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.
When it comes to bombers, an oppressive law is a good thing.