I agree, and it's difficult to find a practical reason why someone would need to walk around with more than 1 gun on them, or a long arm that isn't easy to handle. I live in Arizona, and it's not all that uncommon to see people walking around with a handgun in the open (and I imagine far more people have them concealed), but I've never seen anyone walking around with a rifle or shotgun outside of hunting. There's just no reason for it. Not that it necessarily needs to be illegal, but people just don't have a daily reason to do it. If someone was walking around with an assault rifle slung across their back they're more likely to get made fun of by people with a little P228 or .38 or something in their pocket.

How? Be specific. If I put a gun on a table in front of you, it will sit there for a thousand years without hurting either one of us. Are you concerned it will spontaneously explode, or grow some sort of nerve tentacles that will intrude into your brain and make you do something awful? Why aren't you worried about kitchen knives, or hammers? More people are killed in the US with pipes and baseball bats than with any kind of rifle (semi-auto or otherwise) - are all cylindrical club-like objects inherently dangerous? How so?

Yes, it's a good habit to treat every gun as if it might go off when you handle it. So you always handle them as if they will, and control that muzzle's direction at all times. Just like you always have to think about where you're swinging an axe, or pointing the front end of a moving car.

Really? His nice, lazy, all-afternoon hunting down of young people on that island couldn't have ended with fewer deaths if someone on that island had shot him down in self defense before he committed such methodical, unopposed slaughter?

Ah, another person who never went to school, or certainly wasn't paying attention.

Your rights are not defined in the constitution. The constitution exists to limit the government's power to interfere with your liberty. Some of those liberties are so important that they are also mentioned by name (the right to liberty that by definition includes the right to speak, assemble, protect yourself, etc). Only leftist idiots think that it's the government that grants you your rights. That's 100% Nanny State backwards. Please do not vote.

Yeah, just like a brick thrown from an overpass or a 40th-floor window - and that costs a fraction of the price of a single UAV battery. Why aren't you in favor of banning bricks? Or would you be happy with simply registering, with photo ID and fingerprints on file, the ownership of all objects that have enough mass to be dangerous?

Not really. Ask any of the dead people in Chicago, where despite very (and even unconstitutionally) severe restrictions, the local thuggery manages to shoot itself up quite regularly. On the other hand, you've got places where guns are readily available (legally) and routinely carried in cars and on person, and which have very low violent crime rates. It's not about guns, and it's never been about guns. It's about culture and law enforcement. Chicago has a violent subculture and no interest in dealing with it. The results are self-evident.

You're stretching the literal definition of war with that claim.

You can't walk with a gun into any business that has a sign saying that firearms are not allowed, even if you have a concealed carry permit. Convenience stores post those signs, if a bank (or any other business) wants to make it illegal to walk in there with a gun then all they need to do is put a sign up. A business without a sign can still ask you to remove your gun provided that they have a secure place for you to store it while you're there. There are other places where you're not allowed to carry a concealed weapon, for example within a certain range of a school. You're never allowed to bring a weapon to a polling place on the day of the election. You also can't walk into Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station with a gun, or secured areas of the airport, or a jail. You can walk into a bar with a gun as long as the owner doesn't prohibit it, but you can't drink alcohol with a gun on you.

But you know what's prohibited here? Nunchucks. That's not a joke, either. You can walk down the street without a license carrying a loaded shotgun in each hand, handguns strapped all over your waist and legs, and rifles slung over your back, but nunchucks are illegal. We need to draw the line somewhere. This isn't the wild west any more.

I think it's much more likely that Sony is trying to shift media attention away from all of the information that was leaked, and onto the story of the threats and the movie. Pulling the movie all of a sudden makes the threats seem much more credible, and now that's what the media is talking about. The real story here is all of the data that was stolen from Sony, like the story about them wanting to go after DNS to take down piracy websites. The movie isn't the story, but that's where the narrative is being steered.

I haven't moved on from the "Fuck Sony" part yet. Especially after they pulled the movie. The article that the summary links to is the first response to this that actually makes sense. Every other response from every talking head, or politician, or executive, has been completely fucking stupid. There's not really another way to say it. It's just moronic.

Correct, but you can go in and confront them, because you don't want them taking your stuff. They are invading your property. Have you ever experienced a break-in where people that you don't know are going through all of your stuff deciding what they want to take? It's a pretty vulnerable feeling, you feel violated after that. Why let someone do that to you? Why roll over just because they decide to break a window and come in your house? Why not stand up to them and tell them that they aren't going to be taking anything? They very well might have a weapon on them, so you defending your house and your property and your family isn't going to carry a ton of weight with them unless you can back things up with force. If they decide to back down and leave, great, you don't have to kill them. If they decide to pull their weapon over your TV, then they've made the decision to escalate things.

Hopefully your solution isn't to let people roam through your house and do whatever they want, and you'll just call insurance. Make sure to inform your family that if they see anyone in the house stealing things, the proper response is to just get out of their way and try to make a note of what they're taking. Hopefully they decide that the only things they want to take are material goods.

While it's tempting to assume you have a reading comprehension problem, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and just assume instead you're confused about who said what. A previous poster asserts that Obama (the man, the one person) is responsible for the good things listed. Never mind that those things didn't actually happen (the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, for example, have NOT ended, etc), the point is that he/she is saying that they did and that Obama did it. You should be making your Superhero Worship complaint to people who make claims like that, not picking on me for pointing out exactly the opposite. You're very confused, here. Not that that stops you from making a lazy "you Americans" jab. I suppose I should say "you Europeans/Asians/Whatever are so stunningly unable to follow a conversation" ... ? No, because that would be silly, ad hominem attack without any useful context? Yeah.

What are you talking about? I said that Bin Laden was killed by a large team of people working years to make it happen. That was in response to the idiot who said that "Obama" got him. Nice straw man attack, though. Well, not really. Pretty lame, actually.

Actually you are wrong - the cross platform .Net Core is a new implementation entirely separate from Mono (the demo they showed running in a Docker Linux container involved no Mono code at all, it was all MS inhouse stuff), although MS are working with Ximaran to expand their development tools and support the Mono platform.

And would you point out, like I just did, that the Republican president was preventing oil companies from using their gulf wells? Or from being allowed to use new leases on fields? If a Republican president actually DID those things, you'd be able to. Is that what you're saying, that a Republican would be - as it relates to energy policy - exactly like Obama, and that his party would be giving him full credit for that? What ARE you saying?