Ruston Easton continues his assault on the Second Amendment:

What I said was the INTENTION of the law was written for militias before there was any real "law enforcement agencies." And, yes, it does matter that no handguns or semi-automatic weapons existed at the time. And no, you can't apply the "there was no internet either, so they would have changed the 1st amendment if they knew about it," either. The internet doesn't kill people.

First, Ruston tries to twist the intention of the Founding Fathers to fit his argument. Lets look at the Bill of Rights. The first eight Amendments secure individual freedoms and liberties. Amendments 1 through 8 refer to an individual's right to expression and religion, right to bear arms, protection from quartering soldiers, protection against government searches and seizures, right to due process and compensation for takings, right to a speedy trial and confrontation of witnesses, right to trial by jury, and protection from cruel and unusual punishment. Amendment 9 even adds that these individual rights are not the only rights an individual has. However, Ruston would have you believe that even though all these other rights are specifically listed as individual rights, and even though the Second Amendment specifically states that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed," the Framers of the United States Constitution were actually referring to the 'state', AND, they were so careless, that they said 'people', when they actually meant to say 'state'.

The whole of that Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals...[I]t establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of. -- Albert Gallatin to Alexander Addison, Oct 7, 1789. src

Second, Ruston tries to say that advancements in firearms makes a difference. Not so. Your right to bear arms is an unalienable right of self protection and preservation. It is NOT a right to bear a vintage model long-bore mussel loading musket manufactured in 1798 . Just as criminals are carrying advanced firearms, so should you, to defend yourself and keep them in check.

Third, Ruston tries to demonize and personify guns as being a 'cause' of crime by saying the "internet doesn't kill people." Well, Ruston, firearms, SUVs, and fatty foods don't kill people. It is what PEOPLE DO with those inanimate objects that kills people.

Fourth, as for the internet killing people, you might as well say newspapers never killed anyone either. While you can argue back and forth the indirect involvement of media and communication in wars and crime, the point you made is a non sequitur. Don't bother grabbing your dictionary, that simply means that one point has nothing to do with the other. While comparing the advancements in media to the advancements in firearms IS logical when discussing the First vs. Second Amendments standing the test of time, it is quite ILLOGICAL (and incorrect), to say that an implement of freedom of speech never killed anyone, because that is not what we were discussing. It would be like me saying you can't use a typewriter to hunt a turkey.

Ruston, you like most liberals, speak from abject fear and emotion. I don't know whether or not you have ever handled a firearm, much less used one. I do know that liberals are very quick to try to take away or limit the very freedoms that I enjoy. While they may have the noblest of intentions, the proof is in the pudding. Crime is not caused by guns. We've had crime since the beginning of time, and will continue to have it with or without the availability of firearms.

I do know one thing for sure, guns are a great equalizer and deterrent. Unarmed, a 5' 100 lb woman doesn't stand much of a chance against a 6' 5" 300 lb man. Let her buy a snub nose .38 and learn how to defend herself with it, and you'd be surprised at how fast that man runs away. Sprinkle a few of those well armed and capable women around the city, and you'll be surprised at how many attackers think twice before trying to make one of them their victim. In fact, they'll probably leave that city, in search of easier prey. They may even turn up in your neighborhood, where liberals have been so kind as to disarm their victims for them.