Frankly, it's pretty obvious you are trying to raise an argument where there is none, but if you want to step over the edge of the planet and start defending bombers, go right ahead. That'll put you in company with Algore and Billzo Clinton.
Frankly, it's pretty obvious you are trying to raise an argument where there is none --
At # 29 you initiated an argument about the article:
"-- doubting the "conclusions" in such pieces ~ not necessarily the "facts" or "factoids", but the secondary results of too-casual analysis of the situation.
Frankly, once you've missed being "bombed" you develop a clear-cut aversion to the idea that bombers should be allowed to run loose. --"
Now you're claiming I'm defending bombers:
"-- but if you want to step over the edge of the planet and start defending bombers, go right ahead. That'll put you in company with Algore and Billzo Clinton. --"
Get a grip. I'm arguing against oppressive laws, you're arguing for them.