I agree with all of this. Thanks for saving my fingers. Like you say, we already have laws for this: Reckless driving/Careless driving. Why they need to make a law for each individual instance is beyond me. Other than to look like they are doing something.

You're an idiot. "I wouldn't have married her if she didn't agree to a suicide pact in that sitation" != "I married her so I can kill her"

The collision avoidance is questionable at best...

Hey, Gun Free School zones could work, if there are controlled entry points and metal detectors used on everyone. Otherwise it's just a feel good law with no real positive effect.

Yeah, this isn't new. Dawkins talked about this his book: The Greatest Show On Earth

Gasoline explodes?

The argument is that NYC, NJ, and California pass ridiculous laws that do little to stop crime, but make it harder to follow the law if you have good intentions. They restrict, in some places completely, the right to bear arms. Therefore, they restrict your freedoms. If you don't care for the freedoms enumerated in the Bill, that's your problem. If you think the 2nd should be repealed, then repeal it. Anything other than the reasonable restrictions SCOTUS has determined are violating the constitution. And there are lots of laws in the states mentioned that are far beyond reasonable.

The FUD is spread by anti-gun people who call for bans on the misnomer, "assault weapons" (which account for 1% of US gun deaths), additional loopholes that only law abiding people will follow in the first place (written permission to travel, no CCW, etc.), they are ones that ignore the recently released CDC and Harvard reports that show an overwhelming amount of defensive gun use every year, and they completely ignore the tragedy of gun free Havens like Chicago. While guns do make it easier to kill, the killing problem is a cultural problem of poverty and inequality, not a gun problem. The FUD is spread by both sides.

This. I wish more people would point this out. It's the courts that have decided there can be "reasonable restrictions" on the 2nd. Not the amendment itself.

Not true. The 'loophole' you are referring to is a private sale. There's no federal requirement for a FFL middleman/background check--but some states require this for private sales. It's not a loophole, it's the way it was designed. It's typically called the gun show loophole since advertising weapons in most classifieds (or craigslist, or ebay) are forbidden.

The "loophole" he's talking about is a private sale, which currently requires no backgroundcheck/FFL middleman. Some states require a FFL middleman/background check. You can go to a gun show and buy/sell to private individuals, as long as you aren't a "gun business".

You make this sound like the Hunger Games.

I did this too. It's nice not having to remember passwords anymore. I just keep my database and key backed up, and have a lot less "what was this password again" troubles.

We do know the witnesses story, who said Martin was beating Zimmerman's head into the pavement. We know Martin was taller than Zimmerman. We know he liked acting "gangsta". We know Zimmerman liked helping kids and his neighbors out. Would Zimmerman have survived had he not had a gun? Maybe. So he should just play a victim because it's OK to attack someone else who asks you questions?

Whoops. RTFS, me.

Ooh, is this another reference to the Martin shooting? Because out of the ~2 million defensive uses of a gun a year, one of them goes to trial since it's unclear what happened. He's acquitted. Martin attacked first. End of story. But no, you have one case plastered over the news so it's an epidemic.