Summations Only

We have beaches. But the idea that there would be a demand for handguns has always been amusing to me. If they were free in CrackerJacks, a few people would have them. Otherwise, what for?

A felon is "a person convicted in a court of law of a felony crime" link. If you can become un-convicted, I suppose you would become an ex-felon. I'd say that that does not apply to somebody who has served out his sentence - he may be an "ex-convict" but not an "un-convict" - or to somebody who was wrongfully convicted and pardoned. The statute that you quoted says, "has been convicted", so that seems to conform with my understanding.

That's what I'm saying: You never really become an "ex-felon". It never goes away.

So it's possible to become a real ex-con in some states but not in others. Fair enough.

I think they'd figure out how to do it with both hands. Small minds can be very ingenious, since they're not hampered by preconceived notions.I saw an episode of 60 Minutes or 20/20 or some such thing in which a woman taught pre-schoolers about gun safety. Every one of them knew how to load and fire a handgun.

The problem is that the criminal that you're trying to defend yourself from can probably shoot just as fast as a three-year-old.

I said, "The problem is that the criminal that you're trying to defend yourself from can probably shoot just as fast as a three-year-old."I'm talking about what those parents think. Facts are irrelevant. They think they're "protecting" their children from criminals.My point is that any "safety" features that prevent children from shooting their parents would also prevent the parents from shooting those criminals - imaginary or not - so the parents are likely to oppose those features.

You disagreed with me. If you figure out what you`re disagreeing with, let me know.

The topic is gun control. We're not talking about problems; we're talking about perceived problems.Hold my hand: You said it was reckless to have a round in the chamber because your own three-year-old might shoot you with it. I'm saying that from a gun-owner's perspective it's reckless to not have a round in the chamber because a criminal might shoot you before you get a chance to cycle one.

If I was the criminal, your first move would trigger my trigger finger.

We could, but I didn't. If you disagree with me, you're disagreeing with what I said, not with what I could have said.

The point isn't "who" sees it as a problem. The point is that the problem is there whether the people involved see it or not: If you're going to keep a gun for protection, you'd damn well better keep it ready to shoot first - and if you do, it's just as ready to shout you.

Bras kill. Time for bra control.

Ah, but there are so many other things you need to do with your hands. Two aren't enough as it is without devoting one entirely to self-defence. For practical purposes, we have to keep the gun easily accessible and ready to fire but not actually "in the way". Unfortunately (or fortunately, for the Darwin awards) the need for self defence also makes the weapon easily accessible to your irresponsible three-year-old.

We're talking about gun ownership in the USA. Cartoonish is a given.