Nobody Disputes That

The subheadline lays it all out in the open:

Pyongyang, chairing a United Nations disarmament body this month, says it has a right to defend itself

There’s no disagreement here.

But what Baby Kim needs to understand—what the West (and his allies, the People’s Republic of China and Russia) need to make clear to him—is that northern Korea has absolutely nothing of value, or even of interest, that can’t be gotten far more cheaply through trade than through conquering and taking.

And that even that value is non-existent at present, given the disastrous and murderous mismanagement inflicted by the Kim dynasty over the last nearly 80 years.

That mismanagement, though, lies at the heart of the Kim dynasty’s, and especially Baby Kim’s, constant push for more weapons and weapons development. He needs the distraction of a manufactured threat from without in order to maintain his hold on the population. So long as that need exists, Baby Kim needs no understanding of values.

I Disagree

(Surprise.)

Oklahoma’s Attorney General John O’Connor (R) thinks banning “assault weapons” (whatever those are in the real world) looks like a big action, but it really isn’t.

Banning assault weapons looks like it’s a big action, but it really isn’t a big impact. We’re going to dance around all this, Neil, for a long time, but the fact is it’s criminals and people with some type of either long-term or temporary mental illness or depression. That’s the culprit. Only those people shoot people outside of our military.

He’s wrong. While such a ban would have little impact on availability to criminals and the insane, it would have a very large impact on us average Americans‘ ability to see to our own needs and purposes.

But the truly large impact would be on our Constitution and so on our individual rights (and duties). If allowed to stand, such a ban would degrade our 2nd Amendment, weakening it against additional and steadily broadening bans until our 2nd Amendment no longer exists in any material form.