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?
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.
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.
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.