The father of this boy should be charged as an accessory. Bullies are more often made, not born. The parents, particularly fathers, of bullies tend to be bullies themselves and back up their offspring when they behave badly thus reinforcing the kid's sense that he is entitled to anything he wants. A little girl is dead because a boy who is a known bully chose to shoot her. When are we going to finally start holding parents responsible for the behavior of their children? Bullying has played a large part in mass shootings in this country. Often the shooters have been the victims of intensive bullying. Officials do not often intervene to control bullies and that is sad. Put a gun in the hands of a bully and someone is gonna die. This was a completely preventable crime. The boy was a known bully. The father knew that. Yet, the parents left a shotgun available in their home. At the least its negligence. I do favor some gun control measures, but more than that I favor letting parents know that if a gun is misused by their child they, too, will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I'll bet you'd see this sort of crime happen very rarely then.

The problem with locking the guns up: if someone actually needed the weapon, they might not be able to get to it in time for it to be used in self-defense. What, are the owners supposed to tell the criminal "Hold on a minute, I have to unlock the safe"? That's why some people don't have their guns locked up, even if they have children at home. We need to find a better solution to this gun business... no internet sales of guns or ammo. Limit the number of clips in a magazine...

There was a recent story involving a woman who kept a gun accessible in a drawer, but when someone broke into her home she was unable to get to it quickly enough, due to nerves and all the adrenaline pumping and all... Hiding guns in the home isn't a safe practice and if one has children the only way to protect them is to keep the gun locked up and unloaded. You are far more likely to have an accidental shooting in your home than you are to actually use a gun to ward off an intruder

arrest the parents for allowing the boy to have access to a gun!

Yet another gun shooting that could not have been stopped by a good guy with a gun.
(It could have been prevented with more responsible gun control by the parent.)

Please do not detract from the issue of gun access, even in jest.

It wasn't the gun that shot her, it was the boy who was told "no" by a girl that shot her.

A gun is a weapon that makes the act of killing someone exponentially easier to do, both physically and psychologically. To claim that the gun is 100% irrelevant is asinine.

Please do not detract from the issue of a cultural sense of male entitlement leading to violence against women

It's quite a stretch to say that this boy thought "How dare she question my male-supremacy?! She deserves to be shot for that!" These are CHILDREN we're talking about. He was a child, who got upset over a childish matter, and with the NOT insignificant help of a gun, took his childish emotions out on her.

In a cultural sense, the boy doesn't have to think it through.

It's true that this was a child upset over a childish matter using lethal force to take out his childish emotions on another child.

However, punishing a woman for saying "no" to you does not require maturity of thought, maturity of emotions, or a serious matter to prompt the 'no'-- it's just something you learn at your father's knee or get disproved to you by being turned over his knee-- so as far as the impact of culture goes on individual behaviour, Friesjones is probably right if he thinks it was a factor.

The parents should be charged with accessory to murder.

Nothing to see here folks...just another gun owner who couldn't seem to find a way to keep his 12 gauge out of the hands of his child.

Simply tragic.....two lives destroyed because a parent didn't have a 5 dollar trigger lock on his guns.

I think it's safe to say at this point that there are plenty of people not smart enough to lock up their guns and this is going to continue unabated until we start throwing people in jail over it.

They need to start charging parents like this with negligence.

Not just negligence. Negligent Homicide.That 11 year old's parents are just as much to blame for having a weapon accessible to this obviously troubled child.

It's called bad parenting, not keeping gun secure, and not properly educating their kid on gun safety. I hate bullies and the kid is going to get what he deserves but the boys parents should also be charged with assisting in a murder.

Absolutely, Parents have to take more responsible for their kids.

So much for having a gun in the home to keep the family safe. 2 families devastated for what? But the boy's second Amendment rights to have access to a weapon are no doubt secure.

I'm from the south and I can guarantee that this little bastard's family isn't nothing but white trash and trailer trash.

If you want to repeal the 2nd Amendment, please sign and share.

https://www.credomobilize.c...

The First Amendment only guarantees the government won't jail you for your speech. Go sit down and actually read the Constitution for the first time in your life. It's obvious you never have, particularly the First and Second Amendments.

Amendment II-- Right to bear arms. Seems plain enough yes ? Well not so. O.K. now we read a little more. A well REGULATED Militia. The key word regulated. Militia not well defined. Is it cops ? is it National Guard ? Is it the Army ? Or is just everybody have guns ? Free State again not well defined. You could say, my land is a state. A state within a state. NO this Amendment needs a lot of work. Oh it will come some day.

This was put into place to prevent an out of control government.

No. Not true. US Government troops have put down rebellions & insurrections by force since the presidency of George Washington. And to "prevent an out of control government" is very vague. That could basically mean anything, such as taking up arms against the government if it does ANYTHING you disagree with, and implies to the right to insurrection.

Not the military, not the police, but the average citizen.

No, not the "average" citizen. That implies that anyone could be their own militia with no regulation whatsoever.

The point was to allow citizens to keep arms so that they could practice with them and then organize into a militia, that is to be well-regulated, by the government, a government by its people & for the people, in case there was to be an invasion by outside forces.

Historical context is important.The USA was vulnerable to the possibility of invading outside forces and did not have necessarily have a federal defense force capable of responding quickly (enough), and it wanted its citizens to be prepared in case this happened. The very concept of a local police, even within cities, wasn't very prevalent. So local (or rather State) militias were considered to be the best line of defense.

Let's address [the motivation of the individuals who use guns to kill their fellow human beings in cold blood]

Within the "1st world" (or developed countries), the USA does not have a disproportionately higher number of people who want to harm others. In fact, SOME 1st-world nations with either gun bans/severe restrictions on firearms, like Australia and the UK, have higher (non-fatal) violent crime rates. But USA's homicide rate is higher than everyone in the OECD, by far! The vast majority of which are committed with a handgun.

rather than what essentially is a tool.

A tool? A tool to do...what, exactly?

Take away the 4 cities with the most restrictive gun control laws and our homicide rate drops to 10th from the bottom of the list. This is saying the current gun control laws do not work.

Haha! Yeah...I've heard this EXACT argument before. Although some phrase it as "our 4 most violent cities/areas". But of course, your phrasing it as "4 cities with the most restrictive gun control laws", a phrase that is meant to ignore several basic facts.

Here are several problems with your statement

1. If we get to take away our "4 most violent cities/areas", then what about other countries? Do they get to take away their own "4 most violent cities" from the stats? You can't just say "well if it weren't for these areas, we'd have almost the lowest homicide rate" and NOT have those exact same rules apply to EVERY OTHER COUNTRY.

2. I assume that Chicago (one of the right-wing's favorite boogiemen) is on your list of the 4 cities with "the strictest gun control". When it comes to guns, these cities, like Chicago, have difficulties in dealing with gun violence, none of which have to do their own gun laws, for the following reasons...

a. Their gun laws, more often than not, DO NOT apply outside of the city limits (Chicago is probably the best example of this). And no, the state laws do not mirror the city laws. Some of these cities are also very close to other STATES with laxer gun laws. Many of these guns (particularly the illegally-obtained ones) come from outside of these cities, often by way of straw-purchasers.

b. And in relation to point A, law enforcement does not have any meaningful resources to help crack down on illegally-obtained guns, and this is mostly thanks to laws that the pro-gun lobby advocated for. There is no gun registry, no requirements of inspections, basically...nothing that can help law enforcement. On top of that, these cities aren't going to inspect every vehicle and/or individual coming into the city. The rules that we have for cars, for incomprehensible reasons, do not apply to guns.

Btw, I predict you're going to say "well a car isn't a guaranteed right in the US Constitution!!! WHAA!" A gun registry doesn't impede on that right, even if it does make you "afraid" to own a gun out of fear that the government will confiscate it.

3. ALL crime will occur in higher numbers and at higher rates in cities with populations that are high in both NUMBERS and density. Putting millions of people within a small space will put potential criminals and potential victims in close proximity to each other and make crime more likely to happen.

4. I assume that when you cite "strict gun control laws" as the problem, you're assuming that gun violence is occurring because too many victims of gun violence don't have guns themselves...BECAUSE of these laws. But this argument ignores these basic facts

a. So-called "defensive gun use" is almost non-existent and provides almost no benefit. Many of these incidents where "defensive gun use" occurs are often in conflicts where it kept escalating and escalating, not in these ridiculous scenarios (often cited by the gun lobby) where a mugger pulls a knife on John Doe and John Doe pulls out his gun.

b. A not insignificant percentage of people in these cities who are gunned down were often armed themselves. Much of this is gang violence. The guns on these victims didn't do them any good.

c. In relation to both points A & B, there is nothing that you're holstered gun with its safety off can do if your attacker also has a gun, and his gun and out, pointed at you, with its safety off. You may have heard this story a few months ago, about a man, celebrating his state's new open-carry law, being robbed of his own gun at...wait for it...GUNPOINT!

d. Does it occur to you that many many people just aren't interesting in owning a gun and carrying it around with them?

And let's look further afield and look at places you've brought up - Australia has banned guns entirely and yet somehow criminals still get guns to kill. The same thing with the UK. This demonstrates that gun bans do not work either.

Actually the UK & Australia has banned handguns, autos, semi-autos, and assault firearms. As far as I'm aware of, simple shotguns and hunting rifles are still permitted, but not without strictly enforced rules and restrictions.

But about your statement, as usual, there are problems

1. Just because something is illegal, it doesn't mean that 100% of the population won't do it. Yes, somehow, criminals still get their hands on these guns. Does it happen ANYWHERE near the scale of the USA? No! Gun violence is still minuscule, statistically insignificant.

2. In relation to point 1, you basically sound like you're using a variation of the "criminals won't obey gun laws so we shouldn't have any gun law ever" argument. According to that logic, why have ANY laws? Why give out tickets for running a red light? Why have child molestation laws if child molesters are gonna molest children? I guess child molestation laws don't work then, huh?

3. The point of these gun laws/restrictions/bans is to make getting your hands on a gun harder to do, if not impossible. The goal of the police is 0 crime, right? Will it happen? No. But should they continue to try? Yes. The point is that guns (or rather handguns/autos/semi-autos/assaults) are rare in these countries, and gun violence is minuscule, and their homicides rates aren't just below ours, they're below ours BY FAR!

People have often said in response to my comments "Well what about making drugs illegal? That hasn't worked!" True, but drugs are different than guns. It is MUCH harder to make your own gun at home than growing your own weed or making your own meth. I'm OBVIOUSLYnot saying that making you own gun is IMPOSSIBLE! It's just much harder. And it's also much much much much harder, if not impossible, to smuggle a gun up your own anus.

Therefore, however these UK and AU criminals got their hands on any gun that isn't legal, I'm sure they went out of their way to get one.

4. And my last point. I'm not ignorant of the fact that the UK and AU are island countries. Definitely not easy to smuggle things in and out of an island country. But I'm certain that what plays the a big part in their lack of gun violence (along WITH their laws) is the fact that there is no gun culture in these countries. The people just don't want a gun, for whatever the reason. Less gun ownership (even LEGAL gun ownership) means less gun proliferation and much much fewer ILLEGAL guns (fewer guns being stolen or unwittingly taken by someone they know).

It can be used to protect, defend, intimidate, or kill. So can a knife, sword, or bow. Hell even a pair of fists can be used in the same manner. Out of the list a gun is the most efficient tool.

That sounds like a perfect case why the gun needs to be the most restricted. It makes the act of killing someone/suicide exponentially easier to do, both physically and psychologically.

Those 4 cities have some of the toughest and most restrictive gun control laws in the US. So for that reason they are brought up to illustrate that the current gun control laws do not work.

What exactly is your point, then, about these laws? What is your solution? Should we repeal these laws? Would repealing these laws actually reduce the gun violence, in your opinion? (btw, when answering this question, you better cite something beyond correlation with places with laxer gun laws and less gun violence).

In your opinion, why do these laws "not work"? Are the laws themselves CAUSING more gun violence (and I mean directly and/or indirectly)? If yes, explain why? Or could the problem be with other factors that I mentioned before, i.e. surrounding counties/states with lax gun laws, no gun registry, etc

Even if bought by a straw man the guns are still illegal within city limits. Period.

I'm not familiar with the nitty-gritty of Chicago's (or the other cities') gun laws. But in NONE of these cities are guns banned outright. There are PLENTY of gun stores in Chicago (a Google maps search will confirm this), selling many different kinds of guns. The only way your statement is true is that guns will be illegal once they find their way into unauthorized hands.

I've repeatedly said that the issue isn't with guns but with the intent behind the guns. IOW a gun by itself is not going to kill anyone. It's an inanimate object.

If there are this many people with the intent to kill in this country, then perhaps giving a population of over 300 million such easy access to these inanimate objects...insane?

The USA does NOT have a disproportionately higher number of people who wish to kill, of people with mental problems, etc, than the rest of the OECD. A gun makes killing someone much much easier to do.

It still happens in a place where guns are outlawed [Australia and UK] meaning that criminals with intent can and will get their hands on them. That is the point I'm trying to make.

So the fact that such incidents are minuscule (in these countries) means absolutely nothing to you? Even just ONE criminal getting their hands a gun and using it to kill is a TOTAL indictment of the laws/bans, and is a sign that the laws "don't work" and should be repealed?

Btw, show me the gun violence incidents in these countries that are occurring with handguns/autos/semi-autos/assaults. As far as I'm aware, shotguns and hunting rifles are still legal to privately own. Although I'm certain that legally owning one is a bit harder to do (as it should be).

The current gun control laws here in the US...target law abiding citizens.

Law-abiding citizens are not "targeted" for anything. If they obey the laws, they will not be targeted. Besides, NO ONE who is currently running for election, or in office, who is suggesting a ban on certain types of firearms (and/or their accessories i.e. high cap magazines, etc) is even suggesting out loud on applying such bans to those already in circulation.

The point of such laws is to stem, if not eliminate, their proliferation. Is it 100% perfect? Do they successfully prevent 100% of these illegal items from getting into the hands of criminals? Of course not. Does that mean they shouldn't be implemented? No.

Yes making one's own gun is hard to do but not impossible at all.

Um, yeah, I never said it was impossible.

Making a bow, a knife, even a sword is much easier.

And yet compared to firearms (even if we take ONLYhandguns into consideration), these weapons (homemade or not) aren't used in homicides nearly at the same rates or numbers. There is a reason why a background check and/or permit isn't necessary to own/buy (or even MAKE) these things.

And hypothetically, if all private firearms disappeared, the idea that in today's world (IOW every other factor remains the same), the number of homicides committed with these other weapons (homemade or not) would increase anywhere near the numbers and/or rates if private firearms disappeared, is ludicrous.

The majority of gun owners are decent law abiding people who take care of their guns and make sure they and their families are safe.

Of course they are. But far too many seem to slip up too often, and leave their guns lying around for their unstable children and/or friends and relatives. And a small % do use them for an unjustifiable homicide.

And statistically speaking, a gun in the home increases the chance of a suicide (and death by accident...often the same) significantly. Not only that, but the USA has some of the highest numbers of homicides that are committed outside of a "criminal setting" (i.e. gang disputes, robberies) because of human emotions during domestic disputes...combined with a close proximity to a gun. That "will" you cite, to get a gun (within Australian and UK criminals), is a will that remains in their minds while 100% sober (both emotionally and neurologically). They GO OUT OF THEIR WAY to get a gun. Emotions pass, but if those emotions don't pass within the few yards that a person needs to walk to get to their safe and get out their gun, a tragedy will happen.

That sort of "logic" is ridiculous at best. Seriously why is this a "all or nothing thing" with you gun control people?

Not sure what you by "all or nothing". But the logic is sound. The argument of "gun laws don't work because criminals don't obey them and criminals get their hands on banned firearms and/or banned firearm accessories" is a type of logic that can, and must, apply to ALL LAWS! It must apply to ALL illegal items and actions. Laws against robbery, murder, rape, etc

Does the mere fact that Volkswagen made cars that didn't burn their fuel cleanly/efficiently enough (for EPA regulations) mean that EPA regulations are pointless and we should get rid of them (or even the EPA itself?)

And no, these are not "completely different" matters. The logic must apply across the board. Not just to guns (and possibly drugs).

Other than just a ban in general do YOU have any real solution or are you just wringing your hands together and reacting?

Well, I have no shame in admitting that PERSONALLY, I'd like to see bans on all private ownership of firearms except MAYBE shotguns and hunting rifles. However, since we will most likely have single-payer health care in the USA before we do this...

First off, let me remind you, again, that in the USA, NO ONE in any political office or with ANY chance of winning election in the USA is proposing ANYTHING like that. At the MOST, the only things are the being TALKED ABOUT for a ban are high-capacity magazines, and possibly assault rifles.

Btw, in the USA, the original assault rifle ban, and any such PROPOSED bans (in recent years) on certain types of firearms and/or their accessories, NEVER applied to such firearms/accessories that were already in circulation before the law's passage. So no, the "law-abiding" will not nor have they ever been "targeted".

Btw, I think we both know which side in this debate is doing much more shrieking and yelling twisting the other side's argument. The NRA (and their supporters) and other like groups are twisting literally ANY proposed gun regulation as "OH NO! THEIR COMING FOR YOUR GUNS!" Just to have universal background checks for ALL gun sales (I don't know if it applied to private transfers as well, but that doesn't sound unreasonable either), the proposed bill had the words "2nd Amendment Protection Act" thrown in its title. And yet the gun lobbyists wouldn't support it. They wouldn't support mandatory background checks across the board for a "tool" with no other purpose but to kill/cause serious harm to a living organism. This extremely meager gun control bill couldn't escape from being misconstrued as "THEY'RE COMING TO TAKE ALL OF OUR GUNS! THEY'RE TAKING AWAY YOUR RIGHT TO 'DEFEND YOURSELF'!"

So, what would I personally propose beyond a total ban of firearms more deadly than shotguns & hunting rifles?

1. A ban on autos/semi-autos/assault rifles, including those already in circulation. Too many mass shootings have occurred with these weapons. I could care less if they kill fewer people than knives or blunt objects. They have no other purpose but to cause big-time harm to large groups of people.

OF COURSE it will still be possible for criminals to get their hands on them! But just because it can happen, it doesn't mean that such a ban shouldn't be implemented and enforced.

2. All guns must be registered. Just like cars. And they must be inspected periodically (at a minimum...ANNUALLY. If an officer (or anyone from law enforcement) comes to your house for any reason, and sees that you have a gun, they must ask for proof that you're the registered owner/user, and that you are legally allowed to have ANY firearm, including the ones in the house. A citation of sort, and possibly a temporary confiscation, must be given if any illegal firearm modifications are spotted, or if there are any violations of safe firearms keeping.

3. Anyone who wants to buy a gun must first have a license proving that they are legally capable of using it, handling it, and caring for it correctly. Just like driver's licenses. If a car dealer cannot allow you to drive away with a car without a driver's license (and of course, Driver's Ed), then a gun dealer should not be allowed to do the same. It shouldn't be that easy. It should be as rigorous as the process for being allowed to drive. People who want to carry a firearm around should also get a lesson in when its okay to pull out your firearm and/or fire it.

For example, using your concealed handgun to shoot at a fleeing shoplifter who hasn't physically harmed or threatened to harm is not okay. Pulling out a firearm to kill some kid when you're losing a fight, a fight you clearly instigated (i.e. George Zimmerman) is not okay.

4. And in relation to number 4, if you're a defendant for a case involving domestic abuse, rape, murder, etc, use that gun registry to temporary hold on to your gun(s) and take away your right/privilege to own/possess any firearm until after you're acquitted. If not acquitted, well, not only is your gun to be taken away, but your right to have one too.

5. Now, this solution might serve as a good alternative to some of the laws that I proposed above, but let's consider mandating that all firearms be "smart firearms", IOW the type of firearm that requires your palm print/thumbprint, etc, or even that you wear a watch within close proximity, to fire a bullet. This will basically make stealing a firearm useless and possibly cut down on much gun crime, considering that much gun crime does occur with guns that someone was not legally supposed to possessed.

So, the response to #5, hmm, let me guess: "It's not impossible to reprogram these guns to respond to someone else's thumbprint/palm print or to invent a watch that'll program those types of smart guns to fire a bullet without the original watch that came with the gun!" And to that I say: whatever....

Oh and btw, if the fact that these guns require being charged to work...well...to that I say "tough sh**". Treat it like a cell phone, carry a portable charger, etc, electricity is abundant. It is NOT impossible to keep a device charged.

Now of course, I don't know what YOU personally support, but I know that the NRA and other gun nuts wouldn't dare support #1. #2 is forbidden by law (unfortunately). #3, well, is variably enforced in different ways across the country, and such laws (including background checks) are quite lax depending on where you go. #4 is also not acceptable to the gun lobby. And if I remember correctly, #5, I think NJ actually had a law in place many years ago mandating that if "smart guns" became a thing, that all such guns manufactured in NJ would have to be smart guns, and the gun lobby and their supporters threw a hissy fit. Not sure about the status of that law, but like other such laws, again, NOT applying to firearms already in circulation.

No gun owner is happy with people being killed by thugs. Neither is the NRA despite the sheeple claiming the NRA gets off on gun deaths.

To say they "like" or "get off" on gun deaths is a stretch, except for maybe for the Ted Nugent types who blame unarmed gun violence victims for their own deaths (since they use it as a way to argue for more people having guns to "defend themselves"). But nothing changes the fact that these gun deaths are viewed by the gun-worshippers as an acceptable price to pay for the 2nd Amendment.

Here's the thing - I'm not happy about the status quo...I'd like to see something done - something based on common sense

So name it then. Name something that should be done, that ISN'T repealing a gun law (or any firearms/accessories ban), ISN'T increasing the availability of ownernship/carry permits, ISN'T increasing the availability of guns and/or their accessories, ISN'T increasing the number of places where guns are allowed to be carried, etc

And...a solution that does NOT involve more armed police/security in public places.

Which solution then has a 0% risk of the gun-worshippers screaming "GUN GRABBING! AHHH!!"? Which solution is guaranteed to have their support, and yours? I'm certain that it's not any of the solutions I proposed.

Oh btw, don't respond with tired argument of "Enforce the laws on the books". There are many gun laws that...even when enforced to the max, could have never prevented a mass shooting (or non-mass shooting).

Now just a minute. What about a out of control Militia ? Who would handle that ? Are you saying people can not become out of control. So some people avg citizen's want to overthrow the American elected Government, just because they think it is out of control. The Amendment is long overdue to wiped off the books a NEW one with some common sence put into it. Also unless you buy guns for a hobby in which you should have a licenses, there is no need to have a dozen guns in your house. One is plenty.

Yes you are right, that is pesky.

I could be wrong, but your wording is mistaken. The government (meaning the law) cannot jail a person for "simply" speaking freely, they can however, be jailed for their speech. You cannot threaten a person's life without legal consequences, though one can speak words that express intent to harm. I do however agree with what you mean. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences or criticisms.

Very childish comment.You have an absurdly inflated sense of worth due to enormous ignorance, French Tickles. Grow up, grow a pair, and go away.You are a waste of time, yours, and everyones else's..

Well I guess you would not be able to say what you just did...that is not the same as being able to use a gun to kill someone.

Words can be taken back, a life can't!

Only in 'Murica, land of the stupid, and overarmed.

Yet, only an idiot would make that comment. Strange that many foreigners would risk their lives to live in America if it's so stupid.

Also land of the "out of the top 10 in murders per capita".....you should try thinking, it helps

Qu'est-ce? Je ne comprends pas. Etes vous asshole de fou pour moi?

Gun nuts would still not be in favour of stricter gun control even in this case. After all, this 11-year-old criminal could still find a gun through illegal channels if we took away his legal channel (of just going to daddy's room and taking it), right?

... Right?

Attempts at satire aside, this is terrifyingly tragic, and yes, the parents of the boy are also culpable.

I know right? I mean my uncle was driving drunk and killed a family of 3, and i have YET to see them doing background checks for cars and alcohol! It's like come on people, it's obviously the cars fault!!! Some people just dont get it

Cars are not machines designed to kill. Believe it or not, they actually have another use. I know, right? I was amazed when I heard that too.

Drivers do have background checks. That's why there are suspended licenses. Cars are also registered and must be insured. So why aren't firearms?

You are right it is not the cars fault, it is the person behind the wheel, just like it isn't the guns fault, it the person pulling the trigger...get it...people do kill people, they just use different weapons! This is why we need background checks, not only with drunk drivers but also gun buyers. Many need training on how to use guns and how to STORE guns, especially when there are children in the home! You can cry all you want for your 2nd amendment right, but as a US citizen I also have rights, and yours does not trump mine!

The 11-year-old was just exercising his 2nd amendment rights to protect his family from an immediate threat.

Clearly the little girl and her puppy were dangerous criminals. :P

Careful, while your here expressing your first amendment right to put down the 2nd amendment, someone might be creating a story to take that away as well.

Also...

This is a private site heck even if it was a public site. They can have rules for what they will and won't allow regardless of whether you think they are right or wrong.

So if the folks at RS decided that they don't like folks using the word banana and say that if you use it you will be banned, then guess what that is perfectly legal. You can complain about it all you want but if you use the word or break the TOS in any other way then they have the right to ban you.

There site their rules.

1st amendment rights mean jack shite when it comes to posting on a website.

You really are too oblivious to understand the 1st Amendment, aren't you? Why don't you just go play in your sandbox & let the adults talk

The First Amendment has many limits. No slander, no yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, etc. And yet, NRA sock puppets like yourself think the Second Amendment is untouchable, despite the fact that it itself is an AMENDMENT. Go look that word up. It might clear up some things that you missed by skipping your middle school civics classes.

Oh yeah, and the word is "you're", not "your". As in "you are". Are you home schooled or something?