Using statistics and the Constitution as CliffsNotes for your convictions is hardly evidence of high intellect. Anybody with at least a shoe-size I.Q. who views the event in Nevada on October 1 without self-examining his unconditional defense of the 2nd amendment doesn’t have enough substance inside his skull to lobotomize.
What rationale is crucial to condemning the vilest act of premeditated murder since Wounded Knee, or to respond to criticisms of a stricken nation’s understandably emotional appeals to government to end this senselessness regardless of the cost politically? Statistics are a poor barometer of a nation’s despair.
Even the NRA reacted to this outrage with a sympathetic (if meager) softening of its rigid code!
Because not a single argument for the proliferation of guns in America will hold water anymore.
Who would liberals enslave? And why?
Well, maybe one would barter a gagged Rush Limbaugh (or someone of that ilk) for a hamster. And yes, if anybody were to threaten that one’s family with violence, he would defend them with a gun, if one were within reach. Some occasions are not suitable for over-thinking.
Many liberals own firearms; many conservatives don’t. But we’re nothing but bi-partisan among the list of casualties. Because no one is safe anymore, anywhere, at anytime.
But the option of rejecting guns as opposed to owning one calls for a personal decision, not a political one.
Some, tragically, are not able to wait with the survivors ‘til the day that choice is hopefully no longer available.
Noe Serna, Lima
.neFileBlock {
margin-bottom: 20px;
}
.neFileBlock p {
margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px;
}
.neFileBlock .neFile {
border-bottom: 1px dotted #aaa;
padding-bottom: 5px;
padding-top: 10px;
}
.neFileBlock .neCaption {
font-size: 85%;
}
