"Isn't the McKinnon case more like charging him to buy the lock that had been missing when he walked in?"

No, it's more like making him pay for new locks because he wrote a lockpicking book. The flaws existed, and he exposed them, but it's not his fault that people might use them to perpetrate crimes. If someone tells me how to crack a safe, I'd generally blame the safe's maker for designing that fault... not the person who realized the problem. Eh?

What? I don't know if you've ever USED a computer before, but for many people, they are integral tools for communicating and learning in LIFE -- screw school! Even if something's not required for a curriculum, I'd rather have all the materials at hand to be excellent in all of my endeavors, required or not! There's no vanity involved. Jeesh.

That has less to do with the application and more to do with connection methods. For the period in question, leaving IRC on would tie up your phone line. Now, most people have always-on connections, so leaving something running in the background isn't a problem at all. In fact, I've run IRC 24/7 for years, and most IRCers I know of do the same. It even has a term: "idling" a chan.

"To go with a nice car analogy. If a mechanic is working on a PoS[. . .]"

Wow. That's not a sentence, bucko! You're the CHAIR of a language arts department? Even if that PERIOD were a comma, it would still be improper grammar. This sort of thing hurts my soul.

I'm opposed to filtering in schools, because there's no reason to restrict that liberty. I'm not opposed to strict monitoring -- or monitoring for a "block list". Kids that step outside the rules should be swiftly, strictly, and publicly punished or humiliated.

For most things in life, there's no such thing as a "block list". Teaching them that they are accountable for their OWN actions is one of the biggest missing pieces of today's education puzzle.

Also, I can't believe all the anti-technology-for-schools ranting going on here. Sure, it can be a waste of time, and just adding computers isn't a panacea -- but come on, computers will play a HUGE part of any child's future life. How about teaching kids how to find and dissect useful information, evaluate sources, and educate THEMSELVES? Education today is becoming a force feeding, not a buffet. How did YOU learn about the things that fascinate you? Was it because that's what you were FORCED to do? I doubt it.

Let's give kids the tools they need to learn about stuff their teachers may never know, or never want to know. When I was 10-12, I read five full years of back issues for Aviation Week & Space Technology. Without a doubt, I possessed an understanding of modern aviation technology far surpassing any of my teachers -- not because they were incapable of knowing it, but because there was nobody interested in it -- or in a million other subjects. Without the ability to find my own information (thanks Dad!), I would have had zero recourse to learn something that I love knowing about, to this day. If I'd had the Internet then? I would have read about unending fascinating subjects.

Educationally, we misuse technology fantastically. There is so much potential for education. Just by doing math problems, for example, a computer program can easily determine your approximate math competency, and provide problems and explanations that will help you address SPECIFIC problems. It's hard to get that kind of specific attention from overworked teachers who don't have adequate time, resources, or focus to understand a kid's competencies, let alone how to address them.

The nuclear warhead one is the most interesting case, of course. I have many times pondered this exact problem. It's a true analog -- maybe the person just wants the warhead to ensure property safety, or perhaps for research or other peaceful purposes. Like the original poster, I see no "natural" reason why we should restrict ownership of items that only pose a threat in criminal hands (such as a gun or a nuclear warhead). However, I would also agree that removing restrictions on the ownership of nuclear warheads is a pretty darn terrible idea.

In attempting to determine what exactly gives us the ethical right to restrict nuclear warhead ownership, I would have to argue that the main concern is public safety, with connected problems of international relations, global stability, and risk of permanent habitat damage. The problem, for me, comes down to this: can we handle this as a public safety issue on a case-by-case basis? With guns, I might argue that the answer is yes (though we're not doing a good job of it now). It's possible to effectively deter and punish gun crime. The results of errors in this deterrence or punishment, while regrettable, do not cause a major disaster of public safety, international relations, global stability, and permanent habitat damage.

Nuclear warhead explosions, on the other hand, are not subject to effective deterrents or punishments. One must be extremely motivated to use a nuclear warhead. Additionally, errors are inherently major disasters. While a dozen errors in gun deterrence/punishment might lead to a dozen deaths, a dozen errors in nuclear warhead deterrence/punishment would potentially lead to global nuclear winter.

No matter what, we run into a sticky problem: how do we balance individual rights with the need for public safety? Statistically and scientifically, gun bans have been shown to increase overall public safety. Is that enough to overcome what I would consider a "natural" right to own whatever we like? I don't know, and I don't think there is an easy answer.

That said, we're ignoring our own constitution with current gun laws. Personally, I find that reprehensible. If we want to count that as a part of our law, we should adhere to it. If we want it to say something else, we should change it. We have the tools for that; it's called the constitutional amendment. Pretending that it says what we want is a much worse problem.

That's an argument? There are only two ways of interacting: reason or force? That's the most blatantly wrong statement I've seen in a while. What about:

• Appeals to emotion?
• Mind-altering substances?
• Trickery or deceit?

The list could go on for miles. In direct contradiction to Maj. Caudill's premise, I would argue that very little we do is truly the result of either reason OR force. Here's a good article that shows exactly that:

Nisbett & Wilson, 1977

Most often, we make choices in the "heat of the moment" -- not based on an honest evaluation of reason or force, but just on "gut feeling". The rest of his arguments are just as laughable. If by "force" you mean "threat of bodily force to myself alone" -- that's a stupid definition. Take his statement: "The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded." That's just not true. First, I would say that under his own definition, there is no difference between persuasion and force. I could choose to be beaten up, shot, or worse. Second, what if I had 5 friends pointing guns at you, telling you to put your gun down? Would that not be the threat of force making you surrender your weapon?

"It removes force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act." What? No, it ADDS force to the equation. Just instead of the force applying to YOU, it's applying to someone else. Not to mention, if you hold the position that carrying a gun is a civilized act, you would naturally assume it civilized for all people to carry guns. Does that remove force from the equation? Here are the scenarios for a force-based altercation:

1. Neither person has a gun. Likely, either nothing happens, one person gives the aggressor what he wants, or one person is slightly injured.
2. One person has a gun. Most likely, the person with the gun gets what he wants. If the non-carryer is not persuaded by force, he may be shot. Additionally, gun accidents are more common than successful gun defenses. This could be the aggressor or the defender. In a "civilized" society, this would seem rare, since it seems that the Major is espousing general gun ownership as a rule.
3. Both parties have guns. Almost certainly, somebody gets shot. If I am armed and my opponent has a gun, I am practically obliged to shoot to kill.

How, exactly, is forced removed from ANY equation in ANY of those scenarios? The crazy part is that I theoretically support gun ownership -- this is just the stupidest argument I've ever heard for it.