[Oblivion437]

Originally posted by Yorick: Democracy at work. Deal with it. [img]graemlins/moon.gif[/img]

Except, Upstate NY is practically a different state of affairs, and very little of what Upstate NY does actually affects NYC. For all intents and purposes, they could be autonomous, and the Republican voters of upstate wouldn't be getting shut out by the Democrat voters of NYC. Furthermore, this is not a Democracy, it is a Representative Republic, and in this case a large group of individuals are muscling out a small group through the district concept, which marginalizes the individual vote.

And no they are neither ridiculous or ineffectual.

Except that they haven't been proven to work, whatsoever, and were in fact knee-jerk responses to phenomena that didn't exist (including fear of an Anarchist tidal wave, which never came, or a Black uprising, which never happened. In both cases, the laws were passed by racist xenophobes/bigots who wanted to maintain their prestige) and you can't solidly state, with demonstratable, factual proof that the gun control laws have made you any safer.

Have you visited New York City Oblivion btw?

That's an invalid question, for one, as it doesn't matter whether I've been to a place that statistically fits well within the categorical notion of more guns, less crime (not that I'm standing by Lott, whose position I consider specious) and also considering what kind of 'insight' you've gained about America from being here, I fail to see how that's even important enough to bring up.

However, cities have dominated the world for thousands of years. Nomads and pastoralists have wept dry.

Wrong. The city as we understand it, or anything like it, is a relatively new notion, post-medieval at the very least, where as cities themselves are thousands of years old, but those cities were usually whole nations.

He can either deal with it, or live a life of ulcer ridden angst.

Are you picking at my health problems, or just looking for a low-brow place to shoot feces at the crowd?

It's a tradeoff anyhow. In the country you get land and few people (influence). In the city you get influence and no land. We all make our decisions. The land around a city serves to support it, whether it be food, water, recreation, or housing.

That's not true. A city emerges as a localization of economic opportunity, the pastoral land was there first, and most probably, it will endure long after a collapse. What's more, the legal needs of a pastoral area like where I live are far different, and to enforce identical policies on them both would yield exploitable inconsistencies. Does a small town like Nunda (pull up a good map of New York State, and you might find it, sometime)

To view the two as seperate competeing entities is wierd.

Except when one dries the other out (and both have happened more than once) and you fail to account for the suburbs, which stick thorns in both sides.

In New York State, the majority of people want tighter gun laws. C'est la vie.

Hasty Generalization... Less than 50% of the voting populace ever votes on anything.

The city policy is inappropriate for Upstate (and, ironically inappropriate for New York City, or anywhere in the US for that matter) and shouldn't be enforced upon it. Not to mention its illegality. The constitution instantly null-and-voids all gun control laws before they even get past The House.

And before anyone tries any funny business, I point to the two pieces of legislature in question:
----------
Ammendment 2:

A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
----------
Sec. 311. - Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are -

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia
----------
These two, taken together, clearly establish that the average citizen is to, in some capacity, be at all times able to serve in the defense of the nation (his nation, as defined by the definition of the militia) at his own thrift.

This would imply that at a given time period, that man be able to operate, more or less, as a soldier. That includes armaments. For this reason, all 'reasonable' gun control, is in fact an impediment to national security. Certain people are putting their misguided sense of morals ahead of your safety. Stop them before they do something really dangerous.

Yorick, if you think you're absolutely certain that Gun Control is the right policy, I suggest you go here and fight it out on unfriendly ground. They won't censor you. They won't be anything less than civil. However, they will mercilessly hold you to certain standards, and failure to meet them will kill your argument before it gets started. This is my glove, I've thrown it down.