Actually they where in a major internal conflict with the emperor wanting to surrender while his generals where refusing. In fact the emperor had to flee for his life before the bombing because the generals had more power and had vowed never to surrender. Only after the bombs where dropped did the Emperor have enough support to force the generals to accept surrendering. Without the bombs Japan would have never surrendered.

"Justice [Antonin] Scalia acknowledged that you can constitutionally banned certain type of weapons" No the government does not have the authority to ban any type of hand held weapon until the constitution is changed. The constitution clearly states "We the People" have the right to own and carry arms. There is no exceptions nor allowances for licensing or registration. Either one of those would be considered infringement because they would limit or disallow ownership and/or carrying of arms. If the liberals are correct and a majority of "We the People" want this ban then the constitution needs to be amended to provide the government the authority to ban. Anything else is lazy and treason.

Why is our government giving so much money away? When did the finacial needs of single women become a federal government responsibility? Why are there so many "programs" in our government for things that have nothing to do with the rules and responsibilities of the federal government? Is it not the responsibility of local governments to tend to their own needs? Freedom requires responsibility. When the government relieves us of our responsibility it is removing our freedoms. Waters listed a large number of "programs" and grants that our federal government has that should never have been something the federal government was involved with. Why do so many think this is the job of the government?

The only background check I will accept in an effort to compromise is a check and forget. Check my name against a known list of individuals with restrictions and if my name is not on that list then I have NO restrictions and my name should then be removed from the search parameter. However when an individual chooses to sell their private item there is to be absolutely no government interaction. Life, liberty and property. Restrictions are not liberty. And if the government can tell me what I do with my property then it is not MY property anymore. The liberals are going to have to decide if we live in a free country or not.

The foundation of free-market is individual freedom. If you do not want freedom there are many places on this planet where freedom does not exist. To restrict free-market is to selectively and arbitrarily violate others liberty. An individual has the self evident right of Life, Liberty and property. Free-market is an individual exercising their rights. Why do you have a problem with that?

If someone has a gun and they are attacking you are you going to just stand there and let yourself get shot? No it is NOT foolhardy to take responsibility and arm yourself so you can defend against attack. It IS foolhardy to think you will live when your attacker is better armed than you are. There will always be a means for the bad guys to kill and there will always be bad guys that kill.

Um when did 20 kids get ripped up by an assault rifle? Or I will bend a little and ask when did 20 kids get ripped up by an assault like weapon? Sandy hook shooting was 4 pistols. And if ANY one of those teachers had a gun the killing would have ended much sooner. The presents of a hand gun in the hand of the kindergarten teacher that had the time to hide her kids in lockers would have saved her life along with everyone else. It is the fear of taking responsibility that killed those kids. WE DO NOT LIVE IN A UTOPIA. As long as humans dominate and kill humans will need to defend themselves. You can run from the responsibility all you want but please stop trying to make the rest of us hide our heads in the sand.

So just kill the baby when it is not needed? Why stop at pre-birth then? For all you animals that have no heart and are so willing to kill a baby why limit your animal instincts? Why not give mothers the law to kill even their toddlers or older children when things get inconvenient? The heart beat starts at ~18 days and brain waves at ~45 so yes at conception it is a real live human.

Again more deception from the left. At this moment the laws concerning marriage are equal for every individual. The same restriction apply to every individual. Now to the real issue. Why should the government provide incentive and assistance through tax breaks for the raising of a family to anyone who does not have by virtue of their factual from birth biology the ability to produce a family? If all they are asking for is legal concerns with financial and ownership these are already available through power or attorney and other systems. Even inheritance issues can be covered with wills and other contract based systems. So marriage being a system of raising a family is limited to those conforming to that biological construct.

How can it be considered progress when we readily rationalize that someone is not really a human and thus are not covered under the rights of all humans? Those professing progress are advocating for regress. Abortion is no different than infanticide and at the moment at least that is still considered bad by the progressives. Our rights are absolute from conception and no amount of rationalizing them away will change that fact. "Roe" was a bad ruling that did not account for even the science we knew at the time. At 18 days there is a heartbeat. It is a human life.