Hufschmid's main page
Page for this series
Philosophy page

Creating a better government

Part 1: Language and the Second Amendment

11 September 2016

This series of documents will explain my ideas on creating a better government system.
The first few documents will discuss some concepts about government.

Language allows us to transfer information to another mind
Why is the Second Amendment so confusing?
Medieval English is a foreign language
Language example: the Second Amendment
The US government has become what its creators feared
We selfishly interpret laws in the manner we please
Government officials should be leaders, not followers
Laws should be edited, not amended

Language allows us to transfer information to another mind
An earlier series of articles explained that a government system, school system, holiday celebration, economic system, recreational activity and other intangible concepts that we refer to as "culture" could be described as "social technology" or as "human software" because each of these systems or activities is a list of instructions that we follow. Those instructions are often referred to as laws, rules, guidelines, or regulations. For example, the recreational activity that we refer to as "soccer" is a list of instructions that a group of people follow. The International Federation of Football has created a list of 17 instructions.

Social technology has no value to an individual. It is referred to as "social" technology because at least two people must follow the list in order for it to have a value. Furthermore, each of the people must follow the exact same list of instructions. The people cannot be provided with the freedom to do as they please; they must follow the instructions exactly.

Since a person plays a game of solitaire by himself, and some people play chess by themselves, those games might seem to be exceptions to my remarks that at least two people are needed to use social technology, and social technology has no value to an individual. However, they are not exceptions. The reasons are:

1) At least two people are needed to use social technology.
The game of solitaire requires two people; namely, a dealer, and a person who responds to the dealer. The reason a person can play solitaire by himself is that the dealer follows a rigid set of rules that do not allow any thinking or variation. The dealer is essentially a machine.

A person who plays solitaire begins the game by taking the role of the dealer and dealing the cards in a specific manner. Then the person takes the role of the player who responds to the dealer. This requires thinking. Then the person switches back to the dealer who follows specific rules, and the cycle repeats until the player can no longer respond to the dealer, or until the player wins.

The game of blackjack, roulette, and most other gambling games also have a dealer that cannot think, so a person can easily play those games by himself.

By comparison, the game of poker, chess, and most other games require at least two players to think for themselves, so if a person wants to play those games by himself, he has to cope with the dilemma that the decisions he makes for one player might be influenced by what he has done for the other players, which would be equivalent to a game between people who are cheating.
2) Social technology has no value to an individual.
How does a person who plays solitaire benefit from the game? People play solitaire when they are alone and trying to avoid the mental anguish of boredom and loneliness. Therefore, instead of benefiting from the game, we could say that they are simply trying to avoid suffering by simulating an interaction with another person. They are pretending to have a friend to play with. It is a form of masturbation. It is debatable as to whether this should be described as a benefit or as a symptom of loneliness or boredom.

The people who play chess by themselves, by comparison, are more likely to do this because they want to become better at playing the game. This could lead us to the conclusion that playing the game by themselves has a benefit to them, but the only reason they want to become better at playing is because they want to play with other people in the future. If they were the only person in the universe, they would not want to practice the game because there would be nobody to play with.

To a person alone in the universe, there would be no value in becoming better at chess. The only people who might want to practice the game if they were alone in the universe are the people who become so bored that they decide to play against themselves. That has as much "value" as a person who slaps himself in the face repeatedly simply to distract him from his boredom and loneliness.
Social technology must be encoded into words
In order to ensure that everybody follows the same 17 instructions for a soccer game, the instructions have been encoded into a sequence of words. By giving that sequence of words to other people, we can transfer the instructions to other people's minds. When a person reads those instructions, he could be described as "installing the soccer software in his mind".

In order for social technology to be transferred accurately from one person's mind to another, each person must decode the words into exactly the same concepts. This requires that the words have the same meaning to everybody. It also requires that the author be aware of which words can be decoded into a wide variety of images, and therefore need more detail to ensure the reader decodes them into the original concept.

For example, an author who writes about a "tree" must realize that the word "tree" can decode into thousands of very different images. The author has to make an intelligent decision about how much detail he needs to provide about the size of the tree, the type of tree, the color of the leaves, and whether there are birds living in the tree or fruit hanging from the branches.

It is easy for us to accurately encode and decode the instructions for a soccer game because the instructions can be encoded with a very small subset of the words in our language, and all of the words in that subset have the same meanings to everybody. However, it is considerably more difficult to encode and decode the more complex social technology, such as a government system, because those systems use words that are not as clearly defined.

Furthermore, since we do not have an authority of language, our languages are changing through time in a haphazard manner. This results in people in different areas and different periods of time using words in slightly different manners.

When reading fiction, it makes no difference if we misinterpret the author, but in order to use social technology, scientific analyses, instruction manuals, repair manuals, and other nonfiction, we must be able to accurately decode the words. This requires that we have enough of an understanding of language to accurately decode words. We do not need to know the rules for grammar, and we do not need to be able to differentiate between verbs and nouns, but we need a basic understanding of how words can be used to transfer information from one person's mind to another.

Since everybody uses language on a regular basis, everybody is likely to believe that they already know enough about language, but the arguments over the meaning of the second amendment of the United States is evidence that none of the people in influential positions have a good understanding of this concept. We do not find people arguing incessantly about the meaning of the second rule of a soccer game, so why do people argue over the meaning of the second amendment? What is different about the Second Amendment that is causing so many arguments?
Why is the Second Amendment so confusing?
Why is it so easy for us to agree on the meaning of the second law of soccer, but not the second amendment of the U.S. Constitution?

The second law of a soccer game, as defined by FIFA, is more than 500 words. It describes the soccer ball, and what to do when the ball becomes defective during a game. People do not argue over the meaning of those words because everybody decodes those words into exactly the same concept. For example, here is the portion that defines the ball:
The ball is:
 • spherical
 • made of leather or other suitable material
 • of a circumference of not more than 70 cm and not less than 68 cm
 • not more than 450 g and not less than 410 g in weight at the start of the match
 • of a pressure equal to 0.6 to 1.1 atmosphere at sea level
Everybody will decode those words into an image of an inflatable ball of a certain size. The phrase "other suitable material" could create arguments because that phrase is not specific, but there will not be any arguments over the other words.
The second law of soccer does not specify the color of the ball, but because people have a tendency to mimic one another, most people select the black-and-white design.

As this document will show, we disagree on the meaning of the Second Amendment mainly because:

1) Our social environment and language have changed so much since 1780 that we are decoding the words into a concept that is slightly different from what the authors had inside their minds. To properly decode the Second Amendment, we must figure out what the words meant to the authors. We defeat the purpose of language when we decode an author's words with somebody else's definitions.

2) We have a tendency to interpret words in whatever manner we find most pleasing. Most people probably have the intelligence necessary to decode the Second Amendment accurately, but their emotions do not want to decode it accurately. We must exert enough self-control to pressure ourselves into doing what makes sense rather than doing whatever makes us feel good.

Human languages are still very crude
Before I continue, it might be helpful to ensure that you are aware of how crude our languages are, and how they are still changing haphazardly through time.

When we are children, we assume that our life is similar to everybody else's life. All of us are surprised to discover that our parents and grandparents did not have the technology that we have, or as much knowledge about the universe.

History is a valuable subject, but schools are teaching students to memorize historical facts and figures rather than to analyze history to understand why our world became the way it is; how our problems developed; which solutions have been failing; and how we might improve our lives.

Everybody who is reading this document spent many years in school learning how to read and write, and is familiar with dictionaries and encyclopedias. However, prior to the 1800's, most people were illiterate, and prior to 1755, there was nothing that we would recognize as an English language dictionary. You and I were taught to follow the spellings in a dictionary, but during the Middle Ages, there were no dictionaries. Only a small percentage of the medieval population knew how to read and write, and although people have a tendency to mimic each other, which caused them to mimic one another's spellings, they would often spell the same word differently. Two of the reasons were:
1) An author might forget, or remember incorrectly, how other people were spelling a particular word, thereby causing him to use a different spelling, which in turn could cause somebody in the future to mimic his spelling under the assumption that he was correct.

2) An author might need to write a word that he never saw written before, in which case he had to decide for himself how to spell it.

Eventually some people began complaining about the same word being spelled differently, and they suggested that everybody follow the same spelling. It is interesting to note that there were a few men who reacted to that complaint by boasting that they could read documents even when the words had different spellings. (I saw that type of boastful remark in a paper book before the Internet existed, but I cannot remember where I saw it or who said it.)

As authors did a better job of spelling words in the same manner, they inadvertently caused another problem. Since there was no authority of language, the pronunciation of words changed slowly through time, but the spellings tended to remain the same because each author was mimicking the spelling of other authors. This resulted in words that had spellings that did not match their pronunciation.

Some people then began complaining about silent letters and words that did not spell as they sounded. In the mid-1500s a few people began suggesting that the English language be modified to give it more sensible spelling, but most people ignored the suggestions. Andrew Carnegie funded the Simplified Spelling Board in 1906 to pressure the United States into following more sensible spellings, and between 1934 and 1975 the Chicago Tribune newspaper took it upon themselves to use some sensible spellings for some words in the hope of encouraging other people to follow them. However, most of the population ignored or resisted the proposals to change the spellings. Furthermore, some people boasted that they have no trouble dealing with the silent letters or strange pronunciations.

The people who boast about being able to understand documents in which the words have different spellings, or who boast that they can spell words that don't spell the way they sound, are more examples of why we are having trouble bringing improvements to the human world. Specifically, there are two characteristics of human emotions that are causing trouble for us:
1) We have a tendency to look for excuses to do nothing, rather than explore a new path.
2) Men are always looking for opportunities to boast about themselves.

These emotional characteristics can cause us to react to a complaint by boasting that we don't have any problem with it, and that other people should stop whining. We need to make a distinction between when somebody is "whining" and when somebody is making an intelligent suggestion to improve something.

The people in the 1500s did not have a good understanding of language, so even if the people had supported the idea of improving their language, they would not have done a very good job. However, even if they brought only a few improvements to spelling and grammar, by doing those improvements centuries ago, they would have been able to implement the improvements while most people were illiterate, and there were not many documents to translate to the improved spellings.

By comparison, making changes to the English language today requires hundreds of millions of people to learn the changes, and there might be billions of documents that need to be translated. It would be much more difficult for us to make the changes than it was centuries ago.

This concept also applies to the measurement systems. If the United States had switched to the metric system in the 1880s, when most of Europe had switched, then the United States would have made the switch when there were almost no documents or school books to switch to the metric system. Today there are millions of engineering drawings and documents using imperial measurements, and there are millions of tools designed for imperial units.

When somebody complains about the difficulty of working with the Imperial measurement system, the men who are familiar with the system are tempted to respond by boasting that they do not find the Imperial system to be difficult at all. Those men are proud of themselves, but they are behaving like stupid animals, and they delay the inevitable, which often causes more trouble.

Every man should occasionally remind himself that he has a natural resistance to changes, and he has a strong craving to boast about himself and criticize other people. We should push ourselves into passing judgment on whether our decisions are the result of an intelligent analysis, or whether we are following our stupid emotional cravings.

History shows us that the majority of people are frightened to explore their options. All of the progress that the human race has experienced has been the result of a small number of individuals who have the courage to explore the unknown. When we allow the majority of people to dominate the decisions of what to do with our future, we impede progress because most people don't want to learn anything new or experiment with their lives.

If our ancestors had altered the spellings of some words to be more sensible, and if they had switched to the metric system, we would be grateful. We would not complain that they had made a bad decision. Likewise, if people today would find the courage to experiment with improvements to government systems, school systems, economic systems, or other social technology, our descendants would appreciate our efforts. The people who make excuses to do nothing are interfering with progress.

Medieval English is a foreign language
We regard our language as being very advanced, but in reality our languages are still very crude, and they are still changing haphazardly through time. No society yet has an authority for language. This has caused the English language to go through so many changes that we cannot recognize some of the words in the documents that were written during the Middle Ages.

For example, the image below shows the first three lines of The Prioress' Tale of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales. It was written in the English of the 1300's, but the meanings of the words, the spellings of words, and the appearance of some the letters have changed so much since then that nobody today can read it unless he first learns the "foreign" language of medieval English. And as confusing as those three lines are, they are among the easiest in the Canterbury Tales for us to read.

Those three lines are:
Ther was in Asye, in a greet citee,
Amonges Cristene folk a Jewerye,
Sustened by a lord of that contree
It translates to:
There was in Asia, in a great city,
Among Christian folk a Jewish ghetto,
Sustained by a lord of that country

The English language has changed so much in 700 years that we have to "translate" Chaucer's stories rather than "read" them. Since his stories were poems that rhyme, this creates a dilemma. If we merely translate the words, some of the words will no longer rhyme. If we want his poems to rhyme, we have to rewrite some sections.
The appearance of the English alphabet has also changed since the United States was created. For example, in 1776, people were using two different forms of the letter S. The image to the right shows the portion of the Declaration of Independence that says "it becomes necessary for". The "long S" in "necessary" looks like our modern, cursive f. We no longer use the long S, and cursive writing is slowly vanishing, also. The German language is still using the long S, however, i.e., .

We encourage the abuse of language
Our languages change through time because no society yet promotes the theory that we should use language as precisely as musicians use music notes, and as people use Morse code. Instead, our schools are teaching the detrimental attitude that our writing should be entertaining. Students are not taught to be precise; rather, they are taught to be clever, amusing, stimulating, impressive, or funny. For example, in an article about Mars, a journalist wrote:
There's no doubt that ancient Mars was different than the Red Planet seen today.

Schools teach us that rather than repeat a word, we should try to find a different word with the same meaning. The journalists who follow this technique may describe snow as "the white stuff", and spiders as "eight legged creatures".

The free enterprise system is also causing our languages to change because the authors and journalists are in competition with each other to attract our attention, and so they deliberately use language in nonstandard manners in order to titillate us. This is most noticeable with the documents intended for the "ordinary" people.

For some examples, journalists describe a lot of different things as "this bad boy", and the title for an article about Lady Gaga's new hairstyle might be: "Massive star rocks new 'do". A popular video might be described as "going viral", and Thanksgiving might be referred to as "Turkey Day". One journalist might describe a product as "cool", while another journalist describes the same product as "hot", "killer", "kick ass", or "bad ass".

Although the misuse of words can be entertaining, it can also be irritating and confusing, especially to foreigners and computers, and it can cause children to pick up a slightly different version of our language.

Language example: the Second Amendment
I discussed the Second Amendment in this previous document, but this time I want to point out that an understanding of how language can transfer thoughts is necessary in order to understand the Second Amendment, and to adequately create and understand other legal documents, laws, and social technology.

The Second Amendment was written after a group of people had gotten together to discuss what rights they wanted to provide the citizens. They eventually compromised on a policy, and they encoded it into a sequence of 27 words:
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.
When we read those words, we should decode them into the exact same concept that the authors had inside their mind, and there should be no disagreements between us on what that sequence decodes into. Since there are lots of disagreements between us, that means that we are not only decoding the words differently from one another, we are also decoding the words differently from the authors.

The first dictionaries were crude
In order to accurately decode any type of code, regardless of whether it is music notes, Morse code, or the words in the Second Amendment, we must decode the symbols with the definitions that the authors were using when they encoded the information. You might assume that we could look in dictionaries of 1780 to understand the Second Amendment, but dictionaries give only summaries of the meanings of words. Dictionaries are useful to show us the spelling of a word and to give us an idea of what a word means, but not for learning a language.

To make the situation worse, there is still no society that has the attitude that we need an authority of language, and so dictionaries are not an authority. Rather, the authors of dictionaries are in the role of passive observers who merely provide us with a snapshot of how people are using words at a particular moment in time. If people use certain words in confusing manners, then the dictionary will give us those confusing uses rather than provide us with sensible guidance.

Furthermore, there was nothing we would recognize as an English-language dictionary until 1755. During Chaucer's era, many people throughout Europe, especially in the Catholic Church, were still regarding Latin as the proper language for documents. In 1286 a dictionary of Latin words was created. Chaucer was among a small number of people to produce documents in the English language, and he was on his own to figure out how to spell words. There was no dictionary for him to look in.

The first useful English dictionary was published in 1755, but it does not help us understand the Second Amendment. The image below shows its definition for militia (most of the letters that looks like f are actually an s):
Scanned image
Text Militia. n.s. [Latin.] The trainbands; the standing force of a nation.
Let any prince think soberly of his forces, except his militia be good and valiant soldiers. Bacon's Essays, No. 30.

The militia was so settled by law, that a sudden army could be drawn together. Clarendon.

Unnumbered spirits round thee fly,
The light militia of the lower sky. Pope's Rape of the Lock.

Update: I had assumed that the dictionary did not have an entry for the word "trainbands", but it turns out that the dictionaries search function does not find the word, but it is in the scanned image of the dictionary. 

You must imagine yourself living in 1780
As I described in a previous series of articles, a dictionary definition is a very short summary of what a word represents. Many words represent concepts that are so complex that the definition would have to be several volumes in order to adequately explain it.

We cannot use the dictionary to help us understand the second amendment, so what do we do? If you understand that every word represents a set of memories in our mind, then a sensible way to guess at how people in 1780 were using words is to try to imagine ourselves living in that era, and try to guess at what sort of memories we would have accumulated for the words in the second amendment.

Many words, such as frog, rock, and clouds, would provide us with the same set of memories in 1780 as we have today because those words represent things that have not changed. However, human life and technology has changed significantly, so the people who grew up in 1780 had a significantly different set of memories for such words as home, farm, sheriff, militia, school, and transportation.

Police departments did not exist in 1700
The attitude towards crime prevention was significantly different in the 1700s compared to our cities today. The towns did not have police departments like we do today. Some towns had a Sheriff, but when the Sheriff needed to arrest somebody, he would often ask for volunteers to assist him. This is where the phrase "Posse comitatus", and the word "posse" came from. The British version of this concept was referred to as "Hue and cry"

Hollywood movies distort history to titillate us, so you might have a distorted view on what a posse was, but the truth was more boring; a posse was just a group of men who were assisting the sheriff.

Although a lot of men would volunteer to help the sheriff, and they would volunteer to help defend their community from attacks, there were situations in which there were not enough volunteers. The lack of volunteers resulted in the concept of forcing people to assist the sheriff, or forcing them to help with the defense of their community. This concept developed into what became known as a "military draft" or "conscription", in which every young man is required to join the military to give him some training with weapons and military tactics.

It is also important to realize that centuries ago the government did not have large stockpiles of weapons. Manufacturing technology was crude. Iron was difficult to produce and process. Knives, guns, spears, and armor were expensive and rare. When a sheriff needed a group of men to help him, he could not provide the men with clothing, tools, guns, horses, saddles, or gunpowder. The men had to bring their own equipment and supplies.

You might wonder why a sheriff would need volunteers to help him arrest a criminal. The main reason was because the guns of centuries ago were not much more useful than a knife. When the Second Amendment was written, the only guns were flintlock muskets, rifles, and pistols. There was no such thing as a revolver or a bullet. The flintlock guns were inaccurate, difficult to use, and not very dangerous except at extremely close distances. When a man was taught how to use a flintlock musket, he was advised that he should not shoot at a person until he could see the whites of his eyes.

The police today have such high quality pistols and rifles that they can remain at quite a distance from a criminal and demand that he get on the ground and put his hands behind his back. Very few people are foolish enough to risk being shot at by a modern gun. However, in the 1780s, the flintlock guns were so inaccurate and crude that people were not nearly as frightened of being shot at. Shooting at a person with a flintlock musket was not much more dangerous than throwing a rock at him. It is possible that more people died from the infection that resulted from being shot rather than from the projectile itself.

This is the reason that the Native Americans, with bows and arrows, could often defeat groups of people with flintlock muskets. It is possible that if a group of ordinary soldiers with flintlock muskets had to battle a group of professional baseball pitchers who are throwing rocks, that the baseball pitchers would win.

Because the flintlock muskets had so little value, a line of soldiers would fire their muskets at the same time so that they created a shower of projectiles, which significantly increased the chances that somebody would be injured, killed, or frightened enough to run away.

Furthermore, it took so long to reload a flintlock gun that a sheriff would effectively have only one shot because by the time he reloaded his gun, the criminal would have either escaped, or he could have rushed over to the sheriff and attacked him.

Because the flintlock guns were so ineffective, the fights between criminals, and the fights between groups of soldiers, involved a lot of hand-to-hand combat compared to today. Many of the guns had a knife at the end of the barrel because knives were almost as effective as rifles. A sheriff wanted assistance in capturing criminals because the weapons in those days were so crude.

The sheriff did not investigate crimes
Incidentally, one reason that the Sheriff could depend upon some ignorant farmers to help him with criminals is because there was no significant investigation of crimes in that era. They did not bother to preserve crime scenes, for example, and so it was acceptable for a group of men and a sheriff to trample a crime scene.

In the 1700s, there was nothing that we would recognize as forensic science. They did not analyze crime scenes for fingerprints until the late 1800s. Arthur Doyle supposedly wrote the Sherlock Holmes stories in the 1880s as a way of encouraging the police to investigate crimes. A sheriff in the 1700s was more like a modern bouncer at a nightclub than a modern policeman or detective.

The militias were the only defensive force
When the 13 colonies were under the control of England, many of the communities had a militia to protect the community from Native Americans, and to assist the sheriff in dealing with criminals. It is important to note that the militias were not government agencies. They were just groups of citizens, mostly farmers, since almost all of the men in that era were farmers. The men in the militias would get together once in a while in their leisure time to learn about flintlock guns and military procedures, and the reason was so that they would be ready and able to defend their community and assist the sheriff.

When the colonies announced their independence, the newly formed nation of the United States did not have much of an army. Our history books tell us that the "United States army" fought the British troops, and that George Washington was a "General" in this army. However, the word "army" had a different meaning to people in 1776 compared to today. When we decode the word army, we find lots of images of professional soldiers who are living in Army barracks, and who are supported by tax money. However, in 1776, the United States Army was essentially just a few people, such as George Washington. Militias from the 13 colonies sent men to fight the British under the leadership of people such as Washington. The United States Army was a gathering of militias.

The creators of United States did not want the nation to have a large, professional army. The reason was because they not only feared government, they also feared a military. They wanted the militias to be the only security force for the nation. They assumed that if the government had its own military force, then the government might start senseless wars rather than use the military for defensive purposes only, and the government might use the military to eliminate their competitors. They assumed that the citizens would be safer from government abuse if the government had to ask the militias for troops. This gave the militias, and therefore the citizens, the final authority over whether they will get involved with a war.

Unfortunately, the concept of using militias for defense quickly turned out to be unrealistic for lots of reasons, such as:
• The ordinary citizens cannot handle such a responsibility. It is unrealistic to expect thousands of independent citizens who are scattered around the country to deal with the defense of a nation.
• Technology was making weapons so complex and expensive that it was soon impractical for militias to properly train people on using them.
• The militias could not be stop pirates in the Caribbean; a Navy was needed for that.
• Medical technology was becoming increasingly advanced, and militias could not provide adequate medical training.

In 1791 the government began the slow process of developing a professional military. The concept of a militia, i.e., of ordinary citizens practicing with weapons in their leisure time to help the community during times of trouble, evolved into the National Guard, and the men who resisted the changes and continued to participate in independent militias eventually became ignored and unwanted.

As of 2016, the United States still has hundreds of groups of men who refer to themselves as "militias". Just as the militias did centuries ago, these men get together in their leisure time to practice with rifles and prepare for the day when they are needed to defend the nation and assist the sheriff. However, there is a significant difference between the militias of today and the militias that the authors of the Second Amendment were referring to. The most significant difference is that the militias in 1780 were the nation's only defense force, and the sheriffs depended on them, also. Today the nation does not want or need the militias. Today we use the National Guard to assist with domestic problems, and we use a professional military for the defense of the nation. Nobody calls on the militias for assistance with anything.

The men in the militias are refusing to face the fact that life has changed dramatically during the past few centuries. They believe that they are preparing themselves for the day they will be able to protect the nation, but they are just wasting their time and resources.

I suspect that all of the men who join a militia would refer to themselves as "conservatives". The reason I say this is because they follow their ancestors and resist critical analysis of themselves. They consider themselves to be brave and courageous, but they are terrified to explore the unknown or look critically at themselves. They follow one another like sheep. They have the courage to defend their community, but every animal is willing to defend itself. There is nothing special about a man who defends himself. We need men to do more than that. We need men who can ask themselves such questions as, "Where are we going?" We especially need men with the courage to wander off the established path.

Animals form spontaneous, temporary militias
How did militias become a part of human culture? Why is there so much resistance to eliminating them? Why do so many men want to be a member of a militia? I think the only way to understand this issue is to look at how animals behave.

When a group of wolves, monkeys, and certain other social animals encounters a threat from predators or other groups of animals, the males tend to react by trying to protect the group, and the females tend to react by trying to protect the children. The male animals that fight with the threatening animals could be described as behaving like a "militia".

The difference between what animals do and what humans do is that animals create militias spontaneously when they are needed, the militias are unorganized, and the militias dissolve when the danger is gone, whereas humans create militias before they are needed so that they can train together, and the militias persist for years.

If we could go back in time millions of years, we would find that the monkeys that were evolving into humans were forming unorganized, temporary militias every time they faced a predator or a fight from a neighboring tribe.

It is important to realize that when animals defend their community from danger, they are behaving as selfish individuals who are doing what they want to do, as opposed to being members of a team who are following orders from a supervisor, or who are thinking about what is best for the community. Each of the animals is his own boss, and each animal is trying to please himself, not to help the community. The animals are not thinking about what is the best for their community. They are simply trying to satisfy their cravings to intimidate and chase away the animals that threaten them. Each animal fights whichever animal he wants to fight, and in whatever manner he wants to fight.
It might be easier for you to understand this concept if you look at how dogs will bark at vacuum cleaners and automobiles. The dogs that do this are not following orders to defend their community. Rather, the inanimate object has triggered their emotions to defend their community, and they react by trying to intimidate and chase away the "enemy".

When animals encounter a threatening animal, the emotions of the male animals are triggered, and that causes them to chase away the threatening animal. The animals do not realize that they are providing protection for their community. From their point of view, they are simply "having fun" and doing what they want to do.

The male animals provide protection for their group without any understanding of what they are doing, and without any supervisor to give them orders. Although a leaderless group of animals is an ineffective fighting force, all other animals have exactly the same emotions, so they are leaderless, also, which makes them equal.

As monkeys developed the ability to communicate and work together in teams, the situation changed dramatically. An organized team of humans can easily defeat a leaderless group of animals. As humans became more organized and better able to communicate, they became more successful in battles with animals, and this allowed them to defeat groups of animals that were much larger and stronger, which allowed humans to dominate any territory they pleased. Rather than be restricted to a small area of the planet, they soon dominated every area they were interested in.

When people began settling down into permanent settlements, the men continued to react to threatening neighbors by grabbing sticks, rocks, or whatever weapons they had available, and trying to intimidate and chase away the neighbors. As with animals, those men were not part of an organized police force or military unit. They were defending their community simply because male animals have a craving to intimidate and fight with anything that they regard as a threat.

Eventually somebody realized that the men can do a better job of defending their community when they practice fighting before there is a threat rather than waiting until they are attacked.

Animals do not train for fights, but humans eventually discovered that training and practice will make them better fighters. It was the beginning of what would become the concept of a militia, a police department, and a military. By the time the United States Constitution was written, most of the larger communities had a militia.

People participated in society in 1780
We are still using the word "militia" today, but the word militia does not decode into the same mental images to us as it would have to the people in 1700s. One reason there is a difference is because there is a significant difference in the attitudes between people today and people in 1780. Specifically, people today are much more passive than they were centuries ago.

Children in our era are taught to be passive. We are taught that when a problem occurs, such as a fire, medical problem, or crime, we should call the police, fire department, medical personnel, or government officials. We are told to wait for professionals to deal with the problem rather than try to deal with the problem ourselves. We are taught that we do not have the experience, knowledge, equipment, or supplies to deal with medical problems, and we do not have the authority to deal with crimes or fires.

By comparison, people centuries ago had to be self-sufficient, and they had to deal with problems even if they knew nothing about how to solve them. For example, if a person in a small community was having some type of medical problem, the other people in the community could not call paramedics or ambulances because there were no such services, and there were no telephones. The people in the immediate vicinity had to make a decision about whether they should try to help the person, even if they had no understanding of medical issues. There was no option of calling for professional help.

Furthermore, the doctors and sheriffs did not know much more than the ordinary people about medical issues or crime. Therefore, even if a doctor or sheriff was in the area, he would not necessarily have been any more useful in dealing with the problem than an ordinary person.

Our ancestors had a different attitude towards life than we do today. Our ancestors had to take care of themselves and each other. When a problem occurred centuries ago, whoever was interested in dealing with the problem would do something, even if he did not know much about what he was doing.

If a rainstorm destroyed a house or bridge, some of the people would get together to help rebuild the structure, even if they didn't know much about construction techniques. The people centuries ago also made more items for themselves, such as bread, clothing, furniture, and tools. Some of them made their own soap, built their own homes, or spun their own thread from wool that they cut off of their sheep. Today we purchase almost everything we want.

Militias were the only security force
The men who wrote the Second Amendment had a very specific image in their mind, and when we read the words they wrote, we should decode those words into the exact same mental image. However, unless we understand what the words meant to people in 1780, we will not be able to decode their words accurately. For example, the Second Amendment refers to "arms". To us, an "arm" is pistols, AK-47s, and shotguns, but to the people who wrote the Second Amendment, it was mainly flintlock muskets. They did not even have stainless steel knives. Therefore, we could rewrite the Second Amendment like this:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to have flintlock guns, shall not be infringed.
The word "militia" also had a specific meaning to them. In their mind, the word "militia" decoded into a detailed animation of farmers, blacksmiths, bakers, and other people volunteering to get together to defend their community or help arrest a criminal, similar to the image to the right, but as an animation rather than a fixed image.
Furthermore, the word militia stimulated their emotions. To the people in 1780, the militia was their only defense force, and that would cause the people to have an emotional attraction to the word militia. To them, a militia was a valuable and necessary security force.

Since the militias consisted of their fathers, brothers, cousins, and neighbors, everybody knew somebody in a militia. The word militia decoded into images of people that they knew, trusted, and respected, not strangers that they were suspicious of.

By comparison, to most of us, the word militia does not evoke any emotional feelings because most of us do not know anybody in a militia, and because we do not regard the militia as vital to our security. Even worse, for the fools who have been convinced by the media that militias are dangerous, "right wing extremists", the word militia will evoke fear.

If we had grown up in 1780, the word militia would decode into the same images and emotional feelings as in the minds of the authors of the Second Amendment. We would not be frightened of the militia. Rather, we would be proud of the militia. The word militia would evoke pleasant memories because it would decode into lots of images of people in our community getting together to protect us and help the sheriff.

In order to truly understand the Second Amendment, we need to use the definitions that the authors used. A dictionary cannot help us to understand the Second Amendment because a dictionary provides only a very brief summary of the meaning of a word. The true meaning of a word may be thousands of memories, animations, and emotional feelings.
I don't think many people are decoding the word "militia" into the type of animation implied by the illustration above, and nobody seems to be decoding "arms" into flintlock muskets.

Almost everybody seems to be decoding the second amendment into some other animation, such as a burglar who is climbing through their window, and who they are shooting at with several types of modern guns.

Most people are creating an animation that is similar to the game on the Internet called Whack the Burglar. I have not played the game, but screen images of the game seem to be what most people are visualizing when they decode the Second Amendment.

Most people don't realize that they are decoding the words in the Second Amendment with modern definitions. They should be trying to figure out what those words meant to the authors.

Militias were more powerful than the government
Another significant difference between life in 1780 and life today is that the militias in 1780 were more powerful than the government. The reason was because the government at that time did not have police departments or any significant military. The government depended upon the militias for soldiers, and the sheriff depended upon the militias for assistance. Therefore, the militias were the most powerful force in the nation. The militias were capable of standing up to corrupt government officials.

The situation has completely reversed itself since then. Even if a modern militia has thousands of members, it is impossible for them to arrest corrupt government officials because the government now has large police departments and a gigantic military to protect them. For example, in January 2016, Ammon Bundy led a group of militias in Oregon to stand up to the federal government, but the police departments put an end to their rebellion without much trouble.

It does not matter whether those militias were doing something useful for the nation. They would be treated as criminals no matter what they were fighting for. For example, they would have been attacked by the police departments, FBI, and military even if they had been doing something as sensible as arresting Larry Silverstein and Michael Chertoff for their role in the 9/11 attack.

The militias today are worthless organizations. The people who are joining them are fooling themselves into believing that they are members of an important defense organization. They are analogous to the people who dress up in Star Trek costumes, but instead of imagining themselves living in the future, they are imagining themselves in the past.

The US government has become what its creators feared
The men who designed the United States government were trying to protect the government from becoming dominated by violent, dictatorial, dishonest, and selfish groups of people. Unfortunately, their checks and balances and safeguards were failures, and the United States government has become what they were afraid of. For a few examples:

• They wanted militias to provide for defense rather than a military because they were worried that the government officials would use a military to get rid of competitors and start idiotic wars, and the US military has since become a group of attack dogs for the Jews rather than a defense force for the nation.

• They wanted militias to help with law enforcement because they did not believe a government can be trusted with law enforcement, and the FBI and police departments have evolved into the corrupt law enforcement agencies that they were worried about.

• They gave us freedom of speech, but their checks and balances failed to prevent a Jewish crime network from getting control of the media. Until the Internet developed, people like me were silenced, and now we find the Jews luring people to Facebook and other websites where they censor information and expose the people to propaganda.

• They wanted the court system to provide us with a jury of citizens because they did not believe the authorities could be trusted to determine court cases, but our legal system has since been taken over by a Jewish crime network, thereby creating a legal system that is so dishonest that Larry Silverstein cannot be arrested for participating in the 9/11 attack, but Christopher Bollyn can be convicted of resisting arrest.

• They gave the citizens the right to vote because they did not want a small group of people to make decisions for the nation, but the voters turned out to be so trusting, gullible, irresponsible, arrogant, resistant to criticism, apathetic, selfish, uneducated, easily bribed, and/or stupid that a small group of Jews has been able to control who becomes a candidate, thereby allowing the Jews to determine our president, sheriffs, district attorneys, and congress. Donald Trump is not necessarily an exception to this rule; he may simply be working with a subset of the Jews who are in control of the nation.

The United States has degraded into the type of government that the nation's founders were afraid of. Their checks and balances have failed to protect our freedom of speech or stop the corruption. The tiny government they created has grown in size to become a significant percentage of the population, thereby becoming a significant burden on the nation.

How can we fix this problem? The government officials are not going to fix the problems for us. They are not going to voluntarily eliminate their jobs or arrest themselves and their friends.

Our only hope is that there are enough honest, respectable people inside the police and military to overthrow the criminals, and then we have to hope that they have the emotional strength to look critically at the United States Constitution and realize that it is a failure, and that we need to experiment with a better government system.

If all we do is arrest some criminals and keep the same government system, we will not accomplish anything. The voters have already changed government officials dozens of times during the past 200 years, but it has not done anything to reduce corruption. Arresting a few corrupt government officials is as worthless as arresting a few drug dealers. When we arrest a drug dealer, somebody simply takes his place. When we arrest a corrupt government official, the voters simply elect another dishonest official to replace him.

In order to truly improve our nation, we have to find the courage to learn from our mistakes and experiment with a new government system, a new way of selecting leaders, new checks and balances over the government, and new attitudes towards life. Arresting a few criminals is not going to solve our problems, especially when all we do is punish them for a few years and then let them back into influential positions.

Militias and posses are no longer sensible
Centuries ago it made sense for farmers and business owners to grab a flintlock gun and run out into the streets to help deal with a criminal or an attack by British soldiers, but it no longer makes sense for people to form militias or posses.

The modern militias are analogous to our appendix; they exist, but they do nothing of value, and occasionally one of the militias becomes "infected" with the idea of defending the nation, which results in our "immune system" (the police) attacking them.

Crime and corruption is rampant, but the militias are no longer allowed to stop it. The modern militias don't have any authority to do anything.

The only way a militia could be useful in this modern world is if the members would agree to work with the honest people in the military, and if the military was willing to work with them. In that situation, however, they are not "militias" in the sense that the authors of the Second Amendment used the word. Rather, they are simply another division of the military.

It is no longer practical for citizens to form militias or posses because we now have police departments and a military. We should face the fact that our lives have changed dramatically, and weapons have become much more dangerous.

A lot of activities that were sensible centuries ago are no longer practical. The concept of "barnraising" is another example. It made sense for the people centuries ago in a small community to help one another build a barn or other structure because their structures were simple, and they could not depend upon government agencies, insurance companies, or businesses in other cities to provide them with labor or materials. People centuries ago had to be much more self-sufficient.

Modern technology has made it unrealistic for people to do barnraising. Modern structures are too complicated for ordinary people to build or repair, and our extensive network of electric power lines, natural gas lines, and other pipelines makes it dangerous for ordinary people to assist in the construction or maintenance of our cities.

Our technology has become so advanced that people must specialize in specific areas, and if a person does not have the appropriate tools or experience to deal with a particular problem, he should let somebody else deal with it.

We are not homogeneous enough to form militias
Another reason militias are impractical today is because we are living in large cities that consist of people of different races and attitudes. By comparison, when the second amendment was written, the majority of people were of British ancestry. Although the southern states had quite a few African slaves, they were not allowed to join militias.

In 1780, the towns were small, and many people in the town were friends and relatives of one another. It was easy for such a small group of homogeneous people to get together to deal with problems because they would all have very similar ideas on what to do and how to do it.

In our modern world, however, especially in nations such as America, where immigration is not controlled, if the people were to form militias to deal with crime and corruption, the result would be a disaster because the militias would have different ideas on what crime and corruption is, and different ideas on how to deal with the problem. The militias would have conflicting purposes.

For example, some of the religious fanatics would form militias to arrest or execute the people who work at abortion clinics or promote evolution at schools. The Jews would form militias to kill anti-Semites, terrorists, and homophobes. The members of the Black Lives Matter group would form militias to attack whoever it is they don't like, which seems to be just about everybody except lesbians, drug addicts, and criminals.

So, what exactly does the Second Amendment mean?
Now that you have a better understanding of what the word "militia" would have meant to people in 1780, you should realize that the Second Amendment provided weapons to a "militia" because the citizens, army, and sheriff depended upon the militias to provide the nation with defense and to help arrest criminals.

Why did the Second Amendment clarify the word militia with the description "well regulated"? They probably added that description because some of the militias did not have much training or supervision. The authors did not want to forbid those poorly trained militias from having weapons, but they obviously wanted to emphasize that the only people that the second amendment was granting the right to have weapons were the members of militias that were providing training and supervision.

Now consider the phrase following the "well regulated militia": "being necessary to the security of a free State". That phrase is explaining why they were providing the militias with right to have weapons. The authors are emphasizing that they are providing the weapons because the militias were necessary for providing security for their community. The militia is not a circus act that is intended to entertain people, and it is not a sports group that is using guns in a competitive event.

The authors gave militias the right to have weapons so that they can use them as defensive tools. They did not forbid the use of weapons in sports events or as entertainment, but they were not providing citizens with the right to have weapons for such purposes. The second amendment was defining who had the right to have weapons, and the authors did not believe that citizens had a right to use weapons as entertainment devices. Using weapons for entertainment was an option, not a right.

The third phrase is more confusing. It states, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms". Many people are treating that phrase as if it is an independent sentence. If it were an independent sentence, it would provide everybody with the right to have guns, but it is not an independent sentence. It is just a phrase between commas that is clarifying the sentence; it is adding more detail to the concept about the militia. It provides "the people" with the right to have weapons because the militias were "the people".

Most members of the militia were full-time farmers, since that is what most of the men did for a living. It is important to realize that the members of the militia were "ordinary people" who volunteered to participate in the militia during their leisure time. They were not full-time soldiers or policemen. Usually only men would get involved with the militia, but there are numerous times in history when a woman joined the men in a battle.

Furthermore, the militia members had to provide their own weapons. The government was not providing the citizens with weapons. This required that every person who wanted to join a militia be able to acquire his own weapons.

The authors of the Second Amendment wanted to ensure that the men and women who joined the militias would have the necessary weapons to defend their community. Since those men and women were not soldiers or policemen, the Second Amendment could not give soldiers or policemen the right to have weapons. The Second Amendment could not give "militias" the right to have weapons, either, because the militias were not formal organizations that were registered with the government. The militias were not entities that had stockpiles of weapons. The militias were just groups of volunteers, and each man needed to purchase his own weapons. Therefore, it was necessary to provide the people with the right to have weapons.

The militias were just groups of "ordinary people", mostly farmers. The second amendment wanted to ensure that those people would have weapons, so they wrote the Second Amendment to give "the people" the the right to have weapons, and they clarified the issue by pointing out that they were referring to people who were involved with a "well regulated militia", and that the weapons were for the purpose of defense.

The Second Amendment is not providing the ordinary people with the right to have guns for entertainment purposes, sports, protection against criminals, or for shooting at rats. The second amendment gives the right to have weapons only to the people who are part of a well trained militia, and only for security purposes. Furthermore, the second amendment was providing people with flintlock guns, not bullets, machine guns, lasers, rail guns, or any of the modern weapons we have today.

The Second Amendment does not prohibit ordinary people from having flintlock guns for sports or entertainment, but the second amendment does not provide the ordinary citizens with the right to have weapons as entertainment, or even to shoot at burglars. The authors of the second amendment ignored the issue of whether citizens should be allowed to have guns for entertainment purposes because they were interested only in specifying who was being guaranteed the right to have weapons.

The authors were stating that the only people who have a right to have weapons are people who are part of a well trained militia, and who are using the weapons for the security of the community. Nobody else has a right to have weapons. Nobody in the United States has a right to have a weapon for entertainment, and nobody has a right to have a weapon for sports. These other uses of weapons are optional privileges, not a right.

We selfishly interpret laws in the manner we please
The word "militia" represented a specific concept to the people who wrote the second amendment, and we should decode the Second Amendment with their definition of the word, not the modern definition. However, it is important to note that people today are not even using the modern definition. To understand this, here are two different modern dictionary definitions:

• A part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency. (merriam-webster)

• A group of people who are not part of the armed forces of a country but are trained like soldiers .

Most of the modern definitions of militia define it as a group of people who are essentially an auxiliary military force. If we were to use the modern definition, then the Second Amendment is not providing ordinary people with the right to own guns. It is giving that right only to people who are members of a military-type of organization that is trained to use the guns.

We should decode the words in the Second Amendment with the meanings of the words in 1780, but most people are not even using the modern meanings of the words. Instead, most people are decoding the Second Amendment in the same manner that they decode the Bible. Specifically, they disregard whatever they don't like, and interpret the words in whatever manner they find most pleasing. The end result is that most people, including the Supreme Court judges, decode the Second Amendment as if it were written like this:
Every citizen has the right to own as many guns as he pleases, and for any purpose he pleases. Nobody has to pass any gun training programs, register the guns, or provide evidence that his mind is functioning properly.
A law has no value if the people ignore the concept behind the law and interpret the words in whatever manner they please. It is especially ridiculous to allow the courts to interpret laws in whatever manner they please.

How can we expect a government to be honest when the citizens interpret laws in whatever manner they please? A nation can only be as good as its people. A nation of dishonest, apathetic, selfish nitwits is not going to be able to create an honest government.

Who should have the privilege to have weapons?
Most people are probably intelligent enough to realize that the Second Amendment is giving the right to have weapons only to people who are trained in the use of weapons, and only for the purpose of providing security to the community. Instead of arguing over this issue, we should be discussing what the Second Amendment does not specify; specifically, who should have the privilege to have weapons, and for what purposes?

Should citizens be allowed to have weapons to protect themselves from burglars, or other criminals? If so, what type of weapons? Should citizens be able to carry guns in their pockets, purses, and automobiles?

Should citizens be able to have weapons to shoot at targets for entertainment? If so, what type of weapons should they be allowed to have? Should they be able to use lead bullets, or should we prohibit lead because it is poisonous?

We need to blaze our own path into the future
Life has changed dramatically since 1780. Our weapons are much more dangerous than flintlock muskets, and militias and posses are no longer practical. The Second Amendment is irrelevant to us, and it needs to be tossed in the trash.

We need to decide for ourselves what our policy will be for modern guns. We cannot expect a group of people who lived hundreds of years ago to be able to provide us with sensible guidance on what we should do with our lives. We should not follow our ancestors. We need to think for ourselves. We need to create our own policies.

Another reason that it is ridiculous for us to follow the practices of people centuries ago is because they did not have the solutions to life's problems. Their method of dealing with crime was worthless, and the government system they created for us was a failure.
The United States Constitution has resulted in a government that is so corrupt that our government officials can participate in a false flag operation to blow up office buildings, broadcast the demolition worldwide, and not have to worry about getting into trouble for their crime. If the founders of the United States could see what our government has become, they would certainly be shocked and disappointed.

We must face the fact that our modern societies require a different method of dealing with crime, war, and corruption compared to what the authors of the second amendment were proposing. We need to experiment with new policies, not mimic primitive, ignorant people. We need to decide for ourselves whether citizens should own modern weapons. We have to stop looking to the people in 1780 to provide us with guidance. The people in 1780 were not all-knowing Gods who can provide us with intelligent guidance. They were ignorant people who could not even cope with the problems of their era. We have to find the courage to blaze our own path into the future.

Guns do not stop crime; people do
Many Americans who promote guns like to repeat the expression, "Guns don't kill people, people do". That statement is accurate. Guns are inanimate objects. A gun will kill a person only when a person makes a decision to kill somebody with a gun. Whether a gun is harmful or helpful depends upon the decisions that people make. It has nothing to do with the gun.

Although it is accurate to say that guns don't kill people, we could apply the same reasoning to explosives, poisons, and medical drugs. Why are we forcing people who want insulin to get prescriptions? Insulin does not hurt people, people do.

Most government officials and citizens are advocating laws that please their emotions. They are not exerting self-control and thinking about the issue.

When somebody kills a person with a knife, or by running over them with an automobile, some of the people who promote guns will make sarcastic remarks about how we should make knives or automobiles illegal, or that anybody who wants to purchase a knife or automobile should have to go through a one-week waiting period while their mental health is checked.

It is true that "guns don't kill people; people do", but the people who promote that expression don't seem to be able to grasp a slightly more complex concept; namely, that "Guns don't stop crime, people do".
The only way we are going to stop crime is by experimenting with new crime policies and a new legal system. It is idiotic to expect an inanimate object to stop crime. The people who believe that carrying a gun will stop crime are promoting an idea that is as stupid as the medieval belief that wearing garlic around your neck would protect you from the bubonic plague.

The people who promote guns as a solution to crime insist that criminals will be afraid to commit crimes when everybody has guns, but history has already proven that neither animals nor humans care if other creatures have weapons. Animals do not have guns, but they have teeth and claws. However, no animal is afraid of a fight simply because another animal has teeth and claws. Weapons do not frighten animals.

Likewise, humans evolved a strong desire to defend themselves, even when the enemy has weapons. Furthermore, when humans and animals lose their temper, they lose their fear, also, which makes them even less concerned about whether somebody has a weapon. We do not run away and hide simply because the other person has teeth, claws, sticks, rocks, or guns.

If guns were capable of frightening criminals into becoming honest, then crime gangs would frighten one another into honesty, and the police would frighten everybody into honesty. Likewise, all nations would frighten one another into honesty.

Gangs show no fear of getting into fights with other gangs, so why would a gang be afraid of getting into a fight with an ordinary citizen who has a gun? Some gang members don't even show a fear of getting into fights with the police.

A gang has very little to fear when they are attacking an individual person, even if that person has lots of guns. John O'Neill may have had a gun with him on the day he died, for example, but I don't think the Jews who killed him were the least bit frightened of his gun. Princess Diana may not have had a gun, but her bodyguards may have had several guns, but that didn't stop the British government from killing her. The guns in Britain are not stopping the British government from covering up that murder, either.

There might be more guns per person in Texas than anywhere else in the world, so Texas should have the lowest crime levels in the world, but Japan and some other nations have much lower crime levels, even though the citizens have fewer weapons than the people in Texas.

We need the courage to experiment with our culture
There is crime all over the world, and many people react to it with fear, and by wanting a gun for protection. However, this is a stupid, monkey-like response to crime. A more sensible response is to start experimenting with changes to society to reduce the crime.

Guns cannot prevent crime; only people can prevent crime. We need to experiment with changes to our legal system, government system, and economy. We need to experiment with new attitudes towards crime.

We should not live in fear of criminals and prepare for the day they attack us. We should find the courage to experiment with changes to society to reduce crime to such low levels that we don't have to worry about being attacked.

The history of the United States and Switzerland is proof that providing citizens with guns does absolutely nothing to reduce crime or government corruption. The citizens of the United States and Switzerland have a lot of guns, but statistics show that we have many more burglaries than nations with fewer guns. The burglars in the United States and Switzerland are not frightened by the guns.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the United States had an average of 3.7 million burglaries each year between 2003 and 2007. It should be noted that the statistics claim that the victims knew the burglars in 65% of the violent burglaries. This is a characteristic about crimes that gun owners frequently overlook. Specifically, criminals and victims usually know one another because they are often friends, relatives, coworkers, former lovers, or neighbors.

When the burglar knows his victim, he can do a much better job of planning his crime compared to a burglar who is robbing a stranger. A person who knows you will know when you are likely to be away from your home, and where you keep valuable items. People who know you will also know whether there is a man living in the house, and whether he is a coward with a gun, or a man who will use his gun. They will also know whether you have any potentially dangerous dogs.

Many victims of burglaries had guns but never got the chance to use them. Not many burglars are so incompetent that they give their victim a chance to get their gun and use it. It is possible that certain types of dogs are a greater deterrent to burglars than guns.

Guns are even less likely to protect a woman from being raped. One reason is that many women are raped after they become incapacitated from alcohol or other drugs, and another reason is because many of the rapists wait until the woman is vulnerable, such as when she is sleeping, or when her back is turned. There have been only a few rapists who have been so incompetent that they gave their victim a chance to find her gun and use it.

Guns are worthless for corruption
When the Second Amendment was written, the militias were capable of arresting corrupt government officials, but today the government uses the FBI, Secret Service, police departments, and military to protect itself.

The most devastating crimes that a nation experiences are from government officials, school officials, professors, journalists, and other people in influential positions, not from individual burglars, rapists, or murderers. The reason is because an individual burglar can hurt only one family at a time, but a corrupt government official can hurt thousands or millions of people in one day, and they can start wars that persist for decades. When an organization has corrupt leadership, the members can suffer a lot more abuse than if they only had to deal with individual criminals.

Guns will not protect people from corrupt leaders. The only way to stop corrupt leaders is for the people to find the courage to do something about the corrupt leaders, such as arrest them, evict them, or execute them. We are not going to stop corruption by stockpiling guns and bullets.

If we want to reduce crime and corruption, we have to experiment with society. We cannot stop crime simply by hanging some garlic around our neck, or by putting a gun around our waist. We have to be willing to suffer some emotional discomfort as we discuss these complex issues, compromise on policies, and experiment with changes to our culture.

The United States does not even have fair elections
In September 2016, the Commission on Presidential Debates announced who they had selected to moderate the debates between Clinton and Trump. How did the Commission on Presidential Debates acquire the authority to arrange for debates, determine who is allowed to participate, and choose the moderators?

The organization has a page that describes their leadership, and they have three people listed as "honorary co-chairman". Two of the three are dead: former presidents Ronald Regan and Gerald Ford. The third is former President Jimmy Carter.

All of the organizations that provide honorary diplomas and management positions seem to be trying to manipulate us. They seem to search for a famous person who will agree to accept an honorary award, and then they use that person's fame to improve their own image. It is especially deceptive to have dead people as honorary co-chairmen. The dead people belong in the section of their website that discusses their history, not their current leadership.

The Commission on Presidential Debates is continuing to list Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford in their management section simply to make the organization appear to be more like a branch of the government rather than a group of Jews and selfish citizens who are trying to manipulate the elections. This type of behavior should be regarded as immoral, disgusting, deceptive, and abusive. However, most people refer to such behavior as "a clever marketing technique".

What would you think if the leadership page for a group that promotes carbon taxes had a list of honorary co-chairmen, and in that list was Isaac Newton, Archimedes, Leonardo da Vinci, and James Maxwell? How about if the Noah's Ark Museum claimed that Jesus Christ is an honorary co-chairman of the museum?

We should react to problems by experimenting with solutions
We need leaders who have the courage to experiment with new policies. We are not going to reduce crime when we follow our ancestors.

Furthermore, we need voters who can ensure that the government is honest. We cannot reduce crime when voters are so apathetic, gullible, trusting, stupid, and/or ignorant that they allow crime networks to dominate the nation.

A person in the Army Reserves sent me the photo below of an FBI agent that was watching them conduct an exercise. With all of the crime and corruption in America, why would the FBI management tell their agents to watch the Army Reserves conduct exercises rather than do something useful?

The people in the Army Reserves had no idea why the FBI agent was watching them. It is conceivable that the FBI agent was truly investigating a crime and believed that the criminal was in the Army Reserves, but we ought to wonder if the FBI is watching the military because the FBI management is worried that the soldiers are learning the truth about the Jews. In such a case, the FBI may be observing the military to determine how many soldiers are showing anger towards Jews or FBI agents. The FBI might also be looking for mentally ill people in the military to use as patsies in their false flag operations.

There are undoubtedly some honest people in the FBI, but they are not promoted to management. John O'Neill may have been an honest FBI agent, which would explain why he died mysteriously during the morning of the 9/11 attack.

The television company Filmrise created a documentary about a crime in which the police found some fingerprints at a murder scene, but the prints did not match any in the FBI database, and so the crime went unsolved. Years later somebody discovered that it matched a fingerprint in one of the local police department databases.

The FBI and other police agencies did not bother to create a single database of fingerprint data, DNA data, or other data. Instead, different agencies create their own databases. I saw that documentary on YouTube, but I didn't save the link, so I don't know where it is. I only remember that it was produced by Filmrise. The documentary pointed out that the FBI was saving fingerprints only for people convicted of felonies, not other crimes, and not for people who had never committed a crime. If you were in control of the FBI, would you save only a small sample of fingerprints? Is the FBI really interested in solving crimes? Or are they just an Israeli organization dedicated to covering up crimes by Jews?

That documentary was created several years ago, and during the following years there have been some attempts by some law enforcement officials to combine their databases, but even in 2016 we find that data is scattered around the nation in different databases.

Also, as of 2016, none of our law enforcement officials are demanding that we treat DNA as just another form of identification so that the police don't have to ask people for permission to get a DNA sample. When are our law enforcement officials going to stop begging for DNA samples and start demanding it? How can they do a proper job of investigating crimes when they have to ask criminals for a DNA sample?

Filmrise has made several documentaries in which the police obtained a DNA sample at a crime scene, but it didn't match anybody in the database, and so the crime went unsolved. In some cases, the criminal then committed another crime. If our police agencies had a DNA sample of everybody, those crimes would have been solved immediately. This would have prevented many other crimes.

Government officials should be leaders, not followers
To those of us who grew up in the United States, a monarchy is primitive and stupid. However, polls taken in Britain show that the majority of the people support their monarchy. Even more shocking to those of us in the United States, 53% of the British population believe that they would hurt their nation if they eliminated their monarchy.

Although polls are not accurate, they provide us with an indication of what people are thinking. This should cause us to wonder, why are the British people frightened to get rid of their monarchy? What terrible things do they think are going to happen if they get rid of the monarchy? Do they worry that there will be food shortages? Do they worry that the clocks will stop and they will not be able to tell time?

In America, most people believe that citizens have a right to own guns. In August 2016, a poll was taken of registered American voters to see how they feel about certain issues about guns. The poll showed that only 46% of the voters who support Donald Trump want a national database to track gun sales, but 85% of the people voting for Clinton want such a database. Why are the Trump supporters so much more opposed to tracking gun sales? What terrible things do they think will happen if the government tracks guns? Do they worry that the nation will become communist? Do they worry that they will be arrested and put into jail?

Our government tracks sales of homes, automobiles, airplanes, and lots of other products, and to such an extent that it is difficult for a person to buy or sell a house without the government knowing about it. Our government also keeps track of marriages, divorces, births, and deaths. Businesses keep track of how much electricity, natural gas, and water we use. We keep track of a lot of things, so why not keep track of guns? Why not treat guns the same way we treat automobiles and houses?

There are several possible reasons as to why Trump supporters are more likely to oppose the tracking of guns than the Clinton supporters, but the reason that is relevant to the design of a government system is that the Trump supporters tend to be people who refer to themselves as "conservatives", and those type of people have a strong tendency to follow established procedures rather than explore their options. Conservatives, as a group, are more frightened of changes than other people. They will resist any proposal that is different from what they grew up with, even if the proposal is obviously more sensible than what they are currently doing.

In Japan and some European nations, people are raised in a culture that has the opposite attitude towards guns as the United States. If we were to conduct a poll of the Japanese conservatives, we would likely discover that they have the opposite fear as the Americans; specifically, the Japanese conservatives would fear that the nation will be harmed if the Japanese people had as much access to guns as the Americans.

As I've discussed in other documents, the majority of people do not have any original opinions. As with animals, we have a tendency to mimic the group of people that we grow up with. When we were children, we collected bits and pieces of other people's opinions, primarily from our parents, ancestors, and friends.

The significance of this is that when we conduct a poll of the majority of people, especially the people who refer to themselves as "conservatives", we are going to find that most of them believe whatever is the established belief of their group. A poll of people in Britain is going to show us that most British citizens, especially the conservatives, support their monarchy, and just about everything else in their culture. A poll of the Japanese people will show us that most of them, especially the conservatives, support the Japanese culture.

The British people are afraid that the nation will be harmed if they get rid of their monarchy, but they have never done any research into this issue. They are simply behaving like stupid sheep who follow one another, and who are frightened of changes.

How would the American people suffer if our government were to track or restrict guns? The people who are frightened of such a change have no idea how the country will be ruined because they have never bothered to think about the issue. They are simply frightened at the thought of making changes to their lives.

Whenever somebody proposes a change to a society, most people, especially the conservatives, will condemn the proposal with such adjectives as "radical", "dangerous", "unproven", or "wild". If the majority of people had their way, nothing would ever improve in their nation. There would be no experiments with their culture.

It is worthless to ask the majority of people what we should do with our future because they don't want to explore or discuss our options. They want to mimic one another. Understanding this aspect of human behavior leads us to the conclusion that it is idiotic to design a government that is submissive to the people.

If the government were to ask the British people if they should get rid of the monarchy, the majority will say "No". The government cannot ask the British people what to do with Britain because the majority of the British people are going to advocate doing whatever the sheep in front of him is doing. The end result is that nothing changes.

Since people mimic one another, it is absurd for a government to give the people what they want because none of the people know what they want. The people are simply mimicking each other. If the government follows the people, then everybody is following somebody else, and nobody provides leadership.
Incidentally, in 2008, a group of sheep coincidentally formed a nearly perfect circle. Since the farmers in that area would put food in the fields for the sheep, the sheep were probably eating the food in a circular pattern rather than following one another along a circular path, but regardless of why they were in a circle, they inadvertently formed a nice visual image of the type of government systems we have today.

A group of fish also provide a good visual image of our government system. Since the fish do not have any leaders, the group changes course haphazardly, and any of the fish can become the leader for a brief moment. For example, if a fish wanders off in a different direction, the other fish might follow it. For that brief moment, that individual fish will be the leader. Then another fish will make a change in direction, and the other fish might switch to following it.

We can also see this type of behavior with young children. One child might start doing something that attracts the interest of the other children, and they start to mimic him. Then another child might do something that attracts attention, thereby causing the children to switch to mimicking him.

Without leaders, we are helpless sheep
Perhaps the worst aspect of a leaderless society is that the people are easily manipulated by organizations. Crime networks, religions, sports groups, businesses, and other organizations can exert tremendous influence over a nation that does not have leaders.

For example, religions and businesses try to manipulate Christmas and other holidays in order to promote their religion, or to sell their products. The organizations and crime networks can be visualized as dogs that are barking at the sheep in an attempt to control their behavior.

We adapt to whatever culture we grow up in, and we assume that our culture is the best, and that everybody else has an inferior culture. For example, when Russia was communist during the 1970s, when an American suggested that the communists are correct that the free enterprise system is creating an abusive environment for raising children, most Americans, especially the conservatives, would attack him as being unpatriotic, subversive, or a liberal wacko. Likewise, if somebody in Russia were to point out that some of the complaints Americans have about communism were valid, he would be described as unpatriotic, subversive, and an enemy of the state.

We are arrogant creatures, so it is easy for us to see problems in other people, but we put up a tremendous resistance to looking critically at ourselves. This arrogance is another reason why it is useless to ask the majority of people what we should do with our future. They cannot look critically at themselves, or favorably at other people. Their opinions are so extremely biased that they are worthless.

Nothing is going to improve as long as we let the majority of people dominate society. The majority of people have nothing intelligent to say about any issue. Their opinions are just bits and pieces of other people's opinions. The government should provide a nation with guidance, not follow the people.

If we were to conduct a poll of the Chinese population in China, we would discover that most of them support their written language, and that they would be frightened to phase in a different language.

A poll of the American people would show that most Americans are happy with the Imperial measurement system, and that they are frightened that the country will suffer if we switch to the metric system.

There are so few people who speak the Danish and Dutch languages that most people in those nations have to learn an additional language in order to function in this modern world. It would be best if they phased in a more popular language as their primary language, and if they treated Dutch and Danish as ancient languages, but if we were to ask the people if they would support such a policy, we would undoubtedly find that the majority of them would be frightened of such a change, even though such a change would simplify their lives and reduce the educational burden on their children.

If we were to conduct a poll to find out what type of clothing styles or hairstyles the majority of people prefer, we would discover that most people, especially the conservatives, prefer the style that is considered "normal" for their nation. Most people believe that they are choosing their own hairstyle and clothing style, but they are actually mimicking one another. None of us are truly developing our own hair or clothing styles. Each of us is watching what other people are doing and basing our decisions on what they do.

Humans are monkeys. A lot of what we do is irrational because we want to follow our emotions, not put effort into researching issues and analyzing them. We want to please ourselves, not think about what makes the most sense.

We should not ask the majority of people what we should do with our future. We should not ask them what to do about crime, abortion, language, schools, economic issues, or marital problems. We should not ask them who to elect to government. We should not ask them for advice on hairstyles or clothing styles.

Laws should be edited, not amended
Every society follows the concept that laws should be amended, not edited. For example, when prohibition was created, a law prohibiting alcohol was added to the Constitution in the form of the 18th amendment. Years later when the government decided it was a failure, instead of deleting it from the Constitution, they created the 21st amendment, which informed us to disregard the 18th amendment.

For another example, as more citizens demanded the right to vote, instead of editing the Constitution, amendments were added, such as the 15th amendment, the 19th amendment, the 23rd amendment, the 26th amendment, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

For a more significant example, a few years after the second amendment was written, the creators of the United States realized that their concept of a nation without a military was unrealistic, and in 1791 they added a law to create an army, and during the following centuries they created police departments and expanded the military, eventually eliminating the purpose of a militia and making the second amendment irrelevant. The government should have edited the Second Amendment to modernize it, but the attitude among almost everybody is that we cannot edit the Constitution because it is perfect and flawless, and that changing it will ruin the nation.

Compare the difference in attitude between our government and a business. Business executives regularly make changes to the policies and hierarchy without fear that they are going to ruin the business.

Our attitude towards governments and other social technology is considerably different. Most people, especially the conservatives, promote the attitude that our nation's culture is the greatest possible, and that other people's culture is inferior. The people who created a nation are held up as geniuses who created the ultimate government. The Americans hold up George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and other people as being like gods, and the communist Russians did the same with Vladimir Lenin and Karl Marx.

We treat our culture as if it is so perfect that we will hurt ourselves if we alter it. If we need to make a change to our nation, we create a new law rather than edit the existing laws. By comparison, the type of people who create businesses regard the structure of the business as merely one of an infinite number of possibilities, and that the structure can be altered at any time without harming the business. A business executive is not attacked for being unpatriotic when he suggests making a change in their structure.

If our government officials had the same attitude towards a government system that business executives have towards the hierarchy of a business, then our government officials would occasionally make changes to the government system without any hysteria that the nation will be ruined. They would create, eliminate, and combine government agencies and programs without fear of harming the nation, and they would edit laws rather than create amendments.

Why do businesses have more appropriate attitudes than government officials? The reason is because of competition. Business executives are under competitive pressure to operate their business efficiently. The executives who behave like government officials are driven to bankruptcy for the simple reason that government officials have a destructive attitude.

Government officials are in competition, also, but they are competing to please their particular group of supporters. If the citizens were comparing government officials to determine who was doing the best job of providing leadership, and if the voters were eliminating the worst performing government officials, then we would have government officials who excelled at managing the nation.

Unfortunately, instead of demanding that government officials provide guidance, the businesses are putting pressure on government officials to give them selfish tax privileges, contracts, and tariffs, and the individual citizens are demanding conflicting policies for abortion, crime, illegal immigrants, and jobs. The government officials are under pressure to pander to selfish, arrogant, ignorant, and irrational people. The American businesses and citizens are actually getting what they are demanding from their government; namely, selfish, conflicting, and idiotic legislation.

In order to improve this situation, we need to put government officials into competition to bring improvements to society. We should judge them according to their leadership abilities, not according to whether they promise to give us whatever we want in regards to abortion, crime, and marijuana.

Stop pounding your chest and look critically at yourself
If we don't exert self-control, we will behave like groups of apes. For example, when somebody criticizes our culture, we will regard the criticism as an attack, no matter how constructive and useful the criticism is. We will resist attempts to improve our culture, no matter how sensible the changes are.

The history of the United States is just like the history of other nations; it is full of failures. The Articles of Confederation was a failure, and that caused the creators to write the U.S. Constitution. Although the Constitution was an improvement, it has proven to be a failure, also. The Constitution failed to ensure that we have a free press, and it failed to ensure that the government was honest, and it failed to ensure that the government would never be able to use the military to start senseless wars.

Our nation has some good qualities, but boasting about them does nothing for us. We should look at our failures and try to improve our lives.

Computers make editing easy
It is possible that one reason the government officials began the practice of adding amendments rather than edit the laws is because until computers became common, all information had to be recorded on paper, and that made editing a document extremely difficult. To edit a document that had already been printed and distributed required destroying all of the printed documents and replacing them with a new document.

Before the printing press had been invented, creating paper and ink was difficult, and the people had to write information by hand with bird feathers dipped in ink. After a document was created, distributing copies required a lot of people to carry the copies by horse and by walking. It was much easier and faster to print and distribute a small amendment.

The printing press made it easier to create documents, but it was still difficult to produce and distribute the documents. Even with the printing press, it was much easier to print and distribute a small amendment.

Now that we have computers and the Internet, most information can remain in an electronic form, and it is idiotic to amend electronic information. Many businesses have switched to putting their documents in an electronic form in order to avoid the problem of replacing or updating documents. Our governments should modernize, also, by eliminating as much paper as possible, but our governments are dominated by people who show a concern only for their jobs and salary, not for looking for ways to improve the nation.

Why are businesses modernizing so much more rapidly than governments? It is because of the differences between the brains of the people who are put into the top positions. Businesses are putting people into management who show exceptional talent at organizing teams of people and getting them to work efficiently, but voters are looking for government officials who pander to them and make them feel good.

In our modern era, governments no longer need to create amendments. All laws, legal documents, and other information can be stored in an electronic database and continuously maintained and updated. When the government wants to modify a law, they should edit that law, and the original law can be shifted to an archive. The process would be similar to how the Wikipedia editors update their entries. Whenever somebody edits one of the articles in Wikipedia, the edits are instantaneous, and the earlier version of the document is shifted to the archive. A person can look through that archive if he is interested in seeing what type of changes have been made through the years.

A government could do the same as Wikipedia; namely, maintain a database that has all of the laws and regulations, and whenever a law is edited, the original law would be shifted to the archive. A person who was interested in analyzing how laws have changed through the years would be able to look through that archive to observe when each change was made, and by who.

When organizations discover that people are misinterpreting their software, User's Manuals, or other documents, they edit the documents to make them more understandable. We should have the same attitude towards laws. With the Internet, we no longer have to worry about the expense and difficulty of reprinting legal documents on paper. It is so easy to edit electronic information that the government would be able to justify changing a single word in a law.

If the Internet and this system of editing laws had been in operation two centuries ago, then instead of repeatedly adding new laws about voting, the voting law would have been edited over and over.

If this system had been in operation when prohibition was repealed, then instead of creating the 21st amendment, the prohibition law would simply be deleted from the Constitution. If somebody were to click the link to that law, he would find an explanation that the law has been deleted. There would also be an explanation for why it was deleted, when it was deleted, and which government officials were responsible for the deletion. The original law would be in the archive for anybody who was interested in reading about it.

There is no reason to print our laws on paper. By putting them into a database that we can easily search, everybody with an Internet connection would have easy access to the latest version. Our government would need only one database of laws.

To make it easier for people to understand which laws have changed recently, the government could also maintain a page that lists the most recent changes to the laws so that people can easily and quickly see what has changed during the past few months. While this might seem to put a burden on the government, businesses are doing this type of thing all the time without complaining. Many businesses maintain Internet pages that show new products, or new updates to their software. Governments do not do this type of thing simply because they don't want to do it, not because it is difficult or time-consuming.

Our governments have a tremendous number of employees, but businesses, with a much smaller number of people, are accomplishing a lot more useful work in a lot less time. This has nothing to do with the structure of government. Our governments are incompetent and dishonest because of the type of people the voters are electing.