Wholly unresponsive. Which means, I suppose, that Atypical Liberal agrees with me. And the purposes of boats and campers is not "killing people", which is the sole purpose of automatic weapons.

It's quite responsive. You want to justify firearm ownership through need. In this country, we don't have to justify the things we choose to buy.

Yes, firearms are for killing, and yes, that is what the second amendment is about.

So what? We are speaking of civilians, not military.

Yes, but the whole point of the second amendment is to put military-grade small arms in the hands of civilians so that they can function as military forces and counter military force.

Civilians should not need to protect themselves. That's the job of the police.

OK, you are showing yourself to be woefully ignorant here. Police are almost never present during the commission of crimes. They show up after the fact to gather evidence, interview witnesses, and aid in the prosecution. Furthermore, the police are under absolutely zero legal obligation to protect anyone not directly in their custody.

The fact is, even if every firearm vanished tomorrow, there would still be violent crimes, and people would be victimized without a police officer there to protect them.

You can wish that there was no violence in the world, but there has been violence in the world for all of recorded history. Ultimately, it is your responsibility to protect yourself and your family. If you want to abdicate that responsibility to someone else, that is your choice and I respect that. But you won't be making that choice for me.

I don't know. I do not see any reason for concealed carry. If you can give me a better reason than "I need a penis substitute", then I'd be happy to hear it.

Right, because everyone who wishes to use a tool to protect themselves from violence really is looking for a penis substitute. How condescending.

A question for you:

Do you believe that women who carry concealed weapons are carrying them as "penis substitutes"?