But I think you are changing the subject, which is that our laws as they stand are not helping prevent the psychotic public massacres that lax gun laws allow.

If the enactment of very strict, prohibitive gun laws were likely to cause all the nutcases, all the really evil people, and all the just plain angry+stupid people to form neat lines at the police stations to turn in their weapons, you might have a point. But somehow I think that the people who could most be trusted with guns would be the only ones to obey the laws and give theirs up, and the ones that shouldn't have them would be the last to give them up, and the first to buy more on the immense black market that would spring into existence. Good liberals sneer at the "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" bumper sticker. Then when you ask them what the logical flaw in it is, they mumble.

I mean, you can't kill a bunch of people all at once by hurling a computer at them. I think comparing the two points is somewhat impertinent.

No, it's exactly the same point. Either you construe the Bill of Rights as applying only to technology in existence at the time of its enactment, or as following the advances in technology. But you can't construe two adjacent amendments in opposite ways, just because that's what you'd like them to mean, and retain your credibility.

Peter.