Or, show it to prospective customers/partners under a Non Disclosure Agreement. Like happens millions of times a year throughout most industries, and probably (I'd be very surprised to find otherwise) happened in this case.

So you're comparing an imagined "mass hysteria" that manifests itself as years-long legislative and regulatory exercises and countless court reviews and modifications ... with low-information violent individual idiots who are hugely outnumbered by people who actually seek to defend and protect the victims of the sort of unwarranted assaults described?

Please link to something describing this gun hand-out program, especially to one that ignores existing federal laws about not letting crazy people buy them.

The real issue there is that crazy people aren't called crazy any more, because it's politically incorrect to do anything other than mainstream them and hope for the best.

Please cite actual laws that promote irresponsible gun use. Specifically.

Which has 100% nothing to do with the protections the 2nd amendment guarantees individuals. It's BECAUSE the founders knew that having a standing army and/or people ready to stand up a be an army was always going to be necessary, that they didn't want the government and it's approved soldiers to have a monopoly on the ownership of firearms. You've talked about this before, and walked away from the conversation whenever you're confronted with the actual history of the matter. Choosing to take the amendment's language out of context doesn't change things. The second amendment doesn't require training any more than first amendment requires you to learn how to capitalize your sentences - something you still haven't figured out. Both of those amendments, like others, exist to prevent government interference with your rights, not to limit them. That you think it's the opposite shows how you completely misunderstand the constitution and its history.

Just like kitchen knives, swords, horses, and matches, right? Please point to a single other place in the constitution or in any of the contemporary writings of the people who wrote it and the amendments where there's even a HINT of concern about it being part of the nation's founding charter that people aren't allowed to handle dangerous things without government training. Farmers even then were using black powder explosives to remove tree stumps in their fields. Which amendment addresses that? Please, be specific.

You mean, the steady, multi-decade decline in violence that happens to involve the use of guns? But more to the point, people mis-using cars kill a lot more people. People using objects like knives and baseball bats kill far more people than anyone using any sort of rifle. How can drivers and baseball fans defend this status quo, right? Right?

Right. People who use all sorts of potentially lethal devices and substances generally know to learn about being safe before doing something dumb. But of course thousands of people die and kill other people doing dumb, reckless or malicious stuff with non-gun items every year. Your completely phony obsession with a fantasy notion that, of all of the dangerous items and activities in the world, ONE of them gets a constitutional amendment mandating safety training, and that that amendment, unlike all the others which exist to limit the government's reach exists to limit individual rights - it's laughable. Spend five minutes studying the entire purpose of the constitution, and you'll (if you're honest) understand that you have it completely backwards on the one amendment you're cherry-picking and twisting to suit your agenda.

Except ... before a range of provisions were made, good old fashioned "take me to Cuba" style hijackings became regular occurrences. Once people saw it could be done, there were many, many people doing it or at least attempting it. It took fairly draconian measures to make it stop, thought it still occasionally happened. Which is why the people onboard at least the first couple of doomed aircraft on 9/11 had no expectation that the people who took over the cockpits were going to use them all as part of a guided missile.

So, your take on it now is that if we just made it obvious to everyone that in order to avoid the incredibly unusual event of a suicidal pilot being able to lock others out of the cockpit, we just allow anyone from the Crazy Islamist Or Otherwise Brigade to have a go at the cockpit's unsecured door? Not every aircraft has an air marshal or the equivalent onboard. The flight crew isn't generally armed or always going to be able to deal with, say, several guys willing to kill others in order to crash an aircraft. All they'd have to do is make it happen at the last minute during an approach, and splash a big pile of flaming wreckage into a large urban area. They've already tried that a couple times since, using explosives that thankfully failed for minor technical reasons.

The zealot wackadoos, in case you haven't noticed, have been busy increasing in number and willingness to kill themselves in order to kill others. I doubt that the number of suicidal professional pilots is changing in any meaningful way from "essentially none." The difference is that legions of crazies have expressed a continuing devotion to killing as many people as possible in as spectacular a way as possible, because Allah likes it that way. They advertise their desire to do it, and have demonstrated many attempts and plans since 9/11 to do more of the same. You really think that leaving cockpit doors unlocked won't matter because, after all, they've all decided that their previous buddies' actions were a bit over the top?

I wonder where the rest of the world is putting all of the cars that they ask to have put on huge freighters and shipped overseas? There must be some huge warehouses full of those vehicles. And all of the private exporters who gray-market US cars to destinations all over the planet must be truly perplexed by the money they receive, since no one is actually driving the cars.

I think you may be misunderstanding the concept of mass hysteria. That usually implies things like witch hunts where a large group of people react to an imagined threat. You know, like, witches or something. Or that poor woman beat to death the other day by a mob in Afghanistan because of a made-up story about something she did ... which she didn't do.

Or, you've got cases like those that led to secured cockpits on commercial aircraft. You know, when actual terrorists - most without beards - killed thousands of people. No hysteria involved, it actually happened. And because of steps taken, that particular approach isn't going to happen again (though many people have since been tackled and restrained in-flight as they tried to gain access to the cockpit). No, now the bad guys are trying to anticipate when the planes will be above a population center, and bring them down by other means (like, say, by attempting to blow a hole in the fuselage while on approach over Detroit, or by shipping bomb-laden laser printers in the cargo, that sort of thing). Also not imagined in the throws of hysteria.

And how is that different for labor unions, huge non-profits, people like George Soros...? It's not. What the court did was strike down a law that was allowing SOME people to pool resources in the context of political communication while preventing other people from doing the same thing. Which is a clear violation of both the first and fourteenth amendments. If you want a law that limits speech, come up with one that applies to everybody in the same way, and which doesn't violate the constitution's protections.

Not all terrorists are Muslims. Not by a long shot.

The insinuation that he is Muslim is yours, not mine.

As long as the media companies can sell the rights to their product to individual companies in other nations, you will never see an end to geoblocking. It's part of the business model of making profit from as many opportunities as possible.

Why would CTV here in Canada pay for the rights to broadcast "Gotham" if Canadians could just watch the internet streams from the US directly? Why would the BBC pay for the rights to broadcast CTV's "Orphan Black" if British citizens could just watch the CTV streams from Canada for free?

It's all about the money, and the "cost" of piracy is a pittance compared to the profits they earn with the current model.

The fact that no attack occured gives the talking heads leeway to claim there was no "terrorist attack." That does not mean the fellow flying the plane at the time didn't have sympathies for terrorists or had been outright radicalized.

They also hate calling something a "terrorist attack" if there isn't a pre-announced political message for the reasons behind the attack.

Myself, I have a feeling they're going to learn a few things about him during the investigation that they'd rather were not true.

No, they listened to a sales droid who lied about it being available and someone having had it before.

I mean making sure it's currently installed and working on the say-so of the current house owner.

If the NIMBYs have a problem with windmills "destroying the view", imagine how they'd react to this plan if it were enacted here in North America.

Was that in a novel or something? Because it didn't happen in real life.

They have, though, ruled that you as a person don't give up things like the first amendment's protections just because you, say, start a neighborhood landscaping business and (gasp!) incorporate it.

Kinky. But, hey, if making Lego dildos and shoving them up your ass is your thing, knock yourself out.

You can probably even find a website where like-minded freaks share their pictures of their escapades. *LMAO*

Here's a thought. If internet access is that important to you, make sure you don't spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on a house that doesn't already have high speed installed.

Just a thought...