Wow, for a brief moment there, I thought that you weren't condoning censorship. Good use of the halo-effect/devil-effect in making the East's censorship look justified by calling out the West's evils. Uncensored corruption is of course bad, but censorship doesn't suddenly make the censors' intentions or methods a good thing. Let me simplify: Censorship = still bad.

This story is so Tinfoil hat.

It's not his government. It never was his. It belongs to the citizens. The man that you're defending has gone against the constitution and the will of the people. Get over yourself. Bush and Obama have made a mockery of the constitution. Both parties are trampling our rights and everyone seems to overlook their own party's evils while they're ready to attack the other with pitchforks and torches.

So, this video now becomes either a comedy sketch, or a sad commentary about crony capitalism... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUIP9NGsH9o

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.