Late 18th-century artist Thomas Rowlandson published two etched aquatints titled
Four o'Clock in the Country (date 1788) and
Four O'Clock in [the] Town (date unspecified). Each etching is a caricature of a gentleman being undressed (town, preparing for bed) or dressed (country, preparing for the hunt) by his maidservants (or perhaps his wife) at 4 A.M., a deliberate mockery of the difference of the two lifestyles. The point was clear even more than two centuries ago: town and country people lead dramatically different lives.
And so they still do.
Josh Marshall, in "Speaking for my Tribe," couches the difference in his descriptions of the difference in reactions of today's Americans, country-dwellers and city-dwellers (Marshall is the latter), in their reactions to the habit of carrying firearms. His point is that, to people in the country, carrying weapons as protected by the Second Amendment, is normal and (apparently) unthreatening, while to city-dwellers like Marshall and me, carrying a gun (often shortened to "carrying") is often perceived as an open threat to others. I tend to believe this distinction will never change. Country people need guns, arguably for hunting, eliminating dangerous critters, feeding the family, etc. City people arguably have every right to fear guns because of their hostile and often criminal use in large cities. If you expect to resolve this dispute, forget it; it's here to stay.
The Supreme Court recently ruled in favor of a personal right to bear arms, "personal" as opposed to a right that exists only in the context of forming a militia to protect the citizenry. Many of us who live in inner cities don't feel the love. Most of us don't own guns (I don't) and would as soon live without them, at least in the city. Virtually everyone in the city knows some family that has lost a member to gun-inflicted crime. By analogy, many country folk frequently hunt for the food on their table. Both sides have good reasons for their feelings toward firearms. I can't say country-dwellers are wrong, only that they are advocating for the lifestyle they necessarily lead. And I'm certainly not about to say city-dwellers are wrong; too many of us are murdered by blatant criminal use of firearms.
What to do? There are no easy answers. Read Marshall's well-argued article. I can only hope you can agree that there really are two sides to this one... and that neither side is about to be argued out of his/her position. Not I, at least... I am happy for you to own and carry a gun in Livingston, TX, but if you're packin' in Houston, which you are legally allowed to do, I hope we never meet.
ASIDE: Sheriff Joe Arpaio says he may not enforce any new gun laws. Respect for the law is not necessarily a characteristic of advocates of guns as societal safety measures. YMMV.
