I only, wish, wish wish that I could buy a discrete card from Intel!! PCI or PCI-E, I don't give a damn!

Had you taken a moment to really look and waft its Skittles-like aroma, it's unicorn poop you insensitive clod!

I can think of one: DHPOS Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DHPOS

It would make one hell of a dirt cheap advanced POS for the small business owner. Especially those in developing countries. DHPOS website has people using this software all of the world where they can't afford expensive monthly support costs. Link: http://keyhut.com/pos.htm

With DOS and just DHPOS installed your employees can't mess with we browsing, etc.

So they're making a big deal of cosmetic differences that have no actual impact? Kinda like "assualt rifles" then, eh?

I am calm. I just abhor lies, misinformation and platitudes when it comes to our enshrined rights. I abhor the fact the lawfule gun owner's whoe have never broken the law are shamed and compared to pedophiles because they are gun owners.

You and others use terms like relatively reasonable and "common sense" and then proceed to regulate and legislate a right out of existence because it doesn't affect you personally. You don't own guns or guns are *icky* so anything is reasonable.

I just became a criminal last night because my already *reduced capacity* magazine of 10 rounds still had 10 rounds in it instead of 7. This for a firearm I keep at home and have a permit for. Is that reasonable? What empirical evidence does one have to limit the capacity of one's legal gun to 7 rounds? What empirical evidence does one have to reduce my *standard capacity* Glock 35 from 15 to 10 rounds?

I didn't make up any stance. The Stop and Frisk program is a clear violation of one's Fourth Amendment rights. We don't don't the Fourth in the name of public safety and more than the Second Amendment.

A little harder? Might not be %100 effective? Shouldn't try? Assault weapons?

I guess all the things you're talking about are just "common sense", eh? Let me explain to you why you are %100 wrong and people like you are dangerous to a Republic.

First, we have a petty tyrant here where I live in New York City who calls himself the Mayor. He says he believes in the Second Amendment but that we need "common sense restrictions". This is the same mayor who has instituted a policy of illegally searching black people for no reason whatsoever. You know, the Stop and Frisk program. Google it. They are stopping and searching black people on the streets, in every borough and in front of and inside all the public projects. Out of the hundreds of thousands of Stop and Frisks less than %10 percent of the citizens they have searched have had a weapon, gun or drugs. But hey, it's not %100 effective but we should try a little harder, right?

And on Evil Black Rifles, aka "Assualt Weapons", there is NO SUCH FUCKING THING! You don't like them because they are evil looking and BLACK. See the above paragraph and think about that for a while. Black "Assault Weapons" are hated because of how they look, i.e., *black*, military style with a conspicuous *protruding* pistol grip. Does that remind you of how some white southerners felt about muscular black slaves? The racists who thought that these "Assault Slaves" were ready to rape their wives and pre-teen daughters and thus had to be "controlled" and "restricted" from just about doing anything but work the fields?

Look at the Ruger Mini 14 here: http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14/index.html Look at the differences between the wholesome looking Ranch version and the Evil Black Tactical. One would be legal in New York State and the other would not even though they fire the same ammunition and have the EXACT same receiver, action and trigger group. One is Mighty Whitey with its walnut stock and hunting aesthetics. The other, well... That *black* pistol grip sure looks phallic and *black*! That's nothing but a killing machine!

The majority of murders where a firearm is involved are carried out with handguns and NOT rifles. That's from the CDC and FBI annual stats.

Lastly, just like the Fourth and First amendment, we do not regulate a right out of existence just to make you feel a little safer. These rights are recognized (not granted!) because they *are* all dangerous. That's the price we pay for liberty.

A little harder? Might not be %100 effective? Shouldn't try? Assault weapons?

I guess all the things you're talking about are just "common sense", eh? Let me explain to you why you are %100 wrong and people like you are dangerous to a Republic.

First, we have a petty tyrant here where I live in New York City who calls himself the Mayor. He says he believes in the Second Amendment but that we need "common sense restrictions". This is the same mayor who has instituted a policy of illegally searching black people for no reason whatsoever. You know, the Stop and Frisk program. Google it. They are stopping and searching black people on the streets, in every borough and in front of and inside all the public projects. Out of the hundreds of thousands of Stop and Frisks less than %10 percent of the citizens they have searched have had a weapon, gun or drugs. But hey, it's not %100 effective but we should try a little harder, right?

In NYC, you have to pay $340 every three years just for the privilege of having a handgun in your own home. In New York State it's $10. Most other states don't charge a dime for you to keep a gun at home. You think a lower middle class family can afford that? At one point, I could not afford that on a paramedic salary. You know what the response was from the NYPD? $340 or turn your guns in; if not we'll arrest you. See, they took an enshrined right and regulated it out of existence; turned it into a privilege.

And on Evil Black Rifles, aka "Assualt Weapons", there is NO SUCH FUCKING THING! You don't like them because they are evil looking and BLACK. See the above first paragraph and think about that for a while. Black "Assault Weapons" are hated because of how they look, i.e., *black*, military style with a conspicuous *protruding* pistol grip. Does that remind you of how some white southerners felt about muscular black slaves? The racists who thought that these "Assault Slaves" were ready to rape their wives and pre-teen daughters and thus had to be "controlled" and "restricted" from just about doing anything but work the fields?

Look at the Ruger Mini 14 here: http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14/index.html Look at the differences between the wholesome looking Ranch version and the Evil Black Tactical. One would be legal in New York State and the other would not even though they fire the same ammunition and have the EXACT same receiver, action and trigger group. One is Mighty Whitey with its walnut stock and hunting aesthetics. The other, well... That *black* pistol grip sure looks phallic and *black*! That's nothing but a killing machine!

The majority of murders where a firearm is involved are carried out with handguns and NOT rifles. That's from the CDC and FBI annual stats.

Lastly, just like the Fourth and First amendment, we do not regulate a right out of existence just to make you feel a little safer. These rights are recognized (not granted!) because they *are* all dangerous. That's the price we pay for liberty.

I have Verizon DSL with and open AP at my coffee shop for customers. What then?

Don't forget televisions. More than 2000 children have died since 2000 from falling televisions: http://theweek.com/article/index/237878/the-shocking-number-of-deaths-caused-by-falling-tvs

You comparing the love of music to playing with an appliance? Sheesh.

I rarely talk to philosophy majors. But when I do I order large fries.

As a paramedic of 16 years who has seen more that a few real gun shot wounds, I can say you don't even get bleeding sometimes. And sometimes you still only might get a trickle of blood. That could have easily been absorbed by clothing.

And with today's 9mm jacketed hollowpoitn ammunition, you won't even get an exit wound. The bullet enters leaving a small hole and then begins to expand as it encounters soft tissue, organs and bone thus dumping its kinetic energy within the body.

So it's entirely plausible that Zimmerman walkd away from the shooting withou as much as 1 drop of Martin's blood on him.

The dispatcher told Zimmerman that they don't need him to follow Martin after he got out of his car. Zimmerman then said he was on his way back to the car. A suggestion or an order from a dispatcher is not the same as an order from a police officer. Even Sanford PD admitted as much. Zimmerman's claim has always been that he only got out of the car to give the dispatcher the best information on the location of Martin.

You think Zimmerman was acting in a predatory fashion while he was actively on the phone with the police?? Did you listen to the tapes? Won't you at least give the man the benefit of the doubt and let the evidence come out for the jury to hear?

An act of self defense is an affirmative defense. You say to the jury, "Yes, I shot this person. But this why..." Self defense is legal in all the states of the Union. Why would it be unfortunate? People seem to think that Florida is somehow special in that you can shoot with impunity even if you just "feel" the least bit threatened. NOT TRUE.

Take New York State, for example. NYS (where I live) has no stand your ground law. The relevant statute says you have a duty to retreat when in public. BUT, it doesn't apply if you can't do so safely, e.g., I have a toddler with me, doing so would mean running into an active highway, I'm in a wheelchair, I'm wearing a cast on an appendage, etc.

In Florida, you have no duty to retreat if you are in a public place where you have every right to be. But all the other other legal standards for acting in self defense still apply. That is, was I the initial aggressor in the confrontation? Did the attacker have the ability to attack? Did he have the opportunity? Was he placing me in jeopardy? Read here: http://www.useofforce.us/3aojp/

Not only that, but the legal standard would be: what would a reasonable person do at that time under those conditions knowing what the accused knew?

Zimmerman has always articulated from day one that he shot to stop the active attack. That he only got out of his car to give the relevant information to the 911 dispatcher of Martin's whereabouts. That Martin came back to confront ZImmerman, threw a punch and continued to beat him while he was supine on the ground. Being on the ground with an attacker actively slamming your head into the concrete pavement is reason enough for using deadly force to stop and attack.

Zimmerman has never said that he shot Martin for looking suspicious. The media has latched onto speculation --as if it were fact-- that ZImmerman merely shot someone for walking around. The media has put forth the accusation that Stand Your Ground laws allow for this to happen legally when nothing could be further from the truth.

P.S. Guess which state was the first to enact a Stand Your Ground Law? California. Yes. Hardly the red state bastion of the NRA.

Here's a very informative video about what Stan Your Ground laws are really about: http://www.cato.org/multimedia/events/stand-ground-laws-self-defense-or-license-kill