All these objections sound like the 1960's, when people were asking why anyone would want a personal computer or a car phone (2ft square in the trunk of the car). Obviously they were not actually good for anything and never would be!

I read science fiction and had some idea, so you geeks should now, too.

Sure, I wasn't ready for a carry-around phone at that time. Lugging it around on my back did not sound good. And the home computers did not even have a screen and keyboard. But you would be amazed how fast they had some that were practical, if a bit pricey.

By the time these people are ready to go, there will probably be people there to buy what they make. Today doesn't matter for that, they aren't ready to start yet anyway. And whatever you think the world is like, the only thing you know about the future is that it will be different (mostly). I know, I've seen it change already... 8-)

Thanks for the "sarcasm" tags. They actually do help! 8-)

Actually, you have it backwards. The Founders strongly opposed the idea of a government Standing Army. There was only an army during the war, it was disbanded afterward. There was -only- supposed to be civilian militia, no Army. They did keep a Navy because they had to maintain the ships, I think.

They did make a standing army later, I think maybe 1812 but it might not have been until the Civil War.

That was because one or more of the CDC reserchers was caught lying about the data. look it up...

That argument may be plausable by the syntax, but is not Historically correct. Read the debates they had.

By the way, the words "well regulated", in this context, means regular or using the same ammunition, parts and uniform clothing. For ease of supply. It has nothing to do with laws, it means the civilian militia needs to have military equipment available.

Quote>... Even a well constructed sling shot can kill people or take out an eye, which is why we tend not to give them to young children to play with any more. ...

I really don't think even -that- CNC machine is that easy to set up.

I had a slingshot when I was a kid. It was quite capable of killing a squirrel, outright. Funny how, after I had that, the 1 or 2 bullies in the area didn't bother me any more. But I seldon shot at anything alive, and never at people. I never heard of anyone else shooting at people, either.

Kids did get hurt on bicycles, though. Did you know there was a movement to ban all bicycles? If you have a bicycle, can you imagine it being illegal, even for adults? Do you want to live in that kind of world?

Could it be, that the kids who never had slingshots or cap guns or bow and arrow, are the ones who wave around guns like toys, if they get hold of one?

I think the line is more about journalists than liberals. 8-)
But that is true, gun ownwership is not a liberal vs conservative issue. Gun owners that complain about all liberals might be yelling at people that are on their side, at least on this issue.

Gun "control", and other things, are issues about "control" of the population vs freedom. Unfortunatly, the politicians seem to divide up the issues without reguard to which side is for freedom, as though they just drew straws. Liberals for freedom on one issue, conservatives for freedom on another issue...

Maybe it is just that people are for freedom on things that know about and for control on things they -don't- know about?

To quote a line from the NRA, "Vote for Freedom first."

What makes you, or the man, think that -he- is safe there?

If you want to be (reasonably) safe, don't go in unsafe places. And, learn safe and accurate Gun Handling. 8-)
Most people walk around in a dream world where no bad thing can happen. Most of the time they get away with it, but it's not real.

On the other hand, real criminals are (usually) few and rare. Most people are polite and helpful, except maybe in the big cities. If your friends are rude and rough with you, maybe they -are- criminals. Don't stay around people you don't like, it's not worth the trouble. There are plenty of others...

You don't actually know that. There is a small but non-zero chance that it -does- make things worse! I would not recommend taking the chance, if you end up seeing lots of flames and melted sulphur, there is no way back. At least no one showed up here afterwards...

Also note that the statistics said by the "Gun Banners" are rather suspect, since several of them have said in public that is is necessary to lie about the data in order to convince people of their claims. 8-{

And of course, most of thir claims have been disproved many years ago, but they continue to claim them anyway...

You have a good point, it all depends on how accurate your targeting is. If you can hit the assailant and not hit bystanders, then it is good. If you are not so sure, then best to hold your fire until you can manuver to get a better sight picture.

No one has mentioned how good the targeting for the Cyber team is, but it is probably secret.

All of that happens now...
And if there is only one report on a subject, then it is too early to make laws.
Keeping in mind, that the US government is designed to -prevent- laws being made too fast or too often.

And the same for the Dems, of course...

Um... If you can't prove it, then you don't really -know- it.

I can't prove that the big corporations are pushing the idea of human-caused global warming because they think they could sell more fossile fuel in an ice age. But, how would you like laws and regulations to be made on that basis, anyway???

That was during the 60's and 70's, it was considered Liberal and Progressive. And Innovative. Also, it made good publicity, in the sense that there is no such thing as bad publicity for a productuion.