In 4 milliseconds, the reactor went prompt critical,
You meant Prompt Critical.
Yeah, but just because you can do a thing, doesn't mean you should.
And just because I shouldn't do something, doesn't make it illegal to do so!!
People go on and on about the rights their society gives them without bothering to mention the responsibilities.
On this, we are in total agreement. But let us not forget that individuals are not the only ones with culpability. When our own president essentially says the "rule of law" doesn't apply to him or his staff, why should individuals be held to a higher standard. (yes, I know, straw-man, but still illustrative of the kind of brain dead thinking that allows these arguments to arise)
It's not that far a stretch to say that you have a responsibility to not wander around the President with a loaded gun or put the lives of the families of peace officers in danger.
As long as I'm abiding the law, I should be able to carry wherever I damn well please, as the 2nd amendment guarantees me that right. There is no law that says I can't be holding a loaded weapon within a specified distance of the president. Do I think you're example points out a situation in which it pays to err on the side of caution? Sure. However, by no means am I aware of any law that was broken.
Even if you knew for certain a cop was crooked, posting pictures of his house strikes me not only as obsessive, but also retributive without any court oversight, which is not what is supposed to happen in a society with the rule of law.
Another point we agree on. But you should have left out the 'court oversight' bit as there is never court oversight of vigilantism, and there are already laws on the books to deal with such crimes.
oh yeah, and quoting sanely appears to be hopelessly broken, even using paragraph or hard break tags,
"There is nothing new under the sun, but there are lots of old things we don't know yet." -Ambrose Bierce