Self Defense only or not

[kurogane]

Yeah, I get that part. What I have heard over the years is barroom grumbling, which is never known for its logical consistency. I don't remember anybody proposing an alternative such as a new homemade one or none at all. Most of the time it comes up as a reaction to discussions of the #9 clause against military action. I can fully sympathise that it rankles having been imposed, but the logical inconsistency of 99% of the arguments would make it all so infuriating I just nod and hum. Plus, some of those Uyoku girls like a bit of Uncle Tomo on the side, so politeness pays.

[wagyl]

So I wonder if this is a commonly held belief - that Japan doesn`t need a constitution at all.

As far as I can remember it tends to be a mildly grumpy middle aged or older man thing that goes something like this: it is an imposed foreign institution that rode roughshod over numerous traditional Japanese methods of govenrment and jurisprudence and is to be resented as such. Some ballsy politely Uyoku younger women will also trot this out after roundly slagging white men, but I suspect my default status as an Uncle Tomo encourages their disclosure.
Keep in mind these are the very sorts that worship the Holy Grail of Common Sense without realising that is nothing more than the congealed ignorance of the oppressors.

I am quite a bit happier that they pulled a fasty legislative end run rather than pursue a full constitutional amendment. I actually never saw how their previous obligations didn't involve helping those defending them to defend them. Just seems like comon sense to me

Is this congealed ignorance of the oppressors common sense, or just plain common sense? I am confused.

[Wage Slave]

So I wonder if this is a commonly held belief - that Japan doesn`t need a constitution at all.

As far as I can remember it tends to be a mildly grumpy middle aged or older man thing that goes something like this: it is an imposed foreign institution that rode roughshod over numerous traditional Japanese methods of govenrment and jurisprudence and is to be resented as such.

I don't know if that's the same thing that Salty is talking about. I've certainly heard people complain about the fact that their constitution was written by Americans which regardless of whether or not it's a good constitution I can understand. The way I read what Salty overheard was the guy didn't think Japan needed a constitution period.

Well the UK doesn't have a constitution in the sense you mean. There are arguments both ways. Personally, I used to believe that having a single, comprehensive and somewhat immutable document was better. Having seen the mess America has got into with guns, I am not so sure. Times change and constitutions can lag behind those changes to great detriment.

[kurogane]

Is this congealed ignorance of the oppressors common sense, or just plain common sense? I am confused.

I most commonly hear it being shilled as Good Old Fashioned Common Sense, but that might be a doughnut addled dialect issue.

Russell,
I agree. We here in Canadia only got a Constitution proper in 1981 or 1982 and it is still subject to parliamentary supremacy through an opt out clause that can be used. The US is certainly my default argument for why they aren't all as good as some would claim. I just happen to like the Japanese Clause #9 because it is such a majestic idea. As the great Nez Pierce leader Chief Joseph said before they did: "I will fight no more, forever." I prefer parliamentary supremacy and muddling along, but there are a few absolutes that could be enshrined just to set the basic rules down. Freedom to own shit that allows you to shoot anybody you want isn't one of those, but..........

[Wage Slave]

Is this congealed ignorance of the oppressors common sense, or just plain common sense? I am confused.

I most commonly hear it being shilled as Good Old Fashioned Common Sense, but that might be a doughnut addled dialect issue.

Russell,
I agree. We here in Canadia only got a Constitution proper in 1981 or 1982 and it is still subject to parliamentary supremacy through an opt out clause that can be used. The US is certainly my default argument for why they aren't all as good as some would claim. I just happen to like the Japanese Clause #9 because it is such a majestic idea. As the great Nez Pierce leader Chief Joseph said before they did: "I will fight no more, forever." I prefer parliamentary supremacy and muddling along, but there are a few absolutes that could be enshrined just to set the basic rules down. Freedom to own shit that allows you to shoot anybody you want isn't one of those, but..........

Yes. This really says a lot in very few words - A brilliant bit of prose. And yes, majestic is the word. When asked by Japanese people what I think, as I have been many times this week, I say I have always been more than a bit jealous of that clause. And that's the truth.

[Samurai_Jerk]

So I wonder if this is a commonly held belief - that Japan doesn`t need a constitution at all.

As far as I can remember it tends to be a mildly grumpy middle aged or older man thing that goes something like this: it is an imposed foreign institution that rode roughshod over numerous traditional Japanese methods of govenrment and jurisprudence and is to be resented as such.

I don't know if that's the same thing that Salty is talking about. I've certainly heard people complain about the fact that their constitution was written by Americans which regardless of whether or not it's a good constitution I can understand. The way I read what Salty overheard was the guy didn't think Japan needed a constitution period.

Well the UK doesn't have a constitution in the sense you mean. There are arguments both ways. Personally, I used to believe that having a single, comprehensive and somewhat immutable document was better. Having seen the mess America has got into with guns, I am not so sure. Times change and constitutions can lag behind those changes to great detriment.

I'm aware of that and wasn't saying one was necessarily better than the other.

The issue with the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms in the US isn't really a constitutional problem though. It's a problem of purposeful misinterpretation of what the constitution says by the right followed by years of propaganda pushing that interpretation shaping public opinion capped off with that interpretation being upheld by a conservative Supreme Court. That kind of thing can happen regardless of what kind of constitution you have.

It's also about money in politics. The NRA was once a national club for hunters, skeet shooters, and the like. Money from gun manufacturers helped turn it into a champion of that twisted version of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment says that, "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." The NRA has an abbreviated version on display in their HQ lobby: "..the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Yeah, they're that blatant.

[Wage Slave]

So I wonder if this is a commonly held belief - that Japan doesn`t need a constitution at all.

As far as I can remember it tends to be a mildly grumpy middle aged or older man thing that goes something like this: it is an imposed foreign institution that rode roughshod over numerous traditional Japanese methods of govenrment and jurisprudence and is to be resented as such.

I don't know if that's the same thing that Salty is talking about. I've certainly heard people complain about the fact that their constitution was written by Americans which regardless of whether or not it's a good constitution I can understand. The way I read what Salty overheard was the guy didn't think Japan needed a constitution period.

Well the UK doesn't have a constitution in the sense you mean. There are arguments both ways. Personally, I used to believe that having a single, comprehensive and somewhat immutable document was better. Having seen the mess America has got into with guns, I am not so sure. Times change and constitutions can lag behind those changes to great detriment.

I'm aware of that and wasn't saying one was necessarily better than the other.

The issue with the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms in the US isn't really a constitutional problem though. It's a problem of purposeful misinterpretation of what the constitution says by the right followed by years of propaganda pushing that interpretation shaping public opinion capped off with that interpretation being upheld by a conservative Supreme Court. That kind of thing can happen regardless of what kind of constitution you have.

It's also about money in politics. The NRA was once a national club for hunters, skeet shooters, and the like. Money from gun manufacturers helped turn it into a champion of that twisted version of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment says that, "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." The NRA has an abbreviated version on display in their HQ lobby: "..the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Yeah, they're that blatant.

That's all good context. I'm not convinced though that the constitution doesn't underlie the problem. There is a good argument that the people who wrote the thing, in the context of their situation, DID intend to grant a right to every individual to own and carry firearms believing that was the only way for the fledgling state to create and maintain a credible military/police force. It is arguable that the NRA are right - they have the nub of it and the supreme court has agreed with them.

The poeple who wrote it did foresee problems and hence the well regulated bit but that has been sidestepped or interpreted in a particular non restrictive way. Again isn't that always the problem with elevating constitutions, holy books and the like - the interpretation can always be manipulated and then all dissent can be batted away on principle.

[Russell]

Is this congealed ignorance of the oppressors common sense, or just plain common sense? I am confused.

I most commonly hear it being shilled as Good Old Fashioned Common Sense, but that might be a doughnut addled dialect issue.

Russell,
I agree. We here in Canadia only got a Constitution proper in 1981 or 1982 and it is still subject to parliamentary supremacy through an opt out clause that can be used. The US is certainly my default argument for why they aren't all as good as some would claim. I just happen to like the Japanese Clause #9 because it is such a majestic idea. As the great Nez Pierce leader Chief Joseph said before they did: "I will fight no more, forever." I prefer parliamentary supremacy and muddling along, but there are a few absolutes that could be enshrined just to set the basic rules down. Freedom to own shit that allows you to shoot anybody you want isn't one of those, but..........

Yes. This really says a lot in very few words - A brilliant bit of prose. And yes, majestic is the word. When asked by Japanese people what I think, as I have been many times this week, I say I have always been more than a bit jealous of that clause. And that's the truth.

In theory that clause is good.

In practice it makes a country more likely to be attacked or bullied by another country (in this case China), so it may make the probability of war more likely.

In the Netherlands we never had such a clause, but in the late 1930's the idea was to stay neutral in case a second world war would break out, just as the Dutch did in the first world war. Pacifism was all the rage then. As a result budget for the armed forces was not exactly a priority. We now know how that has worked out. I am not saying that the Dutch could have fought off the Nazi Germany army, but at the very least it would have been good to have been able to offer more resistance. Soldiers on bicycles are not so effective against Panzers.

Anyway, as long as that clause is not in the way of defending Japan's defenders, it is good to keep it, I guess.

[Coligny]

I wonder how many Japanese even know what the constitution entails...

Actually... Can't blame them...
The whole art9 self righteousness lasted a whole 3 years... 1947 to 1950
When Mc arthur done goofed the "Keisatsu yobita" and started fucking around renaming MBTs as "really special kinda noisy automobiles" and other poetic denominations it was game over and the admission that art9 was nothing more than a bad brainfart.

So now the debate "can we really use our weapons to kill some people" is a bit of a circus show.
Ya don't put a condom on unless you're planning to fuck...

[Salty]

Thanks all for the commentary. The man`s statement was to his wife, and hence a tad condescending. His words were `kempo iran`, but if asked to enlist to help the US fend off a China invasion of Taiwan, I suspect he`d decline.

I do like the rule of law, to the degree that we actually have that here. And personally, I see Japan`s #9 as being a great example for all countries to follow – if only they would. We will still have it, but IMO the new laws will make it meaningless. I`d have preferred the constitution was changed if this new direction is needed.

[Samurai_Jerk]

Ya don't put a condom on unless you're planning to fuck...

Heh. That reminds me of the old joke about the two Polack junkies who each wore a condom when they shared a needle.

[Coligny]

And I wish I could remember from witch movie I got that line...

[Mike Oxlong]

And I wish I could remember from witch movie I got that line...

Crimson Tide.

[Coligny]

Absolutely !!!

(The possibilities were not that many anywayz...)

[Takechanpoo]

your great senpai gaijin telling a sound argument on this issue

The Japanese media likes to use the word “steamrollering.” For your information, this word is not used very often in American English. I doubt that any regular Americans would understand “No Steamrollering” in the context in which the Japanese like to use it.


　To begin with, under democracy, when there is a difference of opinion, the minority yields to the opinion of the majority. In order to determine who is in the majority, it is necessary to take a vote.


　When the Democratic Party of Japan [an oxymoron] was in power, they steamrollered bills through with only 1 to 6 hours of deliberation, but over 110 hours have been spent in debating the National Security Bills. To call the vote on the National Security Bills steamrollering is nothing but sour grapes.

I even feel some anger towards those who have been deceived by the “religion” whose doctrine is that “Article 9 of the Constitution has preserved peace.” As a result of Article 9, Takeshima, a part of Shimane Prefecture, has been taken over by South Korea, the abductees to North Korea have not been returned to their home country, the coral reefs in Ogasawara, Tokyo Prefecture, have been ravaged, and it is impossible to engage in fishing around the Japanese territory of the Senkaku Islands of Okinawa Prefecture [due to the illegal intrusion of Chinese war vessels].


　The ignorance of reality practiced by the general Japanese public has placed Japan in a very dangerous position.

http://ameblo.jp/workingkent/entry-12051898091.html

[kurogane]

To be a senpai he would have to be respectable, if not downright believable.

He's still desperately trying to work off his sins of commission.

[Takechanpoo]

excuse me, at least hes not an umbrella who is wandering on the gray area unlike most of you gaijins.

[matsuki]

Steamrollering?? Maybe because "We Gaijin" say steamrolling.

How exactly has article 9 prevented Japan from protecting it's territory? Isn't that the whole point of a defense force?

[Yokohammer]

excuse me, at least hes not an umbrella who is wandering on the gray area unlike most of you gaijins.

No, but he subscribes to a religion that was founded by a fraudster and wears magic underpants.

[FG Lurker]

No, but he subscribes to a religion that was founded by a fraudster and wears magic underpants.

In fairness *every* religion was founded by a fraudster if you go back far enough to check. Some are crazier than others in modern day but they're all bullshit at the core.

[Mike Oxlong]

Green snot to that!

[Yokohammer]

No, but he subscribes to a religion that was founded by a fraudster and wears magic underpants.

In fairness *every* religion was founded by a fraudster if you go back far enough to check. Some are crazier than others in modern day but they're all bullshit at the core.

Some of 'em were at least well intentioned initially, only to be thoroughly perverted by fraudsters later. Mr. Smith was full-on fraud from day one.

Either way the end result is BS.

BTW: nice to see you back FGL. Hope you stick around.


~ Tapatalking ~

[FG Lurker]

Some of 'em were at least well intentioned initially, only to be thoroughly perverted by fraudsters later. Mr. Smith was full-on fraud from day one.

I guess a person's viewpoint on this depends a lot on how cynical they are about religion -- very cynical in my case! I suppose in some cases it was more mental illness than outright fraud...

Either way the end result is BS.

Agreed!

BTW: nice to see you back FGL. Hope you stick around.

Thanks!

[Coligny]

I'd say walcome back too... But you two should find a room furst...

[Takechanpoo]

National Defense Mobilization Law(China) it was legislated in 2010.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_ ... zation_Law
http://www.heritage.org/research/report ... -thinks-so
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/c ... 189232.htm
nobody made a fuss at that time.

this law means that chinese living in japan are kinda "sleepers" untill the times of emergency.
be aware of your neighboring chinese.

[Salty]

National Defense Mobilization Law(China) it was legislated in 2010.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_ ... zation_Law
http://www.heritage.org/research/report ... -thinks-so
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/c ... 189232.htm
nobody made a fuss at that time.

this law means that chinese living in japan are kinda "sleepers" untill the times of emergency.
be aware of your neighboring chinese.

... and civilians in China

Are you claiming that Japan is part of China?

[Salty]

PM's aide takes heat for 'legal stability is irrelevant' comment

http://mainichi.jp/english/english/news ... 9000c.html

"Legal stability is indispensable to a country with a constitutional government. Isozaki's comment is very hard to forgive. He ought to resign."

Nope – he should not resign. Rather he should be arrested for attempted revolution. Better yet – he should simply commit suicide.

[matsuki]

"It's because you can't arbitrarily reinterpret the Constitution that people abide by its rules. How long will the prime minister continue to employ an aide who does not understand even the very basics of the principles undergirding the rule of law?"

THIS...Japan, the country ruled by law kyounokibun?

[Buraku]

Guy 3d prints lots of guns.sells them to the gun buyback and made 21,000.00

The perpetrator was identified by police as 'A Cop' 34-year-old Panya Khamrab, a psycho cop Khamrab was a resident of Nong Bua Lamphu province and a former police sergeant in Na Wang district

Girl, 3, survived Thailand’s worst mass killing after sleeping under blanket
https://metro.co.uk/2022/10/10/thailand ... -17533117/

Thai PM orders tighter gun control, drugs crackdown after daycare centre massacre
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-10-11/ ... /101520994

Japan’s Crisis and the SDF
https://thediplomat.com/2011/05/japans- ... d-the-sdf/

How the assassination of Shinzo Abe became a political scandal in Japan
https://www.theguardian.com/news/audio/ ... ndal-japan