I said "history of the Bill of Rights". Nice straw-man though.

Again, completely incorrect, and incongruous with well-known historical perspectives from both sides of the Revolution[. Read some history before you bother posting again.

Incorrect again. The amendment has never been interpreted by the courts to have these limitations - thus far, limitations have been enforced either through executive mandate or by legislation through the Congress. The limitations on our ability to purchase fully automatic weapons is not based on the Supreme Court's interpretation of the 2nd amendment as it applies to individuals - it's based in a 1968 and a 1986 law that is yet to be challenged at the bench on that level. The only auspices under which those limitations remain constitutional involve the interstate sale of the firearms (the commerce clause). As yet, the court hasn't ruled on privately produced and owned firearms that don't leave the boundaries of a state.

You're completely off. Any self-respecting history of the Bill of Rights contradicts directly everything you just suggested.

Sorta. If you're up on your rifle history, the first widespread, reliable autoloading rifles weren't available until almost the exact same time as the transistor (1950's).

This is why I don't fly anymore. Molest me, fine, it'll piss me off and I'll want to talk to a manager. Molest my kid, and I swear by my pretty floral bonnet I will end you.

Bingo. Cell phones are really really REALLY good at this, and app developers are really really REALLY keen on you giving their app 'location information'.

They've taken down the page already - that was quick. Here's the text of the email:

OHIO Students,

Due to extremely high demand, the university's Internet connection currently does not have enough capacity to meet service expectations and results in noticeably slow connections at times.

Traffic analyses have shown streaming media usage accounts for nearly two-thirds of our current demand, with Netflix being the largest single consumer of our Internet capacity.

In an effort to free up the bandwidth faculty and students need to complete academic online tasks during finals week, the university will be instituting a temporary limit on the total bandwidth available for Netflix traffic. The restriction will go into effect this evening, Monday, March 14 at 6:00 pm.

OIT appreciates your patience as this temporary corrective action is taken. We welcome and encourage your thoughts on a more permanent solution as we engage the university in planning on this critical issue.

Best regards,

J. Brice Bible

Chief Information Officer

Ohio University

Well, if it's the last piece of the pie, it's not much of a 'slippery slope' argument, now is it? In quite a real sense, we'd be giving the power to decrypt general internet communications to people who have a LOT to gain by using it against their political opponents.

Seriously, this has little use except to spy on the general public, while proposing encryption law that has been suggested and shot down in the past (think Clipper Chips?). It makes corporate/private encryption weaker, the entirety of our internet communications more vulnerable to attack, and could quite possibly restrict our ability, in the future, (yes, slippery slope) to encrypt our own data, as has already been done in the UK. This essentially serves all internet communications providers with the same order as the UK served their entire citizenry: you encrypt something, you have to give us the keys to decrypt it.

Hope that satisfied you logically.

Yes.

Wish I could mod you up. This kind of infraction by the government on its own people is inexcusable. Write your congressman, let them know how you feel, and vote!

FTF (NYT) A:

What hey're trying to legalize is rather heinous on the part of our government. Just because it's been made legal doesn't mean it's right or good. Seriously, between the ability to declare even American citizens terrorists because of what they've said (not necessarily what they've done), the ability to try anyone classified as a terrorist outside a civilian court, and now the "needed" capability to decrypt encrypted messages over the internet...what's to stop whoever is in the White House from 'disappearing' outspoken people they disagree with, without breaking the law?

I'm an American, and I value my freedom over a false sense of security. If you aren't comfortable with that, perhaps America isn't for you.