[theBuckwheat]

But whatever the town — wherein is the need to carry a gun with you to, say, the local store in the middle of the day? It can't be for protection, can it? I mean, you don't think that someone’s going to attack you in the local store, right?

When the left wants to lecture us about "safe sex", they insist that those who copulate with strangers must use a condom every time.

Indeed, in some settings condoms are almost pushed into the hands of young people in the hopes they will always "use protection". We don't have to look long with Google before we find stories of condoms being handed out in public in places like New York or San Francisco.

Why should should I always be safe when it comes to protecting myself against getting a fatal disease, why must I carry sexual prophylaxis with me if I am sexually active and yet must never carry the means of protecting myself against assault and murder if I am socially active?

[Mogollon]

....you don't think that someone’s going to attack you in the local store, right?

It's happened before, remember Luby's cafeteria in Kileen, Texas, and MacDonalds in a couple of places?

[neverdem]

Why should should I always be safe when it comes to protecting myself against getting a fatal disease, why must I carry sexual prophylaxis with me if I am sexually active and yet must never carry the means of protecting myself against assault and murder if I am socially active?

There's a difference. Wearing body armor is a relatively passive defense. Bearing arms means you can go on offense beyond hand to hand combat. Nanny statists tend to get the vapors with the latter.