Replies

It is interesting to note that among the people mentioned by the article as being on "the list" are a number of actors who have "starred" in action films using weapons to deal out gratuitous violence to their enemies. A way to communticate their opposition, or just more mercenarial hypocrisy? Of course, maybe Alec Baldwin was showing his opposition to firearms violence when he advocated stoning a man and his family to death because Baldwin disagreed with him.

It is unlikely that the extremists on either side will be swayed (Susan White's "Through the Looking Glass" artile linked in post 12 is a rare look at such a person) unless, as with White, they are subjected to some sort of person initiation into the helplessness and lack of self-determination that being victimized instills. And with many of today's liberal theologies, victimization often brings with it guilt for having somehow invited a criminal's intrusion. In truth, anti-gunners rely on some degree of insulation or distancing from any crime. Such examples are Rosie O'Donnell's insistance that while she is against firearms ownership, her hired guards should be armed, or Diane Feinstein's opposition to firearms while she herself has security guards AND a permit to carry the revolver in her purse. Intrusion by a criminal generally comes when that insulation or distancing breaks down and the firearms opponent enters the part of the world where the majority of us have to live.

I'm sorry, but there are way too many hypocrites who oppose firearms ownership for ME, but want it for THEMSELVES. I'll just hang on to what I've got.

OBTW--there is no "NEED" mentioned in the 2nd Amendment, nor is there any "IF". There is only a "SHALL NOT". What part of that is confusing?