If, indeed, we’re meant to live with such liberties pertaining to deadly weapons, then it seems fair to expect some sort of incumbent responsibility on the part of the beneficiaries.

The Bush administration seems to feel, for example, that protections against unreasonable search and seizure (warrant-less wiretaps “because we say so”) and that even moldier and dustier relic, habeas corpus, are dangerous nuisances in an era of Global Terror - and that’s saying nothing of those stifling checks on executive authority requiring Our Dear Deciderer to generally uphold the laws he signs into force rather than footnoting his signature with an enumeration of aspects his administration will selectively ignore.

You must consequently feel some pangs of hidden shame, then, for using like tactics; what is the Second Amendment if not “quaint” (like the Geneva Conventions, to co-opt an alumnus of Mr. Bush’s administration), you ask, and what is the menace to society of unchecked gun possession if not descent into total mayhem?

On the question of the NRA, I agree they are a threat to gun laws enacted in the name of public safety everywhere. Thank God!