Of course it's a civil rights violation. It involves the internet and a bunch of fucking geeks. Now if Google said we were removing all ads that contained gun ads, that everyone would be like Hell Yeah Google, way to stick it to ignorant rednecks. I hate double standards. Do what you will, but don't step on things we like.

It's also illegal to go around and kill people with a gun. Still happens. You can't protect people by taking away rights. Criminals are going to commit crimes.

In this day and age, I think a joke is probable cause to start an investigation. I don't think it's probable cause to have someone arrested. I think there needs to be some substantial evidence that a crime is actually going to be committed before you start to think of taking away one's freedoms.

Every day in America, another 27 people die as a result of drunk driving crashes. That's over 9500 people a year. There are 211,000,000 registered drivers I propose we ban either cars or alcohol. I'll let you pick. The death rate is about the same number, but the number of drivers is less than the number of guns, so you're more likely to be killed by a drunk driver than you are to be shot to death. Not much though. I assume you agree with me that all cars or alcohol should be banned? Or maybe you just think we should only allow smaller cars. Nobody really needs to drive a 2-ton dually death machine anyways. Or maybe we should just ban all alcohol but wine. Nobody ever gets drunk on wine and drives a car. And no the argument that it's fun to just drink a few beers in not a strong argument for not banning alcohol.

Yes everyone should have the right to exercise freedom of thought and speech as long as they don't commit crimes. He shouldn't be arrested. Kept an eye on, maybe, I'm not actually making that argument either. I'm just pointing out that they should do their actual jobs (it's okay to investigate such a case, get a warrant from a judge, search around, keep an eye on the kid, station an officer outside said elementary school during school hours, patrol the neighborhood a little more, I'm sure there are a hundred other things that could have been done besides arresting the guy), not just arrest some kids for stupid comments.

IMO, if he had some credible weapons lying around, then at least you can charge him with intent after making a comment like that. You can threaten all day long, but if you don't have the tools needed to carry out that threat, then no you shouldn't be locked up in jail.

But high speed internet is a basic human right. You can't take away someones right to the internet, just their right to free speech on said internet.

A United Nations report said Friday that disconnecting people from the internet is a human rights violation and against international law.

I'm generally curious what you mean by sane gun restrictions? Felons aren't allowed to purchase or carry a gun, if you've been convicted of domestic violence, you can't purchase or carry a gun?

There are over 300 million legally acquired weapons, and only two of them have been used in a mass shooting this year. And they weren't legally acquired by the person who used them.

They really should do some actual investigating before just locking him up. If he had plans for bombs, or bombs, or some sort of credible weapon, then yeah you can arrest him. Until then, keep an eye on him. They do shit like this blowing things out of proportion, while some crazy person is really planning on doing it, but they don't do their jobs. It should have been pretty easy to get a search warrant for his premises and then to have actually searched them.

School shootings aren't really that common, I agree that it happens more often than it has in the past, but more kids are killed by drunk drivers than by mass shootings. Of the 1,210 traffic deaths among children ages 0 to 14 years in 2010, 211 (17%) involved an alcohol-impaired driver. Out of those 211 deaths, 131 (62 percent) were riding with the drunk driver

I figured as much.

Actually I think civil unions would only annoy the homosexual side. Let churches perform marriages that have no legal status, and let the govt convey civil unions.

I thought Tesla already proved that? At least they did in my mind. 0-60, 300 mile range, only $100,00. Far out of my price range, but I if I was in the market for a Porsche or Lambo, I'd consider the Tesla.

But that's not what homesexuals want. I don't care if they want to share property, tax laws and such. But they want to be "married" because it makes it more socially acceptable (IMO, I'm not gay, and don't have any gay friends, so I could be spouting bullshit). If the loud minority of them would agree to this, we wouldn't have to waste taxpayer money on endless court battles, and passing laws that are just going to be struck down later. (I'm probably wrong)

Selling all of our information to the NSA?

This is what doesn't make sense to me logically, but makes sense to me emotionally. The President doesn't really have any power to affect the climate. The real legislative power lies with the House and Congress (you know the legislative branch). But he always gets blamed when shit hits the fan. Bush, Clinton, Obama. The only power they have over laws is veto. They can suggest actions that Congress can take, but let's face it, Congress usually tells the Pres to take a flying leap.

If you want to address climate change, you need to contact your reps on a regular basis, and get everybody else you know to do the same thing.