To John in Springfield: If your job requires you to rescue people from dangerous, life-threatening situations -- and you do so -- why are you a hero?
Did YOU choose to go into a line of work which might require you to rescue people from dangerous, life-threatening situations? If it does, have you actually put your own life on the line to protect others?
And if you've actually run towards the sound of gunfire yourself, then maybe you have room to say that Kim Munley, who risked her life and is hospital for it, is not a hero.
If not, then frankly, maybe you'd do better to put a sock in it on this particular point, earlier rather than later.
And let me ask you another question: Do we have ANY war heros? Do you think such a thing exists?
Our soldiers who run towards the sound of gunfire, who protect our country, keep freedom safe and lay their lives on the line... they're not heroes either, are they? They're getting paid to do what they do. By your definition, they're "only doing their jobs."
Therefore, by your definition, there are NO soldiers who are heroes, except maybe those who are drafted instead of volunteering to serve (which, incidentally, makes ZERO sense.)
By your definition, there were NO heroes among our firefighters or policemen in New York City on 9/11, either - only people who were doing the jobs they got paid for.
By your definition, the ONLY heroes on earth are those who risk their lives to save someone when they aren't getting paid to do it.
I'm sorry, but I think the vast majority of Americans would strenuously disagree.
If your job requires you to rescue people from dangerous, life-threatening situations -- and you do so -- why are you a hero?
And by the way, why would you tell me to "put a sock in it" regarding this particular point?
Do you always try to bully others to stifle debate?