Now Dick lets take your points
1The right under your constitution as I read it is as part of a regulated militia.
and I see that you put your right to own a gun, which you have never used in anger, ahead of a child's life. Is that a Christian response?
2How may times have you used or even brandished your weapon?
3 Oh dear, you would have been a lot better off losing the War of Independence
4 Whose kidding who?
5 Well the idea is to control all guns, it wont happen , the real bad guys will always find away, but then they wont be interested in you. Remind me again how many times have you needed you gun?
6 .
I can't help feeling that this is not what you meant to write but I wont be presumptuous and suggest an alternative.
Brian
Regulated militia:
Brian, you little Brian you. That’s what the anti-guns in our country try and use. Being I had one little course in high school on law, and one little course in college on law it dis-bars me (pun intended) from being a constitution lawyer. I leave it up to the experts, and they say it is not talking about the regulated militia having guns, but that we all can. The experts, of course, are those that agree with me. Before anybody jumps on that, I am well aware that some so called lawyers don’t agree with our well trained, well educated, well focus legal experts.
Which you have never used in anger:
I am sure there is a nuance there but I will have to plead ignorance.
Child’s life:
Quite contra, I would use my heat to protect any child, anywhere, before my own life.
Is that a Christian response?:
Chapter and Verse: I don’t think you want to go there Brian. I could be wrong, and I don’t want to brag, but I think you are out classed.
You lost me on number 3 also. I think the problem might be that Brit nuance, and Yank nuance are a little different, of course we can’t rule out my stupidity.
Ok you got me on number 6. I am going to blame it on my spell checker. It doesn’t correct what I want it to mean, it only correct to, to, to well you k now?