"Gaza can send thousands of rockets targeting Iraeli citizens and they won't even say a word." -- I'm pretty sure the US is saying a word, and it is desire for a cease fire. Also, Hamas is dumb, but death count in the recent spate of attacks? Israelis: 1 died to a rocket, Palestinians: 1000 died in shelling. Looks like Israel is doing comparatively alright here. Why do you need the US doing more here? What is it you want them to do?

"Iran can make nuclear weapons and they won't even say a word." -- Clearly you are unaware of the current state of diplomacy on this issue. Last November an interim agreement was made, observers are checking to verify Iranian compliance in agreement for a lessening of economic sanctions. We'll see if a continuing agreement can be reached by next November. What would you have done differently? The fact that you claim that the US has not said a word makes me inclined to think you are not aware of reality enough to make a sensible suggestion, but you could surprise me.

"Russia can take over Crimea and they get bashed harshly with... a speech." -- The US can invade Iraq and Afghanistan and run military operations in Pakistan and get bashed mildly with... a speech. Iraq was a disaster perpetrated upon a bed of lies and incompetency. Would you consider it money well spent? Seriously? What is your proposed action on Russia and Crimea? You have complained about actions taken, without expressing what it is you actually want... and that's just not helpful at all. It sounds like you want more dick waving and war and are under the impression that it will help, but I could just be stereotyping you...

"ISIS can take over Iraq and kill thousands and they won't say a word." -- What do you want? Unending US military presence in Iraq? Who do you even want to be in charge of Iraq and why? What implications would your desires have?

Basically, it sounds like you want the US to prop up Israel, stop Iran by any means necessary, remove Russia from Crimea, and crush ISIS and prop up Iraq indefinitely. You want to do all of this heavy work and military mobilization (hint: that costs a ton of money [oh, and lives, especially if you count foreigners and care about that kinda thing]), yet simultaneously you complain about the government not cutting a dime of spending.

Your brain is broken.

I'm guessing that at least some of the people pushing for this aren't necessarily against the idea of civilian firearm ownership, but are against gun violence or gun accidents that lead to injury or death. I can imagine such a person might like the idea that a child might not shoot themselves or a sibling accidentally because such technology prevented the weapon's discharge.

Now that you know there is more than 1 type of person who might be for this technology, maybe you won't need to be so suspicious.

There are other options, like calling people out for judging people on the basis of factors that don't actually give you the information you think they do. It is dumb and not logical. It's like making fun of the kid that dresses funny. It's lame.

Perhaps you missed the part that said "Of all of the escalations that occurred, her's seems the most sensible". So, the fool who is not grasping that there were escalations on both sides is not me.

Also realize that everything you say this woman should have done equally applies to the aggressive thieves who engaged in criminal behavior. The baseline situation was that people were socializing in a bar. Then some patrons escalated the situation and eventually became threatening and stole from her. Apparently to them, part of enjoying the big wide world involved imposing their will on her and stealing her things. They did not seem to show much empathy. While your advice is not a bad stance to take, the point is that she was just showing a device to someone. If I'm going to spend my time blaming someone for the situation, it will be the aggressive thieves. Your approach makes sense. On the other hand, we can't have a society where some people are obligated to buy drinks for people who get pissed off and threaten them. We shouldn't blame people for not acquiescing to the demands of drunks or thieves.

A person is not a douchebag for having a bluetooth headset, or Google Glass. That is like saying people with tattoos are criminals or somesuch. You are projecting. You are using some physical artifact to judge what a person's intent and character are.

Please don't make excuses for thieves and physical assaults. Maybe if people were civilized and didn't attack or steal from others, nothing would have went wrong. Just a thought.

The offended patrons created the issue by being hostile and not politely asking anything. She was not recording them at that time. They started by giving her guff, then escalated until the point that she felt threatened. At that point she began to record them and notified them. Then, they ripped it off her face, and stole her purse. They could have walked away. It seems very victim-blaming to say "she caused the escalation". There was a civil public situation, they got uncivil, then they got threatening, she then decided to record that, then they ripped the device from her and someone stole her purse. Of all of the escalations that occurred, her's seems the most justified. Also, to hell with thugs and thieves.

She was not being obnoxious. She was showing a device to a friend in a bar, not recording anyone. Some people were rolling their eyes at her and flipping her off. They then escalated the situation and got threatening. At this point she began to record their behavior. Then they physically ripped the device off her face and ran. As she left to recover her property, someone then stole her purse. So, thugs and thieves. They have no excuse.

There is nothing inherently narcissistic about Google Glass. It is a piece of technology that could be used by people who are or are not narcissistic. It is a form factor for a computing device. It is like making a personality judgement about people who would use a tablet vs. a desktop computer or something.

I really don't understand the "Internet Tough Guy" syndrome on this. Yeah, you are going to physically assault people. Congratulations, you are a violent person. No, in case you are wondering, it is not OK to hurt people. Maybe your mother forgot to tell you.

Recognizing someone is not an assault. Using a computer to recognize someone is not an assault. Also, the state has and will have this technology and will use it. What you advocate strengthens what the state can do, but denies that ability to regular people. You know that is how it would play out, right?

Humans are flexible. I'm sure we'll find a way to deal with it, like we have everything else that's come along.

It does not logically follow that he must have done something. The cop could have mistaken his vehicle for another one, or perceived the situation incorrectly. Even if the cop saw him "do something" (which is a very huge range of potential things that could be totally innocuous), they don't necessarily merit pulling someone over. I too was pulled over once because a cop "saw me swerving" when I was doing no such thing. This would have been on a Friday night in a college town when bars let out, however.

Aren't DMV people state employees, and not federal?

What are these sociopathic tendencies? He wanted to expose wrongdoing and did not do it in the best way.

Sociopath: a person with a psychopathic personality whose behavior is antisocial, often criminal, and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.

I don't see how you could claim he lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience. It seems he may have them in more abundance than the average person.