If the courts agreed with you they wouldn't accept plea bargains. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty, and an extorted confession is never proof of guilt.

Remind me never to vote for you for anything at all. Child proof lock? WTF why? He has no kids, he lives alone. Even if he did, they are his kids, it would be his perogative, not yours, not the states, to determine what is or is not safe enough for them to be around.

Fact is, he never left his damned house. He didn't touch the gun....and to top it all off, his state had no such requirement for locking up the gun.

This was not, in any way just. Especially since, the only life potentially in jeapordy is his own, which is his to take by right if he chooses. No denial of that right will ever be just in my eyes.

I have a long time internet aquantence who ran into some trouble a bit over a decade ago from a somewhat similar circumstance. He owned a shotgun which he kept leaned up against the wall of his appartment (not that uncommon, thats how most of my non-city dwelling family keep their guns)

He was quite drunk, and spouting off online. I don't have access to the long writeup he sent me on the matter, but he made some sarcastic comment with a suicidal double entendre and went off to "bed" (which I put in quotes because, as drunk as he was, he only made it to the floor, as the story goes)

The person, half a world away that he was talking to, looked up his local police and called them. Next thing he knew he was on his floor being arrested, and his gun taken away. The police report was, of course, written up such to indicate how he was found passed out within a few feet of the gun (of course, in a small apartment he is never more than a few feet from it)

So this is really not new except in whats being taken out of context and the frequency with which it is happening.

We invaded Iraq because they supposedly had WMDs. If the US has WMDs, they should be invaded as well, right?

ROTFL you think these are related?

> Please explain this then.

Really? Alright, fine. Some of it is people overreacting and taking things too far, but only a bit. People who dislike the president and seem a bit irrationally homophobic have every right to their views, and within reason for the context, should be able to express them (like on the bumpers of their privately owned cars)

As for the tweets, I would question some bits of context, but if he represents himself on twitter as an armed forces member, then he should be mindful of what he tweets. There is a reason you will find scarce mention of who I currently work for at any given time in my online posts. Sure, you can probably figure it out with some digging, but, I am careful not to say it; because I don't shit where I eat.

Overall, this is nothing special, a bit of them taking themselves too seriously, a bit of overreach, but nothing special.

> You all are trying to covering up censorship because you agree with it.

Actually I was making fun of it because I think its insanely stupid, but, insanely stupid in the wat that most large enough organizations are occasionally insanely stupid. Not really a special brand of insane or stupid, just, taken ever so slightly to the next level in the way militaries are want to be.

I mean really, its perfectly understandable in a way. The gaurdian releasing a doc doesn't make the doc unclassified. The policy is what it is, and likely the people who drafted it never considered the case where the classified document comes from a public source. So they enforce the regulation they have, blindly, and hamfistedly, because...its what they know.

Ah, so one rule for the common folk, and one rule for the elites. And you're OK with that?

The simple fact is, and there were people who brought this up during the Bush administration, which is why this is no surprize at all to me now, the law defines just about any explosive intended to harm people as a weapon of mass destruction. This is not new at all. Even while Bush was raving about WMDs in Iraq, the whole time, even a hand grenade was classified as a WMD.

The shocking thing, to my mind is that Bush never used this to his advantage. This dedinition could have easily been used to manufacture some news stories which would lose the details int he shuffle. "We found WMDs!"

What bothers me is that, this happened in MA, and MA specifically doesn't have the death penalty. The AG here should be bending over backwards to make sure he is charged HERE and fight federal attempts on general princible. Banning the death penalty here was done for good reason and he should be working to respect that as an agent of state law not using the federal loophole to allow him to, without any fight, end up in a court that would kill him.

In any case, this is no politically charged charge, its exactly the defined crime under federal law. Its just not clear to me why the federal government should get involved when this seems like one the state can handle.

If that's the case, every bomb the US has ever dropped counts as a WMD.

Using a weapon of mass destruction is a pretty serious violation of the law of conservation of mass. Where did he get the anti-matter?

As one of the militaried greatest detractors, I agree completely with your take on it. This is not some boneheaded attempted to put their head in the sand. No, this is just a hamfisted application of blind policy.

This is really more like the military version of "Office Space" than anything else.

Lt. Lumberg: "Um yah, didn't you get the memo about the classified documents? They can't be on machines that are not authorized or accessed by unauthorized people"
Pvt Gibbons: "Yes I saw the memo, and I understand the policy, but this was public information I downloaded it from the Gaurdian"
Lt Lumberg: "Ah yah, its just that we are not storing classified documents on unauthorized machines. I will send you another copy of that memo."

As a geek, I've always associated properly placed priorities with hotness. Beauty pagent contestants? Not hot at all. Jeri Ellsworth, Amy Mainzer, or Bettany Hughes, now that's hot.

The people with real problems will only have their anxiety reinforced by such a system. If you can see yourself being awkward and anxious in real time, that's going to make you feel even more awkward and anxious.

Yes, absolutely. We have not had an administration that obeyed the law in my lifetime, and I don't think we ever will.

So if congress passes the Patriot Act that makes the Executive's actions 'legal', you would still label the Executive as a Fuhrer for executing the laws that Congress passed?

If those laws conflict with the Constitution, which the President is sworn to defend against internal enemies, then yes. No question about it. None of the three branches of government operate within the limits of the Constitution, which makes our government illegitimate.

What specific rights are you implying 'Fuhrer Obama' took away from you?

The right to be secure in my person, house, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. That's just one of many.

I'm also curious how he did so, being in the Executive, rather than the Legislative branch.

The executive branch is the only branch that can actually violate rights, because it's the branch that actually does things. Whether Congress approves or not is irrelevant, the 4th amendment is clear, generalized surveillance is illegal.