Backwards. The party with a vested interest in keeping people dependent on professionals who dole things out to them is the Democrats. That's the backbone of their entire constituency and the framework within which they describe everybody: needing a handout, or needing to be used to pay for handouts. Without playing middlemen to that one-way street, there would be almost not power in that camp. And so they seek to preserve it at every turn.

Does this mean I will have to buy special gloves that have my fingerprints on them?

And does this mean that if my wife wants (or, more importantly, needs) to grab and use "my" gun that she'll also need gloves with my fingerprints on them, and I'll need a way to emulate her fingerprints?

This is all entirely nonsense. The bill is a stealth approach to making guns cost more, akin to those feckless plans to tax ammo at 1000% in order to attempt to change human behavior among psychopaths and dedicated criminals.

I am entirely for gun manufacturers making and offering such guns to those who want them if they think there's a market and they want to serve that market. Requiring such is complete BS.

And YOU are ranting based on words that didn't address prescribed drugs. Which makes you drama queen with no reading comprehension, and someone having a shrill hissy fit over which I imagine your late mother would be embarassed, since observations about the hemp-obsessed subculture have absolutely nothing to do with the nature of her demise. I do like your fantastically ironic bitching about arrogance, though. Fine work.

Well that's just, like, your opinon, man.

True, though. But this is still just about stoners looking for another avenue. A familiar refrain from the crowd that thinks they'd be better off with a tires, a spouse, underwear, and air craft carriers all made out of hemp.

But this is where I think we disagree. A print is an object. Making a photograph is a process. There are many routes to that print (or projected slide, or gird of pixels on a tablet, etc).

No, photographs (here, sticking with your notion of not referring to digitally captured images as photographs, only things that use something chemically photosensitive) are manipulated. Every single one of them. Film speed and tonal behavior? Lens behavior like field curvature, chromatic smearing, and non-infinite depth of field? Choice of chemistry? Grain? Paper stock? How it's all souped? Filters to deal with color temps? The photographer's own choice of exposure method? The use of reflectors or supplementray lighting?

Every projection of the scene by a lens onto a two-dimensional surface placed by the photographer somewhere that records that projection according to his or her thoughts on composition is a manipulation from beginning to end. The entire concept of a "real" image is just silly. Chemical production of grains that are patterned after the projected light, or variations in a grid of pixels pushed through an A to D process ... a distinction of no distinction other than the need to master a different set of tools.

And people wonder why I hold ACs in such low regard.

Good thing you're AC, else when those things do not happen (and they won't), you'd be derided to the end of your days here.

FYI, the executive branch cannot do those things. True, it could attempt, but it does not have that authority and they would be thrown out ASAP if for no other reason than to avoid immediate and armed revolt. This is why we have gun rights in this country.

Hell, I would promote that it is forged far more often than a real one arrives.

You neglect to mention that the WH had a filmmaker targeted and picked up (still not charged and still under detention). I think we care about that and the lame excuse of refusing to acknowledge the terrorists involved that enabled that sideshow is not a trivial detail.

The Tea Party is not anti taxes, just anti TOO HIGH taxes, so your entire third paragraph tanks.

I note that the only thing you find worthy of interest is the WH pulling records of reporters (liberal and Dems).

"Again I'm not a supporter of Democrats..."

Your commentary says otherwise.

Bad analogy. Criminals steal cars - expressly for the purpose of using them in a crime - all the time.

Really bad analogy. Your implication is that we could stop people from having sex with children by banning children.

The analogy you're looking for is that just like we have laws that carry penalties for abusing kids, we have penalties for killing people. Using rifles, or using blunt instruments like pipes and bats (which are used far more often than rifles to murder people, says the FBI).

So yes: we have laws that "ban" murder, by making it really suck to be a murderer that's been caught having murdered someone. Just like it sucks to be someone that's been caught having abused a kid.

If TEA Party members and people who belong to groups with "Patriot" in the name were statistically more apt to apply for tax exempt status where it is not justified, then you would have a point. So you can't claim profiling. Remember, this was not an audit. This was an application for tax exempt status, all of which were granted, by the way, AFTER THE ELECTION. Hell, the IRS didn't even follow their own guidelines:

See, these groups can't operate until they receive the blessing from the IRS. What the IRS did was use the power of the federal government to effectively shut down political opposition until after Obama's reelection.

How does "Patriot" make you think of tax dodgers?

Also, if the IRS were looking for tax dodgers, they wouldn't have been asking for information like family member names and their political affiliation. This was not about taxes. This was about shutting down conservative groups until AFTER the election. This was a delaying tactic, not an audit. I should also add that NONE of the targeted groups, over 300 lost their tax exempt status.

From The AP:

I'm a libertarian and I can tell you that if the federal government does not have explicit permission from the Constitution to do something, than it is supposed to be unconstitutional for them to do so. At least that's what the 10th Amendment says. It also says that those powers not given to the federal government are reserved for the states. The 10th Amendment is in the Constitution, by the way.

So, in using your Bangladesh example, it would be up to the state and local governments to handle the regulation of the business listed in your example. If the building collapsed, then it's your governor's fault, not the president's. That's the beauty of how it's SUPPOSED to work. If your state has lax regulations and you don't feel safe at your job, you are free to move to a state that has stricter regulations. Same thing goes for health care, speed limits, education system... everything that the federal government is not given permission to regulate.

(Of course, there is some wiggle room with the Commerce Clause, but if a company exists entirely within a single state and does all their business in that same state, the feds have no Constitutional authority to regulate them until the Constitution is amended giving them that right.)

You said to ask a libertarian. I answered.

Well someone sic'ed the IRS on Obama's enemies list. Tell me, who's in charge of the IRS? Where does the buck stop?