I can't edit that post.
City voters vote democrat and big govt. There's tons of regulations. You can't do anything on your property. Can't do this, can't do that without a citation or breaking some local law.
In rural areas, we do what we want pretty much. If I want to shoot, I shoot. If I want to grow a garden, I do it. If I want an above ground pool, I put one up. I don't have the city democrats coming by to give me citations for any of that stuff.
This is why I think government should be decentralized as much as possible. Because you're wrong. And they're wrong. Or, put differently, you're right
and they're right.
You're rural, so there is more square-feet per person than in the city. If you go into your backyard and fire your gun, there are good odds there's a lot of distance between you and your nearest neighbor.
But someone who lives in close proximity to their neighbors (be it smaller plots of land or condos) wouldn't want people discharging their firearms for recreation or training despite being on their own "personal property". The liability is too high. Fire a weapon with 10,000 people within range and you're more likely to hit a someone than if there was only 2 people within range.
I actually want to move to a more rural area for the reasons you suggested. But I'd never suggest that someone should be able to fire to gun inside their downtown-located duplex for recreation. For the same reasons, I don't have a problem with rural roads being absent speed limits. However, I absolutely think all city streets should have speed limits that are adhered to. The environments are drastically different, why shouldn't the laws be different to reflect that?
That's the bigger issue I think. City dwellers choose the democrats because it actually makes more sense from their perspective. Rural voters choose republicans for the same reason. The issue is that, at a state or federal level, these people start to represent
all of us. But at the municipality level it makes a lot of sense why people vote the way they do.