–Knives and muskets? Or machine guns and atomic bombs?

Twitter: @rodgermitchell; Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

Mitchell’s laws:
●The more federal budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes.
●Austerity is the government’s method for widening the gap between rich and poor,
which ultimately leads to civil disorder.
●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.
●Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
●The penalty for ignorance is slavery.
●Everything in economics devolves to motive.


2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
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.

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

Lately, we have seen “Stand Your Ground” cases, or cases influenced by those laws, in which people who killed unarmed people, were not convicted of murder. In one case, the gunner shot at the fleeing victim, which would be less a “Stand Your Ground,” and more a “Track Black Men Down Like Dogs” case — a law I fully expect to be passed in a Southern state sometime soon.

And we also have seen the usual “Child Accidentally Shoots Younger Brother” and “Homeowner Kills Innocent Man at the Door” cases.

So as anger-management candidates continue to take innocent blood, we again are forced to analyze that ubiquitous 2nd Amendment.

The Constitution does not explain what “well-regulated militia” means, nor does it explain “arms.” The Supreme Court has chosen arbitrarily to ignore the fact that few gun owners belong to any sort of militia, let alone a “well-regulated” one.

In fact, the Court has decided that the first 13 words of the 2nd Amendment mean . . . well, absolutely nothing. The Amendment would have exactly the same meaning, with or without those useless words the founders, in their ignorance, threw in for no reason at all.

So, we now ask what those same founders meant (if anything) by “arms.”

According to the MERRIAM-WEBSTER Dictionary:

: a means (as a weapon) of offense or defense
Weapon: something (such as a gun, knife, club, or bomb) that is used for fighting or attacking someone or for defending yourself when someone is attacking you.

Since “arms” currently means guns, knives, clubs or bombs, all of these weapons presumably would be included in the 2nd Amendment. We assume, for instance, that “Stand your ground” laws include not just guns, but knives, clubs and bombs. (If you feel threatened, toss a grenade.)

But, what exactly is a “gun”? Again, according to the dictionary:

a : a piece of ordnance usually with high muzzle velocity and comparatively flat trajectory
b : a portable firearm (as a rifle or handgun)
c : a device that throws a projectile

That’s pretty general. Are all guns included in the 2nd Amendment or just some guns? And if all guns are not included, why not?

Here is a list of guns (courtesy of Wikipedia). Check those you believe are not included in the 2nd Amendment, and explain why they are not constitutional, while the others are.

_____ Long gun
____ Arquebus
____ Blunderbuss
____ Musket
____ Musketoon
____ Wall gun
____ Grenade launcher
____ Submachine gun
____ Personal defense weapon
____ Rifle
____ Lever action rifle
____ Bolt action rifle
____ Assault rifle
____ Battle rifle
____ Carbine
____ Service rifle
____ Sniper rifle
____ Shotgun
____ Combat shotgun
____ Semi-automatic shotgun
____ Automatic shotgun
____ Machine guns
____ Gatling gun
____ Minigun
____ Nordenfelt gun
____ Metal Storm
____ Mitrailleuse
____ Submachine gun
____ Machine pistol
____ Machine gun
____ General-purpose machine gun
____ Light machine gun
____ Squad Automatic Weapon
____ Infantry Automatic Rifle
____ Medium machine gun
____ Heavy machine gun
____ Handguns
____ Service revolver
____ Machine pistol
____ Autocannon guns
____ Autocannon
____ Chain gun
____ Revolver cannon
____ Artillery guns
____ Artillery gun
____ Cannon
____ Carronade
____ Falconet
____ Field gun
____ Howitzer
____ Tank guns
____ Tank gun
____ Hunting guns
____ Elephant gun
____ Express rifle
____ Shotgun
____ Varmint rifle
____ Rescue equipment guns
____ Flare gun
____ Lyle gun
____ Training and entertainment guns
____ Air gun
____ Airsoft gun
____ BB gun
____ Drill Purpose Rifle
____ Paintball gun
____ Potato cannon
____ Spud gun
____ Cap gun
____ Water gun
____ Nerf gun

Since a bomb also is a type of arms, we should decide which of the following are not covered by the 2nd Amendment, and why they are not covered:


_____General-purpose bomb
____ Bouncing bomb
____ Bunker buster (can be nuclear)
____ Car bomb
____ Petrol bomb
____ Cluster bomb
____ Flour bomb (made with flour)
____ Gravitational bomb
____ Glide bomb
____ Pipe bomb
____ Smoke bomb
____ Stink bomb.
____ Suicide bomb
____ Suitcase bomb
____ Thermobaric bomb
____ Tank bomb or slap bomb
____ Barrel bomb
____ Atomic bomb
____ Cobalt bomb
____ Dirty bomb
____ Electromagnetic bomb
____ Hydrogen bomb
____ Neutron bomb
____ Nuclear bomb

While you’re pondering the question of Constitutionality, let’s dispense with one issue immediately: Effectiveness

The authors of the 2nd Amendment must have been well aware that some arms are better for killing than others. But that seems to have been of no concern. If the “security of a free state” was at issue, presumably the best killing machines were welcome.

Today, we know that a 50 caliber machine gun is a better killing machine than a musket, and an atomic bomb is better yet.

And yes, the original framers didn’t know anything about 50 caliber machine guns and atomic bombs. But if we are to be interpreters of the Constitution, we can’t have it both ways. We can’t agree that the framers didn’t know about advanced weaponry, yet simultaneously say the framers wanted ownership of AK47s to be legal.

If we wish to be originalists (as some of our Supreme Court justices claim to be), then the only legal arms would be knives, clubs, ball cannons and muskets. But if we wish to claim that the original framers anticipated the invention of advanced weaponry, and included them in their definition of “arms,” then indeed machine guns and atomic bombs should be legal for citizens to own.

Either killing ability is a constitutional issue or it isn’t. Either what the framers knew is an issue or it isn’t. Which will it be: Knives and muskets? Or machine guns and atomic bombs?

Just askin’.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

Nine Steps to Prosperity:
1. Eliminate FICA (Click here)
2. Federally funded Medicare — parts A, B & D plus long term nursing care — for everyone (Click here)
3. Provide an Economic Bonus to every man, woman and child in America, and/or every state a per capita Economic Bonus. (Click here) Or institute a reverse income tax.
4. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone. Click here
5. Salary for attending school (Click here)
6. Eliminate corporate taxes (Click here)
7. Increase the standard income tax deduction annually
8. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99% (Click here)
9. Federal ownership of all banks (Click here)


10 Steps to Economic Misery: (Click here:)
1. Maintain or increase the FICA tax..
2. Spread the myth Social Security, Medicare and the U.S. government are insolvent.
3. Cut federal employment in the military, post office, other federal agencies.
4. Broaden the income tax base so more lower income people will pay.
5. Cut financial assistance to the states.
6. Spread the myth federal taxes pay for federal spending.
7. Allow banks to trade for their own accounts; save them when their investments go sour.
8. Never prosecute any banker for criminal activity.
9. Nominate arch conservatives to the Supreme Court.
10. Reduce the federal deficit and debt

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:
1. Federal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Private Savings
2. Gross Domestic Product = Federal Spending + Private Investment and Consumption – Net Imports

Monetary Sovereignty Monetary Sovereignty

As the federal deficit growth lines drop, we approach recession, which will be cured only when the lines rise. Federal deficit growth is absolutely, positively necessary for economic growth. Period.


27 thoughts on “–Knives and muskets? Or machine guns and atomic bombs?

  1. For the absolute BEST summary of what the framers meant in the 2nd amendment, you must read Gary Wills’ excellent article, here: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1995/sep/21/to-keep-and-bear-arms/?pagination=false. Short but outstanding work of history, lucidity, and sanity, with a sharp rebuke of the legal distortions behind the “a gun in every pot” madness. The 2nd has been debased solely for the purpose of guns and ammo marketing.


    1. Excellent analysis, which can be summarized thus: “Anyone who claims the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is correct and benefits America, either is a liar, a fool or both.”

      And that goes double for the Supreme Court justices.


      1. An analysis from one perspective, but hardly excellent. And I’d appreciate it if you didn’t refer to me as a “liar, a fool, or both”, unless you consider that the NRA’s interpretation is the “current one” which, I for one, don’t believe it is. There is more than one perspective to this issue. Here’s mine.

        “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.”

        Many of the founding fathers eschewed the idea of a standing army, since it could be used to enslave the populace. Rather, the populace should take responsibility for the national defense, and considered every “man” to be a member of the militia, and armed accordingly. This is one of the distinguishing concepts of the new republic that separated it from the prevailing powers in Europe, where the royalty – the state – controlled the military.

        Today, the National Guard, with the dual organizational affiliation between Federal and State, is erroneously, IMO, referred to as the “militia”, but this is far from the intent of the 2nd Amendment. Rather, it’s really a nationalization and centralization of military power under a unified command. And since the elimination of the draft, the military can hire and fire anyone it wants, including JSOC and other black-op forces to impose the will of Wall Street (a nom de plume for the 0.1%).

        One doesn’t have to be a believer in conspiracy theories to appreciate the concept of taking responsibility for personal and national defense. Remember that part of the 2nd Amendment is the phrase, “well-regulated”. To me this means that common sense gun regulations are an integral part of the equation; to wit, background checks, licensing, training, etc.

        I offer this perspective as a politically progressive person who believes that making gun ownership illegal is a disservice to founding principles of the United States. I don’t agree with RMM’s false choice of “knives and muskets, or machine guns and atomic bombs”. Sorry Rodger, it just doesn’t follow.

        PS – someone used the term “assault weapon”. Would you please define what an “assault weapon” is?


        1. ” . . . the populace should take responsibility for the national defense . . .”

          Really? So if the United States of America is attacked by a powerful foreign nation, the populace will grab it’s pistols and hunting rifles, and protect the nation?

          That should work.

          You used the word “TODAY,” to demean the current purpose and value of the National Guard. How about using the word “TODAY” to describe the nonexistent national defense value of private gun ownership.

          Or perhaps, you feel that your little gun will help prevent the American military from, as you say, “hiring and firing anyone it wants, including JSOC and other black-op forces to impose the will of Wall Street (a nom de plume for the 0.1%).”

          Be honest. Whatever purposes the founders may have had in legalizing weaponry for everyman, have long since disappeared. The gun laws exist “TODAY,” to satisfy the cowardice of some and the blood lust of others, and have zero national defense purposes.

          By the way, did you read this post and check off the weapons that should not be constitutional? Which are they, and why?

          As for “assault weapon,” it’s a rifle designed to be used by the military, for fighting wars, not for some nut case to spray his neighbors.


        2. just to piggyback somewhat, the first 13 words were not ignorantly put in the 2nd amendment. to the contrary, with regard to those first words, the debate centered around whether the well regulated militia would be in support of the “nation” or the “state”. southern states wanted the flexibility to maintain their slave patrols. in support of this, they negotiated the language that we all know and love. good ole’ racist patrick henry was a big proponent of the “state” language.


        3. I do believe we are talking at cross purposes. I don’t disagree that TODAY an armed populace would not be a great deterrence for a foreign invasion, as it was during the writing of the Constitution. My point was, which I’m sure you realize, is that this thinking represented a unique perspective in the structure of nations, consistent with the other unique principles in the establishment of the United States. I would not go so far as to say that TODAY there is NO defense value for private gun ownership, but here we probably need to agree to disagree.

          Many of the items on your list cannot be legally (or practically) owned by individuals, which is as it should be. This does not infringe on anyone’s Constitutional rights because of the “…well regulated…” clause. Regulations on individual ownership of firearms is not prohibited by the 2nd Amendment, in spite of what the NRA wants us to believe. As an organization, they are NUTS, and many NRA members don’t support their most radical ideas. For the record, I am not an NRA member.

          I strongly believe that regulations for gun ownership can be strengthened to minimize the horrors we’ve seen as a result of firearms in the wrong hands. What I disagree with, and what I understand you to be vehemently for, is to make ALL private gun ownership illegal. If that indeed IS your perspective, what is your position re: hunting and target shooting? I’m not a hunter, but I do enjoy target shooting with my “little gun”.

          And please, I said nothing to demean the National Guard. I pointed out that the National Guard is now an extension of the US military, which is different from the original concept of a national guard. These men and women are being used in foreign wars to advance the economic interests of the wealthy, then discarded when their service is complete. Notice the recent vote in the Senate to provide additional benefits for our veterans.

          Finally, IMO, “assault weapons” is a label used by radical anti-gun proponents because they don’t understand that there is functionally no difference between an AR-15 and semi-automatic hunting rifles. Differences are cosmetic. In fact, if I’m not mistaken, the term “assault rifle” has displaced the term “assault weapon” in legal parlance. AR-15’s are popular among target shooters mostly because they are economically more practical than larger caliber rifles.


        4. jeff – the 2nd amendment was conditional. It was not a blanket allowance for private gun ownership. The condition was a “well regulated militia”. In the 70s, the NRA was successful in convincing the masses, the masses including the supreme court, that there was no condition. Chief justice burger made statements, after the fact, that the reinterpretation was totally bullshit, and all based on NRA propaganda. The black panthers are also involved in this. When they rolled up in the California state house brandishing guns, Reagan flipped his script and fought for limiting private gun ownership. The NRA, no doubt, used the fear of angry blacks having guns, and the threat of diminishing gun rights, to their advantage, in their arguments for the rights of individuals to own guns.


  2. Discussing the constitutionality of social conditions sometimes seems as tedious as interpreting biblical passages. First of all, without a doubt, our constitution was a grand attempt at laying out rules for the first experiment in self government. That being said, literally referring to an outdated manuscript in all arenas , will undoubtedly limit the assimilation of current knowledge and technologies to historical capabilities and references. Obviously the founders understood this, realizing their constitution wasn’t an infallible document closed to interpretation and amendment, after all they amended it themselves. . Surely ,as expressed in their individual papers, they understood the immorality of slavery, and had to wait for a future enlightened date to abrogate. This alone should be proof enough of their intent for a living breathing document.

    Limiting our discussion on weapon availability an ownership to the vagueness of the constitutions attentions is an obvious mistake. Considering the frontier element and military capability our revolutionary founders were in, compared to the current developed urban centers and military potential we now find ourselves enveloped in, sort of invites a vastly different perspective. .Though it pains me to comprehend how the subjugated masses would ever be able to defend themselves from rouge intrusive government, the founders were clearly guarded against, without the availability of weapons. Maybe local armaments , under strict controls, would be acceptable. Having the ability to walk around crowded communities with assault weapons isnt the right answer either. Suppose education is the best weapon , diligence the armory. Otherwise all you get is might making right any how.


  3. Weapons won’t go away until people feel safe from the economic system, not from one another. It’s not people we fear; it’s what a scarcity based economic system has produced: not enough to go around –survival of the fittest, better watch out!!

    This is where mmt/ms comes in to help re-arrange the useless thought patterns of 19th century minds still alive in the 21st. Unfortunately the good news of plenitude in both real (high tech) and financial (mmt/ms) worlds is slow to pick up steam. The true test of a good idea is if it catches on and evolves, augmented no doubt by an unregulated internet.


  4. Jeff,

    In answer to most of your questions:

    You said, “Many of the items on your list cannot be legally (or practically) owned by individuals, which is as it should be.”

    My question was, which items should be restricted and why? Let’s get to the facts. The items that should be restricted are more deadly. But why should deadly weapons be restricted? Isn’t that the whole point of weapons — to be deadly?

    Whatever a semi-automatic weapon can do, a fully automatic weapon can do better. So why the restriction? What is that line that has been drawn — and why?

    Further, I don’t understand the enjoyment you get from killing animals. Is it watching the blood spurt from their wriggling bodies? Is it their squeals of agony. Is it watching their anguished orphans circle to a certain death of starvation or predation? Or is it the supreme power you feel from taking an innocent life?

    Does killing give you gonads? What would you think of guys whose “sport” it is to kill dogs, cats and birds with a hammer? Do you like that “sport?”

    If you enjoy target shooting, I’m sure we humans can develop non-lethal methods for shooting at a target. Such games already exist. (And let’s not use targets that resemble people; concentric circles will do.)

    So, since:

    1. Murdering animals just for sport is a clear sign of mental illness

    2. There is no “well regulated militia” to which gun owners belong.

    3. It is not possible to tell who a “good” gun owner is.

    4. It is ridiculous and naive to imagine that private gun ownership will protect Americans from foreign or domestic tyrants

    5. And gun ownership, rather than protecting a family, has proven to increase the chances of killing with, or being killed by, a gun,

    How about restricting gun ownership to guns that fire non-lethal suction-cup darts?


    1. Clearly, we have a difference of perspective that I’m sure will not be reconciled. But I feel an obligation to address your points.

      1. Murdering animals just for sport is a clear sign of mental illness.
      No serious disagreement, but you don’t address the fact that not all hunters kill ONLY for the sport. I know many people who hunt on a regular basis and choose to eat their kill. Does that make them mentally ill? Should we only be allowed to eat meat slaughtered in commercial factories? To repeat, I am not a hunter, and personally do not like the idea of killing, though I would to protect myself and family. But your implication that “all who (hunt) are mentally ill” is flawed.

      2. There is no “well regulated militia” to which gun owners belong.
      Again, the 2nd Amendment, which, as I understand it, you think should be repealed, based on your opinion that all private gun ownership should be illegal. IN THE CONTEXT that this amendment was created, private citizens, armed with individual firearms, were considered necessary to have a well-regulated militia, vis-a-vis a standing army. I doubt, though, that any colonial families owned cannons, mortars or howitzers. That concept still is valid, and the regulation of private gun ownership remains with the legal authorities.

      3. It is not possible to tell who a “good” gun owner is.
      I disagree, and so do many others, including Gabby Giffords and her husband, Mark Kelly. According to their website, Americans for Responsible Solutions: “Giffords has long been a gun owner and believes in the constitutional right of all Americans to safe and responsible gun ownership.” Another testament to responsible gun ownership is the number of gun owners who don’t go off the rails and use their firearm to “solve” their problems.

      4. It is ridiculous and naive to imagine that private gun ownership will protect Americans from foreign or domestic tyrants.
      Again, I don’t necessarily agree. It’s not inconceivable that, as tetraheadron720 points out, there could be a significant breakdown in the social fabric, caused by either natural or political-economic forces. In such a case, I appreciate the added security a personal firearm provides. Better than Molotov cocktails or rocks, as we’ve recently seen in some countries.

      5. And gun ownership, rather than protecting a family, has proven to increase the chances of killing with, or being killed by, a gun.
      Well, yes, your solution to do away with guns would reduce these chances, but I would argue that finding way to make gun owners more responsible would also reduce these chances.

      How about restricting gun ownership to guns that fire non-lethal suction-cup darts?
      Ha ha. Good luck with that. Instead, how about working on reasonable solutions to the problem that include everyone’s non-economic interests, instead of arguing to impose your own values on others. By non-economic interests, I would exclude the NRA, since they are shills for gun manufacturers.


      1. ” . . . not all hunters kill ONLY for the sport.”
        Right. Not ALL. And not ALL people who drive 100 mph crash, so why outlaw 100mph driving?

        ” . . . the regulation of private gun ownership remains with the legal authorities.”
        Not according to the Supreme court.

        “Another testament to responsible gun ownership is the number of gun owners who don’t go off the rails . . . “
        How many “off the rails” killings is too many? See the 100mph analogy, above.

        ” . . . there could be a significant breakdown in the social fabric . . . In such a case, I appreciate the added security a personal firearm provides . . . “
        Sure. When the American army and the state and local police all break down, you’ll be there hiding in your house with your little rifle, fending off the rampaging mobs. Do you really believe such NRA nonsense?

        . . . finding way to make gun owners more responsible . . .
        Sure, easy. And while you’re at it, find a way to eliminate road rage, husbands getting angry at their wives, wives getting angry at their husbands, jealousy, kids getting angry at their school mates, kids forming gangs, bigoted hatred of blacks, browns, Jews, immigrants and the guy who took your parking place.

        Or, do as I suggested at: https://mythfighter.com/2013/09/18/the-constitutional-solution-to-gun-murders-that-scares-the-hell-out-of-the-nra/


        1. Rodger, I see it is useless to continue this conversation. You will not convince me with your perspectives and analogies, and I certainly can’t convince you to consider approaches such as proposed by Gabby Giffords and the Brady Campaign. I have to conclude that you are not open to anything re: private gun ownership except making it illegal. At least that’s the message I’m getting from your arguments, and you have not expressed anything to the contrary.

          I know there are many progressive thinkers who are vehemently committed anti-gun fanatics, and I’ve never been able to communicate reasonably with them on this subject. Their minds are made up. Sadly, I can’t believe this approach will ever, in our lifetime or in the lifetime of my son, do anything but further alienate gun owners, and increase the polarization between the camps. In this “battle”, I’m afraid you are “outgunned”, and that’s a tragedy that can only lead to further gun violence.

          I continue to respect your views in the area of money and monetary reform, where your background and experience support your conclusions, and look forward to learning more from you in that area.


  5. Hunting does not require fire arms. There are many far more sporting weapons which can be utilized. If fire arms in the hands of the citizenry really provided safety, our nation should be the safest place on earth; is it? The argument that firearms will protect us from our corporate controlled government and their intentions is completely crazy. You’ve no shot against the forces that bleed. Your out gunned, period. Have any of you who support organizations like the NRA and their associated crazies ever been in an actual fire fight where heavy weapons were used? If you had, you know fact from fiction. I may not always agree with Mr. Mitchell, but in this case he is mostly correct. How many of you are really willing to stand up and confront face to face the powers who oppress you? I would venture to say very few would be inclined to do so. Fire arms are an excuse for cowardice for those who feel they must have them for protection.


    1. @chasfa, one of your comments continued to weigh on my mind, so I feel compelled to respond again. Your comment, “Fire arms are an excuse for cowardice…”, by itself, is an affront to the former military folk I meet at the shooting ranges I attend. At least two I know were wounded in firefights with enemy forces. Your qualifier, “…for those who feel they must have them for protection.”, may excuse you from including these folk as cowards. But, if asked, I would not be surprised that they consider their firearms as a means of protection.


      1. Jeff,

        Had you fully read my comment, rather than your knee-jerk reaction, you would have noticed this: “Have any of you who support organizations like the NRA and their associated crazies ever been in an actual fire fight where heavy weapons were used? If you had, you know fact from fiction.” From that statement you construe that I do not support our troops. Which I would add I do not always do so. I need not provide examples. You somehow construe that I am not capable of distinguishing the difference between private gun ownership and military weapons and their reasons for existing. Cut the questioning my patriotism crap, Jeff. Are you ex-military Jeff? I can surely answer positively to the question, Jeff. I’ve been to a place where I personally experienced what occurred when a military round strikes a human body.


        1. Well chasfa, I did fully read your comment, and replied to your “Have any of you…” statement in 6. below. I think it’s reasonable to think, based on my experience, that MANY of the crazies who support the NRA – which again I state, I DO NOT support the NRA – have “…been in an actual fire fight…”, so your conclusion that they would “know fact from fiction” does not follow.

          In the “knee-jerk reaction” you refer to, I questioned whether you include private gun owners who are former military folk that have been injured in combat as among “…those who feel they must have them for protection.” I think – or hope – I made it clear that if you do, that’s, to me, an affront to those folk. YOU decided to interpret that as me questioning your patriotism. Let me be clear: I don’t question your patriotism.

          Yes, I am former military (USMCR), and I thank you for your service. If you were the target of that military round, that’s a regrettable experience, and I hope you have fully recovered. I was fortunate in that I did not see combat.


  6. @chasfa, apparently you have not been following my responses on this topic, since you seem lump me in with those who support the NRA. Nothing could be further from the truth. My position is that there are valid reasons for private gun ownership, and that a solution to gun violence will be found only BETWEEN the extremes of the NRA and the anti-gun fanatics.

    As I implied in my latest response to Rodger above, this argument does not pertain to money or monetary reform (except as rightfully suggested by tetraheadron720 re: security), and I see no value in continuing it on this blog.


  7. The thought of people defending themselves with guns makes you crazy.
    Every activity has its casualties . Are you afraid of guns or are you afraid of people having the ability to defend themselves.
    The more anti gun you get….the more I want an AK.


  8. Jeff,

    A perfect circle. People feel they need guns as protection from other people who also feel they need guns as protection.

    Bottom line:
    1. The military needs guns
    2. The police probably need guns
    3. The public does not need guns. Guns are unnecessary. Guns kill.

    Many societies have done quite well having far fewer guns than Americans have.

    Does giving a gun to everyone make you feel safer? Would knowing that everyone in the bar, everyone in the school, everyone in the store, everyone on the street, every stranger, every friend and every relative — would that make you feel safer owning a gun?.

    You want the protection of owning a gun, simply because everyone else, who also wants the protection of owning a gun, has a gun. And you can’t trust all these other gun owners. So you need a gun.

    Don’t you see that gun ownership is what is causing you to feel unsafe and in need of protection?

    Yet you argue for gun ownership. It’s “I need a gun, because I don’t trust all those other people who have guns. But I think they should have guns.”

    It’s insanity.


    1. Oh dear, oh dear. I thought I was finished with this, but I can’t seem to let it go.

      “Does giving a gun to everyone make you feel safer?”
      No. If everyone who now has a gun would be trained properly on the responsibility and safety of gun ownership, our society would BE more safe. But “feeling safe” is not MY issue. This is an issue has been injected into the argument, and one that I have spoken to.

      To repeat…MY issue is that there are valid reasons for private gun ownership, none of which you agree with. Clearly, you and I have a different mind-set wrt private gun ownership, probably as a result of different life experiences. That’s ok. Reasonable people can reasonably disagree, though, based on #3 above, you probably don’t think my position is reasonable. I’m an advocate for significant gun reform. I believe that the NRA represents a radical, nonsensical position on gun ownership, though most NRA members don’t support the more radical positions of the NRA. I also believe that anti-gun zealots represent the polar opposite, and are therefore just as nonsensical.

      Again, I feel that I’ve made my position clear, and will resist future attempts to say more about gun ownership on this blog, which I enjoy for developing my understanding of MS.


  9. You said, “I would not be surprised that they consider their firearms as a means of protection.” You also said, “‘feeling safe’ is not MY issue.”

    So “means of protection” IS your issue, but “feeling safe” is NOT your issue.

    You don’t see the contradiction in that??

    Anyway, your “valid” reasons for owning guns mostly have to do with “means of protection” (or “feeling safe”), which would not be necessary if other people didn’t have guns. It’s gun ownership that makes people feel they need guns for protection (that, or the emotional need to kill animals).

    It’s the same reason India feels it needs atomic bombs: Because Pakistan has atomic bombs. (And Pakistan feels it needs atomic bombs because India has them.)

    And then there’s Russia, China and the U.S. Might the end of the world be a tad further away if none of us had atomic bombs?

    And might America be a tad safer if none of us Americans had guns?

    We here in America are in an arms race. No one can have enough guns to feel truly protected. Low caliber pistols aren’t enough. So we get higher caliber pistols. But they aren’t enough. So we get 20 gauge shotguns.

    But they aren’t enough to make us feel protected. So we get 16 gauge, then 12 gauge, then semi-automatic weapons. But they aren’t enough, so we get multiple weapons, but that isn’t enough. We need to carry concealed weapons, and we need to carry them everywhere we go — at home, in our cars, in bars, schools and stores.

    (Strangely, you can’t carry a gun into Congress or the Supreme Court. Why? WHY?)

    And it’s never enough, because we worry that the next idiot will have an even more powerful or more accurate weapon.

    Bottom line: There is no protection provided by private gun ownership. Widespread gun ownership has made it easier for more idiots to kill you.

    Yes, IF everyone were sane, trained, responsible and honest, our society would be safer — and there would be absolutely no reason at all for guns.


    1. Yeah, I’ve been following this guy for awhile, and sill can’t figure out what his real agenda is. Nor will he state it, in spite of my requests to do so. At least I haven’t seen it stated. If you see it, let me know.

      I have to assume one of the following, in order of most probable (IMO):
      > he is trying to show that private ownership of all firearms should be made illegal (as stated before, I don’t agree);
      > he’s illustrating how stupid people can be with guns (no disagreement, but people can be stupid with almost anything, even deadly items such as vehicles);
      > he’s trying to entertain, al la America’s Funniest Home Videos (pretty morbid entertainment, though many think some of the stories are funny);
      > he’s writing in support of improved firearm laws (with which I agree).

      Much prefer to talk about monetary reform.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s