... using "The Manchurian Candidate" as the trigger. Preferably, the 1962 version of the film.

It was largely a cottage industry in the nation which instituted the Second Amendment, and evidence would suggest the founders of that nation were not overly concerned with governing the affairs of Europe. That had to wait until the Marshall Plan.

Upon reflection, I see where you have misinterpreted the tenor of my "plinking cans" comment. Plinking cans, or match shooting for another example, are commonly regarded as recreational pastimes not necessarily pursuant to the use of the firearm in other applications. It was in that capacity that I intended it, not as a general reference to target practice, as you appear to have taken it.

The first point was that the initial adoption of pistols was primarily by outlaws, while the cavalry examples you cite were later developments.

The rifle was, for example, developed for the hunting of game. It's use in a military capacity had to wait until the advent of the American Revolution.

So your defense is that any target practice validates a weapon as not intended to kill humans? If then, we use Sarin to kill some gophers, is it henceforth alright to use it on people?

The cavalry you mention were primarily marauders and highwaymen which can only loosely be called cavalry. Regardless, the purpose of the arm was the destruction of human life. You may wish to note that plinking cans developed somewhat later.

I apologize for my error in specifying the First Amendment; I meant to say Second Amendment. The Second Amendment states, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Side arms are not generally considered pivotal to the maintenance of a militia, the stated focus of the amendment's intent. Pistols were first developed in in 16th Century France, their primary use was by highwaymen.

Perhaps it's worth noting that, when the Second Amendment was instituted, gunsmithing and the manufacture of firearms was a cottage industry. On the flip side, it's probably fair to say the founders were most interested in the protection of long arms, not handguns. The pistol was developed for the sole purpose of the destruction of human life; not so with long arms, though initial development mainly concentrated on that purpose. .

Cyborgs.

Do you imagine the pun was intentional?

I am not backpedaling in the least. A scientist who makes his living promoting a scientific position is compromised in providing assessment of that position, period. The quotes aren't to scare, they are to point out the dubious nature of the science they promote. The only scientists in love with nuclear power are nuclear scientists making their living off nuclear technology. That's not to say that nuclear does not have some advantage over such as fossil fuels, as with the greenhouse gases, but the rosy view of nuclear we have been fed since the 1950s has been in large measure hype. Of course, the greenhouse gas problem is the result of science disregarding the ramifications of the work of John Tyndall for a century-and-a-half.

If you are going to impugn someone else's intellectual integrity, you had best develop some intellect and integrity of your own.

News of the World or something? They can't get away with this; Rupert Murdoch doesn't even own them!

As an addendum, since you cite financial gain as the mechanism of intellectual corruption, let me ask: How many nuclear scientists do you think make a living by decrying nuclear technology?

No, I spoke of "scientific integrity", which is a narrower subject, by far. And it doesn't really matter how many or by what means they are bought off, does it? Far more minds are subverted by the arguments they want to hear than by pure financial gain, though that is rarely far behind.

You can be sure that nuclear power is safe when those advocating it choose to house their families and themselves at the generation facilities and waste repositories.

We have long been told that science had nuclear technology in the bag, be it for military or civilian use. Of course, at the same time "scientists" have told us there was no link between smoking and cancer, or, more recently, between human activities and global warming.

It is little wonder that the public distrusts scientists, (unless, of course, they say what the public wants to hear), for many put their integrity up for sale. To paraphrase Twain, "There are lies, damned lies, and science." It is truly sad for those who recognize the importance of scientific integrity.