Is there ever a case for a GB NRA? Or are things so bad that a shoot-out will narrow the odds considerably?
Han Solo (the bloke who had a criminal mind but a good if rather hidden heart in Star Wars) argued in the first film of the franchise " I'd prefer a straight fight" with his blaster rather than take on a bare-knuckled punch-up or trust in Jedi kinghtery because the sides would be loaded against him. Yet it's his sense of bravado and dry humour about "your worshipfulness (Princess Leia) I had it all under control until you showed up" that made him a hero of American Hollywood proportions, but also tell us something about the American way. When will America learn that that wasn't just a film about the Cold War it was a film of escape from the Cold War. In fact light sabers took on a Gandhi-esque quality compared with the Death Stars Planet destructive capabilities. This leads me to wonder whether the NRA agreed with the premise of minimal punishment by the good side of the force against the dark side of the force and the evil of the Emperor and Darth Vader, to keep the force on an even keel and balance all meta- clurions?
Here's what I know: what if the NRA had to balance-out the ever increasingly powerful state or quasi subcontracted private stuff ? Wouldn't that be a good thing?
Here's something else: I think that what motivates many is the idea of territorialism that can be hidden by a culture of passive/aggressive tendencies that both feed on stealth and self-importance. How far would you trust a burglar? Especially if that is an Ex-Eastern European Cold War 'competitor'? To run someone proverbially down and dictate to them how cyber, economic and social means of subversion can control them must be illegal anywhere under any hospitable democratic nation. Expectations in democracy are by their very nature based upon the mistakes (short-term and long term) blended with opportunities and hard work to constantly strive to do better; I don't sense that in Russia or China that this is their priority, but it is ours.
But what happens in the low key or overlooked parts of our democracy? I'd say let the individual pick-up the pace and allow him or her to bear arms (literally or metaphorically) to expose preditors and their matrix-like sentinels, but remember one thing. In a democracy expect those who preach liberalism to be the first to victimize often very much vocally to learn the trick of secrecy and poison themselves and our democracy with the 'excess' and self-indulgencies of conspiracy. Fling- around- conspiracy makers are harmless, but hardened ex-political liberals who should be working -in a positive contribution to help democracies rather than police everyones backyard except their own will die rather than admit wrong doing doing. This permissiveness is often exploitable by the sort of cynical foreign powers I've already referred to. Isn't it therefore a systemic failure to guard democracy that whilst 'newer/older' threats of Islamic extremism has preoccupied us, we need to engage and understand the ever dangerous shadows that we seem luke-warm on. As an avowed English man it would break my heart to have gun law back on our agenda, but I'd prefer a straight fight where the odds aren't so stacked against me to dispose of such threats to democracy. Perhaps smoke and mirrors really are for mental toddlers.