11-29-2018, 07:31 PM
(This post was last modified: 11-29-2018, 07:34 PM by Eric the Green.)
(11-28-2018, 05:25 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:(11-28-2018, 04:39 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: We do not have a citizen militia anymore, except for those renegade ones not recognized by law as national militias. We have regular armed forces and the National Guard. The 2nd Amendment is outdated, no matter what any founding fathers said about it.
Which is exit why the founding fathers granted a right to the People, not to a privileged group. Well, they always gave rights to the People, not to privileged groups. It was just the Jim Crow court that...
Ah, well.
I cannot stop you from having an opinion, of course. I am just saying it is not the only vaguely solid one, that someone can see both sides without saying either is irrational. In that case, with the way constitutional amendments are set up, there are and should be no changes. This being the case, spending political capitol on the issue is wasteful. On good days, even you recognize the situation.
Police response does depend on population density. Given that key difference, it is hardly surprising that the two populations disagree. The official nanny state representatives just cannot get there in time, so you need a private responsibly to take over where the distances involved are real. Those who live in nice comfortable civilized places do not remember the realities of the situation. It becomes real, sinks into ones bones, where one is.
The military is not a "privileged group." Neither are the national guard or the police. They work for the people as their sovereign. Our government does not recognize the validity of a militia whose purpose is to overthrow or resist the government, even if right-wing and some left-wing rebels do recognize such validity.
I never quite understood why people out on a farm with acres and acres between themselves and the next farmhouse, with any sizeable city 100-odd miles away, need to worry about burglars. And in any case, there are much better ways to protect yourself than guns. We've gone over all these ad infinitum.
I can understand a bit better why a ranch might be threatened by a coyote, etc. I think there are better ways than shooting the invading animal, but they may not be readily available to the average rancher. Some small minority of rural people might get benefit from hunting besides just as an unnecessary and destructive sport. And such sports certainly do not need Ar-15s and the like; that is not sporting at all. It is too bad that the red rural side is so uncompromising on the gun issue and live in the Fox News bubble on this. Compromises on issues like guns and abortions are possible, but the right-wing is too fanatical, fear-based and dogmatic to deal with these days. And that's partly because of the powerful organizations pushing the extreme right point of view for their own gain, and their ability to buy politicians. Too bad.