>Because you idiots don't think the consequences through.

Exactly. Wish I had mod points for you.

Social services are not provided just for, or even mainly for altruistic reasons. Social services are provided because society AS A WHOLE is better off when when these services are provided.

I do not understand how pets died. The news accounts say that 2 hours elapsed from the time the trash fire got out of control to the burning of the house.

Surely there was time to empty the house of animals and even significant amounts of property?

>My 1400 minute family plan is $80/mo.

Let me preface this by saying I am 40 years old. I have been involved with computers since they came out. My first gaming system was an Atari 2600, and my first computer was a TI99/4A. I also hold a B.S. in Computer Science. I am not a Luddite.

And yet, I do not understand the hype around cell phones these days. I have a work-provided cell phone (Blackberry Bold), and my wife has a cheap phone off of her father's family plan for an extra $10 a month.

If it were not for my work-provided phone, I would not own a cell phone. Or rather, I would not pay for a wireless plan - I'd keep the cell phones in the cars to make 911 calls in an emergency, which all cell phones are required by law to be able to do regardless as to whether or not they are on a plan.

Using these phones for internet access is atrociously painful to me. They are agonizingly slow, and remind me of dial-up BBS days. The only time I will use them is when I am out and about and absolutely have to obtain directions or a phone number for something. But certainly any kind of "pleasure" web browsing I just wait until I get home to a real computer with true high-speed (cable) internet access.

The idea of paying $80 a month for a telephone is just astounding to me. Especially when you consider some people pay $70 a month for cable television on top of that. We canceled the TV service, but cable internet still costs about $50 a month, and Netflix is another $10 a month on top of that, and MagicJack is another $2 a month on top of that.

If you signed up for the usual suite of communications/entertainment streams out there you could easily crest $100 a month, possibly even $200 a month.

This is ridiculous to me.

I've said the same thing. Of course, I always get poo-pooed. "Oh, but what about passengers in the car?" etc. etc.

Personally I think it would be just fine if cell phones stopped working if they sense they are moving at over 5 MPH. I could see special SIM cards for people who would need to be exempt from this requirement.

If you really, really need to talk to someone while you are on the road, pull over! It's still light-years more convenient that the old days of trying to find a pay phone.

I see security as the good-guy equivalent to DRM.

If DRM is a no-win proposition, and fortunately it appears it is, then security is probably a no-win proposition also.

I didn't even know this was occurring. Guess it hasn't bothered me so far.

I read stuff like this and it just seems like security is a hopeless undertaking.

The chips don't provide location.

The chip can only be detected and read by a wand that passes in close proximity of the chip.

Most likely the dog ended up with new owners, who took the dog to a vet who scanned for the chip, and reported the finding to the chip company.

Be best the chip company could tell you is the last place the chip was scanned.

I chipped my dogs so that if they got lost or stolen I could find them again.

What this article tells me is that, as you note, it's worthless.

I want a replacement for a paper notebook. I do lots of engineering studies, where a keyboard is not practical for input. I would like to be able to write with a stylus on a virtual notebook. Such a device as this would allow me to store all my notebooks as a single notebook. In addition, it should be able to store electronic versions of my textbooks (which I acquire either legitimately, illegitimately, or by scanning the text myself).

Other functionality, such as wireless capability, would be a nice option to have, but I do not want to buy such a device only on condition of a service agreement of any kind.

Such a device should cost less than $500.

>It should be noted that in all the cases you cited, the fighters were armed with more than just normal guns that are
>available to civilians. Afgans fighting against USSR were equipped by Stingers for example.

No doubt, great wars require more arms than just small arms. Yet in spite of this, the soldiers of all armies, even great and powerful ones, still carry small arms. One could thus conclude that small arms are an essential part of any warfighting effort.

>And each case you cited was a case of outside force attacking the country (USA in Iraq, USSR if Afganistan etc.).
>What we are talking about is citizens rising up against corrupt government. That is not what happened in Afganistan,
>but it IS what happened in the communist regimes in Europe.

And again, I don't see this as relevant. In each case I cited you had a party that viewed itself as being oppressed that successfully defended itself against a vastly superior force.

You brought up the viability of technologically inferior forces against technologically superior forces. My examples demonstrate that this viability is possible. Their motivation is not the point.

>If number of guns ensures free and corruption-free government, then number of guns should correlate with lower corruption and god governance. Is that the case?
>(snip)
>How can that be, if guns ensure freedom?

Let me be clear here: firearms don't guarantee anything. All firearms are are tools. They give people the option of armed resistance against violence and oppression.

>If they managed to do that in Stasi-controlled East-Germany, and in former USSR, it could be done just about everywhere.

It could be, and hopefully it can be. But why give up your tools in case it doesn't work out that way? Why limit your options?

>And as I showed, there is no correlation between gun-ownership and freedom.

My country is where it is today because of privately owned firearms.

If you want to take your chances with no firearms to back up your words, that is your choice and I respect that.

>Violent crime is dropping in most western countries, whether people are armed or not. This correlates to most
>western countries populations aging. Less stupid young males, less violence.

And yet firearm and ammunition sales continue to skyrocket. More guns may not equal less crime, but it sure casts a lot of doubt on the "more guns = more crime" meme.

>Well, the people who created USA thought that people should have the right to carry arms as a
>part of "well regulated militia". Bunch of people blasting away is not "well regulated militia"

A few things worth mentioning here:

Firstly, "well regulated" in 18th century vernacular meant "well functioning". It did not mean "functioning under rules". For example, highly accurate clocks of the era used to set the time of other, less-accurate clocks were known as "regulators".

Secondly, there is a reason why the second amendment reads, "A well-regualted militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Note here that it says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, not the right of the militias. The reason for this is simple: The founders knew that the militia, being a branch of the government, could be corrupted or usurped and used against the people. Thus the means for projecting force are reserved to the people, and not the militias. And in fact, this is precisely what happened. In 1903, with the passage of The Dick Act, the state militias were federalized, creating the Organized Militia (National Guard). Now, instead of the militias serving as a counter to federal military power, they serve as an adjunct to it.

Thirdly, the Dick Act created both the Organized Militia (the National Guard), but it also created the Unorganized Militia - all able bodied men aged 17-45 not otherwise in the Organized Militia. So if you are an able-bodied man aged 17-45, you are in the militia.

Fourthly, the recent Supreme Court ruling, DC vs. Heller, has made it a matter of settled Constitutional law that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right irrespective of membership in any organization, such as a militia.

>What you are describing there is warfare, opposition to invasion by a outside force. We are talking about opposition to oppressive regime.

Oppression is in the eye of the beholder. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. My point is that all the cases I cited, a vastly inferior force successfully resisted what they viewed as oppression by a vastly superior force. Thus the idea that it is impossible to resist a modern military force is incorrect.

>And for example to that, I will point to Poland, Russia, East-Germany, Baltic States etc. Unarmed population
>overthrew the oppressive regimes in those countries.

And that's wonderful! Hooray for them! Would that everyone be able to effect change nonviolently. Firearms are the recourse for when that proves impossible.

>And the risk is that you will have a perfectly decent politician who ends up dead, because some
>nutjob decides that he just doesn't like him all that much. It has happened in the past.

Absolutely! Having a society with relatively free access to firearms carries much more risk than that. The risk of crime. The risk of suicide. The risk of accidents. Freedom is seldom safe. But as Thomas Jefferson said, "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."

>But not for a second do I think that I need guns to "protect myself" either from criminals or from the government.

And you should be free to indulge yourself in this choice. But many people, including the people who created this country, disagree.

>And if the shit really it the fan, me and my gun would be next to useless when facing tanks, gunships and artillery.

And yet there are several examples in modern history of vastly outgunned adversaries triumphing against superior ones. America vs. Vietnam. The Soviets vs. Afghanistan. America vs. Mogadishu. America vs. Iraq. America vs. Afghanistan.

>And if we really did got an oppressive regime, it would mean that me and my fellow citizens had already failed.
>If you need guns to oppose your government, you have already failed. People usually get the government they deserve.
>If you don't want oppressive regime, make sure to vote, and stay educated about politics.

So what will you do when you and your fellow citizens fail? THIS is why we have the right to keep and bear arms!!! That possibility of failure is just the contingency that our founders planned for!

>And as history shows, we have had lots and lots of revolutions by unarmed populace.

But mostly history shows that violence and money wins the day.

>So, owning guns is about "not being submissive to the government"? So, do gun-owners in USA refuse to pay taxes,
>break the law and otherwise disregard laws and regulations that are mandated and enforced by the government? Or do
>you follow them just like everyone else does? So, how exactly are those "Euro-hippies" and what have you "submissive"
>to their governments, while those American gun-owners are not?

Quite simply, owning firearms gives me the power to choose whether to do all those things or not. Most firearm owners are peaceable, law-abiding citizens who believe in our way of government and believe it still responds to the will of the people. Firearms are simply an insurance policy in case this turns out to not be true one day.

>How does gun-ownership turn person from a "sheeple" in to "non-sheeple"?

I would say that owning firearms is just like owning any other tool. It gives you other optional courses of action to follow.

>So, the argument is that in case of oppressive government, you can use your shotguns and what have you in defending freedom?

That is correct.

>If I slap you in the face, do you have to right to shoot my head off?

It depends on what state you live in, but where I live I have the right to shoot the head off of people who I reasonably believe are a threat to myself or my family. If you slap me in the face, and I can be shown to reasonably believe that your intent is to cause grave harm to me, then yes, I can shoot your head off.

>Could you explain how people who do not own guns are being "controlled by the government",
>while gun-owners are not? How about some tangible examples?

I believe the OPs point is that should you start to be oppressed by your government and you are unarmed you have no choice but to go along.

>Maybe widespread availability of guns is one reason why your personal space is so threatened?

As the just-released crime date from the FBI shows, violent crime of all types continues to decline, in spite of record sales of firearms and ammunition.

>Strange, I have never had the need for anything of the sort.

Good for you.

>I lived in rural areas as well, and I never felt threatened by anyone. Yet I'm the one who is to be pitied,
>where you are the bastion of freedom to be envied? Even though you need to arm yourself to the teeth in order to be (or feel) safe?

You are to pitied because you have no choice in the matter. You have been lucky enough to avoid violence, but you have no recourse should you be forced to confront it. That is a pity.