32
« on: December 16, 2011, 11:30:07 AM »
"There is a difference between a rule of law as part of a limited government vs. a invasive nanny-state where minor crimes are used to extract revenue while felons run wild, see California as an example of this."
You are certainly correct but we don't have that and I do not see many examples of conservative leaning persons actually wanting that. I see a lot of cries for lower taxes (I can relate) and greater freedom for business (more complicated but I can relate). On the law and order side of things, many people, self identifying as conservative, see absolute submission to the government's agents as necessary. Many confrontations with the government representatives come, not from a violation, but from being slow to demonstrate complete submission. Any encounter with a government agent can end in your death. This disturbs me. Most likely, it will not because most government reps will not escalate confrontations that far and most people will lay down and expose their bellies.
"All those are good, however a gun or two is a serious improvement when facing deadly force threats."
I definitely agree with you here. I guess I am in the process of trying to sort out how I can find myself in these positions and how to behave if I do. Since I am not a LEO and I do not live in a rough area, my exposure to deadly force threats has been minimal. Some of what I read and hear people say seems to be a bit of an overreaction. Still, we already know that I am very underexposed and probably wrong. Also, you hear that saying "better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6." I am TERRIFIED of the criminal justice system and hope that if ever faced with force, my response is appropriate. BTW, I do have guns and I do shoot them. I just don't take them places with me.