How about this radical idea: strict adherence to the entire Constitution, not just little bits and pieces.
If you like LaTeX and want to produce EPUBs, I suggest you take a look at Pandoc ( http://johnmacfarlane.net/pandoc/ and http://github.com/jgm/pandoc.git ). It's a sort of swiss-army-knife of document conversion. It'll convert LaTeX to EPUB with a decent degree of accuracy. Lately it has been getting a lot of LaTeX-related enhancements, but it's still missing some staples like honoring \newpage and centered text. There's another package called tex4ebook ( http://github.com/michal-h21/tex4ebook.git) that's more LaTeX-specific. It could potentially be better than Pandoc, but is quite a bit behind in maturity.
Becaused centralized government sucks.
Here's a Steam installer for Wheezy: https://gist.github.com/grindars/4231563. It only installs per user, not for the whole system, but so far, it works.
You're talking as if everyone in the US will turn in their guns. Furthermore, have you looked at Australia's overall crime rate recently?
Is it marked "ThinkPad"?
Lenovo has already started to mess with the ThinkPads. It used to be that the keyboard layout was a seven-row deal with the keys sensibly placed and spaced. What they have now is a six-row deal with the function keys squashed together and the keys from the seventh row scattered about seemingly at random. Howls of protest went up about it and the result was this condescending blog post from Lenovo telling people to just deal with it. Here's a selection of commentary.
Yes, purpose-made explosives are controlled, but are you aware that lots of other things can be mixed up to produce explosions and fires? Let's see how far you get with strict controls on gasoline, flour, and common cleaning chemicals. About the Chinese knife rampage, it was already stated that China never allowed the peasants to own firearms. Nobody's going to be able to stick the genie back in the bottle in the US without provoking a war. The rules for firearms ownership in the UK and US used to be much the same. We saw how the average UK resident's rights got whittled away bit by bit over the course of the 20th century. That's why Americans tend to be touchy about infringements.
Please explain how a nut not bent on murder won't come up with something to do it?
Well there you have an example of someone who was legally barred from owning guns entirely, yet he somehow got at least one.
Mexico is a good example of what gun prohibition would look like in the US.
I never said arming a lot of people would result in zero crime. Your town and Kennesaw are similar in that their populations are the same, but the demographics, as you imply, are way different. That affects the overall crime rate. Further, I don't know if your town is 35k people in the middle of nowhere or 35k people embedded in a larger metropolis.
As a practical matter, the wealthy and well-connected can always get the guns they want, regardless of a country's laws. That's why the US has a Second Amendment to make sure ordinary people can get them. America has no "gun problem" per se. It does have a problem with nuts running around killing defenseless people.
That's not an assault rifle. An assault rifle is defined as "a select-fire (either fully automatic or burst capable) rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine. It is not to be confused with assault weapons.". See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle. Those things are highly restricted in the US and nearly impossible to get nowadays unless you're very wealthy and well-connected. Perhaps you mean "assault weapon"? Definitions vary wildly, are usually used and set by people with no meaningful familiarity with firearms, and are often contradictory. Usually it boils down to "black and scary-looking". You apparent lack of awareness of this is why I say that you don't know what you're talking about? Not much imagination is required to realize that there are a hell of a lot of things available that are perfectly legal and easy to get that can be used to kill lots of people. But then, if someone is bent on killing lots of people, why should that person be concerned about something like illegality? That's foolish!