A truly free market by definition is responsive to the majority (will) of the people. If the people like "A" over "B" in a free market, that is what they invest/buy/suggest/endorse etc.

Really? Who determines what is "best" for society? You? Government? Corporations? In a free market the people decide what is important to them and that is the direction society goes. If the majority of the people choose to buy/use "A" then that is their choice and the will of the people will be the most profitable. You and I may not agree with it but if you truly respect your fellow citizen then you have to allow them their "Vote".

Another definition of religion is when someone claims to know "what is best" for everyone else. You are exhibiting the exact behavior of those you are accusing.

You are 100% correct here, sir. Now, if you could just explain how you intend to ensure that those elected representatives are actually representing the will of the people. History clearly shows that representative government is a great idea that never works due to corruption. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume consolidation of power will result in corruption so power should be distributed as much as possible among the populace.

No solution is perfect, but I would argue that replacing selfish decisions due to corruption with selfish decisions due to personal interest is a step in the right direction. The decision may the the same or just as bad, but at least you are not contributing to the power structure of a select few.

Actually, both sound and light are identical in complexity, both are waves. Interpreting sound is no more "easy" than any other wave of information. Imagine trying to teach a machine to listen to you on a sidewalk with semi trucks and people talking and yelling for cabs. The fact that the human ear can distinguish between a cacophony of sounds and decipher what one person is saying is remarkable. With that said, we do not have a machine that can listen accurately on a street corner so even though sound is no more difficult that light, it still may not arrive for a while.

Man, nothing makes me angrier than a spineless serf who thinks anyone who owns a gun is going to "gun down children".

What guns are designed for mass murder? And what guns are designed for defense? What is the criteria for determining what type of gun it is? Sounds like you are just inventing new definitions to suite your world view.

The same way muskets were consistent during the revolutionary war. Those were the best weapons at the time. Many were hacked together from used parts and/or machined by blacksmiths when available. Serial numbers were not the priority when fighting for the freedom of your country. You are lucky enough to have lived during a time when the government is persecuting you and your family. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the benefits of having a populace that is armed enough to challenge a repressive government.

Wooosh

The day that I trust an Associated Press survey to tell me anything unbiased about public opinion is the day I accept the flying spaghetti monster as my lord and savior.

Thank you. I was going to say the same thing.

Your primary shortcoming is your naivety in assuming all people are as altruistic as yourself. History is your friend here. Ask yourself this; Did Hitler, Stalin, etc have very good reasons for keeping certain secrets?

You make it sound like anyone can just book an appointment with congress. Sorry to break this to you, it does not work like that. And guess what, if you ask to be heard by congress regarding sensitive national security issues you can bet your ass that you'll be visited very quickly by a 3 letter agency. And if they do not like you, you are a TERRORIST and they stopped your from executing your devious plot. Off to Guantanamo with you, never to be heard from again.

That's right damit! No matter how bad the government is acting it is YOUR DUTY as an AMERICAN to shut-up and do what you are told. Even if you think the government is subverting the constitution (as Snowden did) you should just keep your mouth shut and do the patriotic thing and sing the national anthem louder than anyone around you. And if by some crazy reason (morality) you wish to expose the corrupt government, by no means should you try and protect yourself from said corrupt government. No siree, just bend over and take it on your way to Guantanamo. That will make it much easier for the corrupt government to label you as a terrorist and keep you shut-up, since you did not have the patriotic disposition to shut yourself up. When will these unpatriotic whistle blowers realize that the government is only trying to protect the great people of this country from communist whistle blowers. Geeeezz

about 7 years ago; SLK 350. It was plagued with lots of electrical problems and a few mechanical issues. It was fun to drive, but I will never buy another Mercedes again. Simply not worth the money. I would definitely consider buying a Tesla if I was in the market for a car like that.

That is not a straw man argument. He was simply and correctly stating that if technological advancement requires a redefinition of part of the constitution then ALL parts of the constitution should be redefined equally. There is no straw man there. Your naivety shows when you claim that modern guns cannot be compared to the press. Tyrants and Dictators fear a free press more then they fear an armed society. Which is why history shows us that that first thing they do is take over the press and start to brainwash the citizenry to voluntarily give up their weapons and report their treasonous neighbors who fail to turn in their weapons. Nice guys huh? The moral of the story; Stop giving away your freedom because guns looks scary and a printing press does not.

According to Merriam-Webster bigotry is defined as....

Your definition of bigotry differs from that of all respected sources. Therefore, the remainder of your argument is invalid. You also say...

To which I say, what world do you live in? I imagine if you were a Jew in 1939 living in Germany, or a native american in 1800 living in north america, etc, you may have a different opinion on the effect of intolerance and it's value to society.

If Eich said "Same sex marriage is not for me" that's one thing. But he said "I want to pass a law that denies gay people the right to marriage". That, dear sir, is bigotry. Being against bigotry is not intolerant, it is required behavior of any moral person.