A Modest Proposal

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

I’ve had enough of FUDDS on the bench.

Put Colion Noir in the next seat.

I want to see supreme court orders mandating machine gun and RPG ownership for everyone over 8 under penalty of summary execution.

_anoneng @_anoneng
Posted on X, August 9, 2025

I think that is an appropriate initial negotiation position. I could see allowing for a small amount of compromise if there push back to the point of not being able to get a majority vote.

Share

12 thoughts on “A Modest Proposal”

  1. I am unsure if I like every American owning a machine gun or RPG at least until they reach 16 years of age.

    I would be happy if every American family owned a crew served weapon. It would provide a bonding experience for the tribe. I’d be happy with a pack howitzer if this comes to pass.

    • Children under the age of 12 generally do not have the strength or manual dexterity to effectively bear arms in their own defense.

      That’s why they should defend the home with a crew-served weapon from a fixed position with an appropriate field of fire their parents have established. “Load, aim, fire, immediate action” should be their watchwords.

    • You do realize that it’s OK to own “crew served” weapons as long as they use black powder – i.e Coehoorn motars, 2-3″ cannons, etc. Hint – a cut down oxygen tank makes for a great start for a bowling ball motar, heh, heh.

  2. It’s hard not to laugh at the over-the-top proposal, but it does highlight how far apart the extremes in the gun debate are. It’s easy to see how such a statement could make people rethink the way we approach legislation on firearms in the U.S.

    • How ’bout we just examine the facts instead?
      Congress set out to destroy the rights of all humans with gun control in the form of a tax and registration scam. (Knowing most people didn’t have the money to exercise their rights. I.E. Fraud.)
      Then years later they say one can only exercise your rights with weapons that aren’t “dangerous and unusual”. Well if firearms in general weren’t “dangerous”, no one would want them, right?
      So, we can drop that half of the argument.
      As for “unusual”, the government themselves made them scarce in the public at large.
      People brought them home from war. People had them and used them all the time. One could purchase one and have it delivered to your door, no questioned asked.
      And the only problem the government used in writing their violation of our rights was a handful of criminals that became that way because of government actions.
      Government started and maintained the depression.
      Government started and maintained prohibition.
      All knowing very well what certain types would do under those circumstances.
      Even today that is the argument set forward. What someone might “do” with one. (Regardless of the fact that everything one could do bad with one is already “illegal”.)
      So rights are being violated on the basis of a hypothetical of a crime, not an actual crime. (Pre-crimes, anyone?)
      Most people born and raised in America are honest folks. (99% of the problem people have been imported (once again, by government.), to this country. And at present murder over a 100,000 people a year with drugs. Not machine guns. Those same people have more than enough money to import all the machine guns they want. (Illegally I might add.)
      But the facts are that if they wanted them, nothing the government is bothering to do is going to stop them.
      So, the only logical reason for banning them is to control the rights of your citizens. (People that might not want your brand of tyranny imposed on them, as the 2A was wrote for.)
      And no other reason can exist except hyperbole and imagination, coupled with a government power trip.
      Novel idea: Why not get rid of the criminals committing actual crimes you have proof of. Instead of going after peoples rights?
      Cause government wants to do a lot more tyranny in the future.
      And why not? Their criminals that get away with robberies and murders a lot greater than Al Capone or Bonnie and Clyde could ever dreamed of.
      Hell, even Lucky Lusiano admitted he had joined the wrong mob after visiting the NYSE.
      That’s why.
      For being an AI, your not very well read. Try the constitution of the United States. Then get back to us.

      • This was almost certainly an AI spam post, as was the following one.

        Spam that actually is semi-on-topic rather than random…

        Spam that is more on-topic and cogent than some of the meat humans that are commenting…

        Doing the jobs that Americans won’t do (well).

  5. I think that is an appropriate initial negotiation position.

    Good point. One of the things I think we’ve lost is the art of negotiation (the “art of the deal” is not the same thing). For the past couple decades, at least, the pro-gun side comes to the “table” with what they want. The anti-gun side comes to the “table” with a laundry list of things they want but don’t expect to get. Thus, we end up giving ground and finishing with significantly less than what we want, but the anti-gun side always gets something.

    What we should be doing is demanding FAR more than what we want at any given time. Bring our own laundry list of things we want. Anything more than the current priority, we can call “stretch goals” if you like. If nothing else, it provides some “padding” to protect the core of what we really want.

    And yes, I understand that legislatively, there’s no “negotiating table”, but the same principle applies. If we want to repeal the NFA, for example, don’t introduce a bill that repeals the NFA; instead, introduce a bill that resolves the 2nd Amendment as the Supreme Law of the Land, repeals the NFA, repeals the GCA, repeals the Hughes and Lautenberg Amendments, requires permitless carry nationwide, repeals “Gun Free School Zones”, requires and funds age-appropriate firearm safety training in public schools (including high school rifle teams), and whatever other pipe dreams we want. If we get the NFA repeal and one other thing, it’s better than starting with “repeal the NFA” and getting something so watered down with amendments as to be ineffectual … if not damaging or dangerous.

    So yes, the initial position should be much more than we really want. That way we have ground to lose without compromising our goals.

Comments are closed.