Slashdot Mirror

HSA was created to create some confusion and allow an agency to get around pesky rules established to protect our rights.

"Under god" was added by Congress after being pushed by the Knights of Columbus in 1954 Similarly "In god we trust" was added to most coins in 1908 and on paper money in 1957. They couldn't leave well enough alone.

Last time I checked you *ARE* allowed to use the image of money and stamps (in the US) so long as it is obvious that the copy is not legal tender/postage. Please do note there are precise rules as to what is considered non-obvious).

Now if you try to use these as currency however.. don't expect it to go over well

Seriously, what is the big deal about entering a code to activate software you have purchased?

Argh. I'm gonna rant here. It isn't directed at you, it's directed at the stupidity of DRM.

The big deal is that down the road, they may, for reasons of policies I have no control over, decide to deny me that activation. They may do so because XP has gotten old, just as they dropped support for Win98. They may do it because some asshat with a serial number generator has put my serial number out on the web. They may do it because I changed my hardware around too many times to suit them. They may not be around to do it because some better company - like Apple - or OS - like linux or OSX - arose and kicked their ass, or because they finally got destroyed in court for being ruthless, monopolistic, cold hearted business trolls, or because not enough people upgraded to Vista or Office Version 2732, and their other operations (like XBox) lose money, or because a sinkhole opened up and swallowed them, or because there was a huge earthquake, or because a meteor hit them, or simply because there was a mistake in their database / activation process, or even temporarily if their activation system is down or thinks I'm on one of the many government "unacceptables" lists.

If I give a company $$$ for an OS or any other program for that matter, I expect them to give me the OS and ANYTHING I NEED TO MAKE IT WORK and then never, ever, interfere again unless I (a) ask them to or (b) they ask me, and I say "yes." Activation is *bullshit* DRM and as such it is the very lowest form of subtly screwing over your customers. Piracy... the bloody pirates aren't inconvenienced in the least. They've got activation tools, cracking, hacking and whacking tools, all manner of leverage and time, and they could care less about the DRM other than as a source of much amusement. I'm a legitimate, ethical user, and I darned well BUY all my software and I neither have the time nor the inclination nor the comfort level to go scrabbling around for illegal tools to re-enable my LEGITIMATE software purchase if a company has any of the above issues or any of the no doubt myriad others I've not thought of.

MS has the most pirated OS on earth, what do you expect them to do?

I expect them to do exactly what I do: Arbitrarily treat the paying customers as people you can trust, require an initial gateway that you do your best to control that you open to them when payment is received, and don't do anything that costs your legitimate customers money (like developing activation) or time (like making them activate) or business, data, or worse (like FAILING to activate for ANY reason.) Does my stuff get pirated? Sure it does. It is powerful, highly useful software with broad functionality, so it is doomed to be pirated. You can find pirated copies, or the means to pirate, out there with a cursory look. Do I do anything to screw over the people who give me money for my app in a knee jerk reaction? No - because that would be STUPID. What I do is spend my time making my software more powerful than the competition, I make sure we keep the pricing affordable, and I never, NEVER, treat a paying customer as if he's a pirate, EVEN IF HE BLOODY WELL IS, because if you're NOT a pirate, and I treat you like one, then I am the asshole, and you know what? I'm not the asshole, the pirates are, and I have never been confused about that the way Microsoft, the music industry, the DVD industry, and large portions of the software industry are. And yes, I make more than enough money from my paying customers to be one heck of a happy camper, piracy or not, and even though I'm a very quiet competitor to Adobe with an application that is ver

They get paid with Federal Reserve Notes well before you remit any of your earnings. And they will get paid whether you remit anything or not. Because there is a printing press that will give it to them regardless.
  Your tax Reserve Notes go to the Federal Reserve to prevent devaluation of the currency. And since the "money" is created out of thin air, that's really the only reason you pay taxes.

The list is at: http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/sd n/sdnlist.txt

In God We Trust has nothing to do with McCarthyism. It was established on coin in the mid 1800s.

http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/curre ncy/in-god-we-trust.shtml

No, it was put there by christian fundamentalists first during the Civil War on coins and then on paper money during the 50s to try and force the notion upon the nation that it was founded on christian principles (which it wasn't). Read and learn.

Funny how the Founding Fathers, those bastions of christendom that the American Taliban likes to claim, overlooked putting those words on currency when they had the opportunity to do so, no?

Also, as far as the Pledge of Allegiance is concerned, because we all know that will be your next comment, it was developed by a Baptist Minister so that all persons, regardless of their religious persuasion, could pledge their allegiance to both the flag and Republic in a neutral manner. For a more thorough discussion, see this.

Nope. It was placed on coined currency around the time of the Civil War by the request of many Americans who found religious fervor. It became standard in 1938. Then in 1956 (Thanks, McCarthy), it became a motto of the USA. The US Treasury has a page on it. Oh, and the scientific community's lack of usage of evolution is primarily because it's a general term. It's like using the word "Hinduism" when talking about the Vedic traditions that were precursors to modern Hinduism....or like using "science" to refer to a subset of empirical sciences (say, Chemistry)....or using "philosophy" to refer to a subset of it (e.g. 20th century post-structuralism). "Evolution" is a fine word for the masses, but when someone learned is supposed to be specific, a vague word isn't the best choice. It has nothing to withing appealing to religion any more than it is appealing to middle school math teachers. But isn't that what Slashdot is all about?

> And I'm pretty sure we were told at the time it was illegal to do that to a penny, but the vendors were getting away with it somehow

http://www.ustreas.gov/education/faq/coins/portrai ts.shtml#q13 at the bottom. Basically no, it's only illegal if you try to pass it off as a spendable coin afterward.

China is the 2nd largest foreign holder of US debt, after Japan:

Major Foreign Holders of Treasury Debt

They basically act like one of our biggest credit cards.

Travis

• IRS Announcement 92-16; I.R.B. 1992-5 (regarding premium deductibility--hard to find the exact text online, I have it as a PDF)
• IRS Notice 2005-8 (regarding HSA contributions)

Without getting all McLaughlin Group on you, http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes /ustax.shtml

Maximum tax in 1954 was 87% of income (this number is shockingly gross).

Reduced taxes would of course leave you more money. Being able to buy a car for $2000 certainly helped as well, or a new house for $18,000.

You should bone up on Federalism and Alexander Hamilton. Government is not a zero sum game.
The current fiscal imbalance comes from two things: Medicare expansion and the War on Terror. Both were inevitable. Medicare expansion had been a dem talking point for at least a decade. The War on Terror had been going on as well (we had troops flying over Iraq and on the borders since the cease fire of '91.)
Tax cuts were necessary to fight off the Clinton recession of 2000. It worked. Bush has had a better economic expansion that even Clinton had despite inheriting a bigger recession and having to fight a war in his first year in office.
And the fruits are coming - the deficit is going down because of increased revenues.

Governments can only exist if they borrow money. Jefferson, one of the original Republicans and a man with great hatred for Hamilton, wanted to destroy Treasury when he was elected as the first non-Federalist. Even his Treasury Secretary Albert Gallatin realized that to undo what Hamilton did would destroy the US.

Bush has extensive business experience and the debt/repayment cycle is part of that. You have to use money to make money and sometimes you have to borrow money to make that happen.

You should bone up on Federalism and Alexander Hamilton. Government is not a zero sum game.
The current fiscal imbalance comes from two things: Medicare expansion and the War on Terror. Both were inevitable. Medicare expansion had been a dem talking point for at least a decade. The War on Terror had been going on as well (we had troops flying over Iraq and on the borders since the cease fire of '91.)
Tax cuts were necessary to fight off the Clinton recession of 2000. It worked. Bush has had a better economic expansion that even Clinton had despite inheriting a bigger recession and having to fight a war in his first year in office.
And the fruits are coming - the deficit is going down because of increased revenues.

Governments can only exist if they borrow money. Jefferson, one of the original Republicans and a man with great hatred for Hamilton, wanted to destroy Treasury when he was elected as the first non-Federalist. Even his Treasury Secretary Albert Gallatin realized that to undo what Hamilton did would destroy the US.

Bush has extensive business experience and the debt/repayment cycle is part of that. You have to use money to make money and sometimes you have to borrow money to make that happen.

This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy.

The US Treasury would disagree with you: http://www.ustreas.gov/education/faq/currency/lega l-tender.shtml#q1. Then again, what do they know?

The Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). Failure to comply will send you to the federal prison featured in Office Space.

The OFAC lists have been around since the 1970's, I believe, with the Bank Secrecy Act.

Which is where the idiocy begins. You can't tax something that's illegal. Well, you can, but not many people will fess up.

But they already do. How do you think they got Al Capone? You don't have to fess up to a crime, they just have to show you have an income stream that's not being taxed.

One of the problems with the new income tax law was how to define "lawful" income. Congress addressed this problem by amending the law in 1916 by deleting the word "lawful" from the definition of income. As a result, all income became subject to tax, even if it was earned by illegal means. Several years later, the Supreme Court declared the Fifth Amendment could not be used by bootleggers and others who earned income through illegal activities to avoid paying taxes. Consequently, many who broke various laws associated with illegal activities and were able to escape justice for these crimes were incarcerated on tax evasion charges.

Prior to the enactment of the income tax, most citizens were able to pursue their private economic affairs without the direct knowledge of the government. Individuals earned their wages, businesses earned their profits, and wealth was accumulated and dispensed with little or no interaction with government entities. The income tax fundamentally changed this relationship, giving the government the right and the need to know about all manner of an individual or business' economic life. Congress recognized the inherent invasiveness of the income tax into the taxpayer's personal affairs and so in 1916 it provided citizens with some degree of protection by requiring that information from tax returns be kept confidential.

I find it interesting that federal revenues just after the turn of the 20th century were ~1.5% of GDP and by WWI (shortly after the 16th Amendment) were ~25% of GDP. This has fluctuated since (though never dropping to the 1-2% level again, even in peacetime), and is in the 20% range today.

I think this was posted earlier, but no, they do not have to accept cash:

http://www.ustreas.gov/education/faq/currency/lega l-tender.html

From the US Treasury web site:
http://www.ustreas.gov/education/faq/currency/lega l-tender.shtml

The pertinent portion of law that applies to your question is the Coinage Act of 1965, specifically Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, entitled "Legal tender," which states: "United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues."

This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy.

I SERIOUSLY doubt that this is a case of racism. It is more likely to do with the fact that the intended recipient of the funds either matched or came close to matching a listing on OFAC http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/ or another government list. The Office of Foreign Asset Control requires that transactions involving known or suspected persons on the officials lists are blocked.

Sure you can.

This is the list of people blocked by Treasury. I am sure they are matching names against that, not just picking up on people with a particular first name. Unfortunately, the risk of overlap is not entirely out of the question, but people are just playing things for political gain if they say they block everyone with the name Mohammed.

I suspect this is a grossly simplified attempt to honor the Office of Foreign Assets Control's Specially Designated Nationals list. I work for a company providing services to the financial industry, and one of our requirements was to flag transactions possibly involving individuals on this list. It's a very difficult problem, to be sure, but you're supposed to try. We've implemented some fairly sophisticated pattern matching routines to try and minimize false hits, but I'm sure some get through. On the other hand, because we only provide services to the financial industry (and we're not the banks themselves) we only raise a red flag when a potential match is found, it's up to the institutions to do something with that information. :-)

I suspect this is a grossly simplified attempt to honor the Office of Foreign Assets Control's Specially Designated Nationals list. I work for a company providing services to the financial industry, and one of our requirements was to flag transactions possibly involving individuals on this list. It's a very difficult problem, to be sure, but you're supposed to try. We've implemented some fairly sophisticated pattern matching routines to try and minimize false hits, but I'm sure some get through. On the other hand, because we only provide services to the financial industry (and we're not the banks themselves) we only raise a red flag when a potential match is found, it's up to the institutions to do something with that information. :-)

Also, the US Treasury - Office of Foreign Assets Control provide an "OFAC report" with a comprehensive list of names, SSN, aliases, and other data to financial insitutions, which are prohibited by law to NOT extend credit to identified individuals and to report any information you have for them back to OFAC.

I work for a financial institution and we are requred to run this report against our customers every time they release a new report. We have an automated process that does it now, but it used to be insanely difficult because they provided the data in a PDF in a completely unstructured manner. Anyway, surprisingly we have had a few hits where we basically give up the collateral to spare the legal headaches associated with recovering it or being in violation. That's saying quite a bit considering what we finance, and we just throw away.

So yes, it's more common than you think.

Most likely they're blocking money transfers as part of their compliance with OFAC

The rules are supposed to be you check relevant information (including but not limited to name) against the watch list, and then hold any monies which are associated with a positive hit on the watch list until it is resolved whether the recipient is a false positive or truly on the watch list. Most financial companies which I have worked with try to resolve within 24 hours, but my experience is limited to a small small number of companies.

It does sound that Western Union is having an issue properly identifying and resolving OFAC positives.

OFAC is a legal compliance requirement. Much like another of our favorites, SOX.

No Mohamed Sahirs on the SDN list
http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/sd n/sdnlist.txt

Lots of Sahirs and Mohameds but i dont see that combination.

Are any of your names on the list?

If you want to view the list of names financial institutions are required to reference, you can go ahead and peruse them here at the Office of Foreign Assets Control website, updated quite regularly. You'll find the list is dominated by Arabic (not necessarily Muslim) and Latin American names.

OFAC's mission as quoted on their website:

The Office of Foreign Assets Control ("OFAC") of the US Department of the Treasury administers and enforces economic and trade sanctions based on US foreign policy and national security goals against targeted foreign countries, terrorists, international narcotics traffickers, and those engaged in activities related to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. OFAC acts under Presidential wartime and national emergency powers, as well as authority granted by specific legislation, to impose controls on transactions and freeze foreign assets under US jurisdiction.

I work for a division of a large financial firm, and we are required to download a list of Specially Designated Nationals from the Treasury Department and compare names from it against new accounts and transfers. The list includes lists of suspected terrorists, and they're not all Arabic (think Irish Republican Army).

I was curious why the secret service was present for the sting also, and now I'm worried after reading from the USSS website: (www.ustreas.gov/usss) http://www.ustreas.gov/usss/investigations.shtml Since corporations try to claim monetary loss from almost any crime, then it looks like the USSS might have jurisdiction over a whole lot of crimes, especially since 9/11.

Think of the unintended consequences. If this passes, I think we can expect the free internet at coffeehouses, libraries, airports, etc. to end quite abruptly. Maybe we'll have to present a national ID card first...

I know your questions are rhethorical, but from this Conservative Libertarian's viewpoint:
1. Who runs the country? Lobbysts, and those who hire them. The will of the people is little more than a quaint notion. Just look at this Amnesty program for ILLEGAL aliens. 80% of America is against it from recent opinion polls, but the politicians don't care. Same goes for the Dubai ports deal. America's against it, but the politicians will make it work anyway.
2. What does Congress think it's doing? Whatever the hell it wants. It's not like that 10th Amendment to the Constitution applies any more. Seriously, have you ever (EVER?) heard any poliician say "We can't do that, that's a State Right?" or "We can't pass a law requiring XYZ, that violates the 10th Amendment?" Nobody else has either.
3. Do they have any idea how much it will cost? No. Like they care. It won't cost THEM anything. That's your problem, buddy. Now get back to work paying your taxes. (Speaking of taxes, Tax Amnesty Day is the 3rd of June for 2006, meaning that if the tax burden were evenly distributed, the average person would work from Jan 1 to June 3 just to pay their taxes for that year. Now consider that 49% pays no federal taxes. Don't believe me? Go to the IRS web site and look it up yourself. http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xl s)

Anything else I can clear up for you?

(And moderators, just because you disagree, it doesn't mean it's "flamebait" or "troll". It could simply indicate that I'm an idiot.)

I think he meant to refer to withholding, which was implemented during WW2, but not repealed as had been done previously at the end of wars.

http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes /ustax.shtml

"Another important feature of the income tax that changed[during WW2] was the return to income tax withholding as had been done during the Civil War. This greatly eased the collection of the tax for both the taxpayer and the Bureau of Internal Revenue. However, it also greatly reduced the taxpayer's awareness of the amount of tax being collected, i.e. it reduced the transparency of the tax, which made it easier to raise taxes in the future."

http://www.ustreas.gov/tic/mfh.txt

China owns 12% of the foreign owned debt

They own approximately the same amount as the U.K.

Which is about 1/3 of the amount owned by Japan.
Japan owns 30% of the foreign owned debt.

To end off, let's compare some major economies and their level of debt.

UK--40.8%

Germany--65.8%

Italy--105.6%

Japan--164.3%

Russia--28.2%

Spain--53.2%

India--59.7%

Brazil--52%

Canada--68.2%

South Korea--20.5%

France--66.5%

US--64.7%

See the rest here--http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook /fields/2186.html

For some shits and giggles, check out this report comparing the US to the EU.http://www.timbro.com/euvsusa/

and also

Since 1984, our investigative responsibilities have expanded to include crimes that involve financial institution fraud, computer and telecommunications fraud, false identification documents, access device fraud, advance fee fraud, electronic funds transfers, and money laundering as it relates to our core violations.

These guys are spammers. If they've advertised p3nis enlargement pills, they've committed fraud and, according to the Secret Service they have jurisdiction over this area. Disclaimer: IANAL

Read for yourself: http://www.ustreas.gov/usss/mission.shtml

The total debt is closer to eight trillion dollars.

To put this in terms that Slashdot readers can better comprehend, if you had a dollar for every byte of directly addressable physical memory that the current version of the AMD Opteron can directly address (2^40), you could only pay off about 12% of the debt.

Here's some data about what people pay now (don't get me wrong, I think the Internet tax shouldn't happen). I'm posting the following to show how much those "rich" people really DO pay.

This was taken from another site, but it's good data:

Check this out.

It shows that the top one percent of taxpayers paid 34.3 percent of all federal income taxes in 2003, although they earned just 16.8 percent of the adjusted gross income. The top five percent of taxpayers paid more than half of all federal income taxes, the top 10 percent paid two-thirds, and the top half of taxpayers paid 96.5 percent, meaning that the bottom half paid just 3.5 percent.

And this.

The top one percent and found that the top ten percent of the top one percent (the top 0.1 percent) increased their share of all federal income taxes from seven percent in 1980 to 15.3 percent in 2003. These 129,000 tax filers earned 7.6 percent of the income and paid an average tax rate of 23.6 percent. This came to $114.6 billion--four times more than all the taxes paid by the 64 million taxpayers in the bottom 50 percent--who paid an average tax rate of 2.9 percent.

The "rich" pay a helluva lot of money. The data is there from the IRS itself for you to check the facts.

Here's some data about what people pay now (don't get me wrong, I think the Internet tax shouldn't happen). I'm posting the following to show how much those "rich" people really DO pay.

This was taken from another site, but it's good data:

Check this out.

It shows that the top one percent of taxpayers paid 34.3 percent of all federal income taxes in 2003, although they earned just 16.8 percent of the adjusted gross income. The top five percent of taxpayers paid more than half of all federal income taxes, the top 10 percent paid two-thirds, and the top half of taxpayers paid 96.5 percent, meaning that the bottom half paid just 3.5 percent.

And this.

The top one percent and found that the top ten percent of the top one percent (the top 0.1 percent) increased their share of all federal income taxes from seven percent in 1980 to 15.3 percent in 2003. These 129,000 tax filers earned 7.6 percent of the income and paid an average tax rate of 23.6 percent. This came to $114.6 billion--four times more than all the taxes paid by the 64 million taxpayers in the bottom 50 percent--who paid an average tax rate of 2.9 percent.

The "rich" pay a helluva lot of money. The data is there from the IRS itself for you to check the facts.

The government's own stats ( http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xl s ) show that the "lower 50%" don't even pay 4% of the taxes.

Mostly what seems to happen is that tax money is collected from ever whoever has it (obviously) and spread around to wherever it will get the most votes (hint: a lot of voters pay no taxes, so they have no incentive for restraint in spending).

As far as moving to get better ISP service, I admit that was just rhetorical blather. The point is that life is a series of choices and trade-offs. One might well chose to live in the city to be closer to "stuff" and someone else might give up things like a decent ISP to live "in the country".

I guess it was just a general rant on how high taxes are, for those of us who pay them. (Current US gov't stats are that most taxpayers, um aren't. For example, see http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xl s)

Anyhow...

Hang on just a minute here: according to this site, http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/, the 96% of taxes are paid by the top 50% of wage earners.

For those of you who won't link through, his source is http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xl s, (yah i know it's an excel file. I didn't feel like pouring over the IRS website to find a pdf version.)

To summarize, "legal tender" means that US currency is to be considered a legally valid OFFER for payment. Whether someone is willing to accept that offer is entirely up to them. In other words, not only can a place refuse to accept $50 in pennies as payment for an item but they can, theoretically, REQUIRE you to pay only in pennies for your purchase.

That being said, if a B&M store isn't willing to take my $2 bills (however they happened to arrive in my wallet) in payment, then they can just lose my business. Restrictions on large numbers of pennies (or even nickels) I consider reasonable, "nothing over a $20 bill" I consider reasonable, etc. In other words, give me a good reason and I'll modify my payment. If a business refuses to accept my payment because they don't believe $2 bills are circulated by the Department of Treasury, then that's not a good reason.

I have to say, though, that the guy in the article, despite being technically "in the right," was purposely being an asshole and he knew it. He clearly keeps $2 bills on hand because he knows that few people see them and either a) likes to educate people that, yes, $2 bills are real or more likely b) wants to have them around so that he can make his little "protests" like this one. He probably already KNEW that most places won't take - and don't have to take - thousands of coins as payment and that's the only reason he doesn't keep carefully counted jars of pennies around to screw with people.

If he was really convinced he was in the right and WASN'T an asshole, he would have gone down to the store, asked to speak to the manager and explained his understanding of the situation. If they still threatened to call the police because of non-payment, he could have then invited them to do so (whereupon the police would have laughed and told the manager that it was time for small claims court). THAT is the way to protest against threats like that. Going down and paying a charge you don't feel you owe in $2 bills is what I call "being a little bitch."

The U.S. Treasury disagrees.

If the dollar does tank, that ought to be a boon for Novell and RedHat, since that ought to make their services cheap for markets outside the U.S.

The SS? Don't these guys use Enigma? :p

Conservatives don't want to lower taxes, by the way - they just want to take more of the money from the people who hardly have any money, and spend it on invading third world countries instead of providing for americans.

Boy, I hate to point this out, but you should really check the facts first. The fact is that the Bush tax cut skewed more taxes to the wealthy and took more low income earners off the tax rolls. Currently the top 50% of wage earners pay over 96% of the taxes in America. The real numbers.

Also, during W's first term, social spending has increased in almost every area, including a huge new prescription drug benefit. So, your premise about conservatives and spending is wrong.

As a pretty staunch conservative myself, I can concisely say that I am not against video games with violence, crime, murder and mayhem in them. I am against minors being exposed to these games which are clearly not tailored for their experience level or moral maturity. For a parent to hand this game over to a child is to provide tacit approval of the actions that the game contains.

Children don't have rights for a reason, namely that they aren't mature enough to accept the responsibilites that go with them. In this country I have the right to own a gun, with that comes the responsibility of A) knowing *how* to use it, B) knowing *when* to use it, C) knowing *why* to use it, and D) knowing that there are consequences, many severe, for that gun's use. As an adult, I can see beyond the immediate gratification to the consequences. Children do not have this ability.

I have two children, I know that the consequences of their actions don't go through their mind until they start hitting them between the eyeballs.

Yes, we sometimes choose to prosecute children as adults, but usually only in very specific cases, such as when they are very near the age of majority (17+ years of age) or when they demonstrate to a psychiatrist that they have a clear understanding that their action was wrong and would have consequences, but they took the action anyway.

Personally I don't like the idea that something just happens when you turn 18 that makes you an adult. I know a bunch of 12 year olds who are more mature than some of the 20-somethings that I work with. Why do we give rights to the 20 year olds instead of the 12 year olds? The answer is tradition, but it's not the best answer. How many 25 year olds do you know who get stone drunk every weekend? Is that showing a level of responsibility?

Besides, the prosecution of minors as adults is relatively rare in this country, probably less than 1 in a 100 cases. And it's usually only used in the case of major felonies. Even then, children convicted as adults are often sentenced as juveniles, which means a maximum imprisonment age of 25. Now that's a privilege without a responsibility. It cuts both ways.