I want someone to drastically reduce the probability that any one will spray our children, our relatives, our friends, or our fellow citizens with bullets.

I want someone to drastically reduce the probability that any one will drink herself insensible and crash her fucking SUV head-on into any more of my friends' cars.

There is no "line". The slippery slope argument, as you present it, is nonsense. We can say "No, you can't have an assault weapon," without saying "No, you can't own all the liquor you can afford." We can say "No, you can't drink and drive," without saying "No, you can't buy an SUV."

See, here's how it works in civilized societies: we weigh the costs and benefits of particular freedoms and responsibilities. We agree, as best we can, after consideration and argument, what we should allow and what we shouldn't. For example: the benefit to gun nuts of owning assault weapons is exceedingly low in comparison to the cost to parents whose children are slaughtered. The benefit to drunkards of guzzling all the liquor they can hold and then going for a spin is exceedingly small in comparison to the cost to society. Remember society? That's US...you, and me, and all our friends, and all theirs...

As it is clear that if considerations were limited to the costs and benefits mentioned in my examples, then owning assault weapons would be prohibited, just as drunk driving is. Why then isn't it? I speculate it is because the folks who make a killing by selling assault weapons spend a lot of that money on advertising and PR to get folks like you to think the way you do. They want you to imagine that if they can't sell their deadly wares that will somehow diminish your freedom. Now that the liquor industry has given up fighting against drunk driving laws, are you less free? I'm not.

"You couldn't even be bothered to RTFS, could you? This is about a legal claim against Apple, it has nothing to do with them operating a walled garden (though I agree this is a bad thing)."

Oh! I thought he was referring to the Ravensburger game "Mystery Garden".

"What they do with "Rachael" is not my concern." Rachel from Cardmember Services is my sister, you insensitive clod.

"So politics is really hard? Explains the quality of the candidates this year. . ." "At least both candidates can read....." Otto: Apes don't read philosophy. Wanda: Yes, they do, Otto. They just don't understand it.

AC said: "Not only that, even in his wildest dreams Reagen never approached the level of debt a young, intelligent president with all his mental faculties could achieve in only three years of half-hearted piddling around; Sixteen Trillion as of last week.They didn't even start using the word 'Trillion' in association with debt before the Anointed One was elected."

A little something to think about if you are one of the folks who suppose the national debt is a bad thing: the national debt is equal to the money supply. Reduce the debt, and you reduce the money supply. Why? Because every dollar, whether printed, or on deposit, is a debt instrument backed by the full faith and credit. It has been that way since the Nixon administration.

Want to reduce the national debt? Burn a dollar bill.

"If the Brits storm the Ecuadorian embassy, it'd be funny if Ecuador stormed the British embassy in Quito in return. And maybe a bunch of other governments will storm the British embassies in their countries too.

As a brit i'd like to see that happen."

As an Irish American, so would I; for different reasons, maybe.

Kudos more to Melinda than Bill.

"Lately a TSA agent allowed me to pass a 3+ oz jar of Hawaiian mustard through. He took it out of my bag, looked at it, thought about it, then shrugged at me and handed it back. Cuz it was mustard." Which you could have used to make mustard gas.

Denmark.

I vote for lunatic. Can I admire a fictional lunatic? Sure. Don Quixote, for example.

Having read Tennessee HB 0368, I don't think it allows teachers to present creationism or other non-scientific alternatives to science in science classes. Instead, it protects teachers from school boards, administrators, or others that might seek to punish a teacher who "encourages students to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion". Teachers need the protection offered by HB 0368 because students who go home armed with scientific evidence and critical thinking skills are apt to controvert, and thereby, in some cases, anger their parents. I imagine that in Tennessee, as I know happens in Georgia, school systems are frightened by angry parents. To avoid upsetting parents, administrators discourage teachers from teaching "some scientific subjects, including, but not limited to, biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning". The new law in Tennessee addresses that problem and "protects the teaching of scientific information, and shall not be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine".

"As for you, my galvanized friend, you want a heart. You don't know how lucky you are not to have one. Hearts will never be practical until they can be made unbreakable."

In 50 years, I will most likely no longer be disabled by MS. I'll be dead. The future has something for everyone!

The Google Driverless Car only crashed when a human was driving it. Or, at least, so says Google. Having seen many human-driven cars crash, I agree with you that avoiding other traffic is not so easy. But I can't help believing that it will be easier for cars that drive themselves to avoid each other than it is for cars driven by people.

It's a setting. Change it if you'd like.