What do YOU prefer? A gunman shooting at you with several kids there and you with no arms destined to die OR having a gun with the chance that a miss may hit someone else that would have been killed by the gunman to begin with.<quoted text>lol! Right.
I have yet to hear the acceptable level of collateral damage cons are will to have. For some reason, I don't believe they want to discuss that... only playing policeman is all.
How is your presidents "collateral damage" with kids in Pakistan? Can you tell me how many kids he has to kill in order to get to one "terrorist"? Seems like the only ones who are TRULY in favor of collateral damages when it counts is you liberals.