So? Just because it isn't seen as the most important problem doesn't mean it's not a problem. I do realize that most of that 2% are scared little gun nuts who think the gun they hide behind might be taken from them. You get the same reaction from a toddler if they think you are going to take their pacifier.
Dear
BULLDOG
What?
1. Since when is a pacifier used to defend one's home or property against crimes or riots.
I've mentioned before the LA riots, where shop owners who visibly and audibly demonstrated they
were well armed DIDN'T get attacks by mobs. Deterrence is an important factor.
In Texas, the wild hog population is so overrun, yes, even to defend oneself requires massive weaponry.
So maybe you don't live in a State or City that requires gun ownership given the environment.
Shame on you for comparing "use of arms to defend the law" with the need for a pacifier.
2. Could you show me an example of police doing what they do by substituting a placebo or pacifier?
Ridiculous!
and DANGEROUS to tell people it's no big deal, just a personal security blanket.
Really?
Tell that to people who had to act as their OWN LAW ENFORCEMENT
if a pacifier, placebo or security blanket effect is enough.
I'd ask you into the Bullring but frankly, I think I must be misreading you,
because there is NO WAY you can possibly think a "placebo security effect"
from having gun rights is any kind of substitute for bearing and using weapons
in the case of crime or emergency.
BULLDOG please tell me you meant something else.
That maybe there IS the underlying need, purpose or issue,
and you were just saying the HEIGHTENED HYPE of this as a major issue
is just due to the political perception of power and govt.
If that's what you are saying it's a different argument.
I would say this is still a critical argument, but it's based on
a. trusting federal govt to represent the people and MAXIMIZING federal regulations
b. trusting people and states to represent the people and limiting federal authority into matters
That argument has been going on since the inception of Constitutional govt.
So YES I'd say it is the most important key issue to understand
as the root beliefs behind ALL OTHER CONFLICTS
over ALL OTHER ISSUES.
They are ALL framed by the conflict between beliefs:
A. liberals and social activists who believe the purpose of govt is to "promote general welfare"
and to establish and enforce the will of the people, even against opposition by the people, with the BELIEF that using govt this way somehow "ensures equal and maximum access to rights and protections to the public"
B. conservatives and Constitutionalists who believe the point is to LIMIT govt, and only
authorize federal govt to what we CONSENT to so there is NO taxation without representation,
and to rely on people, states and free market to govern and solve our own problems first and foremost,
keeping govt to a minimum
Clearly
BULLDOG whatever bias you and I have over how we SEE and STATE the gun issue,
stems from this bias described in A and B.
You trust the federal govt and the conservatives don't.
So that is the issue underneath, that MAKES the gun issue so VOLATILE And important!
This issue NEEDS to be addressed instead of arguing over the Elephant in the room.
Same argument since the beginning, you'd think we'd recognize by now the two sides
don't agree, and have different beliefs about govt, period. So why not address that up front?
