Mitchell’s laws:
●The more budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes.

●Until the 99% understand the need for federal deficits, the upper 1% will rule.
●To survive long term, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments.
●Austerity = poverty and leads to civil disorder.
●Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.

Jesus: “all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.”

James Eagen’s rampage in Colorado will lead to more debate about the availability of guns in America, the world’s gun ownership capital. And this debate will lead nowhere. (But there is a solution, and you can see it near the bottom of this post.)

The May 21, 2010 post “Is gun control possible?” gives several reasons why gun control is not possible, some of which are:

1. Millions of Americans want guns. Prohibition of something people want never works.
2. There is widespread belief that anti-gun laws leave criminals armed and honest people unarmed.
3. Guns also have a legitimate use in hunting.
4. Most cities do not have fully staffed, fully trained police to enforce gun control. Money has gone elsewhere.
5. The Supreme Court ignores the beginning phrase of the 2nd Amendment.
6. Gun manufacture, import and sales are profitable.

1) Prohibition (of alcohol) didn’t work. Prohibition of recreational drugs doesn’t work. Prohibition of guns will not work. Mayors of gang-infested cities beg Congress for help in outlawing guns, but history shows that no law will prevent people from obtaining guns. What people want, people get.

2) The NRA says, “If guns were outlawed, only outlaws would have guns.” By definition, they are right. It’s doubtful whether the comparatively tiny number of personal defenses by honest gun users, justifies the enormous number of murders by criminals. Yet, I can empathize with a person, living in a high-murder area, wanting a gun for self protection. I don’t own a gun, but if I lived in a gang-controlled neighborhood, I probably would buy one.

3) Hunting for food is legitimate for an omnivore or a carnivore, like us. But hunting for “sport” is disgusting. Where is the “sport” in killing an unarmed animal? Personal opinion: Sport hunting is for cowards and sadists. And do you “sportsmen” really need an AK-47 or Kalashnikov to kill a rabbit or a duck?

4) Chicago was home to one of the most murderous neighborhoods in America. It was called Cabrini Green, ironically named after Mother Cabrini. For three weeks, in 1981, then Mayor Jane Byrne, moved into Cabrini Green. She was surrounded by police. For that period, murders ended, demonstrating that sufficient numbers of police greatly can reduce the murder rate in even the worst area.

Unfortunately, cities are not Monetarily Sovereign, so cannot afford “sufficient numbers” of police. And, of course, there is the social question of whether living in a police state would be an improvement over living in a murder state.

5) Our Supreme Court is blessed with self-proclaimed “Originalists” – most notably Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas – who believe their appointed mission is to read the minds of the Constitution’s framers, and divine their original intent, regardless of subsequent events. They are of the “If-you-don’t-like-the-Constitution,-change-it” mentality, conveniently ignoring reality — the extreme difficulty of changing it.

The fact is, Scalia, Thomas et al are not Originalists. They are “Originalists-when-convenient.” They are politicians — members of the far right — dressed in black robes, rather than the white robes of that other far right group.

Contrary to the Supreme Court’s and public’s perception, the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution does not read, “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” No, it reads, “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.”

Question: If the authors of the Constitution wanted everyone to have guns, why didn’t didn’t they simply write: “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Why did they feel the need to reference “a well regulated Militia”?

And lest one believe the framers of the Constitution just tossed in the words “well regulated Militia” as meaningless garbage, “Militia” is mentioned elsewhere in the Constitution — and given specific meaning:

Amendment 5 – Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings – No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger


Section 8. – Congress shall have the power to: Provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress


Section 2 – Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments – The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States

A normal reading of the Constitution says that the well regulated Militia is a group or groups, organized, well regulated, trained, armed and disciplined by Congress, and which the U.S. may employ, and for which the States may appoint officers and provide training, and which the President may call into service.

Does that sound like your neighborhood gang-bangers? Does that sound like hunting? Does that sound like a guy who wants a gun for protection? Are you, your family, your friends and neighbors in a well regulated Militia that is organized, trained and disciplined by Congress and whose officers are appointed by your state? If not, the 2nd Amendment does not include you.

Sadly, our “Originalist” Supreme Court has decided that when the framers of the Constitution wrote “well regulated militia,” they really meant, “unregulated individuals, not in the Militia.” How’s that for “original intent”?

Then, there is the question about what the framers mean by “Arms”? Did they mean the aforementioned AK-47s, or did they mean the single-load muskets that were used back then? What was the original intent? Wouldn’t muskets have more likely been in the minds of the framers?

Today, laws prohibit ownership of automatic weapons, bazookas, hand grenades, cannons and other powerful weapons. So clearly, even our self-proclaimed “Originalists” understand the need for some weapon restrictions. So, why not restrict everything but muskets? (Not that this prohibition would eliminate guns. It wouldn’t. But at least it would eliminate the phony legal justifications for guns, based on an intentional misinterpretation of the Constitution.)

6) And now we get to the crux of the problem: The huge profitability in gun and ammunition manufacture, distribution and sales. Consider any product so demanded by the public it approaches addiction, and add to that the great profits in manufacture, distribution and sales, and it would take a harsh law and strong enforcement to reduce usage. Recreational drugs and alcohol fall into that category. So do guns.

But what if the manufacture, sales and distribution of guns and ammunition were not profitable? What if the risks outweighed the profits? Might approaching the gun debate from the front end (manufacture), rather than from the back end (user), accomplish what typical gun control laws cannot not, even if our Originalist Supreme Court allowed every man, woman and child to carry a gun?

I suggest that Congress and the individual states pass an “aid and abet” law that reads:

“If a gun of any type and/or ammunition for that gun, is used in the commission of a felony, the manufacturer, distributor, importer and/or supplier of that gun and/or ammunition, shall be liable, civilly and criminally, in equal measure with the perpetrator of the felony.”

This means:

*If you make a gun or ammo that is used in a felony, you can be sued in civil court and tried in criminal court. (This is a cousin to the “dram shop” laws, making a tavern owner liable for damages where intoxication was at least one cause of the damages.)
*If you sell or give a gun or ammo to anyone who uses them in a felony, you can be sued and tried.
*If you sell or give a gun or ammo to anyone who subsequently sells or gives a gun to anyone who uses that gun or ammo in a felony, you can be sued and tried. There is no limit to the length of the liability trail.

So “Originalists,” you can say the Constitution allows all citizens to own guns, despite not being in a well regulated Militia. No problem. You NRA folks can own all the guns and ammunition you wish. However if you give or sell your guns or ammunition, and those guns or ammunition later are used in a felony, you pay up big time. It’s lawsuits and jail for you.

Within short order, all guns and ammunition will be sold only to the federal government. No one will dare sell or give a gun or bullet, to any private person.

Problem solved.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth. Monetary Sovereignty: Cutting federal deficits to grow the economy is like applying leeches to cure anemia. Two key equations in economics:
Federal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Private Savings
Gross Domestic Product = Federal Spending + Private Investment and Consumption + Net exports