Excuse please, my dear Betty, for interjecting here, but besides providing yet another opportunity for the rule of men over the rule of law, each one of these cases also furnish a further excuse for the penetration of federal jurisdiction into what should be a pursuit of local affairs, accompanied by the inevitable assertion of greater federal authority.
We can not trust government, even local government, to impart knowledge to its patrons. Ultimately, government will teach its subjects (for that is what its patrons will become - subjects) what is in the best interest of government for them to know, rather than what is in their own best interest to know. Frequent and vehement laments on this forum, from all sides, is eloquent testimony to the truth of this claim (the factualness of the claim, for those who insist).
The harm doesn’t end there. The idea of government by the consent of the governed is likewise weakened.
The solution to this problem is obvious . . . and apparently largely unwelcome. The reward for some number of us who have proposed the solution, has been to be mostly ignored; occasionally disputed. Presumably, the majority of this forum, on all sides, prefer the issue and the argument. This is not an altogether abominable development. Illumination is cast, at least, on some ancillary issues.
Exactly... there is a solution.. the one the 2nd amendment was provided for..
Thats why its the second amendment and the not third..
*target practice?.. No...
*hunting?.. Nope..
What does that leave?.. massive feminized cowardice.. maybe..