unless they can search his cell phone while he is still driving, there can't be any imminent threat as the threat has been neutralized the moment the driver stopped his vehicle and surrendered to roadside interrogation. There could be other 'word trickery' employed about other things though. Using the patriot act to go after regular criminals is a good example of more police required to police said police.

It's been well documented that several planning parenthood organizations and ACORN affiliates were rubber stamped without questions as to how many times a day they pray and who were their donors. Questions they actually asked of other groups. In fact they didn't receive a single question. The tea party should have set up fake planning parenthood companies to get automatic free passes.

It's simply wrong regardless. Determining a non profit does not require questions about religious beliefs and/or submitting a detailed list of donors to then turn around and audit them also. This is the US version of the Schutzstaffel and not an accounting firm. There should not be a legal arm, not should they be purchasing hundreds of thousands of rounds of ammo. If someone is violating tax laws let the FBI handle it. It does not require the irs to be outfitted with hundreds of SWAT specialized divisions with tanks and body armor. Wake up before it's too late and you realize that you're a character in Animal Farm.

just like marital affairs, if they will do it with you, they'll do it to you. Never marry someone who cheated on their spouse.

repeal the 16th amendment! Id be for that.... considering nearly HALF of all the money they collect is spent on the IRS infrastructure its time to fire all those fucktards and start over.

they love the 2 party system.. they both keep selling the bullshit that the other party is entirely evil and they are angels of god. They both suck and ironically are both evil civil right stealing assholes. Where are the outraged persons who hated bush stealing civil liberties with the patriot act? Where is there outrage over the last 6years? fucking hypocrites is what they are... its a shame they can stand to look at their pathetic asses in the mirror every morning.

such as "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" while under oath? The only consequence he suffered was disbarment.

using your position of power to use groups as your personal S.S. division of the political party to silence opposition is the heart of it. Not only did these groups get targeted and never approved, while other parties got rubber stamped without so much as a single question, but they also demanded a list of ALL donors so they could audit their personal taxes as well. This is tantamount to political harassment to prevent anyone from donating money in order to avoid said harassment. This is called EXTORTION UNDER THE COLOR OF AUTHORITY and its one of the most egregious crimes someone in authority can commit. Its no different than a cop showing up and saying that he saw you speeding the other day and you need to pay him to avoid going to jail for reckless driving. Its an absolute abuse of authority. As a libertarian I find any and all parties that practice this intimidation entirely revolting.

Ctrl-S was always for pausing the display, I didn't know it was also saving anything - must have been some social engineering on the part of the NSA to make it save my work also. In any case, I prefer saving things at the points of my choosing on my own media. The real issue today is where does it save it? It's one thing to have a temp copy on hardware and media in your possession but something entirely more ominous if all the steps in your works-in-progress are being journaled forever in some corporate or government database entirely outside of your control or knowledge with only the appearance of "it's just a copy for your own good."

Jesus saves, Moses invests, Budha lives on the interest. - the rest of the story.

regardless if it was the last 5 years or the last 14 years, its fairly obvious that they are a shadow of what they used to be.

In the very earliest days of the Mac I remember having to buy a by then obsolete Lisa to write and compile because the Mac couldn't be used for that yet, then reboot it with a special OS to write a Mac disk so you could then try to run it on a nearby Mac because you couldn't run it on the Lisa. I was porting a package from the PC at the time and not too long before that the compile on the PC took most of a day sitting around swapping floppies for hours hoping there wouldn't be some dumb typo 5 hours in - not much better than the punched cards (except you could edit on a screen).

At least with the forms one could see the code and make changes, but it was up to you to see any errors. Punch cards gave you one line per card and disaster if if the wind got you while you were carrying your box(es) full of cards on the way to drop them off at the computer center so you could come back the next day to pick up your syntax errors. Still, both were a big step up from patch panels. Around 1981 I was working for a large medical instrumentation company (at that point I had an Apple II on my desk and z80 and 6800 machines nearby) and one day saw the dumpster full of wired up patch panels. Curious, I asked about it and found out that those were backups of old "code" that had been stored "just in case." My department head told me that they were keeping them around for when all the fuss over microcomputers would blow over and everything would get back to normal.

United States v. Verdugo-Urquirdez, 110 S. Ct. 3039 (1990). This case involved the meaning of the term "the people" in the Fourth Amendment. The Court unanimously held that the term "the people" in the Second Amendment had the same meaning as in the Preamble to the Constitution and in the First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, i.e., that "the people" means at least all citizens and legal aliens while in the United States. This case thus resolves any doubt that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right.

even before our constitution every settler was REQUIRED to have at least TWO muskets, a bag of powder, and so many pounds of ball shot. It was expected that every able-bodied male of 14 years old or older (at the time that was enough to be considered a man enough to fight) to participate in the defense of your town, state, or property from invaders.

Even field artillery was considered a 2nd amendment issue

United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876). This was the first case in which the Supreme Court had the opportunity to interpret the Second Amendment. The Court recognized that the right of the people to keep and bear arms was a right which existed prior to the Constitution when it stated that such a right "is not a right granted by the Constitution...[n]either is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." The indictment in Cruikshank charged, inter alia, a conspiracy by Klansmen to prevent blacks from exercising their civil rights, including the bearing of arms for lawful purposes. The Court held, however, that because the right to keep and bear arms existed independent of the Constitution, and the Second Amendment guaranteed only that the right shall not be infringed by Congress, the federal government had no power to punish a violation of the right by a private individual; rather, citizens had "to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens" of their right to keep and bear arms to the police power of the state.

Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886). Although the Supreme Court affirmed the holding in Cruikshank that the Second Amendment, standing alone, applied only to action by the federal government, it nonetheless found the states without power to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms, holding that "the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, as so to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government."

U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). This is the only case in which the Supreme Court has had the opportunity to apply the Second Amendment to a federal firearms statute. The Court, however, carefully avoided making an unconditional decision regarding the statute's constitutionality; it instead devised a test by which to measure the constitutionality of statutes relating to firearms and remanded the case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing (the trial court had held that Section 11 of the National Firearms Act was unconstitutional). The Court remanded to the case because it had concluded that:
** In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
  Thus, for the keeping and bearing of a firearm to be constitutionally protected, the firearm should be a militia-type arm

it takes a 2/3rd majority of both house and senate to amend the constitution. Thats never going to happen. We cant even get enough to agree in order to override a veto from the POTUS. You also have the 1936 SCOTUS ruling that says that you should be allowed to have the same weapons used by the military of the day. At the time, a short barreled shotgun was NOT used by the standing army. So he violated the NFA by not registering it and paying his $200 tax stamp. The ONLY reason the 1986 full-auto ban still exists is because NOBODY has yet brought it before the courts and sited the 1936 SCOTUS ruling. Clearly 3-shot burst and full-auto M4's are widely used by many branches of our military.

btw today's state militia is the Sheriff's department and by extension the local police forces granted their authority from said sheriff's departments.