I knew there was a good reason that I prefer cellos over violas for some reason.

Does this mean that one may use this precedent as a defense when one publishes the campaign damaging phone records of the politically elite? If there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, then why not?

Republicans don't want free-market.
Democrats don't want free-market.
They both want different lobbys to pay them (in campaign donations) for the "privilege" of not being encumbered by regulations of the other party.

Libertarians (both big "L" and little "l") generally want free-markets.

You do know that "stand your ground" wasn't applied on the Zimmerman case, right?

In all seriousness, shouldn't we use it to tag the politicians who use drone attacks?

That's exactly what a good leaker/whistleblower would say while he/she collects more information.

Do you imply that it would be better if only the wealthy (and criminals who steal their guns) could afford them?

The consumer/taxpayer gets money taken out of their paycheck for federal income taxes for R&D. The government would spend the money on research and development. Once developed and patented, the government would collect royalties on the patent from the corporations who would pass the cost on to the consumer in the cost of products and services.

Once again, the consumer takes it in the rear. I say let industry continue to pour money into research and leave out the government middle-man.

What about deprivation of rights under color of law? They've already confirmed that 4th amendment protected rights were violated. Now, we're just talking about how to hold those responsible accountable for their actions.

18 USC 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/242

I shoot 3-gun competitions. I've yet to see anything get killed at one. Actually, any unsafe behavior will get you DQ'd and kicked out. It's a very fun and social sport. It improves hand-eye coordination, memory and awareness.

I also help farmers with pest control. Since January, we've eliminated over 150 of this invasive, non-native species. We use semi-auto AR-15s. Sometimes, we take the meat, but the main purpose is to protect the farmland to keep food costs as low as possible.

I also carry concealed. I've had friends who have been raped and mugged with no ability to defend themselves. I carry a pistol to protect my life and my family. The purpose is protection, not killing. Killing may be a side-effect, but the choice is not mine at that point, it's the choice of the aggressor that's willing to put me into a position where I feel that my family's life is in danger.

I shoot long range precision rifle. It's a great competitive challenge in many ways. From loading the ammo, to adjusting to environmental conditions and researching to reduce the variables, it's a very rewarding hobby that improves focus, math and concentration skills.

Guns can kill. They can be both a tool of first aggression and a tool of defense. That's the nature of a tool. If you ban one because of its potential uses, then you may as well bad the 3D printer because of its potential uses. Banning something because of what someone considers its "primary" uses is just as asinine. A criminal bent on killing 100s of people isn't going to stop his plans to burn down a library with molotov cocktails just because gasoline's main purpose isn't destruction.

I don't expect you to admit it here AC. But you need to do some research. Go look at the other uses of guns instead of regurgitating an argument posited by someone else who doesn't know any better. The point about gasoline is that there are many other items that can cause death and destruction.

The facts of the G.Zimmerman case are impossible to know (unless you're one of the two involved, it's hearsay). Had he not owned, he may have died with his head bashed in on the pavement or he may have decided to stay home. What about the 71 year old "self-defender & concealed carrier" in FL a few weeks ago. Had he not owned a gun, that could have been much harder and uglier.

The gun store owners informed the ATF that these large purchases seemed suspicious. The ATF told them to complete the sale.

Question: While it is not uncommon in law enforcement to let the item "walk" usually, there's a mechanism in place in advance to track the item. What was the mechanism that the ATF operation was going to use? I've not heard anyone state how they were going to track these weapons (no transmitters, they stopped agents from following them). How was it ever supposed to work?

Step 1: Push gun dealers to complete sales to suspicious individuals
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Intercept and arrest the big shots

I make no claim to the title 'reason' and I'm a libertarian. Maybe you're using inductive reasoning. Perhaps, just the libertarians that you know are unreasonable, emotion-driven and all of the other negatives that your stereotype describes.

I don't know of any conspiracy nuts at Harvard, but it's possible that they could be there and publishing papers. The paper doesn't claim that the Soviets skewed murder rates in the US. Read it closer. It's very reasonable to think that the Soviet Union did suppress homicide data without it being conspiracy nut bullshit.

Laws against possession of objects because of what you "might" do with it. Extrapolates into laws against possession of 3D printers because of what you "might" do with what you "might" print. The concept of an easy to use effective 3D printer quickly undermines object prohibition.

Can you site a study, published report or otherwise verifiable data to support your claim?

You could teach Bell & Howell a thing or two about projection.

I just have a curious mind. I'd honestly like to know if your basing your position on empirical data, if it's just a stereotype that you've created, or if there are some other underpinnings. Though at this point, I think that I have my answer.

Here's a review that may interest you. May the cargo dropping gods bless you with their bounty:
Would banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide
A review of International and Some Domestic Evidence
Don B. Kates and Gary Mauser
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
It's quite a surprise.