Go far enough left and you get your guns back

But what about the feelings of the rich people? They might not like that!

uncomfortable AWS noises

Fission and fusion reactors are really more like in-between renewable and non-renewable. Sure, it relies on materials that are finite, but there is way, way more of that material available in comparison to how much we need.

Making this distinction is necessary to un-spook people who have gone along with the panic induced by bad media and lazy engineering of the past.

It's because the police view themselves as a "team" that is basically 'playing' against the other team....everyone else. To them, this is a win and shows how good they are. It's quite disturbing how indoctrinated they are and almost nobody realizes it.

You'd have to pay the anti-lobbying lobbyists to do that....

Facts.

Unfortunately, the people that need this reminder the most are also generally staunchly anti-intellectualism.

It's not about consumer markets really. The CAFE emissions regulations essentially allow vehicles with larger dimensions to get lower mileage. So instead of the regulations ostensibly intended to lower emissions forcing better mileage, manufacturers just make bigger cars with the same or worse mileage than before. I used to have an S10 that got almost 20mpg, could park anywhere, could haul full sheets of plywood, and was surprisingly capable of road (came with the ZR2 package).

People still want this, they just aren't built because of asinine laws that get created through massive amounts of lobbying.

Neat!

Elaborate.

PC Jesus is all knowing

Guys, I think this is a troll account. Probably from the same bad actors that caused the original issue OP is complaining about.

Illegal images didn't work, so they took the "talk about Nazis" approach.

Layer 8 issues occur all the time.

This is really the case for all essential services (which I believe factual new is). Just look at the mess healthcare has made, or the 'food industry', or education.

Your point isn't completely invalid, but it's a circular argument. Whatever the external force was, the system had the ability to complete the objective.

One could actually argue that sending a person to the moon didn't directly achieve anything for the people, so that wouldn't necessarily have been a goal by itself anyway and was a waste of resources.

Interesting game, the only way to win is to not play.

I hear this point all the time, but it's simply not true. The total power that humanity consumes could perhaps eventually be generated with wind and solar, but they don't generate on demand, scalable power to provide the actual base load needed.

Don't get me wrong, I think every new building (and probably the old ones too) should have solar panels, but that doesn't negate the need to move the base power generation to nuclear from coal and oil.

It's simple. Rural parents and older people have been convinced over time via propaganda that "the school system" is why younger people don't generally share their values and ideology. This can be used in all kinds of ways to create emotional responses later.

For example, many conservatives in the western states are convinced young arsonists are burning down forests and fields because they are homeless and feel entitled to housing. Of course, there is no proof of this, and they don't think it can be climate change because they don't think climate change is real.

As a result of all this, they are very willing to take their kids out of school and switch to some homeschooling program so they don't raise homeless arsonists.

I wish I was kidding.

Consider this: not everyone familiar with firearms is a right wing lunatic. In fact, there is a surprisingly large and generally quite chunk of the population that is moderate to left leaning with various levels of support for civilian firearm ownership. If you go far enough left you find the people actually willing to fight for the good of the people and against tyranny (not like, "no step on snek tyranny, but more a long the lines of the black Panthers of old, or the current volunteers providing armed protection to lgbtq events in Texas, etc).

How would you suggest that such a person point out to you that you're using emotionally charged language to create a false dichotomy and ramble off blatant ad hominem attacks?

Here's something else to consider: the US government is bad at writing laws. If you want a great example, check the CAFE emissions standards. Using a chart that effectively allows bigger vehicles to get lower mileage has not resulted in manufactures making more fuel efficient vehicles, it's resulted in larger vehicles. This is why you can't buy a small pickup truck like the old ranger or s-10. So people are forced to buy larger vehicles (that use more resources to manufacture) that get worse mileage, and in turn actually increasing total fuel consumption. That's obviously really stupid if you think about it for a few minutes.

Most gun laws are equally as stupid and short sighted, but because the topic is more political and constantly in the news (even though the planet burning up is way more important, but I digress) it is debated more emotionally. In the example above if one doesn't take the time to understand general concepts about modern vehicles, legislation, and the various terms used to describe it, they won't have an educated opinion. An uneducated opinion is just noise.

This is relevant to firearms because most laws are feature restrictions of some kind. For example, banning a vertical foregrip. Defining what that is surprisingly tricky, and the government gets it wrong, or leaves loopholes, or has some other weird side effect. That's ignoring the fact that the purpose of a foregrip is to give the shooter better ergonomics and control. More control is safer and the odds of a shooter missing a target are reduced. So why would the government decide to ban something that is effectively a safety device while using incorrect jargon? Great question! Go ask the state of California, and new Jersey, etc.

At the end of the day, the only way to eliminate gun violence is to eliminate all guns. In the US that is logically impossible even if the constitution and will of the people is ignored. Calling something "assault" is as meaningless as cereal manufacturers saying a bowl of sugary carbs in milk is good for your heart.

Best part:

"The Labs team is hard at work hard creating processes and tools"

Didn't even take the time to proofread his response to someone saying he needs to slow down and verify things.....