Zosiasmom has raised this a few times, and it's an important point to be raised on the issue of the 2nd amendment (as if it needed further defending) The urban Intelligentsia sometimes, I suppose somewhat understandably, gets lost in its class room without understanding the real world. The following video I'm going to link with strong viewer discretion. It isn't of anyone dying or anything with gore, and it was aired on a local news network, but it is still difficult to watch. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5cf_1372168824 Now you can explain away that this conversation is irrelevant because she would have never been able to get a gun that was safely and responsibly stored away, and maybe that is true, and maybe it isn't, but regardless of this specific scenario, in plenty of similar situations, she would have. If a man isn't a gun owner, he can at least defend himself against a home invasion if the criminal is not armed. Maybe somewhat ineffectively, maybe very effectively, but he has something of a chance against another men in the very least (unless he's just lacking physically completely, in which case he should own a fire-arm) Woman, however, do not. Even smaller men can overpower larger females. Even weak men are generally stronger and more physically capable in a fight than a strong woman. To defend themselves from a would be rapist or killer, a woman will require a fire-arm and it would be a much greater infringement on her rights to deny her a means to self defense than it would be to deny her a right to an abortion (not to get into that). Another thing liberals who are anti-gun don't consider, mostly because they are often from cities or suburbs where the police are five minutes away at maximum, some people live in the sticks, where the nearest police cruiser is 25 minutes away or worse. In rural Kentucky, for example, a telephone and a 911 call is a pitiful defense against a home intruder, and depriving such a person a fire-arm to defend themselves is a monstrous decree. In truth, these places no doubt aren't targeted now because such people are likely to have guns in the house. Take away that right and I fear it would not take long for serial-rapists, enmasse, to realize easy, easy targets await in the far less populated areas of the country, from the sticks of New England, to the sticks of the South, all across to California and every where in between, where no one can hear screams and no patrolling police cars are to be found. It would be nice if the Republicrats could at least try to make more compelling arguments in favor of the 2nd amendment, but something tells me they don't want to. That or they're simpletons, which is a real distinct possibility and probably even more likely.
