Han wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in
:
Han wrote:
"Leon" wrote in
:
"Han" wrote in message
...
Swingman wrote in news:AaKdnX4ygp-
:
Exactly. But that is not my question. Why did an innocent guard
at a museum have to die? Why did all those people in the Murrah
building in Oklahoma City have to die? Or is that the risk of
living?
Might want to rethink that question. Do you know of any one that
will not eventually die? I suspect that more people die of natural
causes than from weapons. Being killed has always been and will
always be a risk of living.
I don't understand. I am the fatalist, I believe that when your
number is up, you're gonzo. But does that mean that we have to
condone lunatics who hatch murderous plans?
So what do you propose to do about them?
We are paying the FBI to prevent terrorism, and we have monitors
exmining websites. People who openly advertise that they are crazy
(as von Brunn did on his website) should not be allowed to possess
firearms.
It is unlawful for anyone who has been adjudicated mentally defective to
possess a firearm. What are you proposing, that anyone who expresses an
unpopular opinion on a Web side be adjudicated mentally defective?
Tell us how to draft such a statute so that one could not have _you_
declared mentally defective on the basis of your continued off-topic
rantings on this newsgroup.
In addition, I am afraid that airport-type controls should
be instituted at places like the Holocaust museum(s). The ubiquitous
presence of firearms permits too many crazies to go around killing
people. If you don't want to limit firearms possession, we'll all
have to live in an armed defensive camp.
Or maybe we just train security guards to a high enough standard that some
decrepit old codger won't get the drop on them.
Why are you singling out that one murder as being of such vast significance?