Washington Post comments 2

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-nra-square-off-over-small-arms-treaty/2013/03/16/ae495dae-8d76-11e2-b63f-f53fb9f2fcb4_allComments.html?ctab=all_&

NRA opposes UN small arms treaty

I believe the treaty does get into the US's way because the US government has the right to regulate whatever goes in or out of the country. Also, countries should be able to give weapons to whatever side they support, even though I favor neither side in this conflict. Also, what would happen if the UN designates the US as a "conflict zone" due to fears of domestic terrorism and starts bringing the effects of the treaty here?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-survillance-tool-is-ruled-unconstitutional/2013/03/15/d4796396-8db9-11e2-9f54-f3fdd70acad2_allComments.html?ctab=all_&

FBI surveilance tool is ruled unconstitutional

The article forgot to mention the fourth amendment. Though of course many websites are not most peoples' property, website owners still have the right to refuse to consent to searches. Law enforcement still needs probable cause and a warrant, whether it's practical or not. 
 
I strongly believe the government spies on us most of the time because of all this "terrorist" freakout. these people should just back off unless someone notifies them and they're sure that something really bad is happening. I really don't want the government spying on me or anyone who blogs or whatever in support of whatever this Administration disagrees with. If I were president, I wouldn't have people spy on liberals, because I know that arbitrarily seeking information on someone is something that can really easily be misused.