I agree that the purpose of the 2nd amendment is for the collective citizenry to retain the means to overthrow a government that ceases to represent us.

My problem is that following that line of reasoning is suicidally insane. Parity between private/government weapons means private ownership of nukes, and all it takes is one psychopath with a nuke to blow up a city. Or one irresponsible nuke owner.

So let's dial it back to something sane: What level of weapon ownership holds a government that won't resort to self-destructive genocide in check, but provides the least opportunity for a private massacre? Also, does modern technology offer other less violent means of holding a wayward government in check? If so, can/should we interpret the second amendment to protect those means as well? I think mass private communications would fall under that heading.

Please stop saying it's self-selected idiots refusing to get vaccinated. It's their children who are being put at risk, not themselves. If you're given the means to protect your kids from these diseases and you refuse, it's child neglect/abuse.

The first thing I thought of was the movie M. Something's wrong when it's natural to make the association between your site and an iconic story of a child killer.

If it's all game theory, then play the long game. A vote for a third-party candidate is a vote for more and better options in the next election.

Yes, some of the candidates are fringe whackjobs, but if you can find a serious candidate from a party with principles you like better than the Republicans/Democrats, then use your vote to build that party so they're automatically on the next ballot instead of a write-in. It's the closest thing we have to "none of the above", and it's a vote well spent.

Why are you assuming the physical access will be to a suspect's home and not a datacenter? When I read this, the first thing that popped into my head was the potential to get a trojan horse employee hired at google to create back doors or steal private keys. Then we're right back where we started from.

If there are mainstream candidates you want to win, vote for them. If not, a vote for a third party is a vote for more viable candidates to choose from in the next election. In the long run, that's a meaningful vote.

A vote for a third party is a vote for more and better candidates in the next election. It's playing the long game. You may slightly contribute to a worse winner in the current election, but you help build viable third parties and give them ballot access. That's a good use of my vote.

I have the utmost respect for Doctors Without Borders and what they do. I'm glad to hear they really have their act together. But I just can't give them any more money after seeing about 25% of what I gave them last year come back to me as full color glossy brochures asking me to give them more money. A simple letter once or twice a year would be fine. A couple emails a year instead is better. But I got enough paper from them to think I was supporting a printing company and the postal service.

The second amendment protects my right to bear arms, but if I'm arrested for a violent crime I can be prohibited from carrying guns. If I'm in jail, I can be searched for contraband without a warrant. If you make internet access an inalienable right, you're not forcing the government to always give everyone internet access. You're just (hopefully) saying it takes a criminal conviction to restrict it.

Personally, I think an amendment for this is bad precedent. This needs to fall under the free speech protections of the first amendment because the internet is a means to exercising those rights. If the judicial branch recognizes this, we won't require another constitutional amendment every time a new communications medium arises.

I completely disagree with that point. The most valuable thing I did when I was in college was hold down a job in my field. While working on a CS degree, I spent 20-30hrs a week working helpdesk and later writing small webapps at the university. Not only did it help build good general job skills and work ethic, it taught me to apply the lessons I learned in class.

When it came time to find a post-college job, I had several interviewers tell me that it was the larger projects from my work experience that made me stand out and got me the job offers. When I've interviewed new grads for jobs, the first thing I want to talk about is real-world experience - either a job, a personal project or class projects where they've partnered with companies to solve non-contrived problems.

At least in Arizona, possession requires that you knowingly possess kiddie porn. I was on a jury once for a case that involved two child pornography charges and some molestation ones. We had to acquit on one of the kiddie porn charges because it was a recovered deleted file and we couldn't establish that the guy knew it was there. We knew he took the picture, but that was a different charge. We deliberated on most of the case for the better part of a day, but we all agreed on the kiddie porn charges in the first hour - one guilty and one not guilty. He's serving a few decades for other crimes, though.