I do not mind, nor care about your views in general. Why attack muddle when you refuse to state your views on a woman's right to choose? I just want you to answer when that right should end in a pregnancy. That and to recognize that being a single mother does not trump anyone else's experiences or thoughts. Your choices or circumstances do not circumvent rational thought

Have fun.

At what point should a person be called a person? Does a woman's right to choose include a fickle late term decision of a perfectly viable outside the woman person? We need to come up with a solid line that states when a person is a person. Otherwise we have what we have, where a woman at 20 weeks can have a legal abortion, but the same woman who wants to keep the baby in her and is hit by a drunk driver that cuases a miscarriage could be charged with manslaughter. What are your thoughts on that?

I think what is lost in the discussion is the unequal and arbitrary application of the law. A pregnant woman at 16 weeks of pregnancy can choose to abort that child without cause or prejudice. Yet the same woman, at the same stage of pregnancy, walking on the street and deciding to keep her baby and is suddenly assaulted about the stomach by her estranged boyfriend could miscarry and the boyfriend be charged with manslaughter. We really need to come up with a defensible position around where life begins, and where rights begin due to that life. Consensus does not mean total agreement. Where does viability begin? 15 weeks, 18 weeks, 20 weeks, 24 weeks?

Yet the same woman, at the same stage of pregnancy, walking on the street and deciding to keep her baby and is suddenly assaulted about the stomach by her estranged boyfriend could miscarry and the boyfriend be charged with manslaughter.

An important point! The legal system really needs to look at this.

Clearly current law is schizophrenic in the respect that you cite.

As for coming to some consensus on when life begins, I agree that this is crucial, but note that Thomson is willing to make a gift of whatever conclusions pro-lifers reach regarding such things. She is willing to allow, for the sake of argument, that, at conception, we have something that is the bearer of the right to life. Her argument thus moves beyond that part of the debate, as she argues that even then it does not follow that abortion is immoral or ought to be illegal.

I did follow her argument, but she refused to state any defensible or realistically logical line. Something can not be legal in one case, yet illegal in another with the same or similar circumstances. According to her and her logic, abortions after week 30 or even infanticide immediately following birth could be moral and legal.

First, a confession. I've been operating upon a possibly faulty memory of Thomson's argument. I have not re-read it any time recently.

As I recall, she says something along the order of, "By the time we get to N months (four?) we probably do have something that should be thought of as having rights. But in the earliest days of pregnancy we almost certainly do not." This is a pretty standard observation, as it is hard for many to conceive how a cluster of cells could qualify as a "person" and bearer of rights.

Another confession: I feel the tug of this observation. If we think that personhood is a matter of looking a certain way or being able to perform certain functions, then, pretty obviously, bundles of cells are not persons.

Now, in JJT's defense, again, her argument does not need to draw the line precisely because she is willing to allow for the sake of argument that blastocytes are persons. If you want another classic discussion that attempts to define personhood for the sake of the abortion issue, I highly recommend Mary Anne Warren's On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion. (I have something of an incidental critique of Warren's considered view here.)

I am convinced, for reasons that have nothing at all to do with the abortion debate, that, pace Warren, personhood should not be thought of in terms of the possession of properties or capacities (rationality, self-consciousness, will, etc) but in terms of kind membership. A splendid, if brief, discussion of such things is in the late Alan Donagan's, A Theory of Morality. You might also be interested in JP Moreland and Scott Rae, Body and Soul.

Having said all of that, I'm not sure why you're not just right in observing that Thomson's logic could just as well justify infanticide--or at least the passive allowing to die. After all, if one person's right to life cannot entail the right to the use of someone's else's body, then why think that anyone is morally obligated by any principles of justice to provide newborns--or the elderly--with what they need to survive?

I guess there are those who question my right to longevity. A frightening thought.

Keep the government out of it. That also means not having the government pay for that choice, much like not paying for breast implants or other elective surgeries.

I don't believe the Hyde Amendment or the proposed health care amendments are in fact "criminalizing" abortion as much as they are saying this isn't a medical necessity and you ain't getting fed money to have one. In other words, your choice isn't going to be subsidized by the government. The big problem a lot of the more fanatical pro-choice people have is that they now think of abortion as a "right" that also has to be paid for by everyone else and not simply a "choice." Of course, they also feel that free government health care for everything is also a "right" and there are quite a few that see that differently in the first place. Adding abortion and any attempt to "legitimize" it with taxpayer money and it adds up to killing what the Dems think health care reform should be.

You would think that since the Catholic Bishops helped to draft the language and were involved in the "review" process of Sen. Ben Nelson's abortion amendment, that this act would disqualify the Catholic church from their tax-exempt status. I'm not a proponent of federally funded abortions, since they are affordable and fairly inexpensive ($300-$600), however, the church should not be involved in influencing or establishing legislation. (And I hope that all of the babies born to the poor women, who will be shut out from any federal abortion assistance, will be taken in by loving Catholic Bishops and families.)

"Casey, Nelson and other lawmakers worked closely with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to come up with language that would meet the church's requirements. In a letter sent to all 100 senators Monday, the bishops endorse the Nelson amendment."

TheHill link

Wash.Exam. link

Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I respect the Catholic Church, but maybe the Methodists, Baptists, and others should have had input also. (Another example of keeping religion out of politics) Methodists and Baptists pay taxes also. Come to think of it - so do the Atheists and Agnostics. Our founding fathers were so wise to separate church and state - and that didn't automatically eliminate God.

Let us keep all nonprofits out of policy making. Ensure that all 501 (c) 3 organizations remain out of politics. That would eliminate the government influence of such organizations as this league of Catholics, as well as ACORN, PETA, and many other tax exempt organizations. While we are at it, lets make sure that the political, but tax exempt 527 organizations also stay out of the public arena. These would be organizations such as the AFL-CIO, Emily's List, Progess for America, Moveon.org and the Club for Growth.
We could also go as far as to make a rule stating that if you do not pay taxes, you cannot vote--that one would most likely not pass the muster though.

I'm glad you differentiated between the 'More fanatical pro-choice' and the Democrat Healthcare Proposal - which has an 80% agreement between Republican and Democrat legislators. It has already been agreed by the majority of the House not to use taxpayer funds to pay for abortion. (Stupak Amendment) True negotiating skills are needed to get a healthcare reform bill passed - or ALL of those guys/gals in this Congress will be unemployed when election time comes! American citizens are together in demanding that Healthcare Reform is needed in this country! At least pass the 80% - and continue to work on the other 20%!

An ungracious chief executive

It’s beginning to sound whiny — and unpresidential. Enough about the terrible mess he inherited. Let’s hear a little more about the tremendous honor that has been bestowed on him. Ronald Reagan inherited a worse situation in 1980 — inflation at 13.5 percent; the prime rate at 21 percent; the Soviets in Afghanistan; American hostages in Tehran; Communist coups in ten new countries over the previous decade — but Reagan never impugned his predecessor. As biographer Lou Cannon noted, “Reagan . . . was generous to Carter in his public statements even though he did not care for him.”

LIBERALISM: The triumph of mindless, wishful thinking over logic, reason, and experience.

Barack Obama is demonstrating bottomless reservoirs of gracelessness. A full 13 months after his election, in the course of justifying the deployment of 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, President Obama could not spare a word of praise for George W. Bush — not even when recounting the nation’s “unified” response to 9/11. To the contrary, throughout his pained recitation of the choices we face in Afghanistan, he adverted at least half a dozen times to the supposed blunders of his predecessor.

It’s Obama’s war now.

9/11 happened on Bush's watch! The current administration is busy trying to keep us afloat. The investigation regarding 'security practices' and intelligence before that attack may be devastating. 3000 innocents died on that day. Competent leadership rather than political maneuvering may have prevented it! You are among the 29% of Americans who still regard Bush as a great leader. I think history will be kinder to him - but not to Cheney and Rumsfeld. And stay off of Reagan. A great actor - yes! But many in this country cannot forget that he initiated his presidential campaign in the town where 3 civil rights workers were killed. Reagan was a boost to the Republican Party – but the extreme right wing has poisoned all that he accomplished. . .and the party is now seen as obstructive rather than constructive. The Independent Party is full of dissatisfied Republicans and Democrats.

What do you mean “Enough Already!!”?? Is constructive criticism of the Community Organizer in Chief not allowed in your world?

Look, Bush did not cause 9/11 and the current administration is not trying to keep us afloat. They are only trying to gain more power at the expense of all tax paying Americans. If they truly wanted economic recovery, then they would stop spending money on pork-barrel projects that produce no jobs.

Now we have a “President” that thinks that he has the power to reallocate TARP money to a useless government “jobs” program. He’s so ignorant, that he doesn’t even realize that he doesn’t have the power to reallocate the money.

But hey, it’s Obama – he’s above the law.

LIBERALISM: The triumph of mindless, wishful thinking over logic, reason, and experience.

.

I really like her writing style. Much dry wit. Consider her example of whether her right to life entails that Henry Fonda must fly across the country to "lay his hand upon her fevered brow."

She really makes her reasoning easy to digest!!

You seem hell-bent (to pun) to characterize a moral play vs. individual freedom with regard to abortion. I view the position as an individual freedom position. When does a human life begin and when does it gain the right afforded to an individual? Is it at 24 weeks in gestation, when a baby could be outside of the womb and survive? What if the technology brings that number down to 18 weeks, or even 12? Is that the fine line? If a drunk driver causes the miscarriage of a 34 week baby and is declared to be a murderer or manslaughterer, we have arrived at moral and logical laa laa land.
When do we give an individual rights? That is the question and that in my mind makes it an individual liberty question all the way around.

maybe, but what I don't agree with is we taxpayers (Federal dollars) paying for abortion. If it's a personal decision, then it's a personal financial responsibility.

Now this (Gym above) is an example of what seems to be logical--but is really really classicism!

Those who can afford abortions can have them but those who can not (ghettos, etc.) can use coat hangers or go onto welfare---for which I will also complain.

Again---keep religion out of government -- keep it personal. If you don't, then 75% of the humans on earth who aren't Christians will always have a bone to pick with us!

Of course nothing in my post inserts religion into the issue at all. So are you in favor of taxpayers paying for abortion? And if you say "yes", then tell me whether or not you agree with capital punishment.

Insurance should pay for any doctor or hospital visit---not taxes!
If we choose to aid the insurance companies for such visits, then the majority rules.

As to capital punishment, I would never order such a thing. We need more mental hospitals that Reagan shut down and we need more prisons for capital offenses where such people are evaluated by Psychiatrists yearly for treatment.

Our courts also need to quit showing sympathy for some and not for others. Example: lady who killed five of her children--no real punishment. The back-shooting preacher killer got nothing. As opposed to many teenage blacks who are just as unbalanced serving in Georgia's jails and prisons. We are afraid of one not the other!

Such a complex question as cap[ital punishment can not be answered with a sentence. The law isn't always equally applied by humans.

If you want to select an item such as no abortion insurance and remove it from coverage, then why not cancer if the dude smokes?

That is because smoking is not religious and abortion denial is!

You don't even realize what you say.

This becomes a non issue if the government stays out of it. You get to stay out of my smoking and I get to stay out of your willing to pay to kill babies. Everybody wins! Unless of course, you think it more imporant to legislate my morality - something you accuse us pro lifers of. You can't have it both ways. And while we're at it, my polite smoking harms only me. Killing babies is just plain murder, and I won't pay for that.

Then you shouldn't pay into any kind of health insurance or taxes.

They use all of that money for some devilishly evil things other than abortions.

They torture, they bomb, they kill millions, they euthanize, they ignore mental hospitals (GA for instance), they cheat--they steal--they rob!

If many of those things don't bother you just as much as a personal abortion then you are too selective.

Of course you didn't answer the questions--not surprising, considering your history.

Twice recently you have asserted that religion is "personal." What ever gave you that idea? "I do not like raw oysters" is personal. But the various and competing religious views regarding the ultimate nature of reality or the fundamental human predicament are quite "public" in both intent and scope.

And what would you say to the founding fathers who maintained that humans have inalienable--imprescriptible and natural--rights that are endowed by God and not merely derived from some social contract? They appealed to a transcendent source of such rights that would have been unthinkable apart from the backdrop of their religious beliefs.

Of course religion is discussed publicly. Christians rarely argue "publicly" with Muslims, Jews, Hindus, or Buddhists (I'm afraid I am not sure of the correct way to name these religions even, so I won't mention hundreds of others), but we insert a particular religion or philosophy of everlasting life into such things as a law being considered about invading another country with resultant deaths of hundreds of thousands!

Well there is nothing religious (Christian anyway) about a thing like that! Jesus never advocated such uses.

GOVERNMENT IS BOUND TO FAIL IF ANY RELIGION IS USED AS ITS BASE.
Government is simply laws and enforcement and can not get us into heaven, nor prevent humans from despising each other, as religions seem to do.

As to Ben Franklin preaching on our rights that are God-given, I doubt he knew what he was talking about since he was more of a Presbyterian whose fate was already determined.

What we are really talking about here is whether we will ever get along in this world with many other countries as long as we don't recognize other religions as having a right to exist. A world government really scares many Americans, but that isn't likely to happen providing we keep our religion out of our government.

I was going to say our Government was founded on Religon, but why waste the time..

"A little matter will move a party

~Thomas Paine"

They appealed to a transcendent source of such rights that would have been unthinkable apart from the backdrop of their religious beliefs.

Did they actually practice the implementation of these rights given the backdrop of their religious beliefs? It appears that history tells us they made many personal choices in the implementation of these 'rights'.

Pretty clearly, our nation proceeded by fits and starts in realizing what the concept of human dignity really entails. To take the most glaring example, slavery was possible against this backdrop only if one was willing to believe--or say that he believed--that enslaved persons were not really persons. (This is one of the things that I love so much about Twain's Huckleberry Finn as Huck's prolonged association with Jim causes him to realize Jim's full humanity despite everything that Huck had been taught. The course down the river serves as a metaphor for the course our nation has taken on race.)

But, of course, human failure to implement a principle to its full implications does not count against the principle itself, but against the human failure.

Beautifully expressed. Those who adhere to the principle of respect for all humans will implement that principle regardless of law. The argument regarding 'abortion' rests on what one believes is 'human life'. Regarding 'abortion', I feel we are still on the journey down the river - as we are with 'race'. There are those who believe that human life begins at the moment of conception; and those who believe that human life begins with the 'breath' of life. My own personal opinion is that regardless of man's material condition, life begins with that first breath. I respect those who choose to bring life into the world . . for life is truly a gift.

Personal choice means personal responcibility. I too am pro-life but I am totally against the Government making the decision for or against it. This should be a States rights issue.

"A little matter will move a party

~Thomas Paine"

The difference between federal and state interference in this issue?

Federal Level dictates.. State Level means voters/people decide.

"A little matter will move a party

~Thomas Paine"

. . a government agency is still interfering with a personal choice. If you accept that federal 'dictates' without your input - I wonder what you are complaining about. People have marched for many issues to change the 'dictates' of state AND federal government. Isn't that why we have elections on the federal level? (and state?)

Please re-read.. Made a statement not complaints.. Just an opinion.
However this should be in the hands of the people not the Government.

"A little matter will move a party

~Thomas Paine"

However this should be in the hands of the people not the Government.

It's getting scary - we agree again!!

Reasonable people can come to a reasonable conclusion most times..

"A little matter will move a party

~Thomas Paine"

You are close to being correct. We seem to find it convenient to kill maybe 150,000 innocent Iraqis with bombs and at the same time we condemn millions of fetal abortions.

It is but just one of the mysteries of religion with hundreds of interpretations that defeat any kind of government who mixes it in as the final word.

Religion is a personal thing and has nothing to do with governing a nation. The problem is that some feel it necessary to convince all others that their religion is for others also and that if it isn't then they must be destroyed or constantly hounded.

That is because they are trying to make sure that they chose the right path of rules.

Can billions of Buddhists, Hindus, Islamics, Jews, Catholics, and VoDoo practitioners, all be wrong?

I saw that written but then the "facts" fit better the far right wing of that party which is now a "third" party.
However it will garner votes in Fayette County----that is about it though.
I do belong to that majority party, Independents.
I voted McCain his first time, but Obama this last time. McCain had sold out between runs.

Doesn't the former GA governor have this thing wrapped up anyway?
He is a pretty decent fellow and I can't vote for Oxen. He has been running on the rubber chicken circuit for years and his Daddy did him in!

Michael P., amen and amen again.

I used to be on the fence when discussing gun control. So instead of just reacting as per the winds of the times I decided to do some research. I found some interesting knowledge. When Kennesaw passed their gun law requiring that every citizen own a gun, the crime rate dropped. And this was not an abnormality. If you read "More Guns Less Crime" You will see the most compressible research to date done by Harvard Researcher John Lott. His findings are that when law abiding citizens are allowed to carry guns the crime rate drops. He also found that gun accidents in the homes of police officers and others trained to have guns are almost non-existent. Please do your research also instead of responding to the latest "incident". There will always be cases where guns have saved lives and others where they were used to take lives. We have to look at the whole picture. But in my opinion, based on research, law abiding citizens that are willing to be trained in the proper way to own a gun may be this countries best defense against crime. That is why I now carry. And yes, I am licensed and trained.

I'm a native of north Cobb county near Kennesaw. Kennesaw passed its gun law in 1982 requiring all residents to own a gun simply as a tongue-in-cheek response to the news that a town in the midwest passed a gun control law. There was never any intent to enforce the law. In fact, how could you enforce such a law? The joke around north Cobb was that the law would not place a burden on anyone, as all households had at least one gun already, probably more. The city council of nearby Acworth ("The Lake City") wanted to get in on the attention that Kennesaw was receiving and proposed a law to require all citizens to own a fishing pole. I don't believe that law ever made it onto the books.

I understand that the law has never been enforced. Still the crime rate did drop did it not?

You like'em? I can tell you where to gettum,right here in Fayette County. I bought some this pm and had some tonight--mighty fine!

Where? Great weekend for 'em. Flies will be fighting to get OUT of the house. LOL

Yeah, you're right, they sure do generate some smell--but I love it! And if all works right, you'll have some tasty pot likker to drizzle over your cornbread too! Directions in another post.

OK - let's have the cornbread recipe. Please tell me that you use a cast iron skillet.

Yes, I do use a cast-iron skillet.
3 parts fine-ground white corn meal
1 part self-raising flour
pinch of salt
mix with warm water to consistency of your choice (thinner will mean crispier patties)
add oil/grease of your choice to skillet
fry patties until golden

for a different outcome,
use 7-up as the liquid. Adds sweetness & carbonation.

Sorry,I don't do "baked" and won't eat it. Don't think much of cornbread muffins either.

called "JohnnyCake" in an iron skillet. I don't think she used white corn meal but white flour and I know there was lard and water involved. It came out crispy on the outside and real soft inside. We loved it. You would cut it as you would a piece of pie and then slice it open and put butter or margarine on it while it was piping hot and it was delicious. We were pretty strapped for money in those days and many times that was breakfast ( and sometime lunch and/or dinner!) along with avocado pear which we had in abundance from our own trees. That along with a good cup of coffee was wonderful. We never grew tired of it. Neither I nor my sisters remember how Mom made this-when we have tried it comes out flat and hard. When we mention johnnycake to anyone they look at us as if we are crazy. Would love that real old recipe if anyone has it. Maybe it would not taste as good as i remember but would sure love to try.

My friends grandma used to do it that way. Do you just cook them like pancakes then?

I was expecting a recipe for cornbread baked in a cast iron skillet. Your recipe sounds like my grandmother's "Hot Water Cornbread". She didn't make it often, but boy was it good! Might have to go to Minter's, buy me some greens and make some hot water cornbread to go with it! Between the fatback in those greens and the grease to fry the cornbread, your cholesteral must be at an impressive level.

Mine is very good actually. I don't put fatback (salt pork) in my greens, I put bacon and smoked ham in--and we actually fry the cornbread in EVOO.

Yeah, you're right, they sure do generate some smell--but I love it! And it all works right, you'll have some tasty pot likker to drizzle over your cornbread too! Directions in another post.

Unless about a quarter pound of pure fatback is stewed with these things for 2-3 hours, only a starving elephant could eat the things.

It doesn't matter what else one cooks with them, they still taste like yard grass. Many tons were consumed between 1929 and 1940.

However now, mustard greens can be edible.

Ever try cutting up some actual Turnip Roots (you know,those little purply round things) and cooking them with the greens? Or just eat the root raw--what a fresh, clean taste!

Yes. I have had them cut up into the greens.

Actually I prefer rutabagas grilled with potatoes, cabbage, and bacon, wrapped in heavy aluminum foil.

Turnips are rough grub!

Dang it! Are you talking about the Callaway Road area? I thought this place was my secret! I plan to go over there today & get more turnip greens!
Wonderful people & great vegetables!!

Tug

Love 'em! So where is this proprietor of fresh cut greens? Don't keep it to yourself!

Head S. down 92 to Inman. In front of Brends's Country Store, turn left, follow Christmas tree signs to Minter's Farm. At the bldg where you get your saw, talk to Ric Minter and tell him what you want. He'll jump in his truck and go cut them for you--1/2 Bushel for $5. We cut up a couple pieces of bacon and threw in, along with 2 slices of leftover Thanksgiving smoked ham. After cooking I chopped finely in the pot before bagging for the freezer. We had 3 pots of greens from that 1/2 bushel. Oh, he has collards too!

Thanks, sounds good. I remember a Jim Minter who used to write for the AJC. I always read his column. Is this the same family?

Tug

Jim Minter's son. Been buying our Christmas trees from the Minters for many years but never saw any greens or collards til this yr. BTW, we did have some of Mr. Callaway's sweet corn and tomatoes earlier this yr.

I honestly don't know if that is true or not. I've heard that statement made by many people, but have never seen any stats from a reliable source. Could be true, I just don't know off-hand. Also, the first rule of statistics is that correlation does not imply causation. Even if the crime rate has dropped in Kennesaw since 1982, could there be other factors involved? I can tell you that the demographics there have changed considerably since then. (and no, I don't have any stats, this is based on my personal observation) Kennesaw was predominately blue collar prior to 1982. In the past 27 years, many college educated people with professional jobs (yuppies) have moved to Kennesaw as metro Atlanta has expanded. I am certain that the average household income in Kennesaw has increased considerably. My understanding is that more affluent areas tend to have less crime than poor neighborhoods which could also be an explanation for Kennesaw's drop in crime. Just food for thought.

It's real easy to verify the crime rate of Kennesaw historically by simply looking at the FBI Uniform Crime Report stats on the FBI's website. Or, you can just BS around and take guesses on what the crime rate was/is.

It is a fact that prior to the enactment of the firearm requirement in 1982, Kennesaw's crime rate exceeded the national average and has dropped from 4,332 per 100K to 2,027 per 100k. The biggest drop in the crime rate came in the first few years of the ordinance, not after the population and building boom happened. In 1982, crime dropped 74%. In 1983, there was another 54% decline from that. BY far the largest drops happened before the population and building boom in Kennesaw.

Kennesaw is 80%+ white and pretty affluent. Those two factors right now in 2009 explain the low crime rate, but that doesn't explain the big drops in their crime rates back in the early 1980's when it almost all white yet rural.

Here's a nice url you can check crime rates...I don't think the figure go back as far as you may need in this case...this goes back a few years though.

http://www.ajc.com/news/ucr-2009ucr-2009-georgia-crime-137903.html

FWIW, It appears that Kennesaw and PTC have very similar crime numbers...ie low.

Very well stated. I believe to this day that guns are but tools designed for a specific purpose.
Just because a pencil is designed to write, they alone cannot bear the responsibility for misspelled words. Neither can guns alone be responsible for their user's actions.

Indeed. Was it not these same peoples you sterotype that created this nation? Perhaps you have forgotten that along with freedom comes responsibility? Or could it just be that you are willing to forfeit your freedom so that you may remain the irresponsible ass you constantly make of yourself(ves) on this blog?

Hardly the same types created the USA as these right wing people.
They got destroyed by Bush and company (the new GOP) and had to form something called republican, but would espouse things only about 15% have any interest in whatsoever.
I assume you attended this 125 person meeting? Weren't the Tea Party dudes welcome? Also, the WASPs? NAZIs maybe? KKK? "Lazy Fair?"

Get back to the medicine cabinet and take those pills! You know you didn't like that straight jacket the last time, so be nice and take the meds so those evil conservatives will go away.

...and I don't mind saying so.

Bitter uneducated rabble rousers fits the bill alright. Unfortunately they all screw up each other's mind when they get together.

ain't America great!!

You have the right to make asinine comments and we have the right to dismiss them..

Consider yours dismissed.

And that's from a Taxpaying, Teapartying, Armed to the teeth Fed up American

"A little matter will move a party

~Thomas Paine"

Who do we blame for screwing up your mind?

.....and I don't mind asking.

Hey, I resememble that remark! So did the the men who signed the Declaration of Independence and England spend years making them suffer for it. We are moving closer to a new civil war and there are many among us who are ready to fight it.

"knowing that everyone else also has a gun in their pocket and will use it on you if you aren't extra careful as to your speech and conduct."

Now your starting to get it, not the speech part as you're free to say anything you want, but I like the thought that people might watch their conduct around me knowing that I am armed and willing to defend myself again their bad conduct. People in general are rude these days but they seem to be much nicer when they see my right side. Maybe it's just coincedince?

Unless you are a cop, and even then often, and you carry around a gun in view, somebody some day will hit you behind the ear with a lead pipe!
Did you not read the news this week about four cops, not one, four, getting wiped out by one idiot--they are gone in spite of his demise also.
It would be worse for a civilian. Guns for everyone will not solve any problems we currently have and will cause many more.

That doesn't stop you from blasting them for breaking into your home.
I can and would do that.

I for see the day under your program where one could not attend a public function---movie, ball game, etc., without several getting shot!

Automobiles kill over 41,000 people per year in the U.S. Only cops should be allowed to drive cars.

Abut 25 thousand of those killed in cars were "impaired!"
Just as would that many gun toters be impaired! Especially those who are extremely short and have a mustache and with a beer belly.

Turn em loose though on the public!