I'm generally curious what you mean by sane gun restrictions? Felons aren't allowed to purchase or carry a gun, if you've been convicted of domestic violence, you can't purchase or carry a gun?

There are over 300 million legally acquired weapons, and only two of them have been used in a mass shooting this year. And they weren't legally acquired by the person who used them.

They really should do some actual investigating before just locking him up. If he had plans for bombs, or bombs, or some sort of credible weapon, then yeah you can arrest him. Until then, keep an eye on him. They do shit like this blowing things out of proportion, while some crazy person is really planning on doing it, but they don't do their jobs. It should have been pretty easy to get a search warrant for his premises and then to have actually searched them.

School shootings aren't really that common, I agree that it happens more often than it has in the past, but more kids are killed by drunk drivers than by mass shootings. Of the 1,210 traffic deaths among children ages 0 to 14 years in 2010, 211 (17%) involved an alcohol-impaired driver. Out of those 211 deaths, 131 (62 percent) were riding with the drunk driver

I figured as much.

Actually I think civil unions would only annoy the homosexual side. Let churches perform marriages that have no legal status, and let the govt convey civil unions.

I thought Tesla already proved that? At least they did in my mind. 0-60, 300 mile range, only $100,00. Far out of my price range, but I if I was in the market for a Porsche or Lambo, I'd consider the Tesla.

But that's not what homesexuals want. I don't care if they want to share property, tax laws and such. But they want to be "married" because it makes it more socially acceptable (IMO, I'm not gay, and don't have any gay friends, so I could be spouting bullshit). If the loud minority of them would agree to this, we wouldn't have to waste taxpayer money on endless court battles, and passing laws that are just going to be struck down later. (I'm probably wrong)

Selling all of our information to the NSA?

This is what doesn't make sense to me logically, but makes sense to me emotionally. The President doesn't really have any power to affect the climate. The real legislative power lies with the House and Congress (you know the legislative branch). But he always gets blamed when shit hits the fan. Bush, Clinton, Obama. The only power they have over laws is veto. They can suggest actions that Congress can take, but let's face it, Congress usually tells the Pres to take a flying leap.

If you want to address climate change, you need to contact your reps on a regular basis, and get everybody else you know to do the same thing.

Ok i thought you might think the democratic and republican parties were actually different when they are actually really the same.

The US has 100% of the seats in parliament reserved for one party. I think you're confusion is over the fact that that party goes by two different names.

The raspberry pi is great because you can rake leaves for an afternoon, and buy one for home use, instead of needing to work for whole month at an afterschool job like I had to to buy a shiny new compaq many years ago. Yes desktops are considerably cheaper now, but still more expensive than $35.

Dividing both by 1000 gives 1.23 Ah/g and 3.06 Ah/g respectively then multiply by the voltage to get Wh/g. So if you have ~11 volts, you get the density of gas for sulfur, and ~5 volts gives you better than gas for silicon.

Well put. That was the gist of my argument, only well thought out and written.

It's probably a little more complicated than that. Even if the British did storm the Embassy, what could Ecuador really do about it? Declare war, doubtful. Even if they did, what hope would they have of winning against the might of the British and the US? Really all the British are doing is humoring the Ecuadorians. I could be wrong, though.