I have to think about that one. My immediate thought is it invites the surveillance State. It might be better to just give everyone a gun when they turn 18 similar to or whatever the law is in Switzerland.

I remember when I was 14 going with a friend hunting rabbits with a 22. No adult supervision.
I did some skeet shooting in Scouts. I don't think I was properly instructed though because my shoulder was sure sore after.

Initially, some lives may be lost but eventually people will learn to respect guns and more importantly each other. Of course, anyone that has already committed crimes or is obviously too feeble-minded to handle one should be exempted. Parents and the community can usually tell if their children have the faculty or the mindset to own one.

One thing is for certain instead of infringing upon one's right of self-defense events like this should be thoroughly investigated and not used to gain political points for politicians or political parties.

Another thing is that corporate drug manufacturers tend to lobby governments to hide any involvement of prescription psychotropic drugs that perpetrators have often been prescribed or trafficked on the street. It hampers their sales and may keep their millions of customers from the proclaimed "benefits" of their drugs. Frankly though, one has to ask If events like Columbine, Aurora and numerous other seemingly senseless random mass murders that have involved these drugs could have been avoided maybe we should reconsider those "benefits" and take a less intrusive approach to mental health.

@FrankZeleniuk Washington's admonition clearly applies to government overreach. The Constitution does not provide for Federal oversight of gun ownership, and the Tenth Amendment prescribes that the States may do as they wish, however States are NOT allowed to go against the Constitution, nor the 2nd Amendment.

The right to bear arms may forseeably be curtailed by State oversight of gun ownership, so it is reasonable to assume that a Supreme Court that is Constitutionally based - as mandated by the Constitution, will find against States which require oversight of gun ownership.

Rhetoric that assumes law otherwise is mere Marxist propaganda.

And the existence of ANY rule requiring gun registration is against the spirit and the letter of law in the Constitution, even though the public has not yet caught up with that fact.

As a Christian, I am forbidden against wishing the death of anyone for their sins, however those willing to violate or demand the violation the Constitution are treasonous, and in my opinion flirt with a death sentence.

That's definitely the problem

So just no surplus from the military-industrial complex?

We need to protect our politicians and keep them safe. Is that the idea?

@FrankZeleniuk I'm all for ending all militarism.

@WilyRickWiles Ah yes....Utopia. Of course. Peace and harmony for everyone. What am I thinking!

What do we do with ambitious Despots and Dictators? You know like the ones that tell us "we will own nothing and be happy".

@FrankZeleniuk We could stop backing them, to start.

@FrankZeleniuk All goes back to the decision by foreign policy elites to establish control over most of the world near the end of WW2 in order to maintain wartime productive capacity because the machine of capitalism requires neverending growth and hegemony requires maintaining imbalances of capacity. Guns and consumer junk for all.

@WilyRickWiles

We could stop backing them, to start.

You mean like Pelosi, Biden, et al? How do you identify despots and dictators when a big government is expected to provide for we, the people and almost live their lives for them?

@FrankZeleniuk All of our leaders are capitalists and they back despots abroad.

@WilyRickWiles

the machine of capitalism requires neverending growth and hegemony requires maintaining imbalances of capacity. Guns and consumer junk for all.

Where do we have capitalism? Surely, you don't think America? It is somewhat corporatist these days. Perhaps a remnant of it remains in small business, you know, the petit bourgeoisie, mostly the middle class. But that is slowly disappearing in the teeth of gobbling conglomerates and regulatory big government - those who are given license to save the planet from us and make sure to keep our numbers down. The one child per couple policy worked so well in China.

@WilyRickWiles

All of our leaders are capitalists and they back despots abroad.

Capitalists backing despots? Then they too must be despots and not capitalists. I think you better take another look at what capitalism is. It isn't going to tell you how to live your life like socialism does. Your risks, your decisions, your choices in life will be all yours, as scary as that sounds. You will be free of indoctrination, behavior modification, social engineering and high taxation that infringes on the product of your labor - should you decide to work.

@FrankZeleniuk The small bourgeoisie are entirely dependent on the big bourgeoisie. It is all one capitalist system. And the Supreme Court ruled the other day that Executive Branch regulation is unconstitutional. Everything goes through the courts now, which means that corporate non-profits that meditate intercapitalist disagreements will increasingly rule us directly. And if they can't meditate those disagreements, that's where the fascist dictator enters the picture.

@FrankZeleniuk Capitalists are despots, yes.

@FrankZeleniuk "Democracy" as uttered by capitalists is a myth.

@FrankZeleniuk You will have guns, junk, and mind-controlling (at least that's the intent) media and you will be "happy" (meaning fearful)--or you'll be locked up.

@WilyRickWiles I seem to recall how Walmart was vilified for killing small business not supporting it? Online shopping from Amazon is emptying out the traditional shopping mall and with the democrats encouraging looting and pillaging the increased risks adds to the disappearance.

Certainly, we are in a transition of sorts in how business is done and government is having to scramble to keep its regulatory control but dependence of the petit bourgeoisie on the big bourgeoisie. I'll have to grade you an "F" for critical thinking.

@FrankZeleniuk If they weren't dependent surely they would have a stronger position in the face of corporate consolidation. Modern corporations have been around and increasingly dominant since the late 18th century. Unlike corporations, small businesses do not have lobbying associations that could collectively challenge corporate power. Moreover, they are largely part of economic networks dominated by corporations. Franchises, which account for more than 3% of small business, especially. Small manufacturers as well. If you're a subcontractor, you're dependent.

@FrankZeleniuk Of course there's potential power in numbers, but in the absence of such numbers being organized, the power of capital is what matters. Hence why the system dominated by big capital is called capitalism.

@WilyRickWiles

Modern corporations have been around and increasingly dominant since the late 18th century.

Can't argue that. It marked the point where capitalism first began its total disappearance in America.
Maybe capitalism is still around though? The breaks you are currently getting on your gas prices down there make me question my position. If the government were setting the prices you'd all be paying at least $10/gal.

If they weren't dependent surely they would have a stronger position in the face of corporate consolidation.

Hmm.....Still working on that one. ???? Your position is they are dependent but if they weren't they would be stronger and could compete better? Corporations tend to eliminate not make competition dependent.

Moreover, they (small businesses) are largely part of economic networks dominated by corporations. Franchises, which account for more than 3% of small business, especially. Small manufacturers as well. If you subcontract, you're dependent.

Being part of a corporate economic network is not small business. Subcontractors, can be large corporations themselves or just individuals. This is part of the GIG economy government so despises. Individual subcontractors are not dependent upon the corporation. They can work for Uber or Lyft or Yellow cab. They are more dependent upon the customer.

@FrankZeleniuk The point is they do not have economic power independent from corporations. Therefore, small businesses aren't a separate "true capitalist" system.

@WilyRickWiles

The point is they do not have economic power independent from corporations. Therefore, small businesses aren't a separate "true capitalist" system.

Small businesses are generally sole proprietorships or partnerships and they are the heart of the capitalist system. The butcher shop, the baker, the barber.

Government defines small business as less than 100 employees. If a small company has that many employees it is most likely registered as an LLC for tax and liability advantages.

Regardless every business is dependent upon the customer. Corporations are sometimes customers of other smaller corporations that supply them with capital goods. It doesn't mean that a corporation that supplies another corporation is limited to just supplying that one corporation - It's a customer. And yes - The customer has all the power.

@FrankZeleniuk Disagree--I think capital organizes/shapes society and economic activity. Customers, workers, and even small businesses are atomized and have little capital.

@WilyRickWiles

I think capital organizes/shapes society and economic activity.

It is actually supply and demand that does that. MMT will eliminate supply and demand as the regulator of the economy and government will dictate what everyone needs or wants.

What is it you mean by "capital"?

Capital is what is used in the production of consumer goods. A capitalist is someone that is involved in the production, distribution and sale of consumer goods in a free market. There are capital assets like real estate and it qualifies as capital because things are produced on real estate. Even if it is just a house, an increase in value is realized over time so it is called capital gains. Plus people can use their homes for production in a home-business.

Customers, workers, and even small businesses are atomized and have little capital.

If they have little "capital", if what you mean by capital is money, how could they buy all those consumer goods that are produced? It is atomized, yes, but the bigger problem is government's parasitic claim on their capital. Crowd funding has proved it can be quickly grouped.

That's your economics lesson for the day. Have a good one!