What does the Constitution say?

Per the Interstate Commerce clause, the Federal government can regulate cross-border transactions. It can require any particular warning labeling that it deems necessary when Roundup is produced in one state and sold in another.

The Constitution does not give the Federal government any type of general 'require warning labels on potentially dangerous products' power. The Tenth Amendment leaves that to the states.

States can require any particular labeling for products sold within their borders. They cannot distinguish between locally-produced Roundup and Roundup imported from another state. They also cannot require that their preferred labeling be used for products sold in any other state.

You don't need a missile. All you need is a shipping container aboard a cargo ship

.

I bet this could be defeated trivially by anyone with a sautering iron and a fairly steady hand. The plans will be available before the cartridges ship.

"Don't drink and drive" doesn't help when the government is trying to get these (or ANY other type of device with remote-disable functionality) put in all cars.

Production equals consumption plus investment in an ideal economy. Investment has a multiplicative effect on the productivity of labor (either labor decreases holding productivity constant, or productivity increases when labor is constant. The actual result is somewhere between those two endpoints.)

Socialist policies actively discourage investment, either through taxation or outright seizure, and as such act as a brake on improvements in the standard of living of the population as a whole.

A light bulb is a reverse solar panel:

Solar panel: absorb light, produce electricity.
Light bulb: absorb electricity, produce light.

If it's such a shithole country, why do so many people want to come here that we have to build walls to keep people out?

Housing only exists because someone else created it (used their labor).

Saying "Housing is a human right" is the same as saying "I have a right to the result of your labor". This is slavery by another name.

The proper counter to misinformation is true information, along with the tools to tell them apart objectively (experiments I can perform to tell which is true and which is false, without depending on any authority figures).

Censorship is not the solution, censorship is the problem. I have to trust not only the censor's motive, but also the censor's competence. I can't objectively verify either of them.

I'd rather duct-tape an iPad to the refrigerator. I don't need to replace the iPad if the refrigerator breaks, and I don't need to replace the refrigerator if Apple stops posting security updates 6 months after I buy it.

You follow the rules where your servers are located and your corporation is based. Choose Carefully. All other countries can do is try to block access to your service at their borders, or punish their own citizens for using your service.

If I vote without ID and am not registered, I might alter the outcome of the election, and possibly deny the registered voter whose identity I briefly stole the opportunity to vote. If I am registered, there's a risk that someone else used my name (without ID), preventing me from voting.

If I get into a Taylor Swift concert without valid ID, I deprive the legitimate owner of the ticket of entry to the concert (if I copied the ticket code), or I might just be taking their place (if I bought their ticket)

It looks a lot more like cooperation to me. Collectivism is people's individual resources being redirected to some central authority, if you're lucky it's for a common good. We haven't been lucky often.

The kid's collected diaries? Not likely, even if he did keep a diary or journal.

My bet is on a news article about the shooting and a position statement of an anti-gun group.

Very few people leave behind enough data to create a believable AI avatar: one that has a chance of crossing the uncanny valley and convincing a questioner that it is a reasonable simulation of the source's mental state. This situation is using a victim as a political tool.

Agreed. But I don't like the idea that the manufacturer can introduce new bugs, whether with or without a trip to the dealer. I also don't like that the manufacturer has the ability to remove existing features and update things like navigation maps from no additional cost to monthly subscription fee required. I'll also pass on changing privacy policies so they can now sell my driving telemetry data to anyone who will pay them (insurance companies, advertisers, etc...) They used to sell the data before now, the update is just to prevent you from suing them.