The One Dimensional Gun Control Debate

The issue of gun control is not a black and white either/or dilemma (false dilemma logical fallacy), but multifaceted, which means it requires an in depth multilogical approach to discern the myriad of factors involved. Trying to solve it in a one dimensional way is both naive and ignorant, as it ignores the layers of factors that led to the second amendment’s creation—as well as its attempted downfall. ~Nathan

benjamin-franklin-wolves-sheepFrom what I have gathered from my many years of study and multilogical critical thinking on the subject of guns and gun control, is that there were four primary historical reasons for firearms, and in this specific order:

  1. Keeping politicians accountable, and throwing them out by force if necessary.
  2. Defense of self, family, and property.
  3. Deterring a foreign enemy from invading, and fighting them back if necessary.
  4. Hunting for food / skins.

While I feel that there is a way to accomplish life free from violence and live beyond it, most of humanity is not there. In fact, most of humanity is still living life with a victim mentality. There are three stages of personal boundary development, and while guns do not need to be a part of the discussion, they can pertain to the three levels of boundaries:

  1. I’m a victim and lack personal boundaries. I do not want guns, and trust the authority structure (or others) to take care of me instead. I may instead see guns as a means of gaining an advantage over others, and as a substitute for my lack of good boundaries.
  2. I stand up for my rights and set clear physical boundaries. I take care of myself and do not trust authority to take care of me. If warranted, I have and am proficient at using guns to enforce my boundaries.
  3. I have set energetic boundaries, and those who attempt to cross them experience instant karma without my needing to physically enforce them. I often do not even experience people attempting to cross my boundaries. I am so empowered that I do not need guns, nor other physical means of self defense.

This pattern lines up with the three levels of critical thinking (see attached diagram, as well as the book “Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking Concepts & Tools“, by Richard Paul & Linda Elder ):


  1. Lower order thinking. Unreflective. Low to mixed thinking skill level. Often relies on gut intuition. Largely self-serving and self-deceived.
  2. Higher order thinking. Selectively reflective. High thinking skill level. Lacks critical thinking vocabulary. Inconsistently fair, may be a skilled sophist.
  3. Highest order thinking. Consistently self-reflective. High skill level. Assesses own thinking often. Fair minded.

Sophistry is “the use of clever but false arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving.”sophistry

Many [stage two thinking] psychopaths are sophists who have intentionally worked diligently to keep humanity in stage one thinking, as stage one thinkers are easier to manipulate and herd like sheep. While guns in the hands of stage two fair minded thinkers is more than reasonable, guns in the hands of stage one thinkers is problematic for multiple reasons. Unfortunately, those who use guns to enforce government tyranny, as well as much of the gun owning public, are stage one thinkers. The constitution was written for and by, including the bill of rights, stage two and three fair minded thinkers—stage one thinkers are wholly incompatible with the tools of liberty.


The answer is not found in stripping guns from the stage one thinkers, but in educating the general public, both those serving and those being dominated by the government. Stage two sophists are only able to manipulate stage one thinkers, and must resort to violence in their attempts to dominate stage two thinkers, but they are completely unable to manipulate or dominate stage three thinkers. As a result, the sophists have consistently worked hard to dumb down the masses into stage one thinking, through the didactic education process, as well as through coordinated media / entertainment propaganda campaigns.

We must elevate our thinking! It will happen in phases, but stage one thinkers must become stage two thinkers, and stage two thinkers must elevate to stage three. It is possible to reclaim our minds, and stand up as sovereign and creative human beings; we each hold the capacity within us, but we must first embrace the process and the time that it takes to make it happen.

About Nathan

4 Responses to “The One Dimensional Gun Control Debate”

Read below or add a comment...

  1. Marc says:

    Great post and view of a complex and heavily debated topic.

    I think everyone should have the right to own firearms. I think that those same people MUST take the time to properly train on the firearms and store them responsibly so that they are safe from small children.

    When old enough the children should be trained so they do not fear firearms and also use them safely.

    Not everyone needs to own firearms and it is important to respect other people’s views on the subject.

    Law enforcement is important to our society and should be fully respected and assisted in anyway possible.

    Oh… also love the library book image!! 🙂

  2. David Peston says:

    Amazing share, I must say!!

    You guys are doing a great job. It is very important to draw people’s attention towards this topic.

    I have read several articles on self-defense, but this is something new. But I liked it. Different people have different views, and we obviously should respect them.

    Out of your three categories, I lie in the second one, except for that I do not believe in authorities’ part. I do trust them, but I cannot wait for anyone to come for my rescue whenever any odd situation arises. One should be strong enough to take care of themselves as well as their loved ones. This could be done in any way, either taking classes on self-defense or keeping a self-defense weapon like stun gun with them.

    I really enjoyed reading the whole article. Thank you so much for sharing!!

    • Thank you David, I appreciate it. In point two, I am not saying that stage two thinkers do or do not believe in authorities, but stage two thinkers do not trust them and are skeptical of authority, which is quite healthy in my opinion. 🙂 I definitely respect the spirit of the second amendment, and of gun ownership in general. While I do not need them personally, I was a proud gun owner for many years, and see them as a natural deterrent to crime and tyranny. A well educated and thinking public should have free access to them — and I fully believe that the problem in the US of A is a lack of stage two and three critical thinkers, and not guns. Thanks again for your warm feedback, we are both grateful. Be well.

Leave a Reply