- Posts: 2257
No, but that's never been the place where we've disagreed on hunting.
Reed John wrote: Very sorry. I'm not suggesting that's your position, just that, given that we're stuck with meat for the foreseeable future, we need to think about what is the most ethical way to practically obtain it. Is that really arguable?
Reed John wrote: This is informative.
Reed John wrote: That's probably just a troll, but if not, there's a high likelihood that individual will end up - ironically - living off of the taxpayers' generosity in prison someday. I don't know what else to add.
The irony is, of course, that the same people who say they're arming themselves against the government never vote to reduce the size of the military. How do they expect their little "militia" to stand up against a military that spends $20,000 a second?
There is some justification to the idea that we need a check against government power, but the solution isn't to give a gun to every Tom Dick and Harry - which isn't ever going to stop tyranny anyway - but to install political checks and balances and proper civilian control over the military, police, and the National Guard. I believe that is what the framers had in mind with a "well-regulated militia." Unfortunately, the majority of the Supreme Court ignored that part when they decided that the second amendment protects an individual right to own a gun (although they did state that it is not an unlimited right). I don't see how that makes any sense.
The best solution would be, of course, to just repeal the second amendment and remind people that it referred to militias carrying muskets and was written by a bunch of slave owners, many of whom hoped to make money by acquiring real estate in "the Indian Country."
That's a political non-starter, unfortunately.
A small portion of despair and enlightenment delivered to your inbox every Friday