"and cannot guarantee against the authorities abusing their armed power against the people (this has happened countless times already)"

Here's a question that most people don't consider:

Given the thought of an "ARMED populous in the US' is in part to insure protection against Government tyranny or to out right overthrow a tyrannical Government" is scoffed at by most, why is it we send arms to "rebels" in other countries (who would otherwise be grocers or cobblers or other benign profession) to help them?

It doesn't take a lot of people unwilling to live by the common law to cause major problems.

"That may or may not be true, but isn't directly related to my point really, is it?"

Which point is that? The point in which you were wrong about the GP's post being "Simply not true"? That point?

"Simply not true - gun ownership among criminals in the uk is pretty low."

Maybe I missed something, but I do not read ANYWHERE in the GP that he claimed that gun ownership in the UK was high. He claimed: "As long as we cannot prevent criminals from having guns (most do, even in countries where gun possession is highly restricted),"

Your statement basically affirms what he said. Saying that it is "Simply not true" is demonstrably wrong. However, if you said: "You are right, but it's still pretty low" that would have added to the discussion rather than create a distraction.

Would have been funny if you said: "...call me Narth"

"That would be un-American. Clearly, you can't have people living off someone else's work, even though that someone else is a machine, because...quick, help me someone here!"

Cute. How about we eliminate a huge mass of government workers and unions? If you get a check from the state and you have the ability to work, let the state FIND you work.

Example: Kill the bulk of street cleaners. Designate on person per block (or two or three or 5 blocks) who's daily job is to clean trash off sidewalks/streets and to clean leaves out of storm drains. Do that 40 hours a week, you get your state check. If they're getting a check ANYWAY, it doesn't matter that street cleaners would be cheaper or more efficient.

I've got broken sidewalks, cracked roads and modest flooding due to clogged storm drains -- all within a 5 mins walk of my house (never mind all around town). This poor infrastructure management -- one of the PRIMARY jobs of my local government -- is primarily caused by the money drain of social programs. It makes ZERO sense for the government to pay people who cannot find work AND not adequately fund and perform infrastructure maintenance. It takes zero skill to pick up trash and leaves. It also takes zero skill to wear an orange vest and direct traffic around construction vehicles.

Another example: Cant get out of the house because of kids? Get rid of all the envelope stuffing machines (and maintenance contracts for them). Ship bulk generic paperwork requests to stuck at home moms/dads. Have them stuff envelopes. Again, why pay for the "more efficient and cheaper" machines if we already have a potential work force getting paid while not working?

"We do not want to give government this power."

While I don't necessarily agree with you, it may well be a concern. How about this: Leave it in the public domain.

Weren't the Boston bombers caught by a privately owned security camera? And umpteen gagillian cell phone cams?

Offer incentives to businesses or private residences to have security cameras (aside from their obvious function).

Bias alert: Several private security cameras (home and business) helped ID the monster who kidnapped my daughter.

"It is the type of privacy that you get when you mark a box on a ballot."

Your example kind of illustrates my point. When you "mark the box on a ballot", you are generally in a PRIVATE setting (booth with 'security panels' so your anonymity is preserved and expected.

However, if you are in a town hall and they ask for a showing of hands, that certainly isn't private -- it's public.

You may very well consider me 80% down the slippery slope, but I consider you to be misunderstanding what "public" means. How can I protect my privacy in a "public" place? To me, it's an oximoronic situation.

"Yes, obviously"

I don't think it's as obvious as you think.

"No, what they want is their right to not be harassed upheld."

When have public cameras caused someone to be harassed?

"Their right to not have every moment of their public activities stored as part of a permanent record."

I'm unfamiliar with this 'right'. Is it a natural right? Or is it a magical 'right' that came in to being when recording devices were invented? My tone might be dismissive and I apologize for that, but it's a serious question. I fall on the side of fundamental 'natural rights' side of things and consider what YOU are suggesting a privilege allowed or enforced by law. Perhaps what you want is a "good", but I wouldn't call it a 'right'.

"It (not being recorded) is not unreasonable"

I won't argue that as I agree -- it's not unreasonable. I also think it's not unreasonable to expect to be recorded in "public".

Is this really about PRIVACY? Or ANONYMITY?

If strangers have the right to "see" me with their eyes as I walk the street and walk in to a store, is it so different if that "seeing" is recorded? Is that REALLY a violation of "privacy" when one is in a public place? I don't see a huge difference nor do I see it as a 'privacy' violation.

I think what the "privacy" crowd wants is a right to "anonymity". And I'm not sure we have a right to "anonymity".

Most of that can be packaged as a file and sent from a client in windows 7, vista, 2008, etc etc etc. There's not a LOT of software that requires a particular app to send that data.

Wow. Just wow.

Walk with blinders much? Do you even pay attention to the conversations of which you participate?

It was claimed:

"Now look at the list of terror attacks in 2012"

To which you responded with several citations to counter the original posters position. Then you summarized with the following:

"If you guess every terrorism attack in the USA is Islamic, you're going to be wrong more often than you are right."

I pointed out both the inaccuracies of your source AND how you misinterpreted the data. I suggested you look at the entire "alleged" section to see just how many were in fact Islamic based (which would make him right more often than wrong).

Your response was to ignore your failure to make your point and suggest I go "fix" your source material. Again, that's not my job. You made a claim and backed it up with faulty information. You need to either let your argument die or come up with better source material. Please note I'm ignoring the back-handed insult fashion in which you presented your "suggestion" to fix the wiki. Real classy by the way.

You want to suggest my 'priority is winning pissing contests rather than the truth'? Really? You are ignoring the 'truth' that your position has no foundation -- and in fact, the inverse is strongly suggestive of being accurate using your OWN sources (if one actually takes the time to interpret the data presented). What a pretentious prat.

I'll keep "pissing" with my eyes open, you keep walking down the street with blinders on spitting at anyone who tells you to look left, right or tries to warn you not to step in your own filth.

It's not my job to fix your citations. It's enough that I point out that you were citing inaccurate sources AND misinterpreting them to boot. I did so clearly and with examples. Since your statements no longer had any support it's up to you to either provide other sources or let your argument die on the vine.

You do know how debates/arguments work, don't you?

I really question the accuracy of those links and/or your interpretation of them. No mention of Corkins and his attack on the FRC at all (not Islamist, but a pro-gay marriage activist)? And if you NEED to look at the "alleged and proven plots" section. Example:

Sami Samir Hassoun
Nidal Hasan

Just to name a few. There's quite a list of Islamic terrorism that appears to be hidden under the guise of "alleged".

"You're now offended that I don't share your views on the US constitution,"

I'm no more offended that you don't understand the constitution than I am if you didn't understand the purpose of rebar in construction.

"You are acting ever more like it's a religion."

No more than I have faith that rebar will strengthen concrete structures -- and to take shortcuts would weaken the structure. Have you studied the constitution? Not the DOCUMENT, but the process and debates that proceeded and followed? The federalist papers? Antifederalst papers? The constitution of Mass?

If you haven't and make the proclamations you do, then you are a bigot. You assume "Oh, well we can talk about changing this law or that law and it's easy to discuss". No, its not. If what you are discussing violates the constitution, the discussion NEEDS focus on amending the constitution for whatever reasons if necessary.

It is ignorance. More than that, it's bigotry. . Your language reeks of it. "near-religious relic"? Really?

"I know exactly what the constitution is."

And yet you continually demonstrate the opposite. Hence the claim from me (and others) that you are ignorant on the subject. I would suggest, if you are an intellectually honest person, to take some time and consider this might be true.