I note that you don't address my point about your reasoning resulting in letting criminals define the law. What do you say about that? I also note that you have dropped your insistence that you want to "ban" modern firearms, and I am still waiting for the term you would apply. Do you have one, or will you continue to ignore the fact that this is what you are advocating?
As far as the old lady goes, accidents happen. Unfortunately. Does the fact that one accident occured with one firearm mandate the restriction of them all? Sounds like you think so. And you know what? You can make all the laws in the world, and accidents will still happen. Unfortunately.
Your intepretation of the "general welfare" clause again betrays a mindset tutored by the political left. At this juncture in American history, it's safe to say that clause can be renamed the "anything goes" clause.
I think that you have been living in a "blue state" too long, and have allowed to much leftist-think to penetrate your thinking. I can sympathize, having lived in California for almost 20 years. It was hard to resist.
Your Islamic mutterings are beneath contempt, and are unworthy of response, as you doubtless already realize.
I neglected to respond to the comment about my use of the Islamic terrorists in my earlier response to Joe's remarks.
There is nothing "beneath contempt" about it. It is a realization that certain things cannot be allowed.