[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

This paragraph is totally circular. Did population density occur because there was a lot of money and jobs in a lowly populated city and that attracted a density of newcomers, or, ipso facto, large numbers of people means more money and jobs.

Doesn't really matter, cities had these properties long before American cities were founded.

You, of course, mean a large city of relatively small area. There are smaller cities that are not as dense a system and a bit larger ones that sprawl a bit. Unfortunately, laws are promulgated in uniform codes. That is, the country and city have to abide by the same laws.

A city can pass different laws than a rural area, they just have to be constitutional.

Of course, villages, by definition, are small "usually ranking in size between a hamlet and a town." Many, if not most small towns are of conservative persuasion. It seems that your perspective lends itself to a divergence from the views of our founding fathers.

Adjective, not noun.

It sounds like your concept of a city is like that of a commune. Almost marxist. "biasing towards the right of the individual" no matter the size of his community is, I think, what was meant by a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Given that any group of people have differing personalities and pursuits, to constrain them to the ant hill of a group contradicts what we have been about for three hundred years. I understand that extreme leftists want to change that (even for folks who live in the country), but to be so open about it is a bit frightening. If we can divide now, not only by race, sex, financial status, but by city and country, how will we stand?

So by your logic we shouldn't have a Federal government to provide interstate highways and a common defense.

Funny how some can only interpret ideas in their most extreme form.

I don't think anybody advocates that if everybody had a gun there would be no crime.

Yet, I've heard it time and time again...

Gun advocates argue that those who have guns can better defend themselves against criminals who have guns. Whether this would lower crime rates is not the question. As for murder, Switzerland, which may have the highest percentage of gun ownership, ranks #56 our of 62 in murders per capita. The UK, which may have close to the lowest percentage of gun ownership, ranks #46 out of 62 in murders per capita.

It's difficult to understand statistics in that narrow context. It's like saying Hawaii's health care works so it should work in any state.

If this is so, we have come to be in a bad way.

That's quite a negative view of ourselves, we are after all, a product of history.

-spence