|
I'm not about to put a hysterical response,Stephen, or argue "semi" semantics back&forth. I see that, however,most of you(and you can keep your firearms,please!!!)choose to accept, ultimately, through whatever Constitutional or otherwise means, that the firepower to kill multiple people rapidly, that is in fact out there is PERFECTLY OK. .....all very well if YOU dont see the victims, or know them personally.The news is=not all the victims are criminals themselves. So I ask, how much "collateral damage" are we to accept in the US before one acknowledges a problem with the generally available firepower? I dont claim to know the solution to that.Its the lack of constructive ideas& rigid denial that there is a problem at all that gets me. And it seems to me one can list several killing weapons that only(mostly) are in the hands of the military, that the public does not have access to, and do not fill our ER's with victims..so a modicum of regulation is in fact possible at least. A special note to John L= lets see...using Karl Marx as a bugbear to imply Communist leanings; using "intellectual" as an epithet....sounds like 1933 Germany again! I'll even throw you a bone- I 'm an "Untermensch" too!
|