The 2nd Amendment Needs Better Defenders

[Skynet]

But for the sake of debate within the framework of your philosophical (not legal) definition, if a right is something that can explicitly not be taken away from you, essentially a natural right as by the above definitions, then as it stands the way we administer the right to bear arms is not treating it as a "right."

In fact, you're actually cherrypicking a particular definition but not necessarily applying it to other things (like voting!), for your self-defined terminology does not match with the definitions given in the above framework of some of the most accredited legal minds in the United States.

The right to bear arms would then be more a civil right given that arms are a form of property. This is one of the reasons why the National Rifle Association labels itself as a civil rights organization in spite of the fact that the phrase is not usually associated with groups formenting racist fears (see the examples in my OP). And a civil right can be enforced or redressed in a civil action in court. What this means is that hypothetically speaking, a podunk town where a local company which owns the means of production for firearms creation can violate people's property rights if they price-gouge to the point that their guns are out of the purchasing power of the poor. This is not much different economically than a government which raises taxes on firearms to the point that they’re unaffordable to the average Jane or Joe.  Something which can and does happen within our capitalist society for all manner of goods.

Another thing is that earlier you referenced a restriction on handguns as a violation of rights, which is a limit more of a type of weapon you can own rather than saying who can and can’t own a weapon. Sort of like magazine sizes and how to transport ammunition, which you viewed as limits but not violations of a right. Furthermore, there are some rifles that cost as little as handguns, and shotguns are very cheap and in some states can be gotten without much more than a cursory background check. This means that ‘cost’ isn’t much of an issue, in terms of having to buy a pistol over a rifle or shotgun.

Which leads to my next question: If the 2nd Amendment cannot effect who can “keep and bear arms”, it has to apply across the board equally. By your earlier posts, you can limit the size of magazines, how they’re transported, and even don’t mind cities making laws mandating trigger locks (but which the Supreme Court actually found unconstitutional for Washington DC to enforce)...but you cannot limit what type of weapon they own, such as handguns?

[Yvellakitsune]

First I want to address this:

Especially given that one of your earlier posts claiming that lots of illegal immigrants are voting is an unproven fear whose only sources are whackjobs such as Breitbart “News” and President Trump.

I never said that.  I never even implied that.  I never said anything remotely close to that.  The only thing I see that you might have gotten this from is this one sentence:
Posted by: Yvellakitsune
« on: April 04, 2019, 12:15:23 PM »

I do not believe immigrants should be voting in our elections.

I typed that sentence in the context of a proposed constitutional amendment that said they wanted to leave it up to the state if immigrants could vote.  I made that statement in disagreement with that part of the proposed amendment.  You apparently took that one sentence out of context to rant about Brietbart.  Since you missed it, here is the link to FairVote's website again: https://www.fairvote.org/right_to_vote_amendment

Here is the specific part of the effort I disagree with from the website that I made that statement about:

Under this amendment the decision about expanding the franchise to non-citizens and 16- and 17-year-olds would remain within states’ jurisdiction.

Second, all of your sources....

Why did you have to go to all of those sources to establish a "right to vote"? 

Answer:  Because you cannot just cut and paste a line from the Constitution on it.

That is my point.  Your sources spelled out my point on voting.  Since voting is a derived right (as I have said a few times), I believe it should be added to the Constitution.  (I said I didn't specifically agree with FairVote's proposal for the amendment, but I agree with their motive.)  You should not have to go to six different sources to establish it.  You should be able to just go to one statement in the Constitution.  But you cannot because it is not there. 

In my opinion, (and this has nothing to do with Brietbart or voter fraud claims before you go there again) I feel it should be a "privilege" as opposed to a "right."  The reason for that is because it should apply as a privilege for citizens and not "people" at large in the country.  The Supreme Court in other rulings has established that "rights" apply to all "people" (Plyer vs Doe in 1982 is one such example), and I feel voting specifically should apply only to citizens.  "The right of citizens to vote" if that wording makes you feel better.  As we do in practice.  Also as noted before, since the government can strip you of the right (felons again), that also shows it doesn't belong to the people or citizens, but it resides in the government as a granted, which again makes it a privilege in practice (definition is below.)   

Here is my exact statement starting it:

You could say we have the same issue with voting.  Voting is not actually a right.  It is not codified in the Constitution as a right. 

Note the word "could" in the complete context again.  People do argue this.  That is why there are movements like the one I posted with FairVote.  Here is their quote from the website:

Voting is an American principle and a basic democratic right that should be protected, promoted, and practiced, which is why many people are surprised to learn that the U.S. Constitution provides no explicit right to vote. This leaves voting rights vulnerable to the whims of politicians, and some citizens with fewer rights than others.

I said "You could say we have the same issue with voting."  That is what groups like FairVote are arguing with their supporting politicians and lawyers. 

The entire point of bringing up voting, abortion, healthcare... ect was that if they are "rights," then put in the Constitution.  Why are you satisfied with merely a statement from a judge instead of wanting to actually enshrine a right in the Constitution itself?  As I pointed out with abortion, which is also derived from rulings (Roe v Wade), a change in the makeup of judges in the courts is apparently threatening abortion rights today if we are to believe the angry people marching in the streets with pink hats and their lawyers.  So why just leave things as derived rulings? Enshrine it if you believe it is a right and is worth protecting.  Don't just leave it to a judge. Make it an actual law and limit the judge's span of control to rule on it in the future.  That is what I am saying.  Eliminate ambiguity in the law when identified.  I get the impression you think that is a bad thing or something.

If you want the Second Amendment to be a government granted privilege, then take it out of the Bill of Rights in the same manner.       

Now, what I said about rights vs privileges...

The definitions you posted all share a similar wording on something, "nature of the individual human being," belong to every citizen of the state," "power (of the people) to participate directly or indirectly in the establishment or administration of government,"

In Civil Liberties, "refers to personal freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights"

All of those refer to a power given to the people, individual, or personal.  Not the government.

Now lets look at the definition of a "privilege" from FindLaw:

1 : a right, license, or exemption from duty or liability granted as a special benefit, advantage, or favor: as https://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/privilege.html

Note the "granted as a special benefit, advantage, or favor" part versus the "belong to every citizen of the state" from above.  This what you apparently want the Second Amendment to become, a privilege. 

Also, here is the legal definition of license from FindLaw:

1 a : a right or permission granted by a competent authority (as of a government or a business) to engage in some business or occupation, do some act, or engage in some transaction which would be unlawful without such right or permission

Note it says "granted by...(as of a government)," and "...which would be unlawful without such right or permission". 

Where do the words "granted", "permission", or "license" appear in the definitions of rights you linked?  They don't.

That is why I am arguing that a requirement to have a license to "keep and bear" a firearm at all makes it a government granted privilege instead of a "right" or "civil right" that applies to all "people." By the definitions you provided, a civil right is not granted by the government as a special benefit or favor as a license does.  That is why I am saying you want to end the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" and make it a privilege granted by the government with a license requirement.  A license requirement gives the power behind it to the government, not the people.  It might make it a "privileged right to government approved persons," but not a civil right of the "people" of the nation as every other right in the Bill of Rights is.   

   

then as it stands the way we administer the right to bear arms is not treating it as a "right."

I said that very thing on April 8th:
Posted by: Yvellakitsune
« on: April 08, 2019, 07:31:14 PM »

Like voting, in practice it (the Second Amendment) treated more as a "privilege" since the government can already deny people bearing arms (felons again).

As for the handgun question...

  This is my opinion on the specific question and does not agree with the NRA completely. If you want to ban a category of firearms, you are denying the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" directly that is also noted with "shall not be infringed."   Limiting a magazine to 10 rounds instead of 30, in my opinion, does not infringe on the actual practice of " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" because they are still entirely functional and usable.  They are keeping it and bearing it, just with a limit of 10 rounds instead of 30.  A reasonable self storage requirement or transportation requirement does not prevent " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" either. (Again, I don't agree with the NRA on a lot of things).  A license to hunt doesn't prevent " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms", it limits the specific activity of hunting.  That is where I see the difference in the limits, does it restrict the actual right to keep and bear?  Banning handguns as an example is saying, "you cannot keep and bear handguns." Those other limits can still go too far, like your example of price gouging, but with a safe requirement so expensive it negates ownership that gets to restricting the ability to "keep and bear" again.           

[Skynet]

So, here's the thing. You can argue that something is not a REAL right for whatever gate-keeping reason you want, but that doesn't change what is and is not considered a right in legal terms.

In your first post here, you established that your arguments were derived from a legal basis.

I was speaking legally.  Rights belong to the people, privileges belong to the government and are granted with permission. If you have to ask the government for a license or something, that is not a right, it is a government granted privileged.   Freedom of speech, you don't not have to get a license from the federal government.  Freedom of religion, you do not have to get a license from the federal government. Commercial speech, you don't have to get a license to make a commercial.  In voting, you don't have a right to cross state or county lines and vote in another county/state election either. 

Several times throughout this conversation, you've changed definitions:

I was speaking legally.  Rights belong to the people, privileges belong to the government and are granted with permission. If you have to ask the government for a license or something, that is not a right, it is a government granted privileged.   Freedom of speech, you don't not have to get a license from the federal government.  Freedom of religion, you do not have to get a license from the federal government. Commercial speech, you don't have to get a license to make a commercial.  In voting, you don't have a right to cross state or county lines and vote in another county/state election either.

You cited some specific rules regarding various rights, but to exercise those rights, you don't have to get a license or permit from Uncle Sam to do so.  You might have to get a permit at the municipal level, but that is not federal curtailment.  Just like hunting is usually handled at a state level.

Here you talk about a separation between federal and more local levels. And you specifically used trigger lock laws as an example of what you defined as a "limit:"

That is not my argument.  Yes, there are different levels of government and yes there are overlaps.  I don't have an issue with a city putting limits on something, I used trigger locks as an example earlier or reasonable requirements on the transpiration of firearms, such as ammo and the firearm being in different bags when traveling.  Trying to tax firearms and ammunition to a point they are unaffordable, that is an infringement on the right to bear arms and where groups like the NRA should get involved.

This "reasonable requirement" was found to be unconstitutional in a landmark 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller. Your definition of a "limit" was actually unconstitutional specifically in regards to the capital city.

You could say we have the same issue with voting.  Voting is not actually a right.  It is not codified in the Constitution as a right.  Since we are a republic, there is no way around voting.  People are arguing there should be an amendment to codify it as a right.  It has been growing in popularity because of ID requirements on voting keep popping up.  So same thing there, amend the Constitution to what you want it to be, or accept what it is.

Here you argue that voting is not a right because it's not explicitly codified, even though the Constitution refers to "the right to vote" not once, not twice, but five times. Due to the exacting nature of laws, and given that the Constitution is perhaps the most important legal text in American history, if the Constitution defines something as a right, it's a right. Simple as that. Now one could make many arguments on how far this right goes, but that's something for actual lawyers and judges to debate and discuss and I do not know if there are any open ones on E (at least without a means to prove it without exposing their identity).

The source you provided showed it was derived.  My opinion is that it should be codified if it is really a right.  It shouldn't have to be derived.  Same with other issues such as if you feel healthcare is a right or (entitlement actually), or make marriage equality a right, or abortion.  Derived means it was an opinion, and it can be challenged.   Slavery was legal for too long.  Legal opinions justified it.  Jim Crow laws were justified by derived opinions as well.  Roe v Wade is derived again, and now people are worried it could be challenged because the membership of the Supreme Court changed.  If you want it to be a right, a privilege, or entitlement make it a law instead of a derived ruling that can be challenged and threatened by a change in the courts.  When the Supreme Court derives something, it should go to Congress to be legislated and spelled out. 

You then claim that a derived right or even a law if not explicitly spelled out in the Constitution (it is spelled out as a right by the five Amendment), and cite examples of how the Constitution's been abrogated in past history (Jim Crow was blatantly unconstitutional, the problem with the South was that the Constitution was not being enforced).

But that's the thing. Society, technology, etc change and in order to change the Constitution requires near-unanimous consent. We don't need to list specific sub-categories of weapons for the 2nd Amendment any more than we need to cite specific examples of torture for the Eighth Amendment to ban cruel and unusual punishment. Fifty or one hundred years later there's going to be some issue that technically falls within the Constitution that none of us have predicted, making a new Amendment for each and every issue would result in a bloated and unwieldy. And even then there will be debate and reinterpretation. The First Amendment guaranteed freedom of religion, but it took until the 1970s to pass the Native American Religious Freedom Act to realize that their traditions are equal under the law.

Privileges: These are things that the government allows people to engage in, but the government retains the authority over who can engage in it with things such as licenses and permits.  This is what you want the Second Amendment to be.  As we discussed, operating equipment on the electromagnetic spectrum is a privilege.  As we currently run voting, voting is actually a privilege that the government can actually deny (IE: felons and registration requirements).

Legally speaking, no. Voting is a right. You differ from going "it's because it doesn't have a Constitutional Amendment all by itself" to "the fact that it can be denied in certain circumstances makes it not a right."

This idea that "society today" and trying to apply modern concepts to the original wording is political gamesmanship and people trying to tip-toe around the issue without actually committing to anything.  And it happens in a lot of issues, not just these two.  Healthcare is not a right, you can argue it should be.  Marriage is not a right, but again you can argue it should be.  If that is how you feel, make them rights, just to pretend it is when its not codified just ignores the issue.  We do that too much.  It shouldn't be a judge declaring something a right, it needs to be Congress and the states declaring it or stripping it down. 

Given that judges require a law degree to gain their job and Congressmen do not, I would trust them far more to understand the workings of the legal system. And given the separation of powers in the creation and process of laws, their role in finding out whether or not a law is unconstitutional or not is a necessary one, especially when so many Congresspeople care about votes and the public opinion.

Also another thing about immigrants:

I was trying to find the source I saw, but one source I read on rights versus privileges did make a distinction between citizens in good standing.  But even with that interpretation, is a felon who completed their sentence now in "good standing" or not?  The other issue with that source was that it specifically cited "citizens."  Today we are also seeing rights applied to immigrants and even illegal aliens (this is likely another Supreme Court derived ruling that could be corrected by Congress as well).  So there is a conflict there too with that distinction from that source.  The voting amendment also leaves it up to states if immigrants can vote even.  Personally, that is why I think voting should be a privilege as opposed to a right.  I do not believe immigrants should be voting in our elections.  Voting should be a specific privilege for citizens and codified with protections to be just short of a right.  The link I posted, I don't agree with their solution, but I agree with their character and principals.

I'd like to point out that we've given illegal immigrants rights (and not necessarily voting) for far longer than the current cultural climate. Naturalized immigrants have long had the right to vote (if they were considered to be white pre-Civil Rights Amendment). As for illegal immigrants voting rights and otherwise, PBS has a good article on this. It wasn't actually until 1926 that noncitizens were denied the right to vote. On the contrary, our immigration laws before the 20th century were overall quite lax save for a few exceptions (such as nations we were at war with or the Chinese).

“Yes, without question,” said Cristina Rodriguez, a professor at Yale Law School. “Most of the provisions of the Constitution apply on the basis of personhood and jurisdiction in the United States.”

Many parts of the Constitution use the term “people” or “person” rather than “citizen.” Rodriguez said those laws apply to everyone physically on U.S. soil, whether or not they are a citizen.

As a result, many of the basic rights, such as the freedom of religion and speech, the right to due process and equal protection under the law apply to citizens and noncitizens. How those rights play out in practice is more complex.

From a legal perspective, you have said several inaccurate statements through the course of this thread.

[Skynet]

PS

This idea that "society today" and trying to apply modern concepts to the original wording is political gamesmanship and people trying to tip-toe around the issue without actually committing to anything.  And it happens in a lot of issues, not just these two.  Healthcare is not a right, you can argue it should be.  Marriage is not a right, but again you can argue it should be.  If that is how you feel, make them rights, just to pretend it is when its not codified just ignores the issue.  We do that too much.  It shouldn't be a judge declaring something a right, it needs to be Congress and the states declaring it or stripping it down.

The US Supreme Court has at least 15 times since 1888 recognized marriage as a fundamental right.

You disagree that judges should have this power, but that's legally speaking not what the law says.

[Oniya]

If there is no right to vote, then what, precisely, do the 15th and 19th amendments accomplish?

[TheGlyphstone]

So without going into the quote-dissection, I had originally brought up the National Firearms Act, machine guns and rocket launchers, and Heller vs. DC specifically to angle towards something like this.

Legally, the 2nd amendment has been interpreted by the courts, which for all intent and purpose is what decides its actual meaning, that while the right to bear arms cannot be "restricted" in the language that's being used here, its support of US vs. Miller and the NFA makes the types of firearms considered legal to be a 'limitation'. From what I've read of it, the problem with the trigger locks was that they impeded the weapon's lawful function of self-defense, which made them unconstitutional.

But to use the opinions expressed here, everyone has their own idea on what is 'common sense'. Karkas, for instance, believes Heller erred in permitting legal limitations on firearms at all, that a handgun or shotgun or fully automatic machine gun should all be civilian-legal (I have no conjecture about his opinion on bazookas), That's definitely on the farther edge of right, but it's internally consistent.

At the flip end, I don't believe anyone here (I could be wrong) genuinely would support banning handguns. But what about, to pick the perfect example, semi-automatic rifles like the NRA's totem deity the AR-15? Again under Miller and DC, it legally would be a perfectly legal thing to put ownership restrictions on, as it is not commonly or easily used for any lawful purpose (self-defense and hunting being those lawful purposes). You'd get many left-leaning people, not necessarily here, who would back such a ban, while the vast majority of the right would hit DEFCON 1 at the concept.

But where do you stand on that line (I'll make that a general "you", rather than aimed specifically at Yvellakitsune)? If banning fully automatic weapons is acceptable, but banning handguns is not, would banning semi-automatic rifles be kosher?

[Tolvo]

Also I should just mention, it is a strange argument to claim someone's statement is incorrect because they have too many sources.

[Skynet]

But where do you stand on that line (I'll make that a general "you", rather than aimed specifically at Yvellakitsune)? If banning fully automatic weapons is acceptable, but banning handguns is not, would banning semi-automatic rifles be kosher?

So several things. The AR-15 is an overrated weapon which gets disproportionate media attention on account of it being used by a few mass shooters. Overall that specific rifle accounts for a tiny, tiny portion of firearms-related homicides in the United States. In fact, gun-related deaths by pistols are far more prevalent.

There's also the fact that the AR-15 design has no copyright, meaning that every firearms manufacturer and their mother can make it without being sued. But overall the most practical firearms tend to be standard military surplus by the great powers: the M16 and AK-47 were designed so that a teenager or Third World farmer could grok it.

Also a quick google search brings up several common price points of AR-15s.

Here's some from Cabela's hunting and outdoorsmen companies.

Compare these prices to pump-action shotguns.

Now compare them to semi-automatic pistols. Now revolvers.

Now compare them to a common bolt-action rifle "varmint gun."

Safe to say a lot of them are very expensive. In comparison to shotguns, hunting rifles, and handguns which can range from $120-$500 if you can buy a $1,800 rifle you're not living paycheck to paycheck. You're not someone growing up in a low-income neighborhood plagued by gang violence, or in a mobile home. They're a luxury purchase and banning them won't make a dent in gun-related violence nationwide.


I'd also like to point out that if any legal weapons became illegal, it will not automatically make the US safer, especially for the minority and marginalized groups who will need self-defense the most. Just like the California gun control laws targeting the Black Panthers, police will disproportionately enforce it on minorities and poor people:

Basically, we'll need to purge bigots from the ranks of the police forces and military first to ensure that any restrictions on firearm types will be fair and reasonable.

[Skynet]

I know I'm kind of double-posting lately, but there's a YouTube channel called Beau of the Fifth Column. He's a Southern political commentator and journalist who talks about a variety of topics from a more left-wing perspective but is overall in favor of gun rights. I find him an even-tempered, knowledgeable channel. He has a five-part series divided by subject matter, and I recommend starting with the first one, which talks about the AR-15:

Second Video talks about current theories and suggested legislation.

Third Video talks about cultural problems rather than legal ones that facilitate gun violence.

Fourth Video covers assault weapons bans.

Fifth Video talks about bump-stocks.

[Skynet]

Triple-post, sorry. Part 2 in 7:45 actually covers semi-automatic firearms bans. Turns out that they're actually very common. Most rifles have been designed with semi-automatic capacities, so it's going to hit a lot of gun owners and empower organized crime in the black market to fill that void.

[Skynet]

I have not read the whole thing, but a US Senate Committee released a 78 page outline of how the National Rifle Association worked and courted with Russian politics (one of whom has alleged ties to organized crime). Butina offered to help NRA leaders with expanding their firearms business into the Russian market, and in exchange the NRA would help them forge ties with various right-wing organizations in the US so that Republicans would be friendlier to the Putin administration.

Here's a Vox article on it.

Here's the outline as a PDF.

[Skynet]

The NRA has spent decades warning about police crackdowns. Now, they're utterly silent.

As of this posting, their Twitter feed is rather silent on the issue; the few acknowledgements they point to are in regards to buying firearms to ward off looters as opposed to police brutality.

[Skynet]

This was linked in the News thread, but someone made a thread summarizing the New York State Attorney General's findings of financial misconduct among the NRA's leaders.

America deserves a better gun rights advocacy group.

[Callie Del Noire]

If that is the highlights I’d hate to see what else they snuck away with

[Oniya]

If that is the highlights I’d hate to see what else they snuck away with

Even with my fondness for courtroom stuff and uncanny reading speed - I wasn't about to go through the 169 page filing myself.

[Callie Del Noire]

Even with my fondness for courtroom stuff and uncanny reading speed - I wasn't about to go through the 169 page filing myself.

I would want to be paid.

[TheGlyphstone]

Sadly, I doubt this will have any effect on the rank-and-file. They've been so thoroughly conditioned at this point to trust the NRA without question.

[Sara Nilsson]

Some., but not all.

As someone that loves to shoot I have heard grumblings at the range (well not this year, covid and all I havent been there) but last year some where complaining about the NRA. And hubbys dad, a lifelong republican, WWII vet actually quit the NRA a few years before his death. Due to how they had changed. So, it isn't like all NRA members are die hards. Are many? Sure, but far from everyone. And with it becoming clear the NRA economy isn't that hot, it doesn't take all that many to quit to cause problems.

[TheGlyphstone]

That's probably my limited exposure then. A good portion of my local extended family are diehards, basically every one that I know.

[Sara Nilsson]

Or I am just living in the minority. :) dont sell your experience short

[Oniya]

It's also worth pushing the point to the 'die-hards' that there is absolutely nothing stopping another group from forming to support the Second Amendment.

[TheGlyphstone]

If they weren't devoted to the NRA as the Sole Defender Of Their Rights, they wouldn't truly be die-hards.

[Skynet]

There was a discussion in the Trump thread regarding the use of automatic weapons as a means of culling wild animals. As it is more suitable discussion here, I'll copy-paste relevant entries. I realize in hindsight that I may have seemed dismissive of Andol's argument, and apologize for coming off that way.

Now, don't get me wrong here, I believe an armed society is a polite society. That being said, I can't really justify ownership of fully automatic weaponry. Much like owning a car, licensing such things, to ensure that people are properly trained; how is that bad? If you have a reason against it, please let me know.

I don't have anything against licensing it to ensure that people are properly trained, nor do I have a problem with a stricter vetting process for fully automatic weaponry. I just don't like the idea of it being banned when there are uses for it. Narrow mind you, but out were I live when you get problems with large number of feral hogs... yeah... some of those things do need extra firepower to be put down in large numbers safely. Beyond that... eh... as I said in the first sentence as long as the proper procedures are being followed and put down for people to get down that kind of stuff, I just don't see the problem.

That's a meme.

I really hope you are joking... 

I realize I probably should have posted
Eh... not really... it actually is a problem... I do hope I have misread your joke here.

https://nypost.com/2020/09/20/feral-swine-bomb-causing-us-wild-hog-populations-to-explode/

They are, but the justification of automatic weapons as a solution to wild animals is actually ineffective. The only people who can hunt that way are rich people who can afford private helicopter rides on a regular basis and do not represent the average gun owner.

If you want to make a better argument for gun rights now, you should do it from a (non-tanky, non-establishment Democrat) left-wing perspective. The argument that disenfranchised groups cannot rely upon the State for protection, and that any gun control laws put in place will not affect white conservatives, Christians, and other socially dominant groups the most. Now you won't win over many Republicans, most of whom want guns for...less noble reasons, but those people aren't the ones in need of protection from the State to begin with.

I realize that this may be a bit of an off-topic conversation in light of current events, so I'll point out a 2nd Amendment thread where I discussed gun right from a leftist perspective.

[Andol]

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.

[TheGlyphstone]

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?