Unfortunately it would most likely get changed to 250k if that actually passed.

I think the problem is that any answer they come up with that disagrees with your own will be considered "bullshit".

Perfect example is the pro-legalization crowd. This has never been something Obama was interested in pursuing. Yeah, I think it is dumb and illogical to waste money on putting people in jail instead of taxing and regulating it just as much as the next guy. The political reality is that it isn't there yet at a national level. So keep fighting in the states, as enough states change, so will the country.

Additionally, even if Obama would 100% agree with the petition, he is dealing with Republicans who would vote no against a bill that made it illegal to shoot kittens.

It is only political in American where people love to be willfully ignorant of facts and science. This has been accepted everywhere else in the world. Time to grow up.

I have to say "so?" to your post as well. Darts is about accuracy, not probability. If you want to make Scrabble as fair as possible, you will need to adjust the probability as you adjust the allowable dictionary.

For example, if you changed a dart board so that the area of the place that doubles your points is smaller than the area where you can triple your points, then you probably want to adjust the points to come in line with that.

So as rules for a game change, considerations should be made for how you score as well.

This is a way for them to get everyone to re-buy scrabble. Now you have scrabble for each region. U.S.A scrabble, French scrabble, etc.

Beyond that, you can conduct this analysis every few years...so you can have U.S.A. scrabble 2013 and sell more editions.

Whoever is in control of these companies should be fired and bring me on.

Hilarious how this is modded up. Shows the insanity of people on this site.

I can think of nothing more touching and meaningful than commemorating a child's death by going out and buying the weapon that killed him/her.

You guys are exactly the type that need mental health exams monthly.

You make a good point. It is pretty clear that Republicans are ready to sacrifice the first amendment if it means they can take the second amendment out of context and arm everyone.

You are listing people, not governments. And a lot of those murders were more external to their countries rather than internal (with obvious exceptions).

Additionally, you are not considering how the religion of the person/government plays in to the murdering.

And no, that is not what the second amendment is about...that is just ridiculous.

Our founding fathers sat down and said...hey, you know what we should do, we should make sure every citizen has a gun so that if we piss them off, they can come kill us, yeah!

No, it is in regards to well regulated state militias...not to overthrow the government, but to protect slave owners in the south in the case of an uprising.

You guys pervert the Constitution as much as religious people pervert the Bible.

Actually, I think religion causes more people to be self righteous asshats as well.

Look at the red states where the first place they cut is teachers and how much we pay them. Not going to get the best teachers when you take away all their benefits and pay them less than what they could make at Starbucks.

Having a gun makes it easier to kill people.

If the dude makes his own, well guess what, he has a higher probability of being caught before he does it because of his search history, purchases, or friends seeing him make these things.

Ridiculous. We don't exist in a vacuum. Other countries had gun problems, the citizens had guns so the genie was just as much out of the bottle. Enough massacres occurred so they banned them and guess what...gun violence is almost non existent.

Statistically, you are more likely to have a family member killed with your equal protection than protecting yourself.

I seriously hope this stupid post is sarcastic because it sure as heck is not insightful.

I can't believe anyone was dumb enough to fall for the NRAs ad.

Obama's children could be kidnapped and held for ransom by crazed citizens or foreign threats. Presidents and their families are targets for assassinations. Of course they need armed guards. Ordinary citizens do not have the same issues, so they don't have the same protection.

And seriously, if you want that, we can have it, just expect your taxes to go way up.

How is this relevant to what he is talking about? Muskets were the weapon during that time and would be considered what is "armed" or not. You can consider gun and knives arms to...so what? You aren't making any new distinction.

Well, here is something to think about...

What if these things are completely separate topics that should be handled differently? Your analogy is stupid. It is a strawman (that you didn't even come up with yourself) to distract from actually talking about the issue.