Really? How about blaming the person who pulled the trigger rather than inanimate objects? Good grief. I'd say the fact the pastor banned guns in her church was more to blame than guns. These types of mass shootings almost always take place in "gun free zones" like schools or movie theaters. You think that's just a strange coincidence? These sickos know people are unarmed and easy targets.
That roll call link with the vote totals says it's about allowing government workers to withdraw money after age 50 from government accounts and other stuff. So this falls under the other stuff section? Seems odd.
No matter what you might think of the surveillance debate happening in DC this week, there's no honest way to deny that the debate would be very different (and likely wouldn't be happening at all) if Ed Snowden had leaked a bunch of documents to reporters almost exactly two years ago.
Seems like British citizens get what they deserve. The Conservatives said they'd do this if elected, so I don't feel any sympathy if they're stupid enough to put them back in power. Enjoy your police state, UK!
One of the reasons that I backed the Tiko 3D printer on Kickstarter, besides the low price, was because they use non proprietary spools of filament, and allow any common file type. When it, and other low cost 3D printers become ubiquitous hopefully this proprietary filament nonsense will fall by the wayside thanks to good ole competition.
I'm sorry, but TD has a problem with cops using a warrant to go into a home that actually has drugs? I can understand the umbrage if they, say, threw a flash bang into a baby's crib and didn't find any drugs, but Tim glosses over #4 of the affidavit where the informant bought drugs at the home from the defendant. That seems like a big bit of information to ignore in this rant over police "overreach."
There's plenty of stories you can find to show police behaving badly, but this doesn't seem to be one of them. How about everyone put down their pitchforks and torches for a moment, eh?
(potentially criminal liability in the form of "materially supporting terrorists" for merely providing an open platform that anyone can use, you are more or less guaranteeing that important content, such as that which documents war crimes and atrocities gets banned as well. Is that really what Castle and Carlin are looking to do?