One thing that everyone here who is making some variant of this argument is conveniently forgetting is the opposite end of what can happen. What if instead of bones his shovel had turned up gold lumps? Would the public get a cut if it was standing by with a check because of what might turn up? Is this the one man version of "socialize the cost, privatize the profit"?

"The individual, via insurance premiums." No, the pool pays. Therefor your 'liberty' costs me money. You have no right to my money. Wear your helmet or out of the pool. No pool, no driving, no appeal, just contracts. Ain't no government grand? Now put on your helmet, water wings, padded vest, safety glasses, steel-toed boots, leather gloves, and get that roll cage mounted on that bike. Oh, and get the extra two wheels welded on as required. You have no right to my money. No pool, no driving, no appeal, just contracts. Ain't no government grand?

Exactly. If WalMart isn't the new Company Store for its own employees, it is darn close.

Your one-sided revisionist history is astounding.

"Note that racism and other forms of discrimination was institutionalized by the very same government that you seem so willing to put in place as the sole arbiter of fairness."

Gee, where did those northern free states come from then? Oh thats right, they came as a result of government. And before you get your dander up, do remember slavery wasn't ever that strong in the north to begin with.

"It was the moral and religious institutions in the United States that fought for the end to slavery and championed civil rights for all races, and they were opposed at every step by the federal government and the Democratic party."

The first part is utter bullshit. There were many religious institutions pushing for slavery, there are passages in the Bible that were used extensively to justify it. The second part, yeah, the Fed opposed it so much they let states decide for themselves. And your dig at the Democratic party is pathetic; you are historically correct, but you are obviously trying to drag this into the modern era.

"Governments do not have morals, and when they enforce the morals that the most vocal and powerful participants in the political process it's not always a good thing."

And corporations are required by law to be psychotic in the pursuit of money. Can you honestly sit there and say you are more comfortable with groups in charge who are, by definition psychotic rather than the ambiguously moral?

" I happen to think that even were it legal, no business in the US could survive today openly discriminating against people because of race or sexual orientation."

Haven't been in the south of late have you? Hell there are still places with segregated high school proms. Come with me some time, I will take you to places I know that will give you an extra serving of spit on your burger if I tell the waitress you are gay and biracial. And how long would it take to backslide into open discrimination again? Here is a thought experiment, go look up the prison population by race, or crack vs powder cocaine sentencing, or why Sheriff Joe keeps getting re-elected. Do you thing those are do to this benevolent 'It cant happen again' age we are living in?

"They can force businesses to do things you like today, just as they forced liberty-minded people in the 19th century to return slaves to their owners."

As opposed to all the people that did it without a coercive hand? No slave ever ran to the nearest neighbor for a reason and there was a hell of a lot more of that then the Feds OR States returning slaves.

Steam also allows for one other interesting use. I have many many games in my steam library, but I have only ever purchased one game from Steam. I buy games where ever and register thier codes on Steam. Thus I get all of the Steam goodness and if they ever shut down their servers, I have all my games still. Let see suXBOX do that.

Why do you assume they aren't as happy, relative to others? You seem to be judging a culture based on your own culture, which doesn't always work so well (to say the least). I mean no snark, but because people from your culture wouldn't like it doesn't mean others wouldn't.

"f the cop was singing "Stop Resisting" to the tune of "Happy Birthday", you're still civilly liable for copyright infringement. "

Stop resisting, I'm beating you!
Stop resisting, I'm beating you!
Stop resisting, I'm beating yoooooou!
Stop recording or I'll beat you too!

Actually if you have a woodworking shop you have everything you need to make a submachine gun that would make this "printed" hand exploder look like the toy it is. I am not saying it would be easy nor look good when you were done. It would however be full auto/select fire and hold as many rounds as you want (and be able to slap in more quickly). Metalworking is easy, fine metalworking, like fine woodworking is hard.

I know metal work and not plasctic forming but from what I have read and seen about 3d printing, not really no, it is not harder to build one from real materials. Where it gets a little odd is that if done right it is almost easier to make multiple sten type submachine guns at once as opposed to one. You know, cut out ten of these, ten of those, put tab "a" into slot "b" that sort of thing. And screw the 'You need a machine shop' stuff. Truth is the only tool that is handy to have above hand tools to make a sten type gun is a drill press. You can use a hand drill, but lining up holes is a pain in the arse by hand and eye. As for barrels, well, the thing is made to spray bullets not win olympic medals, you can 'wobble' in a barrel blank with press easier with a press than with a hand drill. If you know what you are doing, even a cheapo wood lathe could turn out a barrel better than what whats-his-name has "printed".

"The only part that I'm not sure of is how one would make brass shell cases or primers."

For the brass - the same way the big boys do - 20 ton press (also cheap from Griz).

"Seriously? have you covered only liberal and democrats in this survey?"
Because there aren't any liberal democrat gun owners, everyone knows that. /s

Guess what, I was pointing out that both are groups that others want to paint with a huge brush for the actions of a few. So yeah, they are equivalent. Good on ya though for picking up that they are not a race, religion or ethnicity. Nice police work there Lou. As for an answer to your questions - um...all of them? Because otherwise they wouldn't be good cops?

See that was the point of the part you quoted, every group has its share of jerks, police jerks tend to get exposed more often. The part that keeps getting missed though is that there actually *are* good cops out there, in fact most of them are believe it or not. Thus what the GP said, most just want to go home at the end of the day and take off their shoes, no Grand Cabal of the Blue Shield needed.

would be a good start.

"science and maths promotion"

Or perhaps you are planning on colouring all of your labour with such cromulent Britishism's

People believe muslims are bad because muslims do so many bad things. They have not taken responsibility as a group and purged their ranks of bad muslims, so people will continue to assume that every muslim is a bad muslim. This is the only rational assumption to make, because many of them are bad people, and they have power over you. Thus, you must be on your guard against bad muslims, and you must assume that any muslim interaction will go wrong.

Yeah that doesn't sound prejudicial at all. Guess what, there are jerks who spit on your burger at McD's, scientists that fake results and janitors who leave soap slime on toilet seats too. As long as you are going to tar entire professions might as well keep going.

Douse them in legal Roundup?