People continue to think the Second Amendment is about hunting and personal protection. The Second Amendment doesn’t have a thing to do with either of those.
I accept that some people don’t like guns, don’t want a gun and don’t feel they need a gun. That’s fine. I completely support their choice. But I take issue when someone says I shouldn’t have a gun and that I don’t need one.
Do I really need a gun? I don’t know. I live in a nice neighborhood, in a somewhat rural area. I’ve never witnessed any crime around here. But occasionally strange people come to my door. You never know what someone’s intent could be.
I know that violent crime can happen anywhere. Not just big cities. Even the most rural areas can have violent crime. So, you never know. I choose to be armed because I don’t want find myself a target and not have the means to prevent myself from becoming a victim.
I have faith in police forces. But I also know that in most cases, the police are not on the scene at the time the crime is being committed. I suspect most other people know that too. So, it’s strange to me when people say things like “We don’t need guns because we trust the police to do their jobs.”
I live in a nation where firearm ownership is allowed. I know that many other nations don’t allow firearm ownership. Most of the people in these nations seem fine with that and I’m happy for them. Maybe it really does make a difference in their country. But just because it works for them, doesn’t mean it’s going to work for everyone.
I’ve heard all of the different comparisons of my country to another country. Most of the time, I don’t agree that country is any better than mine. Usually that country has a much smaller population and does not have as much land. Though they might have a lower rate of violent crimes, the rates are usually high enough to be a concern.
You don’t have to be armed. But how can you honestly not understand why I prefer to be? How can you honestly tell me that I shouldn’t have or don’t need a gun? If I didn’t have a gun, what should I do if someone attacked me with a weapon? I’m physically strong, I can fight. But I’d rather not be hit with a baseball bat, or stabbed repeatedly while struggling with this person who attacked me, or shot.
So, what would you have me do? Your way of thinking seems to be, I should just accept that I will be a mess for the police to clean up.
The Second Amendment doesn’t cover personal protection. That’s not what the Second Amendment is about. If you own a firearm that you never take out in public, you are already exercising your Second Amendment right. Taking a firearm, whether it’s a pistol or a rifle, out in public and saying you’re doing it to exercise your Second Amendment is bullshit.
Carrying a firearm for protection is separate from owning firearms because the Second Amendment allows you to. I believe strongly that if you’re going to carry a firearm in public, it should never be a long gun. It should be a pistol. There are pros and cons for concealed carry and open carry, but I always felt that concealed carry was the better choice. Because if the pistol is out of sight, there’s less risk of a misunderstanding.
If you’re carrying a long gun, though, you’re just asking for trouble.
I had planned to write fifty pages of fiction today, but all I got was five. This topic is distracting.
This brings to mind something from a few years ago. A guy walked around an airport with a high-capacity rifle. I think the airport was Atlanta. He was doing it to exercise his Second Amendment right. I’d say that’s the same thing Andreychenko did.
I never thought it was a good idea. My way of thinking is, while you have the right to be armed for defense purposes in public, you should not be armed in a manner that terrorizes people.
I’m not a fan of open carrying pistols in public places either, but I don’t find it alarming. When I see someone at the grocery store with a pistol on his hip, especially if the pistol is stainless or a 1911, I have to resist the urge to look at it out of admiration.
I’m not sure how I would react if I saw someone at the grocery store with an AR15 hanging from his chest. I guess if he was keeping his hands off it, I wouldn’t worry about it too much, but I think other people would.
I have developed a habit of pointing out similarities between American liberals and conservatives. I keep observing these behavioral patterns and it angers me that each side thinks they’re better than the other. The conflict between our liberals and conservatives is disturbing. It’s alarming how polarized our country has become.
Recently, I wondered how it is in other countries. They seem to have more peace in their political arenas than we do. I started a topic in which I asked those from other countries to weigh in and tell us how it’s different in their countries, how is it that their liberals and conservatives seem to get along better than ours do?
The topic wasn’t limited to Canada, Ireland and the United Kingdom, but I named those three because they were the ones that came to mind as I wrote the initial piece. It didn’t generate as much discussion as I had hoped, but I got a response from a true-bred of each of the countries I named.
The four of us appreciate beer, so I liken this sharing of thoughts to us sitting down in a bar and discussing our political systems.
Malcolm is probably as British as you can get. He’s no Londoner either. He hails from Manchester.
Malcolm feels that Americans are more open about politics. I can agree with that. In America, politics are everywhere. Politics are discussed in restaurants, bars, stores, on the streets. Anywhere you can think of, someone’s apt to start up on some political issue. Every election year, we see signs on front lawns in support of one candidate or another.
Malcolm can’t remember the last time he had a political discussion at the pub. He says Brits tend to hold their cards closer to their chests and political posters and placards in front yards are rare. Even during elections.
Imagine that. If people keep quiet about politics, then there’s no one to lash out at. I think it would be beneficial if more Americans took up that practice.
Malcolm admitted that, like in America, political parties in the United Kingdom hold rallies and, just like in America, if someone at these rallies utters a word against any of the speakers, that person is beaten up and thrown out. However, unlike in America, UK political parties hold one rally annually.
He says the United Kingdom is actually a three party system. and that there are a few smaller parties after the three main parties. The three main parties are the Conservatives, the Labour and the Liberal Democrats. The smaller parties are Brexit, Green and Indepedence.
That doesn’t sound too much different from America. America is a two-party system. The main parties are Republicans and Democrats, but we have a number of smaller parties in addition to the two main parties.
I completely agree with Malcolm that a three-party system makes the people less polarized. It’s especially helpful having a third main party that works for the people who are not entirely happy with the left leaning party or the right leaning and need a party that’s more in the middle of the road. This is why I’m so supportive of the Libertarian party. The Libertarian party seems the most in the middle of the road that I’m going to get in America.
But currently, there are only two main parties in America. Republicans and Democrats. Libertarians or any other party are a joke to the majority. So, America keeps the two-party system, becomes more and more polarized, and then, eventually, America will pop.
Marty is the Canadian I was telling you about. He likes hockey, as a fan and a player. He’s also a musician and seems especially fond of the bass guitar.
So, we had another round of beers brought to our table and Marty opened up on Canada’s political system.
According to Marty, Canada is a three-party system like the UK. Canada also has other, smaller parties. But Marty feels that Canada’s politics are becoming more like US politics. Polarized left and right, and more political ads are attacking other parties instead of explaining their platforms.
That makes me think Canadians ought to stop paying so much attention to American politics. We are a bad influence when it comes to political parties. I know several Canadians and I rarely hear them talking about political issues in their own country. They’re always talking about our politics. What’s up with that?
I believe there’s hope for Canada, though. They have a three-party system and I think that should keep the people from becoming too polarized. Just don’t let one of those parties merge with another. That would suck.
Frodi is an Irishman. He’s from Ireland. Not Northern Ireland. Ireland. According to Frodi, Ireland’s two biggest political parties are essentially the same, but split by the politics of the Irish Civil War. I think that means these two political parties have the same goals, the same policies, the same ideas, but because of something that occurred during the Civil War, they remain separated.
Frodi admitted, though, that the two largest parties are unable to get fifty percent of the votes between them. That implies that there are other parties at work in Ireland and they are doing fairly well. Frodi goes on to say that all the parties stay on reasonably civil terms, because no single party commands the majority and they all have to work together.
I think that’s brilliant.
I’m not sure if this counts as a political thread, but I’m putting it here to be safe..
In the thread about fact checking, I said: “I try not to waste my time with that stuff, but sometimes I can’t stop myself. Often when I fact check and then point it out to them. they’re like ‘Ha! Snopes! Snopes is always wrong!’
When you snope on liberals, they claim Snopes caters to conservatives. When you snope on conservatives, they claim Snopes caters to liberals.
I did manage to convince a cousin that Heineken was not sponsoring the dog fight and we can drink Heineken without feeling guilty.”
Marty responded with: “And there is the core of what’s most wrong with America today. Liberals blame conservatives and vice-versa. As a result very little good can actually get done. If Donald wanted to really MAGA he’d try and stop the constant blame game. But I think it is all he knows and while he is President it will only get more partisan.”
As you know, Marty is a Canadian, but he’s talking about the United States, which implies that Marty doesn’t feel these issues exist in Canada, or at least not on the same level as they do in the United States.
Now, I’m not arguing with Marty about that, because it has been my understanding that Canada doesn’t have an ongoing clash between liberals and conservatives the way we do, neither does the United Kingdom, Ireland or several other countries.
But I wonder, how is it different? Canada, Ireland and the United Kingdom have right wingers and left wingers. A cousin of mine who relocated to England a few years ago when she married a Brit told me that in politics over there, most people take one side or the other, that it’s pretty much a two-party system just as it is over here. I believe Canada is about the same. I’m not too sure about Ireland, though.
Do your conservatives and liberals just mingle better than ours do? Are your disagreements not as strong as ours are? Are you better at compromising?
Or is it really not that much different?
Democrats see Republicans as bullies, but don’t acknowledge that Democrats are bullies too. Republicans see Democrats as crybabies, but don’t acknowledge that Republicans are crybabies too.
Both parties have pros and cons. Neither is better than the other. If things keep going the way they’ve been, both parties will shoulder the blame for the death of America.
These are dark days. Everyday, I see how the darkness is spreading and becoming more firm, solidifying. Yet, I’ve been mostly silent about it.
It’s not that I don’t care and it’s not that I’m ignoring it. It’s just that I don’t know what I can say that hasn’t already been said a million times, that hasn’t already been heard by everyone a million times.
There’s nothing I can say that’s going to change anyone’s mind. If you agree with me on an issue, it’s because you were always in agreement with me. If you disagree with me on an issue, you’ll never agree with me.
I could participate in the constant sharing of memes and articles on social media and insert messages like “See! See! Look stupids! Proof that you’re wrong!” But what good does that do when the only people who take your post seriously are the people who are already on your side.
To stop the darkness, you need to take real action. The word wars on social media will accomplish nothing.
George H. W. Bush. I was twelve when he became President. I remember sending him a letter about my desire to join the military when I turned eighteen and asking if he could do something to change the rules that prevent deaf and hard of hearing people from serving.
I received a reply sometime later with an autographed picture of George Bush and Dan Quayle. The reply said something about congress needing to vote on it and all that, and there were a few words of encouragement, though it was really just a form letter put together by someone on the White House staff. I don’t know if Bush ever actually saw my letter.
I believe he was a good man.