Re yesterday’s post, a reader writes:
Take any magazine printed on glossy paper, Time or Macleans, for example.
Beginning at the spine, roll it tightly into a cylinder, leaving the unbound edge of the pages on the outside.
Grab it with the pages facing downward.
Slash bad person in the face.
Leave mass of painful paper cuts.
Direct, easy, and effective.
Two of the best defenses are the infliction of pain and blood on the face.
Also, Lorne Guntner elaborates further on that much-discussed National Post piece about gun ownership:
My interest in guns is purely philosophical: I can’t trust any government that doesn’t trust my law-abiding fellow citizens to own whatever guns they want. It’s the instinct to ban – rooted in the notion that governments or “experts” know better than we ourselves what is best or safest for us – that scares me far more than the thought of my neighbour owning a sniper rifle.
One editorial board member said he would feel completely “free,” even if he were prevented from buying a high-powered rifle. But it’s easy to give up a liberty that is unimportant to you.
The reason we non-gun owners should stick up for owners’ rights is that someday it may be our rights that are under attack. Someday, the banners who are going after guns may decide that eliminating hate speech (as they define it) is more important than defending free speech. And if we free-speechers don’t stand with gun owners against the banners today, why would the gun owner stand with us tomorrow?
Although naturally, one hopes that, “First they came for the gun owners, and — they, you know, had guns, so…”