<h1>238 None of these populations exists in a “natural” state where I live. If the cougars and coyotes kept the deer at a manageable level, that would be an interesting discussion. They don’t. I don’t know why. It seems to me they have turned into scavengers, eating garbage and chickens and pets. My area isn’t exactly developed. It has been constantly farmed for hundreds of years. I can’t see any neighbors. I don’t know why the deer population has exploded. The Atlantic had an article recently which suggested it’s because numbers of hunters is down nationwide.</h1>
<p>I am not going to have coyotes hanging out at my back door. Or cougars. We don’t have too many big cats here, but we do have some.</p>
<p>I don’t believe that the right to bear arms was enacted for ordinary citizens to use against their own menacing government. Maybe that right was extended in order to quickly gather a militia against the British or the native Americans. In our modern time, the might of our government military would demolish any citizen or militia that tried to rebel. </p>
<p>Also, every time a crazy person commit mass shootings, the paranoid gun owners hunker down further for more guns and more gun rights. That’s when the NRA goes on the offensive.</p>
<p>I don’t know why you think my remark was snarky. I’m a responsible gun owner. However the enshrining of the founding fathers grows tiresome.</p>
<p>They were flawed men, nothing else.</p>
<p>Gun laws should be made locally, imho. Here, we need access to weapons. We don’t have “animal control.” The problem is that laws for an urban area are not going to be useful for those living in other places.</p>
<p>Why my desire to keep gun laws differentiated is snarky? I have no clue. But, I also have kids out in the mountain west. There are grizzlies out there. You need weapons in places where there are grizzlies and cougars and wolves. </p>
<p>conservation laws and gun laws made in DC are not useful to a rancher in montana or wyoming. Fishing laws made in Kansas City are not useful in the gulf stream. </p>
<p>Notice there are no laws to protect the sharks in coastal urban areas.</p>
<p>I am a member of the liberal elite (I guess) and have lived in the NE and overseas. I have very mixed feelings on conservation issues. I have no mixed feelings when someone with no first hand knowledge gives me advice on how to manage my property. I may snap your head off unless you, too, have been listening to pros and cons of all the possible ramifications of all the possible decisions since earliest childhood. There are no perfect answers. imho</p>
<p>^^that post is NOT aimed at emeraldkity… so sorry if it reads that way… I liked post #238. I like all her posts. I’m aggravated by something off the board. The area in which I live is in a time of economic transitions: from one dominate, formerly big money making, crop to pine plantations or cattle. Lots of folks have lots of opinions. Everyone is sure theirs is right. Just like here :)</p>
<p>I used to be a member of the liberal elite until I moved to the Midwest/Southwest. Despite living, at one point or another, on 5 continents, I wasn’t prepared for the startling fact that I didn’t understand the culture of gun advocates. I have reconciled my experiences and concluded in the way alh put it best, “listening to pros and cons of all the possible ramifications”. Every solution creates a problem.</p>
<p>I’m pretty sure it’s not a really good idea that where I live anyone (as far as I know) can walk into the local Walmart and walk right back out with a gun.</p>
<p>ETA: otoh - I think it should be legal for my neighbors to kill all the deer they can eat, on their own property, all year long. Until such time the population becomes so diminished there is reason for concern. Rabbits, too.</p>
<p>I’m going out to my mailbox. Maybe the New Yorker will be here :)</p>
<p>“However the enshrining of the founding fathers grows tiresome.”</p>
<p>Although I am an originalist (for reasons that I choose not to discuss here) I also agree that the framers were far from perfect. But I also have a standard rule for arguments: first person to mention slavery or the Holocaust loses.</p>
While I don’t claim to know whether it’s more or less important, the fact remains that it was listed before the other amendments; one might infer that the reason for this is that it came to mind before the others. Of course, the order of the amendments in the Bill of Rights may have been randomized intentionally, but I don’t know. Just pointing out that this is something that’s at least as fundamental as, if not more fundamental than, many other rights we enjoy, which have as their basis the Constitution and amendments thereto.</p>
<p>
This, despite the fact that they had just done basically the same thing, and succeeded, against the government which formerly had oppressed them to the point of rebellion. I think it’s entirely reasonable to assume that protection against the excesses of government was pretty prominent in their minds.</p>
<p>
This isn’t as clear-cut as you suggest. The US has tanks, planes, and nuclear weapons, yet guerilla tactics in Afghanistan and Iraq offered a non-trivial amount of resistance. Would the US government - even if it became far more corrupt than it may currently be - really wage conventional war on its own people? If they did, would the military obey its orders? One might - and rightly so - point out that such an action may cause something akin to the US Civil War, with parts of the government - and its military complex - defecting. At that point, it’s not so much a war between the government and its people as it is between much more evenly-matched sides. This is all too hypothetical to imagine which side might have an advantage in such a scenario.</p>
<p>More generally, is the point you’re making that the we might as well revoke rights that are seen as less useful? You brought up the right protecting against the quartering of soldiers during time of peace. Surely the government wouldn’t abuse that if the amendment were abolished, right? Right.</p>
<p>
I certainly don’t mean to claim that a 200+ year old document is a “holy writ”. Instead, my purpose is to point out the folly in relinquishing our rights. Rights are much easier to lose than to regain. The fact is that we don’t know what losing the right to bear arms might lead to. You might point to Europe and say that they’re doing fine without guns, but neither are we Europe, nor do all Americans want to be Europe. In many ways - though, admittedly, not all ways - Europe is a less free place than America, even today. </p>
<p>
Of course not, and again, I’m not claiming that. In fact, they were startlingly forward-thinking in incorporating a process to amend the Constitution to keep up with changing times. Adding to or overriding parts of the Constitution is the entire point of having amendments. The question isn’t whether we can - it’s whether we should. I don’t find gun violence to be a particularly good reason to revoke the right to bear arms; nor, for that matter, do I find abuses of expression to be a particularly valid reason to revoke the right to freedom of expression, or guilty men being acquitted to be a particularly valid reason to revoke rights against self-incrimination and double jeopardy.</p>
<p>Contrasts are often drawn between safety and liberty. I think this gets it a bit wrong - proof positive that I don’t worship everything the founding fathers said. Safety and liberty are the same thing; the only difference is from whom you’re being protected, and even then it can get a bit murky.</p>
I think that it is highly improbably that many of the pragmatic folks who drafted the bill of rights were actually keen on making it easy for another armed rebellion against the government they were creating to break out. In the history of rebels overthrowing what they perceived as last year’s tyrants I can’t think of any who encouraged anyone to come after them and do the same - for very straightforward reasons. The mindset you posit for the framers makes them not merely hopeless romantics with no concern for the stability of the nation they were creating but also idealistic to the point that they didn’t care if they lived or died. I think they were a little more practical than that. </p>
<p>
Right, indeed. Quartering soldiers in private homes would be a tremendously inefficient and pointless thing to do in this era. Do you really think otherwise? Just as militias have passed into the mists of time, quartering soldiers in private homes was an 18th century thing. </p>
<p>And I don’t think that “safety or liberty” is the issue. I think sensibility or folly is the issue: the belief that amassing a private armory makes you and your family safer or more free. I don’t think it does either. I know that’s not all noble and sexy or anything, but I’m just a practical guy who finds himself talking to people who romanticize tools.</p>
<p>Well, by your standard, then, I lose. Fortunately, I really don’t care about your standards very much.</p>
<p>Actually, in the arena of snark? You definitely win! +1000</p>
<p>Common sense gun control is a local issue and anybody who thinks they are amassing a militia to stand against our government is going to need billions of dollars and a lot of land. Oddly, the last time people thought they were doing so had to do with slavery (Oh no! Lost again.) and they lost then with a lot more than a bunker in idaho and a few hundred automatics.</p>
<p>But, you know? If I run into a pack of coyotes? Which have started draggin down people now? I’m not going to call 911. 911 is going to take over a half an hour to get here.</p>
I agree. That is why people usually fear home invasion imho.</p>
<p>I am prepared for the violent overthrow of the government. I have a passport :)</p>
<p>If I call my local 911 about coyotes (or a rabid raccoon), they will ask why I’m on the phone. Why haven’t I already located someone to shoot them for me, if I’m not going to do it myself.</p>
<p>emeraldkity: once the natural order and balance is upset, I don’t really know how you get it back again without removing the human population. I think wildlife and nature preserves are an excellent idea. I don’t think property owners should be forced into creating preserves. That is the responsibility of all taxpayers imho</p>
<p>I don’t think we’d be allowed to shoot raccoons, in the city limits, although my H did shoot one in our backyard. But it was only a BB gun, and didn’t even penetrate his coat.
Annoying.</p>
<p>They probably wouldn’t laugh if you were a yankee. Or an old lady like me. They would probably not come for a really really long time.</p>
<p>I am not even close to any city limits.</p>
<p>ETA: changed my mind. If it’s a slow day, they might respond just for the entertainment of seeing who made the call
The volunteer fire department has been to my house. I think a hundred men came. And then a lot of folks interested in seeing what was going on. Everything was fine but there will be jokes made about us long after we are dead and buried.</p>
