Teachu2 said:
Neither - their handlers read them biased (or even accurate) poll results so they can pander to the largest number of voting morons possible.
Whether or not your neighbors, co-workers, and people in your community who don't vote for the politicians you'd favor are morons is perhaps debatable. But as long as you insist on demeaning and denigrating them, you'll have little or no chance to change the ways they think, or vote.
And of course politicians pander to the majority. That's how they get and stay elected.
It's fashionable to blame politicians. But politicians are interested in getting elected and re-elected. So what it really comes down to is our neighbors, the people in our communities, the people in our towns, the people we work with, the people we see at the mall, etc. If enough of our neighbors, enough of the people in our communities, enough of the people in our towns, enough of the people we work with, enough of the people we see at the mall, etc., don't like guns, and don't trust the rest of us with them, politicians who take anti-gun stands can get elected and re-elected (and bureaucrats who take anti-gun stands can keep their jobs).
So we need to remember that part of the battle to keep and expand our gun rights needs to start with our neighbors, the people in our communities, the people in our towns, the people we work with, the people we see at the mall, etc. We need to engage and include as many of them as we can. Calling them morons won't help.
bikerdoc said:
Stand your ground is aprinciple based in english common law and backed up by a ton of case law....
Standing your ground in your home is a fundamental principle under Common Law and well supported historically in case law. But places other than your home or place of business -- not so much. And civil immunity is also a fairly new development.
So... in regards to violent crime/assaults... which life (victim vs. aggressor) would they prefer to preserve? Because we can assume that violent crime/assault often results in the end of a life or at the very least an injury. So which party to the act, could everyone agree, deserves such a result?
