ElPatron said:
Electrogecko said:
I associate the term "redneck" with homophobia and racism, religious fanatacism, and guns........and the three combined don't make for a stable society.
(1) Yet a true redneck won't care enough to put those things in practice, and you do understand that everyone is entitled to their opinion, right?
(2) Guns are amazing. When criminals jump on you with knifes and intend to stab you and your family to death a redneck will be more than happy to bring a shotgun and 3" 00-buckshot.
(3) People from the city won't give a fuck and won't even call the police if they see a blood trail in the morning.
(4) Rednecks > city yuppies who won't lift a finger to protect you. At least rednecks have guns to protect their freedom, while people from the city try to restrain those freedoms.
EDIT: cross thread quote fail.
Wow, and I thought I was stereotyping....responding to this requires that I leave the formality of my last post behind, and I'll be playing devil's advocate at some points....so without further ado....
(1) I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you saying that, although "rednecks" might be intolerant, they don't act on their personal opinions? I suppose that's good, even if it's not always true, (because that's not true no matter where in the world you are) but I would prefer if people didn't have to go against their conscience to be friendly and accepting.
(2) This basically sums up the "redneck" mentality that so many have a problem with, and you did it so subconsciously that it's quite fascinating. "Guns are amazing" as apposed to "guns are a necessary fixture to uphold societal values." "A redneck will be more than happy to bring a shotgun" as apposed to "a redneck will feel a moral responsibility to protect their family and neighbors."
(3) This is a stereotype, and it's one that's more blanketing and offensive than "redneck." Not all southerners are "rednecks" and being a "redneck" isn't inherently a bad thing, but when you say that all people in the city are impassioned or uncaring toward their neighbors and friends....that's just plain wrong. Of course they're going to care.....they can hear their neighbors through the damn wall!
On top of that, you're comparing apples and oranges. You can't compare the behavior of people in two completely different types of societies. If I see a trail of blood in the city, you're damn right I won't call the police, because I'll assume that 1- someone already did, 2- it's been there for a long time, 3- it wasn't the result of violence, 4- the matter has been resolved by this point, or 5- the police have better things to worry about. All of these reasons are more likely than "someone was just seriously injured and if I follow the trail of blood it will lead to someone in need."
You just can't compare the mentality of those who walk to work through thousands of people every morning to those who have enough space in their backyard for a firing range. It's perfectly understandable that urban-dwellers will want less guns on the streets....the streets that they would like to be able to walk on without feeling the need to carry a gun.
(4) When you say one group of people is better than another, you lose all credibility. "City yuppies" have friends and family too, and if you think that there are none amongst them who wouldn't give their lives for those they love, you are totally and utterly wrong. Some of them wouldn't even need a gun in their hand in order to have the courage to do it.
Guns don't protect freedom. People do. Owning a gun is a freedom, and the idea that the second amendment is somehow in jeopardy false....a fabrication of the media in order to get "rednecks" to vote against their best interests. States have their individual rights, and a federal ban on guns is about as likely as a second prohibition on alcohol.