I saw your proud support of the NSA spying in another thread. Both the 2nd and the 4th are "rights of the people". And the people will keep their rights, thank you very much.

You want more security at the expense of our 4A, you would happily give up rights to support you view of utopia.
Like I told you, you are a scary dude.

I don't know how you solve that problem. Perhaps the amazing thing is why haven't we fallen apart yet.

Bryant

and only began in earnest as a trend in the latter 1980s. The phenomenon of CC may, in fact, reflect the booming crime rates of the 60s -- all over the nation, by the way -- and thereby is a response to that crime surge (still significant until the early 90s). Coupled with the increasingly-realized fact that police in the vast number of instances CANNOT protect individual citizens, and are NOT LEGALLY BOUND to do so, might better explain the CC phenomenon than a generalized "rising mistrust of other people."

I would add that wholesale breakdowns of civil authority, like with Katrina, did nothing to reassure the citizenry. Yet even here, this is not necessarily a "mistrust of other people."

Respectfully, your premise may be partially flawed.

"The nine scariest words in the English language, 'I'm from the Government and I'm here to help'", was the driving factor.

because of the folks who wanted them.

http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=mcafee&p=picture+black+panthers+with+guns

... did more for the NRA than anything in the last 50 years.

And accepting that responsibility is indeed the purest form of self-government.

Selecting how far we lean one way or another is based upon how we want to live.

When in extremis (someone attacking you with intent to do bodily harm), you not only have a right to defend yourself, you are in all likelihood the only person who is responsible for that course of action. It is strange how a the right of self-defense has been ideologically bludgeoned into being "libertarian."

BTW, I support communitarian values and have worked for them. Still, there are those times when a thug selects someone who is alone so he/she can do his/her business, and a "victim" must defend his/her self. That is not the time to quibble over the latest political label. That is the time to defend yourself and the ones who "communally" depend on you.

Examples of communal behavior:

Neighborhood watches.
Having friends pick up your mail when you are absent.
Informing a neighbor when someone repeatedly knocks, (or more ominously) "tries" your door handle.
Helping your neighbor better secure his/her residence.
Have neighborhood get-togethers.

People want to feel safe. Lots of places with budget problems are making cuts that leave people feeling very unsafe.

In Detroit, when you are in trouble the cops probably won't be there. They've removed so many of them from the streets, and shut down precincts at night. And when you do get through to dispatch, they may or may not show up. Local news is full of those stories. The city (and now state) leadership has abandoned citizens to be their own police (and firefighters and often garbagemen but that's another thread). People are buying guns because of that. I can't blame them, can you?

Getting at the "roots" of violence is to ponder being human, since they go hand in hand.

As long as people commit crimes and commit violent acts against others, others have a need to protect themselves, their property, and their family & friends. Sometimes the law is around to go after the criminals, but often, it is impossible for law to get there in time to stop the crime. So, you either accept the criminal act, run away from it (if the criminal lets you), or you fight it yourself, while waiting for the law.

I don't know of any other options.

If they were just like everyone else, none of us would know their names all these years after they were killed.

I choose to protect myself or hide if I can. Self preservation is also part of being human.

would be considered a good man in his community. He preferred (and personally adhered to) Ahimsa, the practice of stopping an attacker in any way possible without harming the attacker. But for those who did not adhere to Ahimsa, he said one has a duty to act against the attacker, even if that meant killing him. To let the attack go on without intervention, or to run away, he considered "cowardice."

It is an unusual take on self-defense as he seemed to suggest that it was one's duty to defend yourself, even if your family, property, religion, etc. were not the target. It is easier to understand the notion of not harming the attacker than his since of duty to defend against the attack even if it was you and only you. If I was years younger and had a chance of high-tailing it out of harm's way, I would probably do so. He might have taken issue with my course of action, however.

rampaging hordes, when in fact rural areas tend to have lower rates of crime? A gun in the house is more likely to be used by one family member against another than ever against a stranger.