2nd Amendment, Activism

Repeal and Replace…The 2nd Amendment


First off, I am not going to make an argument against the 2nd Amendment by analyzing the opinions and ideas of the founders. They lived in another world with another set of realities that do not apply directly to the situation today in a nation of 1/3 of a billion people. We need to divorce ourselves from the idea that we must justify contemporary ideas on civil rights and societal reform by couching it in self-satisfying quotations and references to men who would wet their pants if they saw an AR-15 in action.

In case you missed the context:

Cliven Bundy, a cattle rancher from Nevada who does not recognize the existance of the US Federal government, brought a bunch of armed milita members and “sovereign citizen” activists to support his “right” to pillage & destroy public land for his profit without compensating YOU. Mr. Bundy has been illegally grazing his herd of cattle on public land for 20 years without paying the government, the people, for that privilege. So he is stealing from you, and he is doing it while defying dozens of summonses, court orders, and citations. Mr. Bundy and his friends believe that if you have enough guns and you wish really really hard you do not have to listen to US law. Isn’t that special? The Bureau of Land Management stupidly backed down in order to protect people from the potential gunfire from the insurgents (because that is what they were, not “protesters”…protesters are not armed). The motivations of the BLM may have been admirable, but they have set a dangerous precedent here that if you have the firepower the government will back down and let you continue to be a law unto yourself. Expect incidents like this to continue and get worse. Eventually blood will be spilled and it will not be pretty. The government, at its best, is supposed to preserve and protect the rights of all the citizens, using force if confronted by force, and by backing down they have shown that the law only applies when it is safe to apply it, and that if you act like a big enough bully you can get away with attempted murder and theft. On her public blog Rachel Maddow and her editorial staff have a wonderful and insightful analysis of the situation and I suggest you read it—

( http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/the-bundy-crisis-nevada )

This incident got me thinking about the 2nd Amendment, the legal device used to justify this continuing assault on the safety of US residents and the sanctity of the law itself. With over 300 million firearms in the US (more than most national armies possess) there is hardly a war on firearms ownership in this nation. For context, according to the Geneva Institute of International Studies, the US has 89 firearms per 100 residents, which is 30% more than the next nation on the list, Serbia (which recently went through a violent civil war and genocide) and 90% more than South Korea, a nation with similar levels of economic development and a similar form of government. The US, supposedly the most safe, stable and prosperous democratic nation on the planet, has nearly as many gun deaths per 100,000 as does Mexico, a nation in the midst of a bloody war against armed drug cartels. The US population is armed to the teeth and, as recent activism in favor of open and concealed carry, stand your ground laws (shoot first ask questions later doctrine) and arming everyone from airplane pilots, teachers, and preachers has shown, is eager to use these weapons. The US has 50% 0f the world’s civilian weapons and less than 5% of the world’s population. Again, this is not a nation in danger of losing its essential right to own a deadly weapon of war.

The 2nd Amendment is perhaps the most successful of all the amendments…far too successful in fact. People criticize every other Amendment, rightly or wrongly, and these arguments are largely embraced or at least considered by the general population and our representatives. Every Amendment save for the 2nd. If you dare to bring up any reservations about our most archaic of Amendments you are deemed a traitor, a fool, a weakling or worst of all, a supporter of tyranny. Somehow we as a nation have come to believe that if 100 million + arm chair patriots are not armed the US will turn over night into a Orwellian hellscape complete with death camps for Christians and tattooed social security numbers on foreheads. Talk about a Straw Man argument!

I could go on an on about the logical fallacies underpinning many of the conservative arguments in favor of unlimited gun rights but that has been done better and more thoroughly before. Instead I am going to move on and suggest some common sense ideas to allow US to balance resident’s desire to own firearms and the public’s right to be safe from what is essentially a nation that has become a free fire zone. If you have some suggestions or some revisions to my proposals please feel free to mention them in the comments. I may even debate you!

1. Repeal the 2nd Amendment and replace it with a new one establishing more common sense and humane gun laws and rights. The right o bear arms must not be held on the same level as the right to speech or the right to not be enslaved. Here is a proposal for the wording of such an amendment:

“The 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution is hereby repealed. The right to bear arms, based on tradition, historical precedent, and for reasons of personal safety, shall be respected but shall not be unconditional nor shall it override the right of the people to a safe and secure public space. The people have the right to regulate and restrict firearms and to set standards for ownership and proliferation of arms.”

2. Based upon this new Amendment institute some laws and regulations to protect US citizens from gun violence and proliferation. I propose the following as a start:

Ban the importation of all firearms.

Mandate that only a certain number of firearms are manufactured every year and only at federally owned and regulated factories.

Ban sales of semi-automatic handguns, semi-automatic rifles, and fully automatic rifles

Round up all non approved weaponry using a gun turn in program (with the price every weapon turned in counting as a deduction or credit on Federal and State income taxes)

Faze out all semi-automatic and automatic weapons used by law enforcement and federal agencies

Mandate mandatory penalties of at least 10 years in federal prison for the conviction of the the unlicensed manufacture or selling of prohibited firearms. 5 Years for individuals who repeatedly [more than 3 convictions] violate of federal laws banning ownership or use of prohibited firearms.

Firearms for use in hunting and/or sports will be regulated by state authorities as they see fit.


These are just a few ideas and I have many more. New Zealand has laws similar to these I have listed and they are hardly a Stalinist dictatorship. Just some food for thought.


Bundy supporters planned on using unarmed women as human shields so that they would be the first to die after they provoked the Feds to shoot. According to both the hyper-conservative website the Blaze and the left wing site Think Progress Bundy supporter, and former AZ sheriff Richard Mack told Fox News Sunday:

“We were actually strategizing to put all the women up at the front. If they are going to start shooting, it’s going to be women that are going to be televised all across the world getting shot by these rogue federal officers.”

So not only did the supporters of Mr. Bundy all but admit on national tv that they were willing to let unarmed innocents die to make their anti-federal government point they also show that they are using what are terrorist tactics in their attempt to nullify federal, democratic, authority. This is concerning and shows that milita/tea party/2nd amendment types may now be prepared to kill to preserve their perverse sense of entitlement. These people are armed and afraid and see hate as one of their greatest weapons. This is a violent insurgency waiting to happen. The 2nd Amendment may have a long and storied history in the US but to quote Robert H. Jackson talking about another amendment, the 1st, “The Constitution is not a suicide pact”.


44 thoughts on “Repeal and Replace…The 2nd Amendment

  1. “Mandate mandatory penalties of at least 10 years in federal prison for the conviction of the the unlicensed manufacture or selling of prohibited firearms.”

    Well, ok. I support mandatory penalties of at least 10 years in Federal prison for people who exercise their 1st Amendment rights to say things that are preeminently stupid.


  2. 1)Courts have decided that we have no right to police protection unless we are public officials so why should self-defense be outlawed?

    2)As for Cliven Bundy:

    Do we reflexively condemn the US armed forces when they hold off on a drone strike overseas because of the risk of killing noncombatants and creating more terrorists?

    Electronically levying Bundy’s personal and business bank accounts (to enforce a judgement) would be far more effective than starting another Waco incident. I’m honestly surprised the government did not do that earlier to secure payment of the fines.

  3. A little additional info for you (following are quotes from the NRA):

    The April 15 deadline to register firearms deemed “assault weapons” under Governor Cuomo’s NY SAFE Act has been met by hordes of New York Gun owners not rushing to register firearms, and the ceremonial burning of registration forms. Unofficial estimates suggest that as few as 3,000-5,000 of the estimated 1-2 million firearms that have been redefined as “assault weapons” under New York’s utterly arbitrary and blatantly unconstitutional law have been registered.

    — end quote —

    Same thing happened in Connecticut. A whole lot of previously law abiding folks refused to register their firearms preferring apparently to become felons in the eyes of the law. Sheriff’s in both states have come out publicly stating they will not enforce the law.

    So if you think you can easily repeal the 2nd Amendment and Americans will fall in line and obey your law you might want to have a second thought on it.


    • nme16 says:

      Well if people are that stupid about their little crotch enhancers then maybe the army should be brought in to enforce the constitution and take the guns. This is, of course, after the amendment is repealed. Hundreds of thousands of people have died in the US from gun violence. It would be worth it to take these terrible things away. Social policy is not always pretty, not always easy. But in the end, the US would be a safer, freer, and less militaristic/macho place.

  4. “Hundreds of thousands of people have died in the US from gun violence.”

    And MILLIONS of people have saved lives with guns from criminal violence. See:

    Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (Northwestern)
Guns and Violence Symposium,
vol. 86, no. 1, 1995: 150.

    Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz


  5. “Hopefully none if people keep their heads about them and realize that guns are not worth losing your life over.”

    The Founders of this country believed that “guns [were] worth losing [their] life over.” The first shots fired in the American Revolutionary War were at the battles of Concord and Lexington as American resisted the British attempt to seize American “assault” rifles of the day. Their were many grievances that led to that war, but it was finally an attempt at blatant gun control that led to a real shooting war.

    A gun may not be worth dying over, but freedom is, and there is no greater symbol of American freedom than the right to own firearms.


    • nme16 says:

      I know the history of this country haha I also know that the same founders believed in a vengeful god and fucked their slaves. so? and you cannot compare a brown bess to a AK-74u

    • nme16 says:

      Nope. I was homeschooled, was a history major at a major Illinois University, and have read, studied, and written about history and philosophy since I was 10 years old. I have more books on history next to my bed then you have probably even heard of! That is assuming you can read…being that you went to a private school. Remember, condoms don’t protect the heart.

  6. ” I have more books on history next to my bed then you have probably even heard of!”

    Sure. We all believe you too. 🙂

    The proof is in the pudding, and ignorance can survive reading a thousand books.


    • nme16 says:

      All I can say is a real patriot is one who will stand up for the right to be free from violence and from small minded, scared little men like you who feel they need a gun to assert their rights as human beings. MLK did not need guns. Gandhi did not need guns. Even, if you want to get all Christian, Jesus did not need weapons. The man who resorts to violence to preserve his freedom is neither a man nor is he free.

  7. “…a real patriot is one who will stand up for the right to be free from violence”

    That is what partriots did at Concrod and Lexington, and then in the Revolutionary War. They stood up for the “right to be free from [British] violence” and oppression. Sometimes the only way to stand up for your rights is with a gun in your hand because there are people and nations in this world who respect nothing but a counter threat of force and violence.

    Over a 150 years ago some of my ancestors wore the uniform of the Union in the Civil War and they used violence, successfully, to end slavery (a form of violence) in this country. They were under no illusion that any other means than violence could accomplish that end.

    I didn’t make the world as it is. But I refuse to be like an ostrich and stick my head in a hole and the ground and pretend that things are not what they are. I legally carry a concealed handgun, not because I want to use it, but because there may come a time when someone will give me no other choice if I want to preserve my life and the lives of those dear to me.

    “MLK did not need guns. Gandhi did not need guns.”

    As a matter of fact Martin Luther King applied for a concealed carry permit (and was denied). Martin Luther King preached non-violence as a political strategy but he was not above owning and having guns in his house to protect his family. You will hear different accounts of it, some politically motivated, but his application for a concealed carry permit is a matter of public record.

    I had a conversation with one of Gandhi’s grandsons a number years ago (20-30 years ago). Basically he admitted my premise was true. My premise was that Gandhi succeeded with a tactic of non-violence against the British not because the British were so bad, but because basically they were a good and decent people on the whole and susceptible to moral persuasion. When some people in Germany tried that under the Nazis they simply ended up in a concentration camp and eventually dead.

    There is a basic principle here. Non-violence and an appeal to human decency, moral values, and respect for human life can only work if the one to whom one is appealing has some respect for those values. Against those who do not it is simply an act of suicide.

    You should read this article on my blog. It certainly appears to apply to you:

    A Nation of Cowards by Jeffrey Snyer

    “…scared little men like you who feel they need a gun to assert their rights as human beings…”

    I guess you need to put down people you neither understand nor like. But there is one simple fact you apparently fail to fully understand. In all of human history there is only one thing that has kept the savages at bay – the threat of violence.

    “…if you want to get all Christian, Jesus did not need weapons.”

    “Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.” -Luke 22:36 (KJV)

    Here is an article you might find interesting:

    Was Jesus a Pacifist?

    “The man who resorts to violence to preserve his freedom is neither a man nor is he free.”

    I have a lived a fairly long time on this planet. Been to one war. Seen real violence and the aftermath of it. You should read “A Nation of Cowards.” At this point you have no idea what you are talking about. You don’t really want to find the truth when you see someone you love seriously hurt or killed while you stand by helplessly peeing your pants.


    • nme16 says:

      sigh…I see we have an essentially opposed view of human nature. I see a difference between organized, communal violence to stop an overwhelming abuse of rights and human decency (the fight to free the slaves which my great great great grandfather took part in with Sherman’s army) and the individual violence that comes from a person with a gun finding threats everywhere…especially white men who really have very little to fear in a nation built upon white supremacy. As to MLK and the gun permit…he did not ever use guns to make his point or to help others, nor would he have if had gotten the gun. He wanted a gun because of our system that allows anyone a firearm. As to Gandhi I don’t care what his grandson allegedly said because Gandhi himself did not use guns and did not respect them. So your arguments are essentially pretty little red herrings.

    • nme16 says:

      that is also an incredibly myopic view of the Nazi holocaust and the fight against it. Gandhi himself said that he believed that non-violence WOULD have worked in Germany because the Germans, like the British, were essentially good people. There were many attempts to overthrow Hitler and who knows what a sustained non-violent campaign would have done to him? Sadly we will never know.

  8. “As to Gandhi I don’t care what his grandson allegedly said because Gandhi himself did not use guns and did not respect them.”

    Then how how Gandhi himself, what did he say?

    “Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.”

    – Mahatma Gandhi, “Gandhi, An Autobiography”, M. K. Gandhi, page 372


    • nme16 says:

      Yes, but he also realized the more effective form of political protest was of the non-violent variety and it is also the only morally justifiable option.

  9. Gandhi himself said that he believed that non-violence WOULD have worked in Germany because the Germans, like the British, were essentially good people.”

    Where exactly did he say that?

    There is another critical factor. The British were a good people and they had a sufficiently free enough press to tell them what was happening. I agree that many Germans in Nazi Germany were essentially good people. Some of them even tried to assassinate Hitler in 1944. Thousands of them were killed as a result, some hung from meathooks in Berlin.

    In Germany at that time there was no way for the German people as a whole to know the truth and those who oppose the regime were terrified of it. So no, even if Gandhi said that – and I have no evidence so far that he did – then he would have simply been wrong. Others did try to varying degrees and died because of it. Read about the “Weiße Rose” (White Rose).


  10. “There were many attempts to overthrow Hitler and who knows what a sustained non-violent campaign would have done to him? Sadly we will never know.”

    There was only one really serious attempt in 1944. A “sustained non-violent campaign” could not exist there. They had secret police and putting thousands of people in concentration camps was not an inconvenience to the state.

    “Sadly we will never know.”

    Only if you do not know the history of the Third Reich in detail. If you do know that then you would realize the total impossibility of it ever succeeding.


    • nme16 says:

      That is a oxymoronic argument. “If only you knew the facts you would know I was right.” I have read about the Third Reich for years, and I still come to the conclusion that non-violence in a sustained way may have had an impact.

  11. “… a nation built upon white supremacy”

    Actually America was built upon free enterprise Capitalism. Slavery was was a condition that the United States inherited from the past and which it ended only with a violent war (that killed more Americans than any war before or after).

    Try to understand one thing. Western culture inherited slavery which had existed from the mists of pre-history. Western culture, including the United States, finally put an end to an evil that had existed for thousands of years.

    The United States and the Western world should be praised for ending slavery. However slavery is still practiced in parts of the world, especially parts ruled by Islam which actually has provisions to allow slavery in its religious doctrine (and to murder people who are not Muslims).


    • nme16 says:

      “the mists of pre-history”? “especially in parts ruled by Islam”? I can no longer take you seriously if you are getting your history from old Politically Incorrect History of the World books from the sales rack at Boarders.

    • nme16 says:

      Western Culture ended a form of slavery that it created. commoditized chattel slavery of the sort seen in Brazil, the US South, and the UK and French colonies was not the sort of slavery practiced by the ancients, nor was it a system adapted from other cultures. It was a side-effect of imperial expansion of cynically exploiting the existing fault lines and economic realities of cultures that had not dealt with violent capitalist exploitation.

    • nme16 says:

      and actually slavery today exists mainly as a side effect of economic exploitation and the killing of opportunity and free systems of economic democracy and egalitarianism. there is nothing in Islam that is uniquely conducive to slavery. Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism all justify slavery in various degrees, the Bible probably being the best example of a book that crassly defends a brutal slave existence and Christianity has been historically used by slave masters to try and justify their actions and to placate slave populations. You need to stop getting your history from books with an agenda that sets out to prove that christianity, white men, and capitalism are the highest moral principles and ethical standards against which to understand and judge events in history. Today there are more slaves then their were in the 1700’s though we call them “sweat-shop” workers today.

    • nme16 says:

      The northern United states was base founded upon Imperially maintained merchantilism and until the 18th century by chattel slavery. The southern United states was based upon large scale chattel slavery and the exportation of the fruits of slave labor. The “free market” you lionize only existed for rich white individuals and freemen who used the spoils of the chattel system to make financial and trade empires. free market capitalism has never existed as a fact for the entire US and the underpinnings of the US market system is and always has been labor exploitation and finance.

  12. “As to MLK and the gun permit…he did not ever use guns …”

    Nor do the vast majority of Americans who own guns. The vast majority of people who own guns for self protection will never actually fire those guns in self defense. If they use a gun for self defense the most likely scenario by far is that they will display the fact that they have a gun to the bad guy and he will choose to go somewhere else and leave them alone. That was one of the groundbreaking discoveries of Dr. Gary Kleck in his research back in the 1990s. The vast majority of self defense uses of guns do no involve firing a gun and most of them go unreported to police for various reasons.

    But MLK did at one time own guns for self defense and defense of his family. That is well documented.

    You might want to read the book “On Killing” by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman sometime. It will give you a view of violence and how it really works out that might give you a more accurate view.


    • nme16 says:

      I did read On Killing years ago. It was drivel, self-justifying propaganda for imperialist violence. Ugh. Now I see I am just debating a Glenn Beck clone…

    • nme16 says:

      On Killing has been criticized for using some iffy study methods and for taking a lot of better researched opinions and making huge leaps based on fault analysis of those documents. If you base your argument on one book that uses sources in a problematic way then what does that say about your entire theory. MLK owning guns has NOTHING to do with his actually stated theories and the things he ACTUALLY did to realize his non-violent philosophy. Another red herring.

  13. “I can no longer take you seriously if you are getting your history from old Politically Incorrect History of the World books from the sales rack at Boarders.”

    The following are quotes:

    In Islamic law the topic of slavery is covered at great length.[1] The Quran (the holy book) and the hadith (the sayings of Muhammad) see slavery as an exceptional condition that can be entered into under certain limited circumstances.

    The Arab slave trade was most active in West Asia, North Africa and Southeast Africa. In the early 20th century (post World War I) slavery was gradually outlawed and suppressed in Muslim lands, largely due to pressure exerted by Western nations such as Britain and France.[2] Saudi Arabia and Yemen, for example, only abolished slavery in 1962 under pressure from British colonists, Oman followed suit in 1970 and Mauritania in 1980. [11] However, slavery claiming the sanction of Islam is documented presently in the predominately Islamic countries of Chad, Mauritania, Niger, Mali and Sudan.


    — end quotes —

    Wikipedia gives a somewhat whitewashed picture of slavery in Islam.

    The Quran in fact has numerous justifications for Muslims to possess slaves who are not Muslims (as it also has ample justification for Muslims to murder non-Muslims).

    Certainly anyone actually knowledgable of what Islam really teaches in the Quran and the writings and sayings of Mohammed’s “companions”realizes that Islam is in no way a tolerant religion, or a religion of peace.

    One of the Five Pillars of Islam that a devout Muslim must believe in is the Islamic vision of the “end of times” where no one who is not a Muslim or unwilling to convert to Islam must be killed – non-Muslims in their view cannot be allowed to live at that time.

    That is what they really believe.

    Also, and this is very important to understand, Muslims are taught from the Quran that not only is it morally justified to lie to non-Muslims, it is in fact a religious duty to lie to non-Muslims if in doing so one is advancing Islam.

    Unfortunately many Westerners are extremely naive and ignorant of what Islam really teaches.


  14. “The northern United states was base founded upon Imperially maintained merchantilism …”

    Definition of mercantilism (n)
    Bing Dictionary
    mer·can·til·ism[ múrkənti lìzzəm ]
    economic theory and system: an early modern European economic theory and system that actively supported the establishment of colonies that would supply materials and markets and relieve home nations of dependence on other nations.

    To some extent the early form of financing the United States government favored local American manufacturers, but by and far the most striking characteristic of trade in the United States in the 19th century was laissez faire capitalism.

    Another book you might find informative is “Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal” by Ayn Rand and other authors. The real problem with many young people today is that they are largely ignorant of the real history of capitalism.


  15. “… actually slavery today exists mainly as a side effect of economic exploitation and the killing of opportunity and free systems of economic democracy and egalitarianism.’

    Actually a truly “free system of economic democracy and egalitarianism” is laissez faire capitalism.

    Let’s look at the words. “Democracy” connotes free choice. In a truly free market system every person “votes” every day. They “vote” by choosing to buy one product instead of another. Businesses work to attract those economic “votes” but have no power (as in government power) to force people to “vote” for their products.

    Similarly when a person accepts a job at one business then that is a “vote” of confidence that that business is the best opportunity for them to exercises their skills and talents. Almost everything about free markets is about people making free choices of one thing over another.

    Definition of egalitarian (adj)
    Bing Dictionary
    e·gal·i·tar·i·an[ i gàllə térree ən ]
    believing in equality: maintaining, relating to, or based on a belief that all people are, in principle, equal and should enjoy equal social, political, and economic rights and opportunities

    You have to be careful what you think should be equal. Under law everyone should be equal, that is, have the same rights under law. But in reality people are not equal. They are not of equal intelligence, ambition, skills and many other traits that are important in success in a free market.

    Communism and Socialism are the theories that believe that everyone should receive the same reward regardless of skills, work, and productivity.

    If you read the book by Ayn Rand I mentioned above you will learn about the true record of capitalism. Then you will come to understand – if you have an open mind – that the fact that you are alive today and able to type into a computer and sends messages to the Internet is almost completely the result of the great moral virtues of capitalism.

    Definition of exploitation (n)
    Bing Dictionary
    ex·ploi·ta·tion[ èk sploy táysh’n ]

    unfair treatment or use: the practice of taking selfish or unfair advantage of a person or situation, usually for personal gain

    development of something for benefit: the use or development of something in order to gain a benefit.

    The second definition of “exploitation” is the model of true capitalism. In real free markets everyone works to exploit their natural abilitys and ambition and that exploitation is mutual across society for the most part.

    The first definitionof “exploitation” is generally how everything else works, of which we have ample evidence in the current economic system in America which has been accurately labelled “crony capitalism.” For example, where the Obama adminstration rewards donors and supporters with lucractive loans and contracts.


  16. “Are you really using wikipedia as a source? really? done. have fun with your delusions.”

    When Galileo was arguing for the view of the universe he saw through his telescope the authorities of the day refused to even look through his telescope to see for themselves.


    • nme16 says:

      …so wikipedia is the telescope into which I have to look in order to grasp the truth of Islamophobia and Randian Libertarianism? Believe me, I have looked through that particular telescope quite a few times.

  17. “…so wikipedia is the telescope into which I have to look in order to grasp the truth of Islamophobia and Randian Libertarianism? Believe me, I have looked through that particular telescope quite a few times.”

    A person should not ask, “Did that information come from Wikipedia?” (In other words, don’t say “Oh gee, that is from Wikipedia so now I have good excuse to claim that information is worthless.” Wikipedia has its virtues and its faults for sure, but it can often be a good starting point on many topics. In regards to Islam it is fairly whitewashed, yet it still admits that slavery exists in Islam and is defended as permissible in the Quran which is an absolute and incontrovertible fact.

    You should ask “Is it true? Are there sources that back it up”?

    It is extremely prejudicial on your part to say something is Islamophobia unless you can show that the claims made are in fact inaccurate and non-objective. It is not “Islamophobia” to cite beliefs of Islam which are demonstratably true.

    Here is another good cite from Wikipedia on the Muslim conquest of India:

    “An estimate of the number of people killed remains unknown. Based on the Muslim chronicles and demographic calculations, an estimate was done by K.S. Lal in his book Growth of Muslim Population in Medieval India, who claimed that between 1000 CE and 1500 CE, the population of Hindus decreased by 80 million.”

    (If you read further that claim is disputed, but there is no doubt that Muslims murdered millions of Hindus in the conquest of India – mainly because in the Quran non-Muslims who are not “people of the book,” that is Jews and Christians, are fair game for murder and slavery under Islam).


    Crazed Jihadist Muslims murdering people to advance Islam is not a new phenomenon.

    As to Randian Libertarianism I am not a Randian. I simply respect the detail in which she defends capitalism in the book I mentioned earler – Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. However I do like many Libertarian ideas which stress small government and individual freedom (although some of there ideas on foreign policy don’t strike me as being as rational many Libertarians claim to be). If you need some labels for my views you will be hard pressed to come up with a convenient one that fits them all. I supports true conservatives, classic Liberalism in many respects, Tea Party types, some Libertarians.


    • nme16 says:

      What is your hangup on Islam? Christians killed millions upon millions of pagans and heretics in Europe and Asia and the used the Bible as unquestioned truth to support their actions. Wikipedia can tell you that too. Jeez. Please stop commenting now unless you have some new things to say that don’t involve your kneejerk fear of Muslims.

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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