Summations Only

There wasn't much to reply to.Artillery is run by a crew not an individual.And the 2nd amendment doesn't "allow" for anything. It just says to not infringe on the Peoples' right to have guns.Other laws are what disallow people from having grenade launchers. Google "destructive device".

It doesn't "just say" that. It also provides a clear rationale, that the security of a free State needs a well regulated Militia. The relevance of the 2nd amendment evaporated when the military began providing firearms to soldiers.But independent of that argument there seems no reason everyone shouldn't be in favor of improvements to gun technology that address the safety issue. The simplest safety innovation appeared long ago, aptly named the safety, but it is obviously insufficient. Guns that a 2-year old can fire to kill his mother (or anyone nearby) shouldn't be legal.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

This is simply not the case, according to the thinking of the founding generation, quotes from whom I listed all the way back in Message 57. Note what Patrick Henry said for instance, and George Mason. Note the phrase "the whole people" and the like. ALL the citizens were considered to be granted the right. And Alexander Hamilton described the militia as NOT under the control of the states as they are now considered to be. The technology was already installed on that very gun, but she'd left the safety lock unlocked. Technology can't solve the problem of human error, with guns or cars or chainsaws or any machinery that is capable of killing.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Obviously others disagreed, because none of this thinking managed to find its way into the 2nd amendment. You have this incredible ability to be incredibly wrong (and then to argue forever anyway). Obviously technology *can* and *has* been used to overcome human error and unreliability, especially with cars, but also with guns and chainsaws and much else, for example, airbags, fingerprint detection and chain guards.--Percy

That's why it's safer. You don't have one goober pointing it at his best friend and pulling the trigger.

Excuse me, but let me correct your ridiculous misimpression: I surely could not have meant that technology can't accomplish ANYTHING, but that there is a limit to how much technology could protect against human error. and my suspicion is that that limit has been reached with respect to guns. If you think not, then please roll out your idea for better safety technology.When you find out what the founders thought the second amendment meant, surely we can assume that it is embodied in the amendment itself and they understood it that way. It is we who have a problem with it, not they.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

and yet the founders were as much sinners as you and I. There is no superior enlightenment that the founders had more than anyone else.

So what they're sinners? But they WERE more enlightened, don't be so obtuse. They were head and shoulders above today's politicians intellectually and they had a grasp of historical realities that have been lost completely today, especially to the left.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It was The Good Old Days.

Please explain this.

Well, y'know, they had the broad historical perspective to see how America would get on after the eighteenth century, something that "the left" clearly lacks, specially the historians. But you can find out what the Founding Fathers knew simply by asking David Barton.

I'm not a fan of David Barton.

I know --- at the New World Order HQ we have it penciled in to your dossier as your sole redeeming feature.

What you should be correcting is your own ridiculous statement: "Technology can't solve the problem of human error..." I'm going to stand by what I said before: You have this incredible ability to be incredibly wrong (and then to argue forever anyway). We did this already. Your memory is seriously slipping. Given your inability to say what you mean, who knows what you're trying to say here. But the founder's meaning is pretty clear. The rationale for the right to keep and bear arms is the necessity of a militia for state security. Once the military began providing weapons to soldiers the 2nd amendment lost its purpose.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

The pen is mightier than the sword. Unless the sword being referred to is the word of God.Personally, regarding fantasy scenarios etc...If the planet is in fact involved in a spiritual war...by this I mean if one group of people wish to oppress another group of people...guns won't solve the problem.Many of today's Christians are knowingly or unknowingly in love with the idea of blind patriotism. Some even see Christianity as patriotic and very American.The fact is, however..that Jesus never was an American...nor even of the standard Western mindset.Guns, however...are.