The whole issue is written into the constitution of our nation, where it identifies gun ownership (as a means of self defense) as a right. The Supreme Court went further and included all sorts of essential gun oriented things as part of that right. They eliminated the very loophole that you suggested as an "answer".

In short, there is only one answer that satisfies the needs that people that are against guns have, and that is to change the constitution.

That takes a supermajority of the people and the states working together to pull off.

As far as this being a "frenzy", there are only about 20% of the US population that have that opinion. Half the population want to protect the law, Many want stricter laws, but when politics enters the equation everything seems to get complicated quickly.

âoe It should be glaringly obvious to anyone with half a brain that forcing companies like Apple to open up more is in the public interest, and that their claims of "security concerns" are nothing more than a desperate attempt at a power grab.â

The power grab is using âoepublic interestâ as the excuse to force companies to open up. Apple doesnâ(TM)t have a monopoly on hand held computing software, hardware, or any other component used in their products, much less the whole of any specific product. Being successful shouldnâ(TM)t allow anyone the right to decide that their success should be spread around like peanut butter.

I'm not convinced that wealth causes poverty, and the article throws that tidbit out there as a fait accompli. Whether one is wealthy or not, individuals generally require the same amount of basic necessities, and the rich aren't stocking up on the basics, they're buying yachts and other luxuries.

Go spout socialist monetary redistribution crap elsewhere.

What will happen is the cesspool that is social media and the conglomerates that host such sites will pull out of the business. The people running those shit shows want to have their cake and eat it too, and they're currently allowed to. It's not a trump card, it's a level playing field.

Protip: when scum are held accountable and the profits are eaten away by a death by a thousand lawsuits, they'll clean up their act

"But the technology industry says the measure is illegal, in part because it would unconstitutionally make private companies host speech they don't agree with."

Okay, I'm good with that, now they have to take legal responsibility for the content of all posts because they agree with them.

..the title of this article would have been:

Growing Plants Accounts For 100% of All Greenhouse Gases From Food Production, Study Finds

Isn't that so much better? Well, it is until you realize that the ecological consequences of feeding people is still a mess you have to clean up, so shut the f up about it and just start cleaning. And get off any high horse you may have had pointed out to you. Virtue isn't in pointing out problems, virtue is in solving them without making it all about you.

Whomever msmach is, they need to make up their minds. One post says time has run out and the next says there is time remaining. /. should stick to technology and leave reading tea leaves to others.

Climate Disruption Is Now Locked In. The Next Moves Will Be Crucial.
Posted by msmash on Wednesday September 23, 2020 @09:51AM from the closer-look dept.

A New York Clock That Told Time Now Tells the Time Remaining
Posted by msmash on Wednesday September 23, 2020 @09:10AM from the how-about-that dept

... require extraordinary evidence. (thanks Carl!)

That's the reason there are climate skeptics.... there's no extraordinary evidence.

Pretending a baby isn't a baby in order to destroy it because of the social costs of recognizing that life is a spectrum ... does that qualify as ignoring the science?

Your glass house has tons of holes.

Says the anonymous coward. How apt.

So, emac or vi? Pick a side and RUMBLE!

"if he didn't collude, the report would have specifically has said so"

How do you prove someone didn't do something? There would be literally, by definition, no evidence whatsoever.

You say "tax breaks" like it's something other than the government not taking as much money from a private company as it says it can in order to stimulate a regional economy

Of course everything's about me! What other perspective can I represent without appropriation?

It's an interesting question - "can you do it?"

My next question would have been - "What would it cost?"

And then I'd have started asking about priorities and what they presently had on the table, etc.

Folks sure are funny though, getting wrapped around the axle 'cause the man asked a question.