Do you honestly think any democrat is better? Look where all the Wall Street campaign donations are going. In 2012, most went to the democrats. Do you think they did that because the democrats were going to rein in corporate malfeasance? Or maybe because the Obama administration and democratic leadership are a subsidiary of Goldman Sachs?
Don't forget her cozy relationship with Tyson.
And how Vince Foster dragged himself to a park after committing suicide...at the exact same time Hilary went to her office to remove documents.
How about another poll next week:
How would your peers rate your programming skills?
1. The controversy is good for sales. The kids want the taboo stuff.
2. It allows him to set the line for "too extreme" as one step past GTA, meaning that he sells the most taboo title available.
You might think it's safe to say that, but it's completely wrong.
The number of guns in private hands in the US has doubled since the early 1990s. Yet the number of deaths (accidental or criminal) has plummeted, and the number of shootings (accidental or criminal) has plummeted as well. We have safer guns, and better gun education.
Ask the Canadians how many times they used their gun registry to successfully trace a gun used in a crime (hint: it's zero, that's why the provinces are trying to get out of it).
Gun registries and serial numbers aren't for preventing, or even investigating, crime. They're for tracking down guns, when the government decides the guns are a threat to its power.
The First Amendment doesn't allow anything. Like the rest of the Bill of Rights (including the Second Amendment), it guarantees government cannot interfere with rights that preexist government.
But yes, that would be a protected publication. He never challenged it. The designs were already out there (so he won), and it would have been expensive. I believe they used the same ITAR crap that used to prevent us from exporting encryption. But the courts ruled there that printed copies of encryption algorithms are protected expression, so this should be as well. More importantly, the Constitution does not grant the federal government any authority over publishing firearms plans.
And finally, when have you ever known the federal government to abide by the Constitution?
It's more like if newspaper (I assume you mean the printing press) was just invented, and he showed people how they can print essays that challenge the government's monopoly on power.
This device shows the government that they can't maintain the absolute control they want to. So either they get even more totalitarian (and we overthrow them with our 300,000,000+ guns), or they scale it back (and we win peacefully).