Correct, and we live in a country where women are not forced to go into engineering fields if they do not want to... just as men are not forced to stay home with a child. There is sufficient freedom and opportunity that a person can decide for themselves based on their own interests and what they and their spouse want to do.

Yes, because the US has so often set fire to persons who would normally be called legitimate prisoners of war (uniformed, part of a regular military, etch) in order to execute them for... what exactly?

How many folks at Gitmo have been executed? Of the survivors... how many have gained weight because of their treatment there?

People pay into SS, therefore they deserve what they put in when they retire.

Except most retirees take more out of SS than they ever paid in... a pyramid scheme which goes back to the beginning.

SS is not a handout, its a retirement plan.

Actually it's a tax on workers and a handout for retirees. If it was an actual retirement plan, it would be something that a retiree could have go to someone else when they die. I can have my son inherit my house, my bank account and my car when I die... but oddly not most of the money I've paid into SS.

Perhaps, but then you have the whole problem that Facebook is based in a different state than the NYPD, so now you have to figure out where to sue them, and then you get into the whole thing that click-through Terms of Service and End User License Agreements may not entirely be enforceable.

No you don't. The Facebook legal terms which all users of the service agree to already address this:

You will resolve any claim, cause of action or dispute (claim) you have with us arising out of or relating to this Statement or Facebook exclusively in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California or a state court located in San Mateo County, and you agree to submit to the personal jurisdiction of such courts for the purpose of litigating all such claims. The laws of the State of California will govern this Statement, as well as any claim that might arise between you and us, without regard to conflict of law provisions.

This is pretty typical terminology for online services, I recall even AOL having such phrasing (I think setting jurisdiction as being in Virginia) circa 1999.

But they know where you use your credit/debit card... your mother must be so ashamed!

As far as gun owners needing to be astronauts, that's over-kill. Idiots with guns tends to be a self correcting problem. I thought all liberals preached natural selection. Why do they fight so hard against it?

Really? The low murder rate in easy to legally get a gun Plano, Texas and the high murder rate in the hard to legally get a gun city of Detroit beg to differ: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...

In fact, oddly enough those places with the highest per-capita murder rates in the US tend to have rather strict gun laws full of more than a few liberal voters... odd that?

No doubt John Walker Lindh, Adam Gadahn and Colleen LaRose (just to name a few off the top of my head) wish it was that easy.

You forgot to mention that most "assault rifles" are often easily modifiable into a non-illegal configuration. Have a pistol grip? Quick! Replace it with a thumb-in-hole stock. Have a detachable magazine? Add a bullet button!

Unless the powers that be want to make illegal the Ruger 10/22 and standard hammer, any law seeking to limit access to an assault rifle or weapon that can be used to assault is rather pointless.

The problem is mass surveillance and data mining.

There hasn't been an administration in this country for the past 63 years that I would have any level of trust with that kind of information.

LK

The ACLU doesn't work to ban guns but they don't oppose the idea, either.

If you read the above link, they even take the unprecedented step of saying that in essence, the ACLU thinks that the SCOTUS is wrong and that the Constitution doesn't say what the SCOTUS says that it says.

LK

I'm not sure if you're trolling or serious.

Would you mind clarifying?

LK

The ACLU's motivation was stopping mass surveillance and not the preservation of Americans' second amendment rights.

Sure, the ACLU may have been the source of this information but it will be the NRA, SAF, CCRKBA, JPFO and similar groups that actually use it.

LK

First, do please define "sensible gun regulation".

Second, are you aware of how much 'gun regulation' already exists today both in federal, state & local statutes?

You are hard pressed to find a legal consumer good which is more regulated than firearms with regards to it's manufacture, sale, transport and use.

Agreed, using a third party service when you know you are going to be subject to scrutiny from those in power is just dumb... but then I've come to expect that from WikiLeaks.

When I was in school long ago I found that from time to time a teacher might try to punish me for my attitude or behavior but not by lowering a value in such a way (if there was such a column on the report card), but by arbitrarily claiming I got 20% less on a given test than I really did scored. Once I discovered this occasional pattern I started to keep rather good records and not giving them an official reason on paper to punish me. Only once did this fail when I was so busy dealing with the demonstrable harassment of the professor that they gave me the lowest grade they could without garnering suspicion (though probably due to me he will likely never teach a college class again)

Julian Assuage would have been better off long ago if he married someone and put on a good enough show of being a committed husband, so much so that any allegations of rape or infidelity would seem like utter nonsense. Yes, some will say that the accusations were/are nonsense, but not weighed in comparison to who he is and presenters himself as a person they seem at a minimum plausible to the common person.

True, though I don't see many people wearing "I was abused in the past" signs around their necks... maybe I'm just not as good at reading people as others are.