CDZ Women should embrace both owning and carrying guns as acts of personal empowerment.

[Pop23]

Plus imagine how much more of a pain being at the DMV would be if the powers in charge didn't want people to get licenses.

A 3 hour hell marathon would turn into weeks of multiple visits, fees in the thousands of dollars, and multiple rejections because some DMV employee didn't feel that your really "needed" to drive a car.

also, going to a dealer would mean a 30 day waiting period before you got your car, after you paid for it.

And, there is no minimum age to buy a car, is the left implying they want no minimum age to buy a gun?

I think it depends on the State. In NY I know I had to show my valid license before I could take possession of my new car.

What do they do about people who buy cars for the purpose of someone else driving them around?

That person probably has to take delivery of the vehicle, or someone else with a license.

Sounds ridiculous. I'm a rich person living in New York, and I have to have my chauffeur buy my car for me?

On the other hand, lots of things about living in New York sound ridiculous to me, which is likely why I don't live there.

arghhhhhh, anyone can buy a car anywhere, regardless of age. The restriction is if you need a car loan, that is the finance companies business, not the state. It's about contract law, and a contract with a minor is not void, simply voidable. Cash, it don't matter.

 

[Pop23]

That's likely more of a "the neighbors don't want you to start a junkyard of derelict cars" sort of thing. I know that was the city ordinance in my old neighborhood for precisely that reason.

Whatever the reason, they will ticket you for having an unregistered vehicle parked in your yard was the point. They are strict with cars and registering them, but driving or owning a car is not a right anyways, so it is a moot point. Owning a firearm is a constitutional right. The liberals trying to compare owning a gun to owning a car are just trying to confuse issues and comparing apples to oranges.

I do not want to argue, but no, you do not have to have a license to own a car, you do a gun. Both are equally deadly, but the one that is a CONSTITUTIONALLY protected right requires what the not protected right does not.

And that is the point.

I said the CAR has to be REGISTERED, and that is the case in some states.

If you are talking about California, then here is the law:

VEHICLE CODE
SECTION 4000-4023



4000. (a) (1) No person shall drive, move, or leave standing upon a
highway, or in an offstreet public parking facility, any motor
vehicle, trailer, semitrailer, pole or pipe dolly, or logging dolly,
unless it is registered and the appropriate fees have been paid under
this code or registered under the permanent trailer identification
program, except that an off-highway motor vehicle which displays an
identification plate or device issued by the department pursuant to
Section 38010 may be driven, moved, or left standing in an offstreet
public parking facility without being registered or paying
registration fees.
(2) For purposes of this subdivision, "offstreet public parking
facility" means either of the following:
(A) Any publicly owned parking facility.
(B) Any privately owned parking facility for which no fee for the
privilege to park is charged and which is held open for the common
public use of retail customers.
(3) This subdivision does not apply to any motor vehicle stored in
a privately owned offstreet parking facility by, or with the express
permission of, the owner of the privately owned offstreet parking
facility.
(b) No person shall drive, move, or leave standing upon a highway
any motor vehicle, as defined in Chapter 2 (commencing with Section
39010) of Part 1 of Division 26 of the Health and Safety Code, which
has been registered in violation of Part 5 (commencing with Section
43000) of that Division 26.
(c) Subdivisions (a) and (b) do not apply to off-highway motor
vehicles operated pursuant to Sections 38025 and 38026.5.
(d) This section does not apply, following payment of fees due for
registration, during the time that registration and transfer is
being withheld by the department pending the investigation of any use
tax due under the Revenue and Taxation Code.
(e) Subdivision (a) does not apply to a vehicle that is towed by a
tow truck on the order of a sheriff, marshal, or other official
acting pursuant to a court order or on the order of a peace officer
acting pursuant to this code.
(f) Subdivision (a) applies to a vehicle that is towed from a
highway or offstreet parking facility under the direction of a
highway service organization when that organization is providing
emergency roadside assistance to that vehicle. However, the operator
of a tow truck providing that assistance to that vehicle is not
responsible for the violation of subdivision (a) with respect to that
vehicle. The owner of an unregistered vehicle that is disabled and
located on private property, shall obtain a permit from the
department pursuant to Section 4003 prior to having the vehicle towed
on the highway.
(g) For purposes of this section, possession of a California
driver's license by the registered owner of a vehicle shall give rise
to a rebuttable presumption that the owner is a resident of
California.

I dunno, but that seems to say you don't have to register a car if stored on your own private property, or the private property of another, in which that is not kept in common with other residents, with the owners permission.

OMG. The POINT is that they are very strict with cars being registered in SOME states but that has nothing to do with one of our constitutional RIGHTS.

Then why are you arguing!

And the point being missed in all this:

THERE IS NO FEDERAL LAWS ON THE PURCHASE OF A CAR!

 

[ChrisL]

Whatever the reason, they will ticket you for having an unregistered vehicle parked in your yard was the point. They are strict with cars and registering them, but driving or owning a car is not a right anyways, so it is a moot point. Owning a firearm is a constitutional right. The liberals trying to compare owning a gun to owning a car are just trying to confuse issues and comparing apples to oranges.

I do not want to argue, but no, you do not have to have a license to own a car, you do a gun. Both are equally deadly, but the one that is a CONSTITUTIONALLY protected right requires what the not protected right does not.

And that is the point.

I said the CAR has to be REGISTERED, and that is the case in some states.

If you are talking about California, then here is the law:

VEHICLE CODE
SECTION 4000-4023



4000. (a) (1) No person shall drive, move, or leave standing upon a
highway, or in an offstreet public parking facility, any motor
vehicle, trailer, semitrailer, pole or pipe dolly, or logging dolly,
unless it is registered and the appropriate fees have been paid under
this code or registered under the permanent trailer identification
program, except that an off-highway motor vehicle which displays an
identification plate or device issued by the department pursuant to
Section 38010 may be driven, moved, or left standing in an offstreet
public parking facility without being registered or paying
registration fees.
(2) For purposes of this subdivision, "offstreet public parking
facility" means either of the following:
(A) Any publicly owned parking facility.
(B) Any privately owned parking facility for which no fee for the
privilege to park is charged and which is held open for the common
public use of retail customers.
(3) This subdivision does not apply to any motor vehicle stored in
a privately owned offstreet parking facility by, or with the express
permission of, the owner of the privately owned offstreet parking
facility.
(b) No person shall drive, move, or leave standing upon a highway
any motor vehicle, as defined in Chapter 2 (commencing with Section
39010) of Part 1 of Division 26 of the Health and Safety Code, which
has been registered in violation of Part 5 (commencing with Section
43000) of that Division 26.
(c) Subdivisions (a) and (b) do not apply to off-highway motor
vehicles operated pursuant to Sections 38025 and 38026.5.
(d) This section does not apply, following payment of fees due for
registration, during the time that registration and transfer is
being withheld by the department pending the investigation of any use
tax due under the Revenue and Taxation Code.
(e) Subdivision (a) does not apply to a vehicle that is towed by a
tow truck on the order of a sheriff, marshal, or other official
acting pursuant to a court order or on the order of a peace officer
acting pursuant to this code.
(f) Subdivision (a) applies to a vehicle that is towed from a
highway or offstreet parking facility under the direction of a
highway service organization when that organization is providing
emergency roadside assistance to that vehicle. However, the operator
of a tow truck providing that assistance to that vehicle is not
responsible for the violation of subdivision (a) with respect to that
vehicle. The owner of an unregistered vehicle that is disabled and
located on private property, shall obtain a permit from the
department pursuant to Section 4003 prior to having the vehicle towed
on the highway.
(g) For purposes of this section, possession of a California
driver's license by the registered owner of a vehicle shall give rise
to a rebuttable presumption that the owner is a resident of
California.

I dunno, but that seems to say you don't have to register a car if stored on your own private property, or the private property of another, in which that is not kept in common with other residents, with the owners permission.

OMG. The POINT is that they are very strict with cars being registered in SOME states but that has nothing to do with one of our constitutional RIGHTS.

Then why are you arguing!

And the point being missed in all this:

THERE IS NO FEDERAL LAWS ON THE PURCHASE OF A CAR!

YOU are the one who is arguing. I simply said the laws are more strict about such things in some states than in others. You seem to want to prove something. What it is, nobody knows!

 

[ChrisL]

Rights and privileges are two different things! The government does not have the right to restrict rights like it does with privileges!

 

[ChrisL]

In order to make gun ownership like car ownership, they would have to REMOVE the 2nd amendment from the constitution. That is not going to happen.

 

[Pop23]

In order to make gun ownership like car ownership, they would have to REMOVE the 2nd amendment from the constitution. That is not going to happen.

We agree, however the argument was that it purchasing a gun is less regulated than purchasing a car, which is BS.

A car can be purchased without a license or registering it with the Federal Government or a State. A gun cannot be, so the claim, as baseless as it is, that a gun is easier to purchase is unadulterated bullshit.

A car can be purchased without a 3 day waiting period or a background check, a gun cannot. So the claim that a gun is easier to purchase than a car is again, unadulterated bullshit.

So if the LEFT wants a gun to be as equally hard to purchase as a car, I'M ALL FOR IT!

It simply means, there would BE FAR FEWER RESTRICTIONS ON THE PURCHASE OF A GUN!

If that's what they want, I am ready to oblige!

 

[Pop23]

I do not want to argue, but no, you do not have to have a license to own a car, you do a gun. Both are equally deadly, but the one that is a CONSTITUTIONALLY protected right requires what the not protected right does not.

And that is the point.

I said the CAR has to be REGISTERED, and that is the case in some states.

If you are talking about California, then here is the law:

VEHICLE CODE
SECTION 4000-4023



4000. (a) (1) No person shall drive, move, or leave standing upon a
highway, or in an offstreet public parking facility, any motor
vehicle, trailer, semitrailer, pole or pipe dolly, or logging dolly,
unless it is registered and the appropriate fees have been paid under
this code or registered under the permanent trailer identification
program, except that an off-highway motor vehicle which displays an
identification plate or device issued by the department pursuant to
Section 38010 may be driven, moved, or left standing in an offstreet
public parking facility without being registered or paying
registration fees.
(2) For purposes of this subdivision, "offstreet public parking
facility" means either of the following:
(A) Any publicly owned parking facility.
(B) Any privately owned parking facility for which no fee for the
privilege to park is charged and which is held open for the common
public use of retail customers.
(3) This subdivision does not apply to any motor vehicle stored in
a privately owned offstreet parking facility by, or with the express
permission of, the owner of the privately owned offstreet parking
facility.
(b) No person shall drive, move, or leave standing upon a highway
any motor vehicle, as defined in Chapter 2 (commencing with Section
39010) of Part 1 of Division 26 of the Health and Safety Code, which
has been registered in violation of Part 5 (commencing with Section
43000) of that Division 26.
(c) Subdivisions (a) and (b) do not apply to off-highway motor
vehicles operated pursuant to Sections 38025 and 38026.5.
(d) This section does not apply, following payment of fees due for
registration, during the time that registration and transfer is
being withheld by the department pending the investigation of any use
tax due under the Revenue and Taxation Code.
(e) Subdivision (a) does not apply to a vehicle that is towed by a
tow truck on the order of a sheriff, marshal, or other official
acting pursuant to a court order or on the order of a peace officer
acting pursuant to this code.
(f) Subdivision (a) applies to a vehicle that is towed from a
highway or offstreet parking facility under the direction of a
highway service organization when that organization is providing
emergency roadside assistance to that vehicle. However, the operator
of a tow truck providing that assistance to that vehicle is not
responsible for the violation of subdivision (a) with respect to that
vehicle. The owner of an unregistered vehicle that is disabled and
located on private property, shall obtain a permit from the
department pursuant to Section 4003 prior to having the vehicle towed
on the highway.
(g) For purposes of this section, possession of a California
driver's license by the registered owner of a vehicle shall give rise
to a rebuttable presumption that the owner is a resident of
California.

I dunno, but that seems to say you don't have to register a car if stored on your own private property, or the private property of another, in which that is not kept in common with other residents, with the owners permission.

OMG. The POINT is that they are very strict with cars being registered in SOME states but that has nothing to do with one of our constitutional RIGHTS.

Then why are you arguing!

And the point being missed in all this:

THERE IS NO FEDERAL LAWS ON THE PURCHASE OF A CAR!

YOU are the one who is arguing. I simply said the laws are more strict about such things in some states than in others. You seem to want to prove something. What it is, nobody knows!

Your the one that wanted to dive into every little minutia of car ownership. I even supplied you the link that, NO, YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED TO REGISTER A CAR IF KEPT ON PRIVATE PROPERTY and in such a way, IT DIDN'T PROVIDE AN UNDUE BURDEN ON THE NEIGHBORS!.

Geez

 

[Cecilie1200]

I have an idea. How about instead of letting the left divert us off onto arguing about cars, and how much concession we're willing to give up in the form of "regulating guns like cars", we get back to the central argument, which is THE LEFT HAS NO RIGHT TO DEMAND WE GIVE UP ANYTHING.

Guns aren't cars, and we aren't conceding or compromising a damned thing. We're not interested in making you approve of us, because we know you never will. There will be no "just this, if you were reasonable . . .", because we want no part of anything the left considers reasonable (read: fascistic). If you want a change to the law, you'd better damned well have some hard evidence of an substantial improvement it will bring, or you can go pound sand.

There. Bickering solved. Let's all hug and get back to fighting the REAL enemy.

 

[Pop23]

I have an idea. How about instead of letting the left divert us off onto arguing about cars, and how much concession we're willing to give up in the form of "regulating guns like cars", we get back to the central argument, which is THE LEFT HAS NO RIGHT TO DEMAND WE GIVE UP ANYTHING.

Guns aren't cars, and we aren't conceding or compromising a damned thing. We're not interested in making you approve of us, because we know you never will. There will be no "just this, if you were reasonable . . .", because we want no part of anything the left considers reasonable (read: fascistic). If you want a change to the law, you'd better damned well have some hard evidence of an substantial improvement it will bring, or you can go pound sand.

There. Bickering solved. Let's all hug and get back to fighting the REAL enemy.

LISTEN YOU!.........

OK, will do

Do I get Ice Cream now.

 

[BlackSand]

...

Do I get Ice Cream now.

Do you have your federal Sugar Intake Authorization Card on you ...

.​

 

[Cecilie1200]

I have an idea. How about instead of letting the left divert us off onto arguing about cars, and how much concession we're willing to give up in the form of "regulating guns like cars", we get back to the central argument, which is THE LEFT HAS NO RIGHT TO DEMAND WE GIVE UP ANYTHING.

Guns aren't cars, and we aren't conceding or compromising a damned thing. We're not interested in making you approve of us, because we know you never will. There will be no "just this, if you were reasonable . . .", because we want no part of anything the left considers reasonable (read: fascistic). If you want a change to the law, you'd better damned well have some hard evidence of an substantial improvement it will bring, or you can go pound sand.

There. Bickering solved. Let's all hug and get back to fighting the REAL enemy.

LISTEN YOU!.........

OK, will do

Do I get Ice Cream now.

Help yourself. I'm sure you know where we keep it.

 

[Pop23]

...

Do I get Ice Cream now.

Do you have your federal Sugar Intake Authorization Card on you ...

.​

Foolish Black Sand

It only applies to........

PINAPPLE ice cream

So alls good

 

[Flash]

Just reporting the facts.

I would theorize that the 20,000 or so suicides by gunshot are not done by people who decide they want to kill themselves, go out and buy a gun, wait five days or whatever, and then go home and do it. The gun is there so they tragically take their own lives. As for the accidental hit jobs they perform on themselves; just blood over the dam.

No you weren't ...

.

Sure I was...the only conclusion that one can draw is that you're more likely to kill or injure yourself if you have a gun in the house; thus you're not safer with a gun. Facts are not your friend.

There are over 600 million guns in private hands.....over 90 million homes with those guns, likely far more....and over 17 million people carry their guns for self defense....

accidental gun death in a country of over 320 million people...

495.....

Now......with that number.....how can we take any point you make as being rational....given the actual numbers, the facts, and the reality....?

That is less than the number of children that drown in backyard swimming pools each year. Percentage wise it is a lot less considering there are about 10 times as many households with guns in the US are there are households with swimming pools


Which is more dangerous: A gun or a swimming pool?

Number Measure or Annual Average Year(s)

8,079,000 Residential swimming pools 2004

219,500,000 Privately owned firearms 2000
40,100,000 Households with guns (low estimate) 2000
51,700,000 Households with guns (high estimate) 2000

677 Americans killed by drowning in swimming pools 2005-2009
335 Children 0-14 killed by drowning in swimming pools 2005-2009

776 Americans killed by accidental discharge of firearms 2000
86 Children 0-14 killed by accidental discharge of firearms 2000

 

[Flash]

The best way for a child to be safe and not get shot with a gun is to not be Black and live in a Democrat controlled big city shithole because that is where most of the gun deaths in this country takes place.

 

[candycorn]

In order to make gun ownership like car ownership, they would have to REMOVE the 2nd amendment from the constitution. That is not going to happen.

We agree, however the argument was that it purchasing a gun is less regulated than purchasing a car, which is BS.

A car can be purchased without a license or registering it with the Federal Government or a State. A gun cannot be, so the claim, as baseless as it is, that a gun is easier to purchase is unadulterated bullshit.

A car can be purchased without a 3 day waiting period or a background check, a gun cannot. So the claim that a gun is easier to purchase than a car is again, unadulterated bullshit.

So if the LEFT wants a gun to be as equally hard to purchase as a car, I'M ALL FOR IT!

It simply means, there would BE FAR FEWER RESTRICTIONS ON THE PURCHASE OF A GUN!

If that's what they want, I am ready to oblige!

Chris L vs. Pop….mental midget wrestling.

 

[2aguy]

Just reporting the facts.

I would theorize that the 20,000 or so suicides by gunshot are not done by people who decide they want to kill themselves, go out and buy a gun, wait five days or whatever, and then go home and do it. The gun is there so they tragically take their own lives. As for the accidental hit jobs they perform on themselves; just blood over the dam.

No you weren't ...

.

Sure I was...the only conclusion that one can draw is that you're more likely to kill or injure yourself if you have a gun in the house; thus you're not safer with a gun. Facts are not your friend.

There are over 600 million guns in private hands.....over 90 million homes with those guns, likely far more....and over 17 million people carry their guns for self defense....

accidental gun death in a country of over 320 million people...

495.....

Now......with that number.....how can we take any point you make as being rational....given the actual numbers, the facts, and the reality....?

That is less than the number of children that drown in backyard swimming pools each year. Percentage wise it is a lot less considering there are about 10 times as many households with guns in the US are there are households with swimming pools


Which is more dangerous: A gun or a swimming pool?

Number Measure or Annual Average Year(s)

8,079,000 Residential swimming pools 2004

219,500,000 Privately owned firearms 2000
40,100,000 Households with guns (low estimate) 2000
51,700,000 Households with guns (high estimate) 2000

677 Americans killed by drowning in swimming pools 2005-2009
335 Children 0-14 killed by drowning in swimming pools 2005-2009

776 Americans killed by accidental discharge of firearms 2000
86 Children 0-14 killed by accidental discharge of firearms 2000

You should actually try to update those figures to 2016........as we moved from 219 million guns in private hands in 2,000 (your figure) to close to 600 million guns in private hands in 2017.......

2016 was the Ferguson Effect year where criminals weren't afraid to carry guns....so they carried their guns out in public more since the police in democrat cities backed off stopping them....



From the CDC...

WISQARS Leading Causes of Death Reports
2016...74
2015...48
2014...50
2013...69
2012...58
2011...74
2010...62
2009...48
2008...62
2007...65
2006...54
2005...75
2004...63
2003...56
2002...60
2001...72
2000...86
1999...88

 

[2aguy]

Just reporting the facts.

I would theorize that the 20,000 or so suicides by gunshot are not done by people who decide they want to kill themselves, go out and buy a gun, wait five days or whatever, and then go home and do it. The gun is there so they tragically take their own lives. As for the accidental hit jobs they perform on themselves; just blood over the dam.

No you weren't ...

.

Sure I was...the only conclusion that one can draw is that you're more likely to kill or injure yourself if you have a gun in the house; thus you're not safer with a gun. Facts are not your friend.

There are over 600 million guns in private hands.....over 90 million homes with those guns, likely far more....and over 17 million people carry their guns for self defense....

accidental gun death in a country of over 320 million people...

495.....

Now......with that number.....how can we take any point you make as being rational....given the actual numbers, the facts, and the reality....?

That is less than the number of children that drown in backyard swimming pools each year. Percentage wise it is a lot less considering there are about 10 times as many households with guns in the US are there are households with swimming pools


Which is more dangerous: A gun or a swimming pool?

Number Measure or Annual Average Year(s)

8,079,000 Residential swimming pools 2004

219,500,000 Privately owned firearms 2000
40,100,000 Households with guns (low estimate) 2000
51,700,000 Households with guns (high estimate) 2000

677 Americans killed by drowning in swimming pools 2005-2009
335 Children 0-14 killed by drowning in swimming pools 2005-2009

776 Americans killed by accidental discharge of firearms 2000
86 Children 0-14 killed by accidental discharge of firearms 2000

And here we have 2016.....underage drinking kills even more kids....

Fatal Injury Data | WISQARS | Injury Center | CDC
2016:

2016: Kids ( <1 to age 14)
Total guns: ......74
Total Cars: 1,261




Suffocation: 1,215

Drowning: 713

Poisoning: 84

Traffic: 1,261

Guns: 74

<1......1
1-4.....34
5-9.....16
10-14....23

Under age drinking:

Underage Drinking-Why Do Adolescents Drink, What Are the Risks, and How Can Underage Drinking Be Prevented?

Each year, approximately 5,000 young people under the age of 21 die as a result of underage drinking; this includes about 1,900 deaths from motor vehicle crashes, 1,600 as a result of homicides, 300 from suicide, as well as hundreds from other injuries such as falls, burns, and drownings (1–5).

 

[Pop23]

In order to make gun ownership like car ownership, they would have to REMOVE the 2nd amendment from the constitution. That is not going to happen.

We agree, however the argument was that it purchasing a gun is less regulated than purchasing a car, which is BS.

A car can be purchased without a license or registering it with the Federal Government or a State. A gun cannot be, so the claim, as baseless as it is, that a gun is easier to purchase is unadulterated bullshit.

A car can be purchased without a 3 day waiting period or a background check, a gun cannot. So the claim that a gun is easier to purchase than a car is again, unadulterated bullshit.

So if the LEFT wants a gun to be as equally hard to purchase as a car, I'M ALL FOR IT!

It simply means, there would BE FAR FEWER RESTRICTIONS ON THE PURCHASE OF A GUN!

If that's what they want, I am ready to oblige!

Chris L vs. Pop….mental midget wrestling.

So I take it you came back for more.

Doubling down on retarded?

 

[candycorn]

In order to make gun ownership like car ownership, they would have to REMOVE the 2nd amendment from the constitution. That is not going to happen.

We agree, however the argument was that it purchasing a gun is less regulated than purchasing a car, which is BS.

A car can be purchased without a license or registering it with the Federal Government or a State. A gun cannot be, so the claim, as baseless as it is, that a gun is easier to purchase is unadulterated bullshit.

A car can be purchased without a 3 day waiting period or a background check, a gun cannot. So the claim that a gun is easier to purchase than a car is again, unadulterated bullshit.

So if the LEFT wants a gun to be as equally hard to purchase as a car, I'M ALL FOR IT!

It simply means, there would BE FAR FEWER RESTRICTIONS ON THE PURCHASE OF A GUN!

If that's what they want, I am ready to oblige!

Chris L vs. Pop….mental midget wrestling.

So I take it you came back for more.

Doubling down on retarded?

You spent all day arguing with someone who essentially agrees with you so I think calling you retarded in return would actually be a compliment and give you something to shoot for. LOL

Then there is this:

3-year-old girl accidentally shoots pregnant mother from backseat of car: Police

Another reason to not have a gun in the house (although this happened in the car; it could have easily been the residence). You may be the pinnacle of competence…is your kid? Is her/his friends? What about your guests?

Line up with your personal insults, moronic commentary, BS links…. Facts are not your friends.

 

[anotherlife]

Maybe I can help answering this condescending issue. People think that they can control women. Interesting that women play along with that. Controlling an attacker with a gun that you are pointing at him is a special skill. Can women enjoy the sporting value of hand guns and rifles? I think it is fun to go to the range with girls. Target practice is an empowering feeling. What is your opinion?

I have always enjoyed target practice, probably because I have a natural skill for aim. For entertainment value, I prefer archery. Either way, it's always fun to encounter men who want to patronize me and assume I don't know which end of the weapon to point. Come to that, my natural aim also makes me quite good at pool, and it's never a good night out without letting some ass napkin explain ALL about what I'm doing wrong and how I "should" be playing, and then running the rest of the table on him.

As you can imagine, I don't have a lot of tolerance for men who want to treat my femaleness as though it were a birth defect.

Okay but you did raise the question of "which end of the weapon to point". You know we guys are permanently glued to one end of a weapon that always points to famales. Do you know what level of dilemmas this can cause? A considerable point.

I always assumed the weight of the penis pulls on the brain stem, and that's why men act dumb.

I love this physical model. Yes, the entire situation is pretty hard on us and our entire lives. Hard and heavy. And you women just make it even harder on us. Now what shall we do?

I don't know what to tell you about that. I consider my job, vis a vis my menfolk, to be making their lives better. Sometimes, that requires jerking a knot in their tails. But I try not to expect anything from them that's unreasonable. No mind reading acts required.

I wonder what American women think of visual arts? From what I can see, most of us men appreciate the curvy looks even more than sex. Some of my friends appreciate the woodwork of their rifles in all its shapes and carvings too, as if it was a woman. I know a few friends who married because of the shapes of their wives and not sex. Do American women love their shapes? Do they make their men love their shapes? A little bit like loving your rifle that is all hand made and in perfect shape?