It’s time to put the debate over the 2nd Amendment to bed once and for all. I will cite two historical incidents in its support. The first is from our recent history and the second involves a recent foreign nation’s historical event.

First, the 2nd Amendment is the principal reason Japan did not invade mainland USA to open WWII. The Emperor and Japan’s military wanted to, but were persuaded by Admiral Yamamoto not to.

Instead, Japan adopted the “island hopping strategy” and attacked the U.S. Navy base in Hawaii. Yamamoto predicted this strategy would also likely fail. Quote, “I can run wild for six months…after that I have no expectation of success” — which is exactly what happened.

Invading America would have required the Japanese army to invade the West Coast and traverse the entire American mainland, which was out of the question. Yamamoto sarcastically predicted, “We would have to march into Washington and sign the treaty in the White House.” Quote, “I would never invade America, there would be a gun behind every blade of grass.”

Japan’s army totaled 1.3-1.7 million. The U.S. population was 132 million, owning 45 million guns. A rifle behind every blade of grass was more like it. The 2nd Amendment protected us from “thugs from without.”

Recent events in Iran provide the second example.

Iran has no constitutional right to bear arms. Gun ownership is rare and individuals are precluded from owning military grade firearms. Overtaken by a radical theocracy in 1979, the unarmed Iranian people became increasingly terrorized by the paramilitary Iran Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), controlled by the theocracy.

Earlier this year, protests against the theocracy’s rule reportedly broke out all over Iran. Despite an Iranian state media blackout, we know an estimated 32,000 to 40,000 unarmed protesters were killed by the well-armed IRGC militia. The unarmed Iranian population suffers a huge disadvantage, which an Iranian 2nd amendment would have offset. In the same way, our 2nd Amendment protects the U.S.A. from “thugs from within.”

This 2nd Amendment discussion doesn’t address how we, as a society, should deal with crime committed with a deadly weapon. It should be clear from the above examples that gun control would leave us defenseless to threats “from within and from without,” both are unacceptable.

Instead, we can use a factor that made America an economic powerhouse — incentives — or disincentives in this case.

Provide a positive incentive for something and expect more of it. Impose a disincentive and expect less of it. Human beings respond to incentives, probably more than anything else. That applies not only to economic matters, but to all forms of human behavior.

Impose (and enforce) harsh penalties for crimes committed with a deadly weapon — and expect less of them. Make the commission of a crime with a deadly weapon extremely expensive, and perpetrators will have a very personal incentive to not use one.

We can address crimes committed with a deadly weapon without touching the 2nd Amendment — and we should.