YMix wrote:NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:So you advocate unequal laws and special privileges for some groups of people over other groups. Interesting.
I'm not a fan of that, but I'm not a fan of cultural wars either. Your country should have updated that bill of rights many years ago. And its party system. As things stand now, the only options seem to be a decisive conflict that would see one side defeated or a stalemate that just keeps poisoning the atmosphere.
Also, I don't endorse privileges in general. Making adjustments for various groups of people is quite common. It depends on what kind of privileges we're talking about. Allowing the rurals to keep their guns doesn't seem to be hurting the nation, just as letting Sikhs walk around with knives is not a problem. As I've mentioned before, the ethnic minorities of my own country have their own political parties even though the law explicitly bans political association based on ethnic criteria. It's not ideal, but it's not a problem either as long as people don't try to abuse the system.
I can't argue with updating the bill of rights or party system because whether I agree or not with you there, those are huge undertakings that open up a whole lot more than just 'issue x, y and z'.
But when it comes to the 'culture wars' about guns, I don't see why the non-aggressive side (the pro-gun nuts) have to compromise here. They are supposed to give in because a group of people hold conflicting values with them? And on top of that, dropping all pretenses, that same group will not stop advocating for their position (nothing wrong with that) until they completely eliminate their opponents. They are not interested in compromises here- and the gun nuts are supposed to work with them?
Why?
I've never owned a gun, fired one; didn't grow up around them- I've no interest- but I know a lousy deal when I see one. When we talk about getting the guns out of people's hands, it's those rural hicks who will be targeted most harshly, even though, for all intents and purposes, they pose an almost zero threat to my safety. (The same goes for those guys who get really into open carry laws as far as I'm concerned.)
This is the equivalent of someone coming up to you, punching you in the nose, and then having a third party show up telling you to make nice with your attacker because the threat of a fistfight breaking out is a more worrisome proposition than an actual, violent fisticuffs.