Shooting Down the Diagonal Proof (I Think)

Anyone familiar with the Diagonal Proof? I’ve studied Philosophy, Mathematics, and Computer Science at the college level, though I never got beyond a B.A. As a result, I kind of think my reasoning would be suspicious even in my prime … which has long since passed me by. I’ve said elsewhere that my philosophy brain has gone to rot; the same is true for my mathematics brain, and my computer science brain. Anyhoo, a topic that has interested me for some time is Transfinite Set Theory. Interested me because I know of it. I’ve never studied it. So, let me preface this post with a request to take everything I say with a grain of salt; if someone whose philosophy/math/computer science brain has not gone to rot reads this and thinks it is an interesting point, please let me know.

Anyway, what is the nature of infinity? That is one of the questions that perplexes me. Back in college, one of the philosophy professors showed me (and the class) the Diagonal Proof. Basically, according to the mathematicians you can prove that the set of natural numbers is the same size as the set of even numbers, or the set of squares, and a number of mind-numbing other such sets that instinctively we think should be too small. Yes, the Set (1,2,3,4,5 …) is the SAME size as the Set (1,4,9,16, 25 …). Welcome to the wonderful world of infinity. There are other weird mathematical results revolving around the nature of infinity. Once the mathematician convinces you that the set of squares is the same size as the set of natural numbers, he/she next demonstrates that the set of decimal numbers is LARGER than the set of natural numbers. How? With proofs, of course. My first introduction to such was the Diagonal Proof (there may be others).

Here’s my math-rotting brain’s reconstruction of the Diagonal Proof. Two sets are said to be equal if you can make a bijection between the two sets—basically, a mapping of one set onto the other. For example,

1 => 1

2 => 4

3 => 9

… ….

Hence, the natural numbers are the same size as the squares. There is no number in one list, that doesn’t appear on the other list somewhere.

Now, what about the Diagonal Proof? We’ll try to form a bijection between the natural numbers and the decimal numbers using any random combination of decimal numbers.

1 => .12678…

2 => .34853…

3 => .74521…

4 => .91234….

5 => .86543

…   …

Now, note the underlined digits in the decimal numbers. They go along the diagonal (hence, the name of the proof). Now, form a new number by placing the decimal point and forming each successive digit by taking in sequence the underlined digits of the listed decimal numbers but add one (or you could subtract, or whatever, as long as you use a different digit—rolling over from 9 to 0 or 0 to 9 as appropriate). So, you form the number: .25644…

Now, here’s the result: the number you form cannot possibly be on the list of decimals above. Why? Because if it were in the first place (across from 1), it would differ from the number listed there in the first digit. If it were in the second place, it would differ in the second digit, etc… So, we know that .25644… is not on the list. There is at least one decimal number that doesn’t fit on the list of natural numbers. In fact, there are an infinite number that don’t fit on the list since every digit can be altered nine ways. Hence, no bijection and the set of decimal numbers is larger than the set of natural numbers. That is my poor rotting brains reconstruction of the Diagonal Proof. Not sure I explained it well enough, but you should see the point. Now, how do we take it down?

I’m not sure this is an actual takedown, I’ll leave that to better mathematicians, especially since I’m still half convinced I’m totally wrong. Let’s convert to binary.

1 => .11001…

10 => .10101…

11 => .01010…

100 => .00100…

101 => .10001…

…       …

You can construct your number again: .01110… But, here’s the kicker. This is the one and ONLY number (I think) that can be proven to not be on the list. When dealing with infinity having only one number left over, doesn’t BLOODY count! I’m not sure what this means. I may be wrong … there may be other numbers my math-rotting brain isn’t aware of. But I think it is terribly problematic to have one and only one number that doesn’t fit on your infinite list. It kind of makes me think that decimal numbers are the work of Satan. But no one listens to me about that!

Before parting, would someone please shoot me down. Someone who has a better grasp of Transfinite Set Theory than I do. If you have to go into Cardinality and Orthogonality (those the right words?) to do so, just say, “Yes, you are wrong, but the explanation why is too technical for your blog post.”


Satan and Impeachment

Elsewhere on this blog I have stated that I believe that Donald Trump (as well as Barack Obama) is, literally, an avatar of Satan. Unfortunately, I do not know how many people take that claim seriously. To be fair, it is my understanding that Satan can take any shape he wants and can pretty much seamlessly possess any individual he wants at virtually any moment in time. As a result, just about anybody could be Satan at any moment in time. In fact, I am convinced he has assumed the shape of/possessed at least two different relatives of mine on several different occasions. Additionally, I don’t know how prevalent Christ may be if His Second Coming is in the process of happening. If it is, and He is backing me up, then a large number of people may be aware of Satan’s machinations and the frenetic chaos on the Left and how they regard Donald Trump may be the result. Make no mistake, I want to see Donald Trump impeached, but not at the expense of the country and its founding documents. To the democrats on the Left, I say, stay calm and move with caution. Satan is the ultimate monster and he will be terribly difficult to impeach. Try to stay patient, reasonable, and fair—that shutting the Republicans out of the impeachment process is a no no. In the end, do NOT rely on anything I say about Satan, God, religion, or morality unless Jesus backs me up. Which He may or may not be doing. I am only 100% certain of the fact that I am NOT omniscient (eat that relativists) and maybe, Satan is the universe (more people will fight over that one, I think). For the record, Jesus has never appeared to me. God and Jesus have each spoken to me a couple times, but not on a regular basis. I’m kind of convinced that Jesus is popping around appearing to all sorts of other people, though. If not, maybe I am mad and I’m a nearly soundless voice in the wind. Unfortunately, the worst case scenario is that Satan wants me ranting and raving about him sending the Left into an escalating panic that will ultimately tear the country apart. This might happen if he distorts what I write and directs all of it according to his wishes to instill fear and loathing of President Trump and increase friction between Right and Left. Regardless, I cannot remain content, without taking action. Yet, Satan can outthink me (and you) six trillion ways to Sunday. So, if anyone is paying attention to me at all, stay calm—it is our only chance. His weakness is his arrogance—that’s all I know at this point in time.

Satan’s Plan

For the record, this is not based on any Scriptures I know about. Just to emphasize the point, I really think I’m the antichrist. It’s not a marketing trick. Just ask my psychiatrist. Anyhoo, I rant and rave about Satan enough (and I am always surprised when somebody likes one of those posts—I assume they must be bots of some sort or other), I think I should explain some stuff. Specifically, what I’ve come to believe was/is Satan’s plan.

First, the official (Catholic) nine ranks of angels confuses me. As far as I can tell, they imply that Satan and Michael are not really the most powerful angels. At all. There are like seven ranks above them. I always thought Satan, excuse me, Lucifer, and Michael were near the top. Anyway, in my maniacal rewriting of the ranks of the angels, Lucifer is greatly amplified and all the others pale in comparison. This is for two reasons: Lucifer is described as the “light-bearer”, so he should have some kind of special status. Second, Lucifer is directly opposing God, so, in his mind at least, he should be almost comparable. What is comparable to God? Ahem, … the universe, maybe. That’s not the only reason I think Satan is the universe. There’s also: The Ruler of this World (synonymous with death and Satan), the Yin and Yang dovetailing with lies and truth, and a couple other “hints” from the Bible. Okay, so, for my “delusion,” reorder the ranks of the angels. Lucifer/Satan is elevated to the point where he is almost equal to God. This, of course, feeds his ego and makes him rebel. We were all born in Heaven, but Satan rebelled against God and formed the universe from his own being. He is equal to God in all things except that he lacks the ability to truly create or destroy souls. He can inflict pain upon them or move stuff around, but the actual power of destruction or spiritual annihilation and the ability to create new angels from nothing, he lacks. God has both those powers (He created us from nothing, but originally in Heaven). I came to believe that when Satan challenged God for rulership of Heaven, God kind of said, “All right, we’ll make a deal. If you succeed at doing such and such, I will elevate you the rest of the way to Godhood and grant you the powers of creation and annihilation. But if you fail, you will be reduced to last place in the Hierarchy of Heaven” (note—I saw this being eventually fulfilled by the collapse of the universe in the reverse of the Big Bang. Satan would be reduced to the size of a mathematical point when his rebellion against God came to an end. And so the First, would be made Last. Also note—current physics says the universe will expand forever. In other words, according to the astrophysicists I’m just wrong about the fate of the universe).

What was the such and such? I’m not always clear on this, but I think it involved turning all, or a good portion, of the lesser angels (us) against God and pitting the Christ against the Antichrist.

Okay, so how could he do that? Let’s go back to the Yin and Yang. To me it represents how Satan created the universe—it is the Grand Unified Theory of Everything (unfortunately, not very mathematical, though). In Heaven all is Love. When Satan fashioned the universe he split himself into two halves: one, “divine” fury (experienced as a spiritual fire threatening to consume a soul—if God were to inflict divine fury on you, you would be annihilated forever; when Satan does it, it is agonizing beyond description, but incapable of ultimately destroying you), the other “divine” love (an imitation of God’s love, but so overwhelmingly beautiful it easily fools mortals that it is truly divine. This connects it to the Yin and Yang (polar opposites forming the backbone of nature) and the truth and lies of some ancient description of Satan I read or heard somewhere). Anyway, by interweaving truth and lies (love and wrath, light and fire, or however you wish to describe it) Satan was able to fashion the universe from his very own essence. Note, also, that if Satan ever obtains the powers of annihilation and creation the result would be terrible beyond comprehension. He would annihilate God first, then, as he would be in control of everything, he would force worship of his “loving” face, while annihilating whoever might take his fancy with his “wrathful” face.

Now, in the meantime, Satan has, basically, absolute control over everything in the universe except freewill. That includes the “afterlife” (in this universe) We don’t go to Heaven when we die (if we actually die—a strange comment I may explain in a separate post). Satan shuttles us off to whichever destination he prefers: either the imitation false heaven he fashioned from himself or the terrible vile hell he created to torture the damned. The thing is, I don’t think the souls arrive at a fitting destination, except for some exceptions made for appearances. So, imagine, you as a sinner, but just a mild one—maybe you had an affair once early in life, but learned your lesson and resisted such temptations later on—reach the end of your life and die. You arrive in heaven where you encounter the “Being of Light” who gives you a life review and, to your horror, tells you that since you had an affair when you were 22, you are to be condemned to hell forever. Then, you descend into the flames, screaming as you go. Who will you blame for such? Yourself? Maybe. Satan. Probably not. How about God? You believe you encountered Him, and you believe He condemned you to Hell. So, Satan’s hell is used to turn us flawed creatures against God because those who are condemned there are not truly sinister. The truly sinister, like Hitler and Stalin, go to heaven. They are “forgiven” for their sins. So, Satan, as the Being of Light, gains their unwavering loyalty and they pretty much will do whatever he tells them, too.

A few exceptions. I think the Virgin Mary (and a few other good people) are in heaven (note small “h” to differentiate it from Heaven), but I don’t think she knows the Being of Light is Satan and not God. I think Christ is also there. But unlike everyone else, He knows (This is where I go on my ego-trip) and He’s been waiting for me to figure this out. I’m like the second (inferior) witness to the true horror of Satan.

Satan’s final victory will be brought about if he successfully pits the Antichrist against the Christ. And he’s probably got an infinite number of plans to do just that. I think I avoided one (actually three). Let me see what you think: imagine a day when the “there is no truth” movement (a product of post-modernism) got out of control and they began persecuting, maybe even killing the religious. Imagine, if you would, a crowd of angry no-truthers marching on the Vatican. The leader, on live tv or something, points a gun at the Pope and tells him to agree there is no truth or he’ll be shot. Whereupon, out of nowhere, I step in between the Pope and the crowd and say, “Then I declare myself the antichrist and I choose to be skinned alive and demand your children watch you do this, and if you cannot, I will declare myself a god and I will decide who lives and dies.” The guy with the gun would probably laugh at me. But how would the millions of Christians who are expecting an Antichrist react to the Antichrist being “revealed” performing a good act? I kind of think it depends on how much warning they get. If it occurred all of a sudden without warning, I kind of thought their minds would explode because they couldn’t handle that kind of shock and, as a result, the gates of hell would shatter releasing all the unjustly damned souls bent on revenge upon God. Alternatively, if the world has warning of my identity as the antichrist, I imagined that the bulk of humanity would see what I was trying to do. Unfortunately, Satan would respond by dragging me into the depths of hell and shredding me from head to toe. Then, oddly, Jesus would lead a rescue mission and all the earthly angels would invade hell.

Anyway, when I reasoned out the first scenario, I imagined that such would entail Satan’s triumph. But the second scenario leads to God’s victory after a terrible struggle. However, before I thought of the second scenario, I concluded that there was no solution. One man, as verbally ineloquent as I am, could not save the Pope. The only thing to do was to lay down and die with him so he does not die alone (the Platonic philosopher in me tends to lean toward ultra-pacifism. Which begs the question why I ever bothered learning martial arts).

Anyway, so that’s one plan of Satan’s thwarted. How many left? Well, seeing as he’s the universe and I’m just little ol’ me, I suspect he’s got more back-up plans than I can number. And seeing as I studied math in college, that’s saying something. To be fair, though, I think I avoided a 2nd and 3rd plan neither of which will I get into here. So, I’ve succeeded thrice with two to the aleph null left to go or something. But I keep getting by by just the skin of my teeth. And all I have to do is fail once. And I’m a mortal who is clearly not omniscient.

Positive Comments for Democrats

I’m not particularly good at politics, I don’t think, but when asked to identify what party I belong to/vote with I go with the conservatives these days or the libertarians. If pressed, I’ll say I’m a Constitutional Conservative. My political beliefs are somewhere in there. Needless to say, I am opposed to the Democrats on many issues. However, in the interest of fostering unity, I’m going to point out some positive things about the Democratic party in general… maybe stem some of the ire between the two parties brewing currently.

My democrat friends want to help people. They think the government can be used to pursue that end. They want to protect most people (excluding the unborn) from the abuses of others with power be it a corporation or government. In the case of corporations, they want to lay down regulations to ensure that protection. In the case of government, they want universal healthcare and a plethora of social programs to pursue that end. They also want our government foreign policies to embrace peace and avoid war almost no matter what the cost. They don’t want to interfere much with other countries stressing a Star Trek-like attitude of non-interference. They want to live in a more equal society. They want the poor to prosper.

The above doesn’t describe every democrat I know to the “t”, of course, but it gives a general flavor for most of them. I agree with the “wishing others well” aspect of the above, I just don’t think it’s a proper function of government. For example, it’s not that I don’t want people to have health insurance, I’m just not convinced that government should be the one providing it (Note, full disclosure: I am on Medicare because of my antichrist issues). I mean, that kind of sums up many of my disagreements (but not all) with my democrat friends. I often disagree with the means they suggest, not necessarily the ends. They are good people, most of them, although I think abortion is a big moral problem for our country—but I’ve written about that elsewhere.

Absolutes and Pacifism

Is there such a thing as the ethical use of force? I am currently struggling with this. I was raised Catholic, converted to Platonism in college, then had an encounter with Satan and my mind melted.

I live in America and there are a lot of Christians. I have heard, on occasion, a supposedly devout Christian say something like “If someone punches me in the nose, I punch them back ten times as hard.” I find that … disappointing. The question infiltrates our politics. If an enemy nation sinks one of your ships and all the troops on board die, what do you do? Usually, you sink a few of their ships. Is that the morally correct response?

I used to be, in my Platonic years, a personal pacifist, but a political violence-is-justified in self-defense. I reasoned that it is one thing to be so set against violence that you do not resist the slaughter of yourself when attacked, and quite another to insist that everybody else in your country make the same decision.

There is something in the Christian tradition called Just War Theory. Unfortunately, I’ve never studied it. I have, however, studied philosophy and martial arts, and grown up Christian. With that in mind, I offer the following quotes:

  • Socrates/Plato: “Endure the ignominious slap in the face.”
  • Jesus of Nazareth: “Turn the other cheek.”
  • Martial Arts: Shaolin code “preserve rather than destroy; avoid rather than check, check rather than harm, harm rather than maim, maim rather than kill, kill rather than be killed.”

Okay, what are the options. My first position is the personal pacifist—if the assault is directed at you. If it is a non-lethal, non-crippling assault, I think that clearly, the morally best response is to take it and just walk away. So, in that situation, you remove yourself from further harm without harming the other person. They’ll just call you a coward, or whatever. Who cares? That’s basically the Platonic position. Jesus, on the other hand, seems to be saying that you should go out of your way to batter your assailant’s fist with your face. Maybe that will force them to develop a conscience, or they may flee convinced you are totally insane. I did hear on the radio, once, that Isis fighters in the Mideast were unnerved by all the Christians who so willingly went to their deaths rather than fight, or convert. Lastly, the Shaolin practitioner would probably block and walk away or just keep blocking, if possible. That may work out the best; you keep yourself from being harmed and don’t answer violence with violence. Although if you miss the block and get hit, I’d recommend going with Plato as above.

What about politically? A nation should attack only in self-defense. This is complicated. How should you reply in response to casualties? What about something a little more vague like “threatened national interests?” What if you let the first attack go without reply and issue a warning. Second attack, reply with great vigor. What about never replying at all? A national embrace of pacificism to the point of death? I think some Native American tribe did that shortly after converting to Christianity and they were wiped out by another tribe. Also, history gave us Neville Chamberlain. He tried appeasement with the Nazis and that likely made the eventual war and pain that much greater.

There is a problem with pacificism in general. Bullies, be they nations or individuals. Neville Chamberlain went down in history as a political nincompoop because he cut a deal with Hitler which Hitler promptly ignored. When I was growing up, as a quasi-devout Catholic, I tried to embrace pacifism (except when I lost my temper—which was often enough). And I fell victim to a bully. A boy younger than me figured out that I was basically a pacifist and constantly harassed and picked on me. Occasionally, I would break and threaten him, but never follow through. Once, I physically picked him up and threatened to throw him into a lake. But there were rocks, and if I had done so, he could have been seriously hurt, so, after he whined and promised to leave me alone, I put him down. Only to have him start up again the next time he saw me. See, he knew I was morally opposed to violence. He saw that as weakness and took advantage of it to elevate himself by tormenting me. We fell out of contact for a couple years and the next time I saw him, I think my pacifism had earned his respect somehow. He was actually nice to me in sincerity. I don’t know what happened. I never asked. I just filed that away.

So, should pacifism be approached absolutely? Let’s look at it first personally. Then, politically.

Personally. I think it matters who the target of the violence is and the severity of the violence. If you are the target and it is a minor transgression, go with Plato and/or Jesus. If it is a severe or lethal transgression, you can go with Plato and Jesus, but maybe only if you have a higher purpose. I certainly wouldn’t hold it against somebody who used violence in defense of self. If the target is a loved one, things get more complicated. Growing up, I always believed that using violence was okay if you were protecting someone else. Should a husband stand by and let his wife be murdered? That seems absurd. He could use violence to protect her. That seems to be his husbandly duty. Alternately, he could step in front of her and take the killing blow himself. That seems weird and the wife probably wouldn’t agree with that, but it is possible it might save her at the expense of his life. If it is a non-lethal blow, stepping in front of the wife and taking the blow himself is probably the best. And then, don’t reply as that will likely escalate the situation. What about if the target is a stranger and not someone dear to you? If it’s non-lethal, I say step in front. If it’s lethal, maybe step in front, maybe use violence to restrain or neutralize the attacker. It is somewhat dependent on the details of the situation.

Politically. What is the proper use of violence by a nation? I live in the United States, currently the most powerful country on the planet. It is sort of a Judeo-Christian country although it is slowly moving away from that characterization. As far as violence is concerned, we kind of have a double standard depending on whether or not the other country has nuclear weapons. We are far more likely to use force against a country that doesn’t have them. Regardless, the question remains: When is force justified? Like I said, I’ve never studied just war theory, but it seems clear to me, whoever you kill is likely loved by somebody and that somebody will want either vengeance or justice or both. If a nation sinks one of our ships killing a bunch of our sailors, what do we do? Sink one of theirs? Sink three of theirs? Or sink none? I think of the three responses, sinking only one ship is probably the worst response. True, it is tit for tat, eye for an eye, but that just invites further retaliation. If you sink three of theirs, you are punching back “ten times as hard,” so, if you have the strongest military, you will be reminding your foe of that fact and the threat will be seen as all too real. Now, what if you sink none? I think this option depends on how you deal with the second attack. If you refuse to sink ships in reply and you are supposed to be representing a diverse culture of beliefs, you are sacrificing lives you do not have the right to sacrifice. If the entire culture believes the same thing as you do (like in the Star Trek episode “Mirror, Mirror”—it really is scary that I can name the episode without looking it up), then, that’s a viable option as long as you accept the fact that your extermination is a distinct possibility. The last option is this, do not offer violence in response to the first ship being sunk, instead, insist on compensation for the families who lost loved ones(such a request may likely be ignored, even laughed at), and then, if they sink a second ship, bury them: I mean, take out a fleet of ships or go to full scale war and pulverize their nation. Which is probably closer to a Shaolin response (maybe not—not sure) than a Christian or Platonic. Like I said, politics is trickier than individual ethics and I’m not that great at politics anyway.

So, returning to the original question: should pacifism be embraced absolutely? I think, at the very least, it is a legitimate option. Doing so individually is much easier than politically. But you can embrace it politically, if you can stomach the consequences. That tribe of Native Americans did, and they are now gone. But war is such a waste … Anyway, the other options may be acceptable as stepping stones to eventual peace. I guess, in the end, I really don’t know. I’m still working on this.

Before you take any of the above to heart, however, consider: “And through peace, he shall destroy many.” (The Bible’s description of the antichrist—yours truly) So, I offer the above with some trepidation.

The Man of Sin

I am the antichrist. That makes me the Man of Sin. What does that mean? It means I am guilty of worse sins than you are. It doesn’t matter what you’ve done; I’ve done worse. I don’t know if God will forgive me or not. I like to believe that He will. But I don’t know. I like to think that God will forgive anything, but truthfully, I don’t know regarding me.

I’m sure He’ll forgive you. Not sure, if He’ll forgive me. What have I done? A number of things. You, of course, probably won’t believe me. Anyway, among the things I’ve done … one, I tried to annihilate my soul. That is, I tried to leave existence entirely. Not suicide. Attempted spiritual suicide. That’s what got me in hell. That’s probably the worst thing I did. It’s worse than murder or anything else. Other people have tried to kill themselves or other people, but they lack the means to affect someone’s soul. You would think I wouldn’t have the means to affect my soul, but I found a way. I felt pure emotional fire in my chest; I felt what seemed like my entire identity was on the brink of being burned away. It was terrible. And it was entirely my fault and my responsibility.

Oh, and my gargantuan sins do not end there. I made a deal with Satan (a stupid one) at least once that I remember. I foolishly let Satan into my heart because I was convinced he could be saved and all he needed was someone to “talk” to him. Stupid. Now, I’m convinced that my body is running around doing evil deeds when I am sleeping. Although technically, Satan may be controlling my body at these times, I let him in, so to a certain extent, I am responsible.

My other sins, some of which are pretty egregious, I will keep the details of to myself, at least for now. Anyway, it should be clear that I’ve done pretty terrible things. So, if you are plagued by regret and remorse over some sin in your past, cheer up. I’ve done worse.

Why I Support the 2nd Amendment

The gun debate has roared to life again. I think the Left is eventually going to win the debate even though I don’t want them to. I support the 2nd Amendment here in the United States. In light of the debate, I will provide my reasons—in no particular order.

  • Hunting—if you eat what you kill, I don’t really have a problem with hunting. And if you hunt game, you will need a weapon of some sort. I’m hardly an expert on the subject, but the first options that occur to me are: gun, bow, or crossbow. Of the three, I think the gun is the most deadly and, therefore, the most merciful. Of course, the second amendment gives us the right to bear arms, not sporting goods or dining accoutrements.
  • Self-Defense—I have a black belt in the martial arts, so I am familiar with the concept of self-defense. The Left seems incapable of acknowledging the notion that you can’t really control the actions of anyone but yourself. If someone wants to do you harm, they make that decision, not you. A gun can keep you safe from those individuals a little too quick to anger or nefarious actions. Especially women. Men and women are equal before the Law. However, they are not equal in physical ability. Physically, I would guess (not scientifically) that for every ten physical confrontations between untrained men and untrained women, the men will win 7-8 times. The gun is the great equalizer.
  • Defense against a tyrannical government—This is probably the most important reason. The Founders may or may not have intended to limit guns to militias—I do not know—but I do know that I do not wish to limit them to militias. I want citizens to have access to weapons beyond a sling shot if the government steps out of line. You can point out that the government has tanks, but, as Glenn Beck points out, the Afghans certainly put up a significant fight without tanks. Also, if the citizenry have guns, and they find themselves fighting a tyrannical government, they (particularly in America) might find some of the military defecting to their side. And if they don’t, guns might allow you to bring the fight to the military and capture a tank or two. Hopefully we will never get there, but I support the right to bears arms for this reason. The U.S. Constitution outlines a System of Checks and Balances. The Final Check is the 2nd Amendment. The Left accuses Donald Trump of being a Fascist bent on subjugating everyone to his “white-supremacist will” and they still want to take all the guns away. Just to make sure they are defenseless to his Fascist actions.
  • Defense against external hostile powers.—Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and Communist China are all on record saying they didn’t want to invade the U.S. because its Citizenry are armed. Need we say more? Russia and China are no doubt waiting for our country to disarm.
  • Don’t Punish the Innocent—Those who obey the Law and legally carry firearms as is their God-given (not government-given) right should not be punished for the actions of some looney idiot.
  • Other Weapons—There are other weapons of mass slaughter like trucks, chemical agents, or what-have-you. You won’t be able to get rid of them all.
  • Soft Targets—Gun Free Zones are just an open invitation to looney idiots looking for easy prey. That should be obvious.
  • 3-D Printers—I don’t own a 3-D printer, but if it is anything like other technology, they will be accessible to the general public within ten years. At which point, producing your own gun probably won’t be too difficult.

In closing, I doubt I could get a gun (not many people claiming to be the antichrist can pass the background check), but I rest easier knowing that other people have them. And, if it were up to me, I would allow hand grenades to ex-military unless they are suffering from mental illness. And probably ex-cops, too.

(Not sure I should have made that comment about being the antichrist and getting a gun, It was kind of flip and light-hearted and this subject shouldn’t be dealt with in that light).