It's hard not to think of guns these days . . .

I have never supported gun ownership.

I find the majority of people who do telling.

And, yes, I recognize that there are liberals who support gun ownership.

Why does one carry a gun?

Allegedly to defend against criminals.

My daughter-in-law . . . five feet tall and 90 pounds . . .
said what if someone breaks in while you are asleep or in your
basement doing laundry? What do you say?

Excuse me while I get my gun?

In fact, women are discouraged from arming themselves with guns or knives [ ?? ]
as most men are stronger than most women, meaning a woman could easily be disarmed
and her weapon turned against her.

During the age of nonviolent theorizing, an elderly friend was followed one evening. Aware that someone was behind her, she began lifting the lids of trash cans and talking to the contents. She yelled out a couple of things to the stars and the power lines. Then she turned to face her follower, put her chin against his chest and asked how he was this fine evening? He ran away and she was declared a hero. Everyone marveled at her bravery and was happy that she was still with us.

But, is the reason for carrying a weapon . . . concealed or otherwise
(why is the charge always carrying a concealed weapon?

Is a concealed weapon any more or less dangerous than an openly exposed one?

The concealed weapon is less accessible. )

. . . defense or offense?

Is the intent of carrying a weapon the intent to kill?

Is there potential for every gun toter to be charged with intent to kill?

A few rounds of hollowpointed .44 in the large intestine will tend to slow him down and to demoralize him.

During the 1960s, there were many classes taught in non-violent self-defense and acting as though one was crazy was one of the techniques employed by the movement.

During the 1960s, there were many classes taught in non-violent self-defense and acting as though one was crazy was one of the techniques employed by the movement.

I have been thinking about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was originally written as a compromise.

I feel the Second Amendment is in error and that it is a cultural artifact, a left over from a time when people had a different attitude toward weapons, in part because it was the mark of the aristocracy to carry swords and some of that eclat transferred itself to guns; in part because the European settlers on this continent were invaders and had to protect themselves against the righteous anger of the people who were here, and, in part, because much of this continent was raw wilderness.

There is, however, nothing we can do about this clause. We are stuck with it even if some of us may feel it is antiquated and that guns do more harm than good. To ban guns now would be to repeat Prohibition.

I find your logic faulty. In fact, your second sentence is logically inconsistent. First, no one is denying the right to freedom but the manner in which you state this is vague and freedom here means nothing. Then you switch to your inability to see a denial of the right of people "to defend their existence." Existence is not freedom. What?! You then go on to say, "once you offer people the right to defend their existence . ." Wait! You were defending freedom and not existence and who is this "you" offering freedom which you say people have a right to? If you believe that there is a right like that, no one can offer it.

There are several theories of human existence that support the continual growth and improvement of humanity. This is intellectual and spiritual growth. Under these theories, people become non violent. Some of those theories blossomed during the 1960s.

Let's get real. How many attacks occur? How many of the more than 300 million Americans are regularly threatened? You must have a pretty dim view of humanity to think we need so much protection.

I know it sounds bizarre but it actually does work. I've heard of people doing this before, with rapists mostly. People are terrified of crazy people. They think it will rub off on them or something. However, I'm not sure the guy holding a gun wouldn't shoot first anyway.

A few rounds of hollowpointed .44 in the large intestine will tend to slow him down and to demoralize him.

What the **** are you talking about? Aren't you 90 years-old?
I would knock the shitty Saturday Night Special out of your shaky little hands.

During the 1960s, there were many classes taught in non-violent self-defense and acting as though one was crazy was one of the techniques employed by the movement.

A gun is more likely to help you than being utterly helpless and trying to psych the attacker(s).
Trying to psych out the attacker(s) could have wildly variable results.



Why should the criminals have an exclusive on weapons?