okay, Peter et al, point taken re: handguns...I see now what I should have said was "handguns that fire multiple rounds quickly without taking time to reload a huge unwieldy metal ball." The point is, the "right to bear arms" when applied to a time when weapons were so slow-loading is a whole different thing from applying it to a time when guns can fire multiple rounds with clips and at semi- or fully automatic speed. Much faster for killing people. Most unsportsmanlike when used for hunting.

As for the free speech thing, well, first of all, I do not apply logic subjectively if I can avoid it. But your point is well taken because obviously we do now have a lot of legal impications when considering privacy and freedom of speech on the internet. And I do think the amendment dictating the confines of free speech should be overhauled just as I believe the second amendment should be, to keep in pace with the times. 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. 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.