Could you explain why you think his two analogies are not appropriate? You simply state it as a fact and then go on to give two analogies that are far less appr

Could you explain why you think his two analogies are not appropriate? You simply state it as a fact and then go on to give two analogies that are far less appropriate in my view. Your first analogy is not even seem to be about deliberate use of technology to harm others but about some advertising after a horrible accident. While advertising is a theme in the original article posted it has nothing to do with the points the gp is arguing with his analogies. Your second while more reasonable is still I think less appropriate then the gp. A fully loaded 747 jet is far more leathal then a pressure cooker bomb or a commercial truck attack. Also many many people do think that that regulations/security in airports are heavy handed. As far as I can tell the only reason you view his analogies as inappropriate is they don't support the conclusion you want to draw. Also I would like to point out that accses/ownership to pressure cookers, trucks, nuclear power, and air-travel are not constitutional protected whereas gun ownership very explicitly is. I am all for talking about removing/modifying the 2nd amendment through the constitutional amedment process I just not for pretending like it's not there .