A collectivist ninny in the "field of Peace and Conflict Transformation" has a modest proposal: "Repeal the Second Amendment." My comment (although I doubt it will stay up long.
Starting a bloody civil war seems an odd way to "fight gun violence." In fact, if you want to see what real "gun violence" is, try to repeal the Second Amendment and watch the carnage that results. C'mon. We'll make it easy -- we won't fire the first shot. Your side, if you want to get what you want, must do that. Of course, given the ironclad Law of Unintended Consequences, intellectual apologists for tyranny such as yourself are unlikely to survive such a conflict, so does that make you brave or stupid? I'm leaning toward suicidally stupid, but you tell me. Follow through on your logic at least and tell us how many uncompromising firearm owners' deaths (and of their families) do you require before you would consider such a benighted, benevolent proposal requiring the iron hand of state violence against its own citizens to have been worth it? A hundred thousand? A million? Six million? Ten? If you want to get your way, you will have to kill us first. Just tell us how many of our deaths you require, you bloodthirsty collectivist. How many? Think it through and give us an answer now. -- Mike Vanderboegh, Pinson, AL