My understanding is that the washington law has an exemption for troops activated by the president or something. So it is mostly toothless. But it is symbolic. And in this case that is worth something.

I was thinking high school locker room when I read it. Cause it fit my experience there.

When you are done on your soapbox, maybe talk about what can be done instead of who you blame.

I duuno. Washington passed that bill making it illegal for troops ftom other states to enter washington. The intent there is pretty clear. Noone got arrested.

And it isn’t about the reality of the number of guns. It’s about the news that the state did the thing. Maybe it only results in 5 more guns being bought. But if the perception is that the civilians are armed and intend to defend, that acts as the deterrent.

Mid term elections. Other poloticians need to distance themselves from him if they want to win. So it leads to less radical republicans in those seats. And thus republican congress people who are more likely to vote to remove him from office, or even just to pass laws to restrict what he can do.

Yes, this is. Real example of bad regulations that shouldn’t exist.

I think that should be on the table also. Though maybe a touch early for it. They need to do that in response to something so it doesn’t look like they are the ones escalating.

The concept is symbolic in a way. It may give people like ICE agents a little more fear when they do a raid. If things get really ugly, it could arguably be a deterrent. Ideally national guard troops ordered into a blue state might refuse such an order because they expect armed resistance that would force them to shoot civilians. Where as right now, they would expect no resistance. And that possibility might deter the feds from ordering troops in because they don’t want to risk the order being refused. At the end of the day. Most americans don’t want americains killing each other. So anything we can do to make that less appetizing to the people in charge that don’t care about Americans, the better.

Well, you get the benefit of people taking thos susidized or free classes. That is a good thing, though it doesn’t actually require pausing gun control. Otherwise the concept is symbolic in a way. It may give people like ICE agents a little more fear when they do a raid. If things get really ugly, it could arguably be a deterrent. Ideally national guard troops ordered into a blue state might refuse such an order because they expect armed resistance that would force them to shoot civilians. Where as right now, they would expect no resistance.

I’m not sure why you think they aren’t aware.

Wasn’t really going for insult. Companies have spent a lot of time and money to indoctrinate us into thinking of companies like people. Noone is immune. That is the core issue. I probably could have been more explicite on that.

You would be surprised how plentiful food is when there are no people eating it. Fishing with a spear would be easy. So as long as you can make a fire, you shouldn’t starve. But there would also be plenty of animals that would consider you food.

Saying you used to trust google is really a core part of the problem. Google isn’t a person. Just like AI isn’t a person. They both do what they are tasked with. Companies prioritize profit. AI prioritizes giving an answer, not necessarily a correct one. That is how it was designed.

And do you know how to know it is meaningless… it starts with “musk said”. Everything after that is worthless.

But it isn’t. It just peice of puff legislation. It has an exemption for if the pres mobilizes the troops.

But meaningless laws that only make people feel better is all poloticians know how to do.

Seems odd to imply he is concerned about the legal exposure of being a federal employee but willing to maintain illegal access to government data.
I don’t think he cares one lick about legal exposure. Others are just pushing back against what he wants to do, and he doesn’t like obstacles.

Testing it is how I found out it didn’t work. Lol. Got findroid and it worked great on the plane.

I’m not saying they “should” be able to get away with that. Just that they probably will. I am on the side of it should be illegal for cops to lie to you during an interrogation. Even attempting to use a trick question falls into the same boat in my opinion.

I think his point was that they worded the question to make reasonable answers possible to be interpreted wrong to their benefit. In other words, they likely were trained to asked trap questions.