I think your statement in the form of a question boils down to "banning high powered weapons affects less people than banning sites with personals". Perhaps youre right in that angle but you originally said "Why is the right to skeet shoot with a military weapon in the same breath as forums for free speech?" and from the standpoint of eroding citizen rights and privacy to government in the name of safety they are _absolutely_ the same.

Just bringing some information about "assault rifles"

Assault rifles, by military definition, have selective fire. None of my AR-15 rifles, or semi automatic 10/22 have that function. I cannot have assault rifles without a manufacturer license as a civilian.

"Military grade" weapons are garbage, my guns are far superior than military grade in quality and reliability.

So would you say the side effects of banning Assault Rifles have been negligible? And what would you say of the potential side effects of SESTA/FOSTA?

More to the point, the intended effects of banning Assault Rifles have been negligible—and not nearly sufficient to justify even minor side effects.

Weapons ban tend to have a hidden motive, or are emotional reflexes. Even with all strict laws, California led on the number of murders in 2016 (https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-...).

SESTA/FOSTA could be a stepping stone to prohibit more free speech.

It's insane that we see constant attacks on the first and second amendment by the government, all in one month.