Gunning for guns -- A response to the NYT story "A Clamor for Gun Limits, but Few Expect Real Changes"(written by me near midnight quickly, with no edits and accepted for the NYT online): No of course there won't be any changes. Why should so called "conservatives" want to prohibit anyone from overthrowing the government? As long as they replace it with an extremist fascist type one of course. We know that is the REAL purpose of their love affair with the glorious Second Amendment. I LOVE our Founding Fathers but boy if they could have seen the country that the US turned into 300,000,00 strong what are the odds that they would have included the fabulous (I JEST) 2nd Amendment with no restrictions so any sicko like Mr. Laughner the alleged Tuscon killer could do a repeat performance? Zero to none.
Just think about what Gettysburg would have looked like IF they all had AK47's and megga magazine clips and Glocks...so maybe the nation could have had a million dead in our bloody Civil War. No one but no one envisioned a nation with 300 million people and no one would have given the go ahead to have a revolution every 20 years.
Guess, what you gun huggers? GUNS KILL and those states that have the fewest gun owners like in the northeast have the fewest gun deaths. Funny thing about that. Statistics don't lie AND the man who went running in with his gun in Tuscon ready to take down the gunman BY HIS OWN ADMISSION would have taken down an innocent man who was trying to get the gun away from the bad guy. In the heat (pardon the pun) of the moment people shoot without knowing who the heck they are shooting at.
But no, people don't want statistics, they do not want reason. They just want their Glock to keep them warm at night. Well, the Glock will change one's temperature alright from 98.6 to room temperature COLD!!