This is The United States of America. How dare you expect anyone in this nanny-state to be responsible for their own decisions, good or bad. If you make good decisions and manage to claw your way up to the upper echelons of society, you need to pay your fair share. And if by some chance you are aren't one of the lucky few, then by god, the Federal govt will take care of you. Because bad decisions are never based on your decision making shares, but it must be someone elses fault.

You're right, I went off on a rant (stupid HTML shit pissed me off at work). The banning cars argument is stupid. How's this argument.

Drunk drivers kill people , but people still do it, therefore we need to ban or license alcohol.

Is basically the same argument as

Criminals with guns kill people, therefore we need to either ban or require a license to own a gun.

Both of these are stupid arguments when looked at logically, criminals will break the law, while non-criminals won't. Requiring a license to buy a gun or alcohol will not stop people from getting killed. It might make it a little harder, but I doubt it. The Newtown shooting happened because a person stole guns from a law-abiding citizen. Had his mother had a license or not, it doesn't matter, those kids are still dead. The same thing in Virginia Tech. The student bought guns, after a background check. What more laws do we need? What is different between having to have a background check or having to have a license to buy a gun?

Of course it's a civil rights violation. It involves the internet and a bunch of fucking geeks. Now if Google said we were removing all ads that contained gun ads, that everyone would be like Hell Yeah Google, way to stick it to ignorant rednecks. I hate double standards. Do what you will, but don't step on things we like.

It's also illegal to go around and kill people with a gun. Still happens. You can't protect people by taking away rights. Criminals are going to commit crimes.

In this day and age, I think a joke is probable cause to start an investigation. I don't think it's probable cause to have someone arrested. I think there needs to be some substantial evidence that a crime is actually going to be committed before you start to think of taking away one's freedoms.

Every day in America, another 27 people die as a result of drunk driving crashes. That's over 9500 people a year. There are 211,000,000 registered drivers I propose we ban either cars or alcohol. I'll let you pick. The death rate is about the same number, but the number of drivers is less than the number of guns, so you're more likely to be killed by a drunk driver than you are to be shot to death. Not much though. I assume you agree with me that all cars or alcohol should be banned? Or maybe you just think we should only allow smaller cars. Nobody really needs to drive a 2-ton dually death machine anyways. Or maybe we should just ban all alcohol but wine. Nobody ever gets drunk on wine and drives a car. And no the argument that it's fun to just drink a few beers in not a strong argument for not banning alcohol.

Yes everyone should have the right to exercise freedom of thought and speech as long as they don't commit crimes. He shouldn't be arrested. Kept an eye on, maybe, I'm not actually making that argument either. I'm just pointing out that they should do their actual jobs (it's okay to investigate such a case, get a warrant from a judge, search around, keep an eye on the kid, station an officer outside said elementary school during school hours, patrol the neighborhood a little more, I'm sure there are a hundred other things that could have been done besides arresting the guy), not just arrest some kids for stupid comments.

IMO, if he had some credible weapons lying around, then at least you can charge him with intent after making a comment like that. You can threaten all day long, but if you don't have the tools needed to carry out that threat, then no you shouldn't be locked up in jail.

But high speed internet is a basic human right. You can't take away someones right to the internet, just their right to free speech on said internet.

A United Nations report said Friday that disconnecting people from the internet is a human rights violation and against international law.

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)