That would be correct. Prior to prohibition, you could mail order a Thompson sub-machine gun (aka: "Tommy gun") full automatic from a catalog for cheap, with no background check, no waiting period (other than waiting for it in the mail), no fuss no muss.

Then, in 1934, after the gangsters had used them in crimes, the National Firearms Act was passed, which put bans and activated the "Class 3" weapons category we have today. In some states, you can still own a class3 firearm, but they are heavily regulated, cost a fortune, and require a "Tax Stamp" permit to own one.

Please post a picture where it can be found that the protesters (aka: militia) were "pointing rifles" at the federal agents. The protesters were armed, not denying that, but they were not using their guns in the fashion you described. They were carrying guns, either in holsters or on their shoulders, but not pointing and threatening the agents with them.

In fact, the Bundy ranch stand-off shows just how effectual armed citizens are when it comes to government agents. If the protesters had not been armed, do you not think that the agents wouldn't have turned it into the mass riots, tear gas, and tanks we've become all accustomed to seeing when "the people" protest and the government doesn't like it? Name another protest in recent times, where the protesters were unarmed, and were able to get the government to "back down" rather than escalating into "thuggery" and running rough shod over the protesters.

miniscule maybe, but a few dozen, no. The "dead" have been voting for years, every election. On the last election, there were pricincts with over 100% voter turnout. It's a little more than a 'few dozen'.

Since VoterID laws are not implemented, how do you know illegal aliens don't vote? No one is checking ID's, so making that claim that it ONLY happens in conservatives imaginations is completely without basis. You can't prove a negative -- nor can I prove something that isn't tracked because asking for ID is illegal when it comes to voting, but not anything else.

My point was "showing your ID" is not actually racists, we all have to do it on a constant basis for miniscule things.

With power grabs like this and others in recent times, it's very clear, that your inalienable, inherent, natural rights stops at the exact point that you are not willing to physically fight for, and die, defending them. Looking around the country, it looks like most have given them all up at this point.

Our founders realized this, and used all the tools at their disposal, politics, lawyers, letters of redress, and they didn't forget the last one, drawing a line in the sand and holding a musket, ready to use it (and possibly die) if that line was crossed.

From the dawn of time, Governments all over the world have shown only one tendency, that is to grow and grab power perpetually until they are stopped with force.

If you actually had a clue, you would realize that the voter ID laws wanted by the GOP/TeaParty, and many others in mainstream america has NOTHING to do with black people, and everything to do with the millions of illegal aliens that sneak into our country and vote Democrat because the Democrats give them everything in turn for saying they'll push for an amnesty. Without Voter ID laws, fraudulent voting is a REAL concern, as it means people are voting without being a legitimate citizen of this country (or by people who are still alligent to their homeland) and/or people are voting multiple times. Voter ID's want to curtail that.

Your argument is taken from item #1 of the democrat talking points, just re-iterating that GOP'ers don't want black people to vote. Fact, most black people already have ID's. ID's are not expensive to get in this country, and do not force out the poor. Everyone else (including white and black people) already have to have an ID and show it to do a multitude of other menial things already, and it's not considered a "burden" on blacks for the other ID requirements.

Don't know about you, but I have to show ID if I write a check, or if I cash a check, I have to show ID if I get pulled over driving. I had to show ID to get a passport. I have show ID to get a job. I have to show ID just to gain entry into some of the businesses I do work at (try going to company to do contract work and sign in at the lobby without ID). Want to buy cigarettes or liquor? Need ID. Want to buy spray paint or allergy medicine? Need ID. Want a library card? Going to an airport? Using a Credit Card for purchasing anything? Want to donate blood? Want to go to an 'R' rated movie or buy an 'M' rated video game? Need a hunting/fishing license? Want to take the SAT (or other proctored exam like CPA/MD/etc.)? Applying for food stamps, social security, or medicare? Want to buy a gun? Want to get married? Need to rent or buy a home, or car? If you need to do ANY of these things, then you need ID to do it.

Why aren't these requirements for ID considered "Racist"? The answer to this is because requiring ID is not racist, anyone LEGALLY in the country can get some form of ID. But because some in politcal power, want to pander to a very large number of people who are here illegally (regardless of race) in order to get their vote. It's this group of people who are put out and out-of-luck, which is the exact reason that there is a push for VoterID laws, too keep the system from getting corrupted by outside influence voting in OUR elections and determining OUR fate!

The original EPA guidelines were worse than what is listed now, but the new revised ones that are currently listed appear to have changed over the course of the last couple years, I don't know why they have revised it, as it's not like the contents of a CFL have changed since then.

I've seen the original guidelines, but since they were revised, I can only find the newer ones, which you still have to admit, are a bigger pain than cleaning up the normal bulbs.

here is proof, that the guidelines were revised at some point, but the link to the original guidelines in this article no longer takes you to them (curiously). http://www.elightbulbs.com/lig...

Here is a Nbc article from prior to the change, about a lady who got quoted $2000 to "properly" clean up a broken CFL bulb. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/2369... (I know, anectdotal evidence)...

The resistance to CFL's are because when they came out, they were super expensive (comparitively) and didn't last as long as an incandencent. And my personal gripe with them, is that they take forever to turn on. When I moved into my house, CFL's were installed everywhere. My whole family got really fed up very quickly after walking into a dark room, hitting the switch and having to stand there for 5 seconds until the light actually came on. If you hit the switch while walking in, you'd be clear across the room before they actually 'lit' up. Then another 30-60secs to get up to full brightness. I HATE CFL's!

We promply replaced all the lights with incandecent bulbs. Now that LED's prices have come down, I just bought my first couple of those to give a try, as at least those are "instant on". So far I'm happy with LED's, but I haven't calculated the "break even" point for them to know if they are worth the extra cost.

It's the EPA's own recommended cleanup procedure that states this. Not only that, anything that gets the dust on it, needs to be tossed out, so if you have one in a fan over your bed, and it breaks, you are *supposed* to bag all of your bedding and pillow up and toss it in the garbage. EPA's words, not mine. They even go so far as to say call a HazMat cleanup professional at one point in their cleanup procedure for CFL's.

http://www2.epa.gov/cfl/cleani...

Technically, I don't think they sell 60W bulbs anymore, they are all 57W. They knocked down 3W off all the standard rating a while ago, not sure why.

My TV Receiver (UVerse) has 3 LED's on it, one red, one blue, and one green/yellow. My alarm clock is green. However, most of those are nothing compared to the hall light cast in that we leave on for our youngest child. Plus my wife leaves on the TV to fall asleep to for background noise (set on sleep). So lots of different color lights, our bedroom is anything but dark when I go to sleep at night. Most nights I fall asleep within 15mins of my head hitting the pillow.

This is why the miltary (at least used to) use red lights inside vehicles when night operations were getting ready. The guys could see what they were doing and then when they exited the vehicle into the dark, their night vision wasn't totally messed up. Also, the old military style flashlights used to have a red-lense for them so you can use it to read maps at night without destroying your night vision.

Anyone remember in the movie Predator, at the beginning when they are all in the helicopter, preparing for a night drop-off, they had a red light in the helo-- for this reason (well, and because in a movie, you want to see the actors and not just a totally darkened out screen, but...).

Don't take this the wrong way, but...

What's with all the comments about not being able to sleep at night, are you guys sleeping in the same room as your pile of electronics or what? Granted, my bedroom has a few things that have LED's on them, like the TV Receiver, and clock, but reading through this thread, it sounds like everyone here sleeps in the same room with their whole home theater equipment, laptops, desktops, pile of cell phones/tablets, garage door openers, and microwaves! WTH? Do all of you live in a studio apartment with no separate bedroom?

Granted, I'm not bothered by the LED's in my room when I sleep, I guess I'll consider myself lucky at this point. I stay awake long enough that when I'm ready for bed, I fall asleep regardless of what lights are on. Heck, because of my youngest child, we leave the hall light on (dimmed down low) so she's not scared to use the restroom at night if needed. That light comes in our room as well, but it just doesn't bother me that much. When I'm tired, I'm tired, and if I'm not, I stay up longer.

In the industry I work in, programmers and technical support persons all rely on proprietary software developed by the hardware manufacturers that we support, and ALL of that software is windows based.

I see a lot of people in my industry using Mac laptops on-site for their duty's, but ALL of them are running Windows on it one way or another to make it possible.

You might have a point with typical everyday office work, but face it, typical everyday office work can be done on an ARM tablet if needed, since it's mostly word processing and spreadsheets and web interfaces. Get much more technical than that, and you are stuck using the OS that your software flow is based around.

Web applications have their place, but they don't and CAN'T replace everything, as many people need to use their computers where there is no access to the web. Not everyone is tethered to their cubical and PC with all-the-time internet connection.

That's because when it was his campaign, he was spending HIS money, and on the ACA website, he was spending YOUR money. See the difference in competence, outcome and total cost?

Considering that I already explained the price, and payment method, I don't know how cash payment isn't considered "readily available" nor "universally applicable". I would have to say, when you self-pay, you actually have MORE options available to you, than if you have insurance. My super expensive HMO insurance that I have now, doesn't let me go to anyone I want.

how would you define "readily available"? or is your code word for "FREE"? In which case, no I did not describe how to get routine visits for free.

Also, to add to my post, for routine visits, there is also a new startup company that is employing doctors and webcams that for a nominal fee ($30-50 I can't remember the exact amount), they will perform a video conference (like skype type session) with you and diagnose you for basic ailments etc and I believe can prescribe basic medication to you if needed (like antibiotics, etc.). This would be something considered affordable, and readily available. I will admit that services like this are for basic needs, and limited in scope, they can be utilized by anyone, and it could cut down a person's overall cost of needing a full insurance package. If you combined this type of service, along with self paying for mid-sized needs, along with catastrophic insurance for the "major accidents", you'd have a fairly affordable healthcare "package" for fairly cheap. Not perfect for all, but neither are these "Silver", "Bronze" and "Gold" packages people are getting forced into either.