Unless you're talking about cocaine etc. brought to the penthouse by a personal assistant or something. Plenty of ultra-rich celebs have killed themselves that way.
If speed limits were enforced, they would be abolished tomorrow. They only continue to exist because most people can break the speed limit for years without getting a ticket.
If drivers received a fine every time they broke the speed limit, politicians houses would be burning down the next day and the law would be abolished the day after.
You know why encryption is legal despite Bush and Clinton's best attempts to prevent it?
Because Gen-X kids risked a decade in jail for breaking Federal law to ensure the code got out there and everyone had it. It simply became impossible to regulate because anyone anywhere in the world could download the code and run it.
Today programmers won't even say 'no' when governments demand they ID all their users.
Because it's not about age. It's about eliminating anonymity online.
There were laws requiring that escaped slaves were returned to their owners. I presume you would have obeyed those laws, even though they were immoral.
> You live in a country with laws.
A country with laws, yes. A country with law, no.
It's ludicrous to tell people they should obey the law when none of Epstein's clients have been arrested and probably at least half of the business owners in the country would be in jail if the laws on employing illegal aliens were enforced.
If an escaped slave had turned up at your house in the 1800s asking for help, would you have followed the law and sent him back to his owner? From your post, I'm guessing you would have.
I know a few Christian Nationalists. None of them are pushing for "Age Versification" and most are against it because it's clearly just another step toward The Mark of the Beast where people won't be allowed on the Internet unless they bend the knee to Satan.
This push is coming from the communists and WEF-bozos who want to eliminate anonymity on the Internet. Literally everyone who's been following this for long knows that.
Which is why you see support for it from both "left-wing" and "right-wing" governments. They both have the same hands shoved up their behinds.
I was configuring group policy yesterday, all day, and the number of things that are either active or not restricted, is mind-blowing. Page after page of options that should be "Block - Enabled", or, "Security Enabled", by default, that you need to go in and set enabled, why?
Part of it is probably how inconsistent and confusing Windows group policy is designed and phrased. There are so many policies where the setting is not enable or disable with one of those as default. Rather the options are "do not allow" or "not (do not allow)" with the default unclear as to what it does. I swear sometimes the option has to be read as a triple negative.
Final assembly is inadequate for the law as written. You'd have to manufacture the PCBs in the U.S., which is likely to be completely infeasible for at least a decade.
And how will requiring the PCBs be manufactured in the US prevent backdoors from being designed in the system. The backdoors are at the firmware level not during assembly.
Someday somebody has got to decide whether the typewriter is the machine, or the person who operates it.