Every answer so far is wrong.

It can be used for good purposes, though I’m not sure if characterize creating a personalized Jarvis as good per se. But, more broadly, capitalist inventions do not need to be used only by capitalists for capital ends.

There’s a few ways in practice.

1. Court decisions are binding broadly. The conservative capture of the Supreme Court is political genius, honestly. They tend to have the final say regarding policy.

2. Federal agency rules are also broadly binding. EPA rules that limit greenhouse gas emissions, for example, apply everywhere in the country.

3. State legislatures are often less polarized, which facilitates a more productive legislature.

4. State agencies, like a state environmental department, mirrors its federal counterpart but is more localized.

5. Non-state organizations can get things done, though their interests are often limited and not necessarily in the interests of the broad public as state and federal institutions are.

6. International institutions can ‘set the tone’. They may not have any power to actually do anything within a specific jurisdiction, but people within those jurisdictions can draw policy inspiration from international organizations and try for something locally binding.

Anecdotally, this was my experience as a student when I tried to use AI to summarize and outline textbook content. The result says almost always incomplete such that I’d have to have already read the chapter to include what the model missed.

The right to…checks notes…advocate genocide is dead and you think it’s a slippery slope?

I mean, that tracks with the conservative understanding of language as another frontier in the competition of life, but still…well, let me ask you a question:

Would you defend my right to advocate for the genocide of white people or whatever nationality, ethnicity, color of skin, or etc you are? (To be crystal clear, I’m not doing that, nor do I ever intend to do that, or even support anyone that would do that)

Why do you think it’s fear mongering?

I’ll concede the other two. It is an opinion piece after all.

…what other community do you see this upvoted?

Yeah.

Neither you, nor as usual, NtB, made any argument to strawman in the first place.

Except for that last line, I can’t in good conscience ban Pizzaman. As long as he brings the arguments, it’s not something I’ll do. After all, dissent is allowed in the comments.

And Winter and I just had a discussion about gun laws that stemmed from Pizzaman’s post. So, there’s no reason why people can’t agree or disagree on the substance and entirely ignore a thin façade of civility if that’s what you really think it is.

Yeah, I don’t see a credible need requirement either, according to that website. So, we’ll go with proof of expertise instead.

Even so, your site mentions that publicly carrying firearms is generally prohibited and concealed carry is generally reserved for specific professions.

So, if the Kansas City shooter acquired the gun by stealing them, then it’s going to matter where they were stolen from.

If they were stolen from John Smith in public, then again, German gun control laws are far more likely to have stopped the Kansas City shooting because the legally acquired gun wouldn’t have been in the public in the first place.

If they were stolen from John Smith at home, then, the website you linked has safe storage requirements that suggest it would take a lot for the shooter to find and combine everything before going on the rampage. Again, German gun control laws would have likely stopped the shooting.

And while this is a fun exercise in the logical application of law, it’s all for nothing because German gun laws are largely unconstitutional. For Americans, guns are an individual right, not a privilege. In law, rights require duties from others. If someone has a right to something, then others have the duty of respecting that right. A right to guns is the duty to endure a higher probability of being murdered in a firearm related incident than other developed nations.

Stolen from who though?

Stolen from police officers? Because German gun laws restrict acquisition, possession, and carrying of firearms to those with a creditable need for a weapon, then it’s likely such laws would not have stopped the Kansas City shooting. Police officers have a need for a weapon.

Stolen from John Smith, some random dude with no need to have a gun? Then, because German gun laws restrict acquisition, possession, and carrying of firearms to those with a creditable need for a weapon, then it’s likely such laws would have stopped the Kansas City shooting. The gun(s) wouldn’t have been available to steal in the first place.

That wouldn’t have stopped the Kansas City shooting either. They didn’t legally own the firearms.

It matters how they acquired the firearm. Do we know how that came to be?

Pizzaman’s point is that American gun control is not equivalent to German gun control, though. His argument is in the details.

From the article he linked:

German gun laws restricts the acquisition, possession, and carrying of firearms to those with a creditable need for a weapon.

They also ban fully automatic guns and severely restrict the acquisition of other types of weapons.

Compulsory liability insurance is required for anyone who is licensed to carry firearms.

In other words, yeah, we have gun control laws, but as long as the Supreme Court continues to (foolishly) recognize an individual right to firearms with no relation to a militia, an interpretation that’s only a little over a decade old, then yeah, no version of American gun control laws are ever going to be effective.

It’s really unclear how it’s going to wipe out a million jobs.

He does say

“It’s not the name that matters. It’s the consequences. It’s stricter than rules they have even in Europe. And in vast portions of the country, we will barely be able to build new manufacturing facilities as a result,” Timmons added.

He does not say that manufacturers will have to cut any current jobs. Or am I missing that?

So, if I’m interpreting this correctly, it seems like up to 1 million forecasted jobs over some indeterminant time will “wiped out”.

That’s a good question.

Just FYI, you interpreted the headline wrong. I did, too…but then they have this gem:

That is larger than the population of 36 US states, including Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

They’re not combined, otherwise the impact of the argument wouldn’t have the emotional force it does by listing 36 states individually lol.

Do your own homework!

…you say, taking the word of people lying to you

…what’s it to you?

At this point, Republicans have only themselves to blame. They had a chance to get everything they wanted in terms of border security but turned it down because their beholden to Trump’s oversized knickers. They can lay in the bedbug ridden bed they made with their first day dictator.