straightUp wrote:
First of all, let me set you straight on something. As I've already stated, this topic is a response to a Republican member of Congress suggesting that we divide in order to liberate the red states from liberals... Her suggestion, not mine. (I know.. it's not MJD, it's MTG. My bad but it's too late to change the title now.) My response was to note how bad that would be for the red states that she imagines herself "saving".
More significantly, the OP is a response to a suggestion I've heard repeatedly on right-wing media that the blue states would never allow it because Democrats want to control the lives of everyone in the red states. That's actually what led me to the write the post. Basically, F U right-wing media for suggesting the liberals want to control the red states. You want a divorce, Margie? Fine, let's see how much I really care.
That being said... I do actually respect your socialist view on treating "each state in accord with its needs", but I also think the country is too big for one centrally controlled government and I'm curious as to why you think it's so important that we stick together. I mean... what are you so afraid of?
First of all, let me set you straight on something... (
show quote)
=====================
Afraid? Oh, there are lots of things I could be afraid of if I let myself. War, nuclear war, Biological war, chemical war, pandemics, fatal illnesses, rioters on my property, robbers, the sky falling, wolves at the door, a mentally ill person with an AR-15 or any gun and so on.
But I am not afraid. At this point I am a realist, a fatalist, and still a Christian conservative.
The idea of what amounts to disbanding the United States appalls me, as does the idea of taking away states rights or more seriously reducing them. It is ...one nation, indivisible... for me. Thus, there is no option to divide us into separate Red and Blue nations. So, we must keep marching on as a union, and coping with the problems of
the cities and rural areas just as we have for over 245 years. Evidently, the concept of union rests far too lightly on some shoulders. One should assign the word traitor to them for that is exactly what they are.
Indeed, the federal government should loosen the controls on the states they have amassed over many years in favor of states rights and subsidiarity, and cease the use of their money leverage on states to gain their objectives. Further, it is in everyone's best interests if the feds support the economic resurgence of poorer states by encouraging investments in industrial development, creation of government and military bases in the territories, and infrastructure developments that aid the areas.
A word or two on the matter of gun ownership:
1. Everyone should have the right to own and be trained to own and use guns at a fairly early age. They should become reasonably proficient in their use.
2. I see no reason for civilians to own fully automatic weapons, or weapons of very high caliber, say beyond 50 cal or 10 ga. perhaps with a few regulated exceptions.
3. The right to carry a weapon either openly or hidden should be fully lawful.
4. There should be no restriction on magazine capacity.
5. The AR-15 is not an assault weapon. It is a semi-automatic rifle of low caliber and should not be restricted from civilian ownership.
6. For self-defense and defense of the home virtually any common weapon is useful: pistol, rifle, shotgun, etc. To cover most defensive situations, I own one or more of each type, and they are always near at hand and ready to shoot. I am a marksman, too with the weapons I own. Each type has its best uses.
7. While not fully reported by police departments, the data available shows that over 2.5 million incidents a year occur where use of a defensive gun was instrumental in thwarting a criminal action at homes or on the street. One can speculate how many of these incidents might have been fatal, rapes, or serious assaults had the potential victim not possessed a weapon.
8. Laws do not inhibit criminals from acquiring weapons, nor do restricting sales by dealers. It does cause criminals to spend more, double or triple the retail cost, for a weapon on the black market, or to have to steal the money to get one, or to steal one. The black market is very much alive in major cities, and their source of weaponry is usually illegal imports from willing foreign nations and dealers. Thus, restrictions on civilian purchases is in fact ineffective. So have efforts been to shut down the black markets! EOR