First: show me the clause of "seperation of church and state" in the Constitution... (hint: it's not there).

Second: While it's been understood in more modern times (but not in the past), that the school, nor teachers can force prayer in school, it certainly is NOT illegal, or against any law for students to practice their first amendment rights by praying in school on their own. However, many teachers/schools have reprimanded and lied to students about this being illegal (in recent years), for even mentioning Jesus or Christian beliefs, or trying to prayer on their own. There is currently an active attack to suppress students rights in these cases by using false claims, lying, and misinterpretation of the Constitution (either will-fully or out of ignorance).

Centuries? Decades yes, but I don't think you can call it Centuries. Most of the Gospel's were written 30-50 years after his death. Hardly centuries.

I think the discrepancies between the Gospel's are more important than most realize. For starters, it shows that the original writers were not colluding with each other in order to deceive the masses. Each of them gave their account as best they remember. If they were 4 stories that were all exactly the same, that would be somewhat suspect.

Secondly, it shows that the Gospel's were written by actual eye-witnesses, describing things from their perspective, as they individually remembered it. If they were writing down a myth or urban legend, the stories would probably be more close to each other. However, if you look at modern eye-witness accounts to modern events, (like in police reports), you often get slightly different testimony based on each witnesses perspective and frame of reference. Also, some people pay attention to certain types of details, and other's to other type of details.

All-in-all, I think the slight variances of the Gospel's add to the authenticity of these being real eye-witness accounts written by real people that were there.

Me either, every Christian I know and have met (and I go to church) is not ignorant to the fact that it was a day that was picked to celebrate His birth, and not His literal birthday.

IIRC, 12/25 was actually picked by the Roman Catholic church, and was picked because it was originally a pegan holiday (winter solstice or something), and the Catholic church decided it would try to overshadow the pegan holiday with Christmas. This is where some of the original pegan traditions got intermingled in, and where the concept of the Christmas tree came to be (that part was originally a pegan tradition to ward off spirits).

But, unfortunately, Christians that have a brain don't fit into the OP's narrative.

Just about all HDTV's will let you turn off that feature, you may want to ask your friend to turn it off when you watch movies with it. I have the same problem, it takes the "movie" out of it, and makes it much more apparent that it is a hollywood set, and makes it look like video, rather than cinema.

Anyway, depending on the TV, the feature can be called: "TruMotion" , "Auto Motion Plus", "SmoothMotion", "MotionFlow"... .

That might not be true. I've used more modern versions of this technology recently to turn a 25ft x 8ft video wall into a multi-touch surface for an install I was working on, and the system that we installed could recognize up to 10 simultaneous touches across the surface.

Me and another tech were testing out the capabilities using MS paint software, and it would recognize each finger on both hands. Once we added an eleventh simultaneous finger to the mix, it wouldn't recognize it. I think it was more limited to the software driver than the hardware capabilites though was my impression.

The solution we used was a not a cheap one though, so I'm not sure if the kind being written about would have as good of touch resolve or not, but the technology can handle it.

I would have to agree that the list is pretty inclusive. In the day of it's writing, it was meant and understood to mean the same grade and types of weapons that the military at that time used. By logical extension, that opens up quite a list in todays world. I don't think the old argument that they only had muskets and so they meant muskets is valid. However, I'm also sure that most people, even gun lovers in most walks of life would not want an individual or corporation to be able to obtain a nuclear ICBM warhead... However, yes, the line would have be drawn somewhere in between, and I believe that the line isn't in-between some handguns on the list, or some rifle types, but farther out and closer to the ICBM side of the spectrum.

Remember, the reason for the 2nd Amendment is for protection from a Foreign Military force, as well as protection from a tyrannical government emerging within our borders. With that being the root of the 2nd, it would only make sense that the tools available to civilians be capable of performing those duties if needed. Are we anywhere close to that now? Could a civilian militia match the brute force of arms available to any of the 4 military branches? Would civilians, with what is currently available and legal to own, have a chance in defending the country from all enemies, foreign and domestic?

No, I was stating that the reason the smart guns are not at all popular with people that buy guns is in large part due to reliability. Not many people want a gun that 'may' go bang when they want it to. Or one they have to make sure to keep fresh batteries installed in or it won't work when they need it, and the whole concept of a family member needing to use the gun in defense, but the bracelet is being worn by a person who isn't home at the time. Not to mention the additional cost.

In addition to this, the only model that I know of from Armatix (last time I looked) was a .22 cal model, which is not very popular for self defense.

I think the NJ law, and not-yet-created laws similar to that one in other states is a big reason why people are so adamant they don't want it. If it is put out for sale in NJ, then by law, all guns would have to have it within a few year period (in NJ). And while NJ is the only state thus far that has 'shown their cards' by creating the law prior to the tech being released, I think it's very naive to believe other states wouldn't pass similar laws after the gun was released to the market. California is doing the same thing in regards to Micro-stamping laws that manufacturers aren't capable of doing yet.

As for the individual dealers, you have to realize that most dealers don't want to carry them if people have no interest in buying them, as they can't sell them easily. They could use the inventory space for other models that do sell well. I don't think many purchasers are desiring that technology on their guns, just like I don't know any gun owners that are begging for microstamping technology either. The biggest proponents of these technologies aren't the gun users, but are the groups and politicians voting to take away gun rights that are in support of these things.

I don't know how you think guns are cleaned, but when I clean guns, they are less of a danger than normal, as they are usually dis-assembled and non-functional during cleaning. If you don't take a gun apart in order to clean it, then your not cleaning it properly. Taken apart, a gun won't work at all.

Well I'm glad that happened in a country with NO guns! Imagine what could have happened if there were guns in that country? (/sarcasm)

Is that why to this date, NO police department or military organization in the US and around the world have adopted the standard use of these types of firearms? Because of gun rights activists and the NRA? I think there is more to the story than you are willing to admit, and it's called "reliability".

There is no middle ground because the phrase "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" is pretty damn clear. Any middle ground between anti-gun laws is an infringment, plain and simple.

Not to mention that it is this "middle ground" you speak of that has gotten us where we are today...

Living in California, I can't get a CCW in my county even though I have a squeeky clean record, the reason is because it's treated as a privelige rather than a right, and the Sheriff does not issue in most of the counties in my surrounding area.

Living in CA, I cannot buy any model of gun available for purchase, I have to pick from the guns on the "Approved Roster" (which is a small subset of guns available in other states, and shrinking each year).

Living in CA, I cannot own standard capacity magazines that were designed for the gun, and can only buy more expensive, low capacity magazines. Living in CA, I cannot own a semi-automatic rifle that isn't permanently modified to require the use of tools to change the magazine out and reload.

Living in CA, I cannot buy another gun without waiting 10 days first (even if I already own other guns already).

Living in some counties in CA, you cannot mail order ammo from distributors and can only purchase at full retail value (or marked up higher due to the fact that there is less pricing competition.)

This is what the middle ground gets you. Once one law is passed that isn't a "big deal" and is only for safety, it is only a matter of time until another is passed, and another, until you are in the situation that we are in here in CA, and other states like NY. The "middle ground" argument is a constantly moving target that moves more toward gun banning with each law. It's the loss of a right by a thousand cuts, and it all started with gun owners giving in and meeting in the "middle ground".

Stupid things you do while intoxicated are still things you have to suffer consequences for. You don't get a free pass just because your intoxicated and "didn't know better". The example you just mentioned even said the real homeowner warned the person verbally several times. I'm sure if the guy wasn't drunk, he a) would have known his house from someone elses... and b) would have understood and heeded the warnings given to him by the real homeowner as he was breaking into what he thought was his own house.

Exactly this... Our judicial system started going down hill once we started using the system we call "case law", in which each judicial decision is put into the books and used as an argument for all the next cases down the road. This creates a wavering, or gentle slope away from the actual "Spirit of the Law" that was originally put forth in all aspects.

Yes, you can deport the illegal parent(s), and if they want to break up their family and leave their "citizen" children behind, then that is THEIR decision and the moral decision will rest then on the children's parents rather than the state. They would have the chance to take their children (and/or spouse) with them when they go, or not, it's up to them. This is something that they should have thought about prior to illegally entering the country, and therefore the is a price to have to pay for breaking the law.

Quit trying to put the moral delima in "our" lap as a country and instead put it where it belongs.