@BillRM,
If you were to read my posts more carefully Bill you might notice that I referred to General Washington using my normal "tongue in cheek" manner.
But Mr Franklin not only gave his salary away to charity but he refused to profit from his invention of the lightning rod and his stove. Which gives a neat guide to how far you all from that most distinguished Founding Father. Like as far as it is possible to get. Which gives a neat guide to how idiotic it is to cite the Constitution to prop up some argument or other as a strategy to avoid propping up the argument with the real reasons which seem to me in this case to be--
a. Guns as an extension of sexual potency which is a big enough nuisance to begin with as an overview of the battlefield on which the bodies, mangled remains and last gaspers are strewn clearly shows. Why any normal man would seek to tweak his potency upwards I cannot imagine. Being a big softee and getting the sand kicked in your face brings out the very best in the most admirable type of woman. And as long as you have done your stint where guns are more important than boots, though not by a lot, the big softee side has permission thereafter. Being pitied is not as bad as it is often made out to be. All the women in my circle talk about their menfolk as if they are hamsters.
b. Guns as a protection against one's fellow man. The money and effort expended on the guns etc being the minimum required to achieve, or feel to be achieving, that objective. Bargain hunters will all agree with that. Expenditure over and above that minimum, a gold-coloured embroidery pattern on the leather of the holster for example, coming under section a. (see above). Or, as in Mr Holmes' case, as a measure of how scared witless of one's fellow men one has come to be. Which suggests that his body protection is normal for somebody as scared out of their wits as he must have been.
It logically follows that those citizens not wearing the kit Mr Holmes was wearing are not as scared of their fellow man as they make out they are. So those who do not wear such kits in the normal course of affairs, where it is not known who is or isn't packing, are doing
faux scared witless and thus can be referred to section a. (see above).
Any psychologist analysing the loving attention paid in some of the posts here to the mechanics and the masculine words of technological jabbing sounds like Glock would go for a. in every case.
I don't think Sir Hohn Harrington received any royalties from his invention of the flush toilet without which modern cities are impossible. As a gentleman he installed the first one in his Godmother's chambers before completing his own. One really ought to keep track of the important events in history.
Try making a flush toilet starting from scratch. In your minds I mean.
