The 2nd Amendment Needs Better Defenders

[Andol]

So basically, its not that you need to fight an army of 30-50 feral hogs, but that taking down a single angry hog quickly might require 30-50 bullets?

Usually groups of 5 to 12... but yes once they see red... you don't want to put as much into taking each one down as possible for safety reasons. The 30 to 50 feral hogs is indeed a meme. It is not the actual numbers you see at once as the article Sky provided pointed out. If someone did see that many(That is a big big big if)... fighting them ground level equals asking for it especially with the lives of your dogs if not yourself in a situation like what I would consider a rational handling of it.

[Skynet]

Thanks for the change and I am also sorry if I came across in a bad way as well at any time. Your post did point out a interesting reason I should have brought up, and that was about the reliance on the State for protection. Given comments I have made before... forgetting that point feels in bad form. Oh and just to be clear my reasoning for it is the exact same one your talking about.

As for the situation with culling wild animals. I mean my relatives can speak better on it than mean given they are the ones who farmers have go out and do this stuff. Yet they are not in any copter with a big machine gun. Just a group of four guys in their pick ups with their hunting dogs, and to them it is a matter of taking those hogs down before they gore a dog wide open... or injure one of them. Heck that is why if they fail... well... that means time to jump in the nearest tree and hope the hogs stops seeing red and bleeds out eventually.

I know that personal experience isn't the best source, but I just felt that I should put it out there so you could understand were I am coming from.

Thank you for your explanation and perspective. Appreciate the sentiment, but you have no need to apologize to me; I've dealt with a lot tenser arguments on PROC and elsewhere. 

It's been a while since I browsed through the thread, but another problem I see in a lot of gun rights/control debates is a forest for the trees approach, or a lack of addressing material and financial circumstances beyond the aforementioned minority rights issues. It's not a necessity, but beyond just firearms the training that goes into using them effectively requires a lot more time and expense. Shooting ranges are much more plentiful to set up in the country than cities and high population dense areas. Incorporation of physical exercise and training to react under pressure and de-escalate tense situations are not emphasized as being equally important in American gun culture. A lot of firearms industry advertisements, magazines, and lobbying groups push guns on you via lizard brain mentality rather than shaping it as a responsibility that must be treated with respect. "DEFEND YOURSELF FROM TERRORISTS NOW! BUY OUR MECH!" There's much talk about the occasional civilian hero who stopped a mass shooter, but not enough talk on what to do in order to become said civilian rather than another casualty or shot by the cops in a case of mistaken identity.