Gottlieb and I detail the disarmament campaign in our new book Assault on Weapons: The Campaign to Eliminate Your Guns. It follows an earlier collaboration that explained why so many Americans value the right to keep and bear arms, America Fights Back: Armed Self-Defense in a Violent Age. Not only do these books underscore why Americans own guns, they also explain why Americans aren’t giving them up.
As we saw eight days ago in Parkland, the wrong people can still get their hands on guns, despite every measure to prevent it. What must always be kept in perspective is that while some people horribly misuse firearms, millions of law-abiding citizens do not and never will, and their civil rights should be left alone.
Sixty-eight years ago today, can anyone imagine the reception that would have greeted a call for national disarmament? For gun registration? For “reasonable regulation?” For bans on certain types of firearms? There would not have been enough tar and feathers to go around, and rope might have been in sudden short supply. Nobody dared to play on Pearl Harbor the notion that if we just acquiesce, maybe evil will give us a pass.
Evil comes knocking because that is the true nature of evil. Evil does not play favorites. As a nation, and as a community, we cannot lose that perspective, even if we lose a battle here and there. Evil can only win if we are unprepared to confront it.
Good will ultimately prevail, but only if we stand together as our parents and grandparents stood together, to honor the good and punish the bad, and have the wisdom to know the difference.
More from Gun Rights Examiners
Atlanta: Ed Stone | Austin: Howard Nemerov | Boston: Ron Bokleman | Charlotte: Paul Valone | Cheyenne: Anthony Bouchard | Chicago: Don Gwinn | Cleveland: Daniel White | DC: Mike Stollenwerk | Denver: Dan Bidstrup | Grand Rapids: Skip Coryel | Los Angeles: John Longenecker | Minneapolis: John Pierce | National: David Codrea | Phoenix: Douglas Little | Seattle: Dave Workman | St. Louis: Kurt Hofmann | Wisconsin: Gene German
And Don’t forget to visit:
For more info: America Fights Back: Armed Self-Defense in a Violent Age. Assault on Weapons: The Campaign to Eliminate Your Guns.
Comments
The challenge is, as always, distilling truth from propaganda. The US Gov knew WHY they were attacked at Pearl, the US Citizenry did not. Thus it was a "Surprise".
Given the US had been arming, supplying and training Chinese resistance to Japanese occupation for years, it was inevitable that the Japanese would want to cut off that clandestine aid (American trainers and military aid, Research: Captain Claire Chennault & ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA-CBI-Mission/USA-CBI-Mission-1.html)
While it may be romantic for some to reminisce on the Why the Japanese never tried to occupy the US, the simple answer was that it was outside their immediate goals and an unnecessary extension of their consolidation of of power in Asia. Japan had enough problems fighting a guerrilla war in Indo-China without finding the value in opening another pandora's box.
All of which does not diminish American Readiness nor the value of an armed citizenry.
UN blue helmets? Seriously? That sort of hyper paranoia seems pretty out of place in your usually balanced narratives, Dave. I think your characterization of Pearl Harbor good vs. evil metaphor also lacks the nuance required for a more whole grasp on history. The whole "Code of the West" thing is a bit over-macho; this line of thinking is self important and too often distracted by narcissistic images of white manly men shooting stuff to the point of skimping over and ignoring lots of other important American history.
Regardless of this, your point still stands. An responsible armed citizenry is one that possesses the tools and presence of mind to protect their freedom and govern justly.
Maryland Minute Men
"Our people didn't want this war and, prior to the dastardly and cowardly attack on Pearl Harbor, the thought of sending American troops to fight in far-away lands was abhorrent to the minds of every American.
...
it is felt absolutely necessary to have an additional protective force -- as a home guard -- for the protection of our various communities
...
I propose to meet this need by the organization in every part of the State of a Reserve Militia.
...
The militia will be organized under our State Law, and the men who enlist at this time of our grave emergency will be known as the 'Maryland Minute Men.'
...
the volunteers, for the most part, will be expected to furnish their own weapons."
-- Governor Herbert O'Conor (D-MD), March 10, 1942
www.claytoncramer.com/popular/IsTheMilitiaObsolete.htm#_ftnref6
www.gunowners.org/op0360.htm
Joe, your point about blue helmets would be more acceptable had not the groundwork for just such a thing not been attempted numerous times.
Thank you for calling me over-macho, I am one of the gentlest people most people know. I can get ugly and have had to, but no non-predator has ever seen me do so. If you don't mind, I will show this to my wife who thinks I'm just a teddy bear.
How did the War of 1812 work out, you ask? Well, let's see. The British captured and burned Washingon, D.C. The Capitol and the White House went up in smoke; the President and other officials fled for their lives. The British naval blockade was so effective, despite our fighting frigates, that the New England States were about ready to secede from the federal union. Peace was concluded pretty much on the basis of the pre-war status quo. It was the British who pulled their punches . . . seeing no need to persist with the sideshow in North America after having finally, decisively dealt with the threat of Napoleon. The US militarily was defeated in trying to capture Canada, one of our war goals. The US did manage to beat Tecumseh and his Indian allies, mostly because British commanders failed to support the Indians. But then, the Indians were really more "American" than the whites. As for Jackson's victory at New Orleans--that was AFTER the peace treaty had been signed!!
All those well-armed citizens MIGHT be a deterrent to tyranny if the owners of the guns actually understood where the threat to the their freedoms truly is. Paranoia about UN "blue helmets" is laughable!
What happened in Mpls-St.Paul in 2008 during the Republican National Convention was the real thing. What was formerly a part of the process of popular government was transformed by the US government's Dept of Homeland Security into a "national security event."
Basic civil rights of assembly, etc., were curtailed. Spy agencies set up electronic & physcial surveillance HQ in "an undisclosed location" (its interior was shown in local TV); hundreds of military, CIA, NSA, FBI, and 1000's of riot-clad cops guarded the politicians and lobbyists behind 8-foot fences; military helicopters buzzed the anti-war vets; preventive detentions, arrests of journalists, and mass arrests of citizens took place--all to suppress some already heavily infiltrated lefties (none of whom had a firearm
Ok, Oliver, I understand your post but not your position. Are you somehow saying we think that crap was alright because of who did it and whom it was done to protect? If so, you owe us an apology.
It matters not if the boot on your neck is a left or right boot. We will not accept either. Or did you miss that part?
Let's keep things real. Cars, household accidents, cancer, heart disease, and a million other things (maybe not a million) kill more people than guns every year. When you combine all the school shootings in the history of this country,that death toll does not come close to the worst one month death toll of people in this country by cars. One person dies by a gun and suddenly that one person is the reason all guns are banned? Ten thousand die by cars and no one bans cars. A lady in Reno years ago killed around a dozen people but no one even mentioned banning cars. Get real people and start fighting back. Guns are protected by the second amendment but cars are not. Armed Americans were not the sole reason Japan chose not to invade the west coast since so many Japanese also lived here but it might have been a deciding factor.
One last footnote. Review the unit and individual war records of the 442nd Nissan Battalion in Italy during WWII. Find a unit with more awards than that one. I suspect that if we had not put all the American Japanese in concentration camps like Tule Lake Japan might have gotten it's butt kicked on our shores by American Japanese alone.
Nisei,not Nissan. Otherwise accurate. I recommend the book Just Americans, by Robert Asahina for a truly good look at what this valiant band of just American brothers did, despite excuses available to them to not do so.
my apologies to the unit for the misspelling. No insult intended straightarrow. No one respects them more then me.
no disrespect perceived. just thought you might like to know, hell, I may have misspelled didn't remember if there were two "s's" or one. However, I do recommend that book.
You gun nuts are delusional. They would have done exactly what we did to *their* country - bomb the snot out of it before they ever set one person down. And you are right, this is all historical fiction to make a specious argument about how great guns are.
The entire "armed citizen" fairy tale is just that. It's 2009, if either the US or any foreign govt. decides to throw everything they have at you, guess what you are screwed. Sorry, Rambo.
Go to liveleak and type in JDAM and then explain to me how your gun protects you from that. Or type in Apache, or A10 or Hellfire.
Its not going to be guy in a Blue Helmet or any kind of helmet, it is going to be just what we do before we put anyone on the ground - a laser guided bomb from 17,000 feet you won't see or hear until you and everything within 200 yards of you is vapor. Your gun is a useless against an invading (or domestic) army in 2009 because you will be dead by the time you ever see one of them to try and use it.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!