Will the "law-abiding gun owner" shoot up a mall?
No that is a crime, thus the law abiding gun owner will do no such thing, but we might try to stop a criminal committing such a crime as happened in Clackmas. (whether or not he had any effect on the situation is up for debate, but a law abiding gun owner was there and did try to intervene. But realizing he didn't have a safe shot he held his fire (not wanting to cause additional injuries to innocents) and moved himself and his girlfriend to a more secure location. Of course the holophobes claim that liberal carry laws will result in mass numbers of armed citizens pulling their guns and charging in guns blazing without regards for the concequences but that did not and does not happen. Well the police do it quite regularly but armed Law abiding citizens? It hasn't happened yet.

Will the "law-abiding gun owner" share her weapon with her son so that he kills 20 first-graders and 6 teachers?
And you know that she "shared her weapons" knowing what his plans were? Now I know no better than you but it's far more likely that the reason she was killed was to enable him to get access to her weapons.

Will the "law-abiding gun owner" kill his wife at her office?
Nope, again that's a crime. The Law abiding gun owner won't do that.

Now do formerly law abiding gun owners on rare occasion do such actions. Yes, too often. But invariably indicators go back to additional stressors leading to mental instability. And then they dis-regard the laws. But such individuals are actually quite rare. Most gun homicides are performed with illegally owned or obtained firearms by those who have no care for the law. The majority of homicides every year are inner city gang violence. We do need to find ways to reduce homicide by any and all weapon types but taking my guns isn't going to do it. Taking my guns changes this http://www.news10.net/news/article/222195/2/1-dead-in-Sacramento-home-invasion into another potential mass tragedy.

My ears are living things (well parts of a living thing) and Rock music seems designed to destroy them. j/k I like rock, Now get off my lawn.

You outlined a limit on the government's ability to remove a possession from you without due process. That says nothing about having a right to possess the item in the first place.

Not that big a difference, with my truck I actually get about 18 mpg on the freeway and 15-16 in city driving. If I was driving a greater distance it the freeway bonus would be greater, also the shorter route and the faster route are both on the same stretch of freeway for about a third of the route which reduces the freeway savings even more. Basically to go freeway I have to go past the location and then backtrack a little bit. Whereas the shorter route I get off the freeway earlier and cut the corner to the location.

It's a mapping application, why would it not request you turn on the location services every time you use it. It's greatest functionality is only available when location services are on. Waze does the same thing in both IOS and Android, if you enter the app it requests access to Location services, because that information is key to it's primary use.

Yes you could be pulling it up just to look for a location, but most users these days are pulling these apps up for navigation purposes.

Why different routes? Simple either by a setting or by learning your travel habits it learns that you prefer the shortest route possible, while I prefer the fastest route possible. For example I can be to work in 30 minutes if I drive a route that is 28 miles long with approx 25 of those miles on the interstate, that's the fastest route. Or I can choose the shortest route, it will usually take me about 35 minutes to get to work, but is only 23 miles long. five miles may not seem like much and not worth the five minutes but that's a quarter of a gallon of gas each way (okay a little less due to the efficiency of freeway driving versus having to stop frequently for lights and stop signs.) but that roughly half gallon of $3.50 a gallon gas each day adds up to a decent savings over time. That is one reason for differing routes. I use Waze for navigation and it has a setting to choose between fastest and shortest route. Google may have a similar setting or it may try and learn your habits (like many other Google products do) to determine the routing you would prefer.

No it wouldn't be gender equal as there is no system or structure in place for such a draft. Specifically Every male is required to register with the Selective service at age 18. Not one female is required or even able to so register and thus the draft boards have no female draft registries from which to draft female citizens.

Amen and keep safe brother!

And don't forget that the incidents that put those strict limits on kinetic strikes in place were basically manufactured by the Taliban to ensure maximum civilian casualties. They packed a Qalat full of women children and old folks, then opened fire from a perimeter position to get our attention and when we reacted appropriately to heavy fire coming from a Qalat (basically a mud fort, a very defensible structure best dealt with via artillery or air strikes), with a kinetic attack appropriate, the fighters were all actually outside the structure and got away or at least cleared out all their bodies and weapons before we got in, leaving a destroyed Qalat filled with a very unusual number of women, children and old folks as casualties.

That would be like the Dutch UN troops who sat back and watched the massacre at Sebrenica because the biggest concern of their UN leaders was the safety of the Dutch troops. The last thing they wanted was a UN peacekeeper being sent home in a body bag so they let a few thousand civilians get buried in mass graves instead.

It's a nice dream world you live in, but having worked and served around great troops from all over the world the number one concern is always their own safety, but unless directly ordered not at the risk of letting innocent they can protect get harmed. Collateral damage is a fact of war and the US is no more and actually far less callous about it than many other countries armed forces.

Now jump to the current conflict in Afghanistan where our troops have repeatedly stood between innocents and Taliban fighters, as compared with the Taliban fighters who regularly put civilians in harms way to try to make us look bad, and with a great deal of success resulting in civilians dying from our rounds after the Taliban put them in the line of fire and used them as human shields.

Naw, they don't need to lie like that. The officer can claim that "Just as I jumped out of the car the seatbelt managed to catch the edge of my glasses and pulled them off, I could have spent the next thirty seconds trying to find and put them back on or I could go assist my fellow officers, who also all managed to knock their glasses off one way or another, in trying to restrain the accused in his attempts to bash his head against the ground repeatedly. Sadly even with the six of us trying to restrain him we were unable to prevent such an action, resulting in his self inflicted coma."

Eye glasses are very easy to knock off during vigorous activities. Especially by those who aren't really used to wearing them all the time. Or the officer just "absent mindedly" pushes the glasses up onto his forehead giving a nice view of the sky during the encounter.

He's on record in many instances against our freedoms and rights, he's not a fan of privacy or the right to record his officers on duty. And as for SLC, well this is a city that will cite you for idling too long, waiting to pick your kids up on a cold winter day with below freezing temps or a hot summer day with 100+ temps, this is a city that finds every little fine and penalty it can to drive visitors away from it. And this is par for the course. As others have noted it will be nearly impossible for them to "find" the footage if it helps your defense. However if it proves your guilt they'll be sure to have it ready for the prosecution.

And why glasses? Not every officer wears glasses. Yes many with good vision do wear sunglasses during the day but not all and what about at night? Rather if they really want to put camera's on their officers they should look at what other communities in Utah have been doing for a few years now, pin-hole camera's mounted in their ties. Far less burdensome as they already all wear a tie as part of the uniform, now the camera just makes the tie-tack a little larger.

A bit slow at first, until the workers streamlined their check-in process then the line zipped along. Electronic voting machines but they create a paper record that you review before casting the finalized ballot. Went at 10:30 was done by 11:30. I did have to choose which form of photo ID I wanted to use, Military ID, Passport (card), Concealed weapons permit, drivers license. All of which are in my wallet. Oh and the polling place was just a block away so I walked.

So far rulings have gone both ways but more recently they've tended to side with the argument that forcing you to give up the password to decrypt is tantamount to forcing to self incriminate and thus is not legal under the 5th amendment.

Funny, according to this http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_06.pdf the initial mortality report for 2011 does not support your claims of death increases. In fact it states that Infant mortality dropped in 2011 vs 2010. In fact the total infant death count for 2011 was 23,910 versus 24,586 for 2010. Where is this additional 14k more than average found again, it wasn't among infants.

You vastly underestimate the challenge of moving reasonable amounts of very heavy and bulky military equipment around by air. Yes it can be done and often is in a limited amount, but rail, road and sea are far more viable options, and both road and rail are used extensively inside the country. Most large scale movements of equipment are done by rail. Every large base I've been on in my career has a rail yard for loading and unloading equipment. Smaller movements of a few vehicles may go by road, but more than a few and unless there is no rail head at the origin or destination and the shipment goes by rail. To move a couple hundred of them by air is not reasonable. Even via road that large a movement becomes prohibitive, needing a massive convoy (or convoys to break it up for less impact on civilian traffic) tens of miles long, whereas a single train can move hundreds of military vehicles. So one one train can move a Division's vehicles. Another train loaded with all the other equipment loaded into connexes can more the rest of a division's equipment, versus another massive convoy of trucks hauling the connexes.

What do I mean by bulky, take tanks, one 70k ton tank per aircraft is not an efficient means of movement.

Oh and as to your claim about access to military bases, Most large Army bases have, or at least had until 9/11 a large (interstate capacity) highway going through or at least to the base. After 9/11 the era of open bases came to an end and those roads while still there now have security checkpoints at the point of entry to the base or at each interchange if the road goes through the base. The airstrips on the bases are for movement of troops, and aircraft not equipment. Airfreight capacity is just too limited to rely on air for moving equipment. Airstrips on every base allow for quick loading of personnel, loading of personnel who willingly leap out of working aircraft, and for moving and dispersing combat aircraft should that capability be needed.