I am sorry as hell about these kids. All of them. But I have to agree with the "Where the hell are the parents?"

The anti-handgun folks do a lot of projecting. Don't need handguns to hunt animals? Well, no, not to go LOOKING for them, but they can afford quick protection from them at close quarters. Has anybody who wants to take my pistol away ever stepped out on the back porch and met a pair of five- or six-foot rattlesnakes in the spring? They're half-blind; they're hungry; they're loaded with venom and mean at that time of year. They are not going to be shy and let me chase them away. I can call Animal Control and hope they arrive before the snakes find some child or neighborhood pet; I can take a hoe and risk my own life going after them. I can get the shotgun out and do damage to everthing around me. Or I can do the logical thing and take them out with two rounds from a .38. I've met coyotes, mean ones, in my own back yard during hard winters, and I live well within the city limits. Never had to kill one, but I've had to wave the pistol at them. They know, believe me, if you're armed or not (smart critters).

The pistol was originally called a "horse pistol" and was designed to kill horses, very popular with cowboys, and still is for the same reason: shooting the horse beats being dragged to death with your foot caught in the stirrup.

You may live in London or New York or L.A. -- and don't feel the need for handgun protection from wild animals. I live elsewhere, and I do. Get yourself laws, fine. But kindly leave mine alone.

Treating the U.S. Constitution as a menu -- "I like this Article, but I don't care for this one, so let's drop it" -- is another matter entirely...

Sarah