- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
If 33 isn't a good number to cause the unlimited Second Amendment types to pause then what is the right number? I ask that honestly. These events appear to creep up; 15, 19, 33 and so on. So if 33 isn't a good number what is? 41? 54? 79? 115?
What's a good number to at least get them to engage the question of whether the Second Ammendment truly is open ended? I wonder where the backlash will occur? If the next attack kills 5 dozen children will that be enough? If a crazed lone gunman kills 145 people at a football game, will that be enough? This shooter shot 60 people armed with only 2 handguns. Two. A friend of mine had 17 guns stolen from his house. 17. All modern semi automatic so clearly there are people out there with personal stockpiles of dozens of weapons.
See it's no longer about the old argument of having laws versus enforcing laws. It's about the pure numerical threshold for violence people have. How much? It's an honest question. Are you comfortable with not knowing where that limit is? And if there is no limit that the 'defenders' are willing to engage then what? Are we comfortable living where no amount of mass murder will trigger some sort of legal response?
