He gave you logic and something that's been easily observable for long periods of time. Instead, you whine because he doesn't agree with you that men should be punished until women choose to be interested in the things men enjoy.

And how did that latter one change? Was it a stupid "early 90's feel good" ad campaign? Was it a law forcing them to be nice? No, it was because they saw the success of those nerds and started to look into it themselves.

Just like Microsoft and Co, you're missing the "issue". Girls aren't taking programming classes because they don't WANT to. Discriminating against boys won't magically make girls want to learn how to write code.

Girls have the same opportunity to sign up for these classes as boys do, they simply CHOOSE not to. Like it or not, girls and boys find different things interesting.

No, that's the problem with property taxes - the most immoral form of taxation. Property taxes are the government declaring that it owns every home and the land they're built on and you must pay the government rent or be evicted.

The "social contract" never existed and only matters to those who think that others owe them something just for existing.

Honestly, that was one of my main reasons for getting an Android Wear smartwatch. I hate having to make sure I take my phone with me any time I'm walking around or having to carry my phone at the gym while running. There are obviously other benefits to Android Wear, but the pedometer functionality was my #1 motivator.

Lots of people want to mock the Constitution and claim that "it failed to stop oppressive government!". What they're ignoring though is that rules always mean nothing if people don't uphold them and Americans have grown incredibly lazy and allow politicians to do pretty much whatever they want without any consequences.

Except when it's not. Generally? Yes. However, there are certain situations where it can be acceptable because you truly have no other options.

Most notably, Senator Feinstien who even said in an interview about a decade back that "If the votes were there, I'd have said 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in'."

Which is a complete load of bullshit made up by peopole such as yourself who are terrified of inanimate objects. Private sellers can pay a gun dealer to perform a background check if they're selling a gun to a stranger (and most do, both for peace of mind and to cover their own ass in case the buyer decides to use it in a crime) - they merely do not HAVE to. There is a very valid reason for why Federal law doesn't force (yes, key word force) people who are not licensed gun dealers to perform background checks. What is that reason? Because the only way to enforce it is to have a national registry of not only all gun owners, but every gun as well. Not only is this insanely expensive and inefficient (just ask Canada, they tried such a a registration system and ended up axing it after pissing away tons of money and still not getting it to work like it was supposed to), but in every nation and state (yes, including states in the US), gun registration has always lead to confiscation. We've been seeing more and more of this even in anti-gun states in the US, such as New York where a man went to see a doctor for insomnia and immediately had his guns confiscated or how about in New Orleans when the government used gun registries to confiscate the guns of ordinary citizens after hurricane Katrina?

Do not sit there and spout bullshit about "it's well known that X happens at gun shows" when you clearly have never been to one, otherwise you'd know that gun owners are very paranoid about accidentally breaking a law (it means both losing all of your guns a permanently losing your rights) and that most of the tables at a gun show are run by licensed dealers who must perform background checks on all sales, regardless of where the sale takes place.

Knowledge has lead to plenty of deaths, as has freedom - because freedom means being responsible for the consequences of your actions. The gun didn't kill that women, her irresponsibility did, because as both a gun owner and a parent, she had a responsibility to keep the loaded gun away from her child.

Because they didn't show up until late in the war?

Why else do you think that every type of firearm / firearm accessory that the government wants banned are not things that are commonly used to commit crimes, but things that would be quite useful in a civil war?

Don't forget though that the 13th Amendment was added unconstitutionally.