Something else, I  heard Bill O'Reily say gun deaths are the price of freedom in the US. Maybe so, but I heard a lot of people ready to crucify him over that comment.

However, how many people go online and read how to commit suicide and then do it? Or how to commit fraud? How many elderly are easily robbed by being hacked?  Didn't a girl 'text' her ex-boyfriend to committing suicide?

Honestly, just how much more violence is there in the USA because of the immediate access information, and certainly to information that is false? Here in St Louis, we are still having protest over police shootings and much of that anger is over events that never occurred yet were widely disseminated online to a gullible audience. Hands up Don't shoot is one. In the latest case, there is a false believe of a 'kill shot' from 6" away from the victim's head that never happened. But 99% of these idiots blocking freeways here in St Louis believe it happened. Some nut is going to kill a St Louis cop and it will be because of the false news spreading.

We would never consider doing away with the internet or texting because of these events which have caused more harm so why guns? Because their more visible, more easily tracked?

Let the conspiracy games begin...

Serowbot wrote on 10/03/17 at 16:14:13:


+1 about the bump stocks, no so about the rest.

Serowbot wrote on 10/03/17 at 16:32:27:

justin_o_guy2 wrote on 10/03/17 at 16:30:30:

You can't be taught what the Second Amendment is meant to accomplish.

"..that being a well regulated militia. That one?....

   a well regulated militia.

The word, ‘Militia’, was,  YOU AND ME.
 Not what it means today

The word, ‘Regulated’, was that group, that town, that Township,  (whatever the group was), HAD the SAME,  sized ammunition, so anyone could use anyone else’s supply.
 Not what it means today

The word, ‘GAY’,  Was that a person was HAPPY, all the time.
  Not what it means today.

So because the meaning of a word has changed, YOU,
have decided the Meaning, of a word,
in a statement that word is used in, has changed ????

   The 2nd is to make sure the 1st Stays.
   And Not from the King, but from H.R.C.


Saying:  ‘He used a Gun’,     (So we have to  BAN  GUNS)
 IS  EXACTLY, the same as.
“‘Someone Robed a Bank and they had a Red Car”
 “So  let’s BAN,  ‘Red’ Cars, and their will be, NO  More  Bank  Robberies”. !!!!!!

Serowbot wrote on 10/03/17 at 22:12:21:

The times are a changing, once again old threats are new again.
In their time it was expected that a "militia" could be formed at a ring of a bell to respond to an attack by an outside force.  And the people were expected to know how to fire a weapon.  They lived in a land where a threat whether it be man or beast could appear in a heart beat.
In our time, beasts still roam the land even in my neighborhood bears can present themselves without warning.  And jihadi's can arise at a whim with illegally modified weapons banned in California and purchased by stawmen.
Should I only be limited to muzzle loaded weapons because that's what the founders had?  Get real, we don't live on an island where arms can be limited.  National confiscation would do no good, we would be at risk to a reverse fast and furious.  And with a border so porous that illegals cross at will, how will you prevent the cartel from doing what they do?
And limiting to muzzle loaders would defeat the intent that the populous be skilled in the operation of weapons.  These skills can only be had by experience.
And yes, leadership should be afraid of a populous wronged.

Read the Federalist Papers and other writings of the time. There's simply no misunderstanding the intent of the 2nd amendment. We have the right to arm ourselves to protect us from the Federal Government.

And if you go down the road of State Militias and thinking the individual states can arm themselves, that ship sailed a long time ago when the 10th Amendment has all but been ignored. In other words, Missouri's national guard is not a state militia in that sense.

Regarding muzzle loaders, it's worth pointing out that at the time, the citizens and armies had mostly equal weapons. No, they couldn't have foreseen AR-15's, but a citizenry armed with AR15's, shotguns, hunting rifles etc... can defend themselves against a modern army. Don't think so? Why couldn't the Russians and later the US crush the enemy in Afghanistan all those years ago? Unless you're willing to bomb cities into dust, armed civilians could defend the US.

 Anyone that's spent any time in urban combat will tell you that you aren't going to make an accurate assessment of weapon type due to echo alone, let alone deciphering it on a recording that is not even near the weapon(s) being used.

 Gun range Rangers have a ton of knowledge about guns until its used against them.

But I'm supposed to believe what I'm told, or I'm a conspiracy theorist.