The Phileas Club 106 – Special: Gun Owners


On this episode we talk about:

Remember you can support a show at

More info on the show:

You can also download the MP3, or subscribe via iTunes or RSS.


  1. HI Patrick
    I have been a longtime listener to you on DTNS and TNT previously. I enjoy your contributions very much. When I heard you did a show on firearms I listened to my first Phileas club show and I liked it. My comment has to do with your understanding of assault rifles. It is clear you opinion of what an assault rifle is has been tainted by the gun despising media. So much of the fear of the AR(Armalite not Assault rifle)-15 is that it looks to be a very scary weapon. There are many rifles that fire the same round as the aramalite and people don’t talk about them with the same level of disdain. I would encourage you to learn more about what a real assault weapon is and is not. I thought this website had a great simple description.

    Thank you for your great work

    • Thanks for the clarification Joe. I think there are elements I didn’t understand about the AR 15 specifically (although I never thought AR stood for assault riffle), but I would also say that a lot of people focus on the fact that isn’t one, when that doesn’t matter a whole lot to me… This frames the issue the wrong way IMO: assault riffle or not, I can understand why people would want to be able to own semi automatic handguns, but I don’t understand why anyone would want these larger capacity semi automatic riffles available. In my view (which I understand isn’t shared by all), the onus is on the justification for availability, not the justification for removal. Just like grenade launchers aren’t available for sale, I think an AR15 has the capacity for more damage than a, say, Beretta 92, and I don’t see the need for it. Also, I think people dismiss the look a bit too quickly… I think it’s part of the fantasy; these kids could go in with hunting riffles and shotguns and do a lot of damage already, yet all of them seem to choose AR15 type looking weapons. I’m not saying that’s the only reason or the only answer, but I do think dismissing this issue by saying “oh it’s just being singled out because it looks scary” is a bit… well, dismissive, of an issue that can be real.
      Anyway, I do appreciate the link (which I did read and learned from), and I’m really glad you enjoyed the show! Hope you stick around for a few more. 🙂

      • Todd Goebel says:

        Patrick, I think it was Brian that was getting close to the issue about the second amendment, close, but not specifically stated. The second amendment isn’t for hunting, sport shooting, or anything like that. Those are great byproducts of having it, but the primary purpose is simple, it is so that the people can have the ability to defend against tyranny.

        There has been a ton of legislation passed over the years to weaken it from it’s inception, namely the 1934/38 NFA that made fully automatic weapons illegal. also the 1968,1986, 1993,1994 (clinton assault weapons ban) legislations passed that weaken the Second in various ways.

        it’s a pretty plain and simple amendment: 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.

        The founding fathers of this nation counted on the idea that people would form militia’s in the event that the federal (or even a state ) government would devolve into a tyrannical power, doing more harm to the people than good. Now i want to point out something here that a lot of people miss about the second, notice it says “the right of the people to keep and bear ARMS, shall not be infringed” the word arms is important here, because it doesn’t just mean guns. All kinds of things are “arms” knives,pistols,rifles,swords,cannon, all of these were the “arms” of the day in 1792. Today that would breakdown to mean all of those things to include machine guns, grenades, rocket launchers, anti tank missiles, ect. Now understand i don’t necessarily advocate for that, however there are those that do. My personal opinion on it is that all the legislation passed from 1934 forward are violations of the second amendment (no i don’t want people walking around with anti tank rockets), and are unconstitutional.

        I own guns, i even own an AR-15, my guns are not for sport, not for hunting, and not toys. My guns are to me and many others are instruments of liberty. think of them as you would see an axe or fire extinguisher in a glass cabinet in a hotel, only to be used in the event of something very catastrophic happening. You have said that you could think of no reason anyone needs to own a weapon like these, and you may take umbrage with me, or claim hyperbole, but i assure you that there are many Americans that think this way. you stated that in france you can have hunting rifles and some pistols (if the state gives you permission), i ask you this, say an extreme right wing government comes to power in France (i know, unlikely, but humor me), what are you going to fight with if it comes to it? Hunting rifles and pistols wouldn’t cut it against soldiers with modern weapons.

        In this country, my country, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. you have the right to not like it, you don’t have to participate in it, but you do not have the right to take it away.

        long winded i know and apologize, i could have gone on longer, but…you know.

        love the show,


      • patrick says:

        Hey Todd, and thank you very much for your perspective. It’s quite surprising how simple it sounds when you say it, and how many people try to explain this without actually managing to get the sentiment across (thinking back about it, I think that’s indeed what Brian might have been getting at).
        I understand the justification on a theoretical level, and would of course have a lot to say in response (many arguments you probably hear every time this comes up), but I agree the basis for all this is often forgotten in the debate, and it probably shouldn’t be… Basically, the really important question isn’t necessarily “should assault riffles be legal”, but rather “should the people have the ability to form well armed militias to resist and fight an oppressive government”. I think the premise is a bit too simple, but that is really what it’s about…
        Anyway, I could go on longer as well, but… you know. 🙂
        Thanks again for your comment!

  2. Robert Seals says:

    The part that upsets me is the “solutions” that people are coming up, wouldn’t have changed the outcome in most of the situations that have occurred. For instance, you have to be 21 to buy a gun. OK, but that would not have stopped the people who were over 21 or who stole the guns. Must have background checks for all guns. OK, but again, would not have stopped those that would have passed background checks or who stole the gun.
    I would do stricter enforcement of current laws and maybe look at not publishing the shooters names (take the notoriety incentive out of the equation).

    • I honestly do not understand this line of thinking… “It wouldn’t have stopped the people who were over 21”? Ok sure, but it might have stopped those that were under 21. If you always take the “ineffective” approach and ignore the effective parts, you can negate any decision in anything…

Speak Your Mind