Whoa, slow down there - where do I mention convicting the government of thought-crimes? My point is that granting the federal government powers (because, under the constitution, they have no power that isn't explicitly granted to them) under the umbrella of counter-terrorism initiatives is inevitably going to expand in scope and usage, and will still be labelled as "counter-terrorism".

Where do you mention convicting the government of thought-crimes? In the very next sentence! You are not capable of predicting the future, you don't know what is going to happen if we grant the federal government additional powers.

Except for the fact that the NSA already cited the PATRIOT Act to justify PRISM, and law enforcement agencies have already used vaguely worded wire tapping legislation to prosecute unrelated things like video taping the police. Emphasis on past tense. Kill the hyperbole, dude. I'm arguing against granting additional powers to the government or looking the other way on abuse of existing powers. Where you see "convicting the government of thought crimes" in that is beyond me.

Where have I been hyperbolic? Show me literally one instance in our conversation where I've been hyperbolic, please.

What I'm asking is why you insist on assuming the US government is going to abuse all of the power it has. If that were true, wouldn't the US military be in charge? The idea that the US is absolutely and irrevocably corrupt is demonstrably false, and frankly I'm getting sick of the insinuation.

I don't "insist on assuming the US government is going to abuse all of the power it has", and I haven't stated that "the US is absolutely and irrevocably corrupt" - so there's your hyperbole. I suggested that in the government, as in any political organizations, scopes tend to expand. I've pointed out several examples of this, including an example in the very issue we're discussing. You also equated this with "convicting the government of thought crimes" - and I still have no idea how you made that hyperbolic connection. You're obviously incredibly upset about this so let's just drop it. It doesn't even seem like we're speaking the same language because I have no idea where you're getting these ideas about what I've said.

Gun owners typically shouldn't get to decide who is innocent and who is not. They're not judge, jury and executioner.

So whenever they do hurt someone it's a case for an actual judge to figure out what happened and if we class it as self defence or not.

Gun owners harm innocent people more often than not.

Does the US government prosecute people for potential murder, simply because they have the means to commit this murder?