The first words of the article:

So this is interesting. Just weeks after Google’s campaign to promote Android as being more secure than iPhone, the smartphone battle has taken a sudden twist.

A wrinkle to this case is that Federally marijuana is in the most restricted category. It’s above meth or cocaine.

Obviously a lot of people consider those drugs more harmful than marijuana, but if we are playing the legal game then marijuana is legislated as being more dangerous and that’s what the court has to work with.

SCOTUS I think has to decide if controlled substance use as a whole can prohibit legally buying a gun or not. I’m not sure if they can just make a carveout for marijuana. (Also the person taking the case up had cocaine too, so it can’t not be brought up.)

You’d be surprised how many 2A people, who are across the political spectrum, are fine with removing that category of prohibition entirely. However I wonder if it will make SCOTUS more hesitant to make such an “extreme” ruling.

A surprising amount of people don’t understand that if they live in a state where weed is legal that doesn’t mean Federal laws on it don’t apply.

The case is about overturning an existing restriction, not adding new ones.

This case is not about imposing new restrictions.

Weed is already prohibited. The case is about overturning that.

The case is about overturning existing prohibitions. Reading the article would clarify this.

I wish people would read the articles. Weed is already Federally prohibited. The case is an attempt to overturn that.

The case is not about implementing new gun control, but looking at if an aspect of existing control is unconstitutional.

The case in front of SCOTUS is not about implementing a new restriction. It is about if a long standing restriction on the unrelated use of controlled substances is a Constitutional violation. Weed is grabbing the headline, but the restriction applies to a vast range of substances.

complete lack of understanding of personal responsibility

I think the article was tailor written as ragebait/smugbait:

I looked up Louisiana’s SB46.

It’s literally just talking about cloud seeding and geo-engineering. It doesn’t say anything about chemtrails. Cloud seeding and geo-engineering are, per the article on top of this thread, real things.

Edit:

Looked up Florida’s SB56.

It’s about weather modification and geo-engineering.

Edit edit:

Tennessee HB2063. It’s about cloud seeding.

This is getting dumb. The bills are about real things and nothing in the text- which is what becomes the actual law has anything to do with chemtrails.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

I like the convenience of being shown all my subscriptions, and with a trained algorithm actually being shown suggestions I’d be interested in. I think with an account used just for YouTube and nothing else the value to Google is minimal. It’s the last thing I have left from de-googling everywhere else.

from other users.

Can you elaborate? Using a compartmentalized account just to watch videos seems it shouldn’t draw any attention unless you’re getting into fights in the comments.

I have a Google account specifically for logging into YouTube. I’ve aggressively used the like/hide channel/not interested in this video options to force it to actually show me what I want. It took quite a while to train it, but my YouTube homepage is actually nice right now.

But every so often I’ll go on YouTube logged out and it’s like staring into the sun. The top videos that it pushes seem like brain melting garbage.

Strangely I haven’t had any issues with Firefox+Ublock+Sponsorblock. The way YouTube interacts with seemingly the same sets of software for different people is baffling.

They did the same thing with the fully automatic firearms ban in the 80’s.

There was no ban in the 80s. For full auto firearms to be legally owned, they had to have been registered since the establishment of the 1934 NFA.

What happened in the 80s was the closing of the registry to prevent new full auto guns from being added, but existing legally owned guns would have already been registered.

I went and read the text. The TLDR is the law was targeted to semiautomatic weapons, but the text itself defined those as “assault rifles”.

The text proposed banning “assault rifles” and within the bill it laid out a definition for the purposes of the bill:

“Assault rifle” means a semiautomatic rifle

(1) With an overall length less than thirty inches;

(2) That has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than ten rounds, except for an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition; or

(3) That accepts a detachable magazine or that may be readily modified to accept a detachable magazine and has one or more of the following characteristics:

(A) A folding, telescoping, or detachable stock, or a stock that is otherwise foldable or adjustable in a manner that operates to reduce the length, the size, or any dimension, or otherwise enhances the concealability of the weapon;

(B) A pistol grip or thumbhole stock;

© Any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the non‑trigger hand;

(D) A flash suppressor;

(E) A shroud that is attached to or partially or completely encircles the barrel and permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the second hand without being burned, but excluding a slide that encloses the barrel;

(F) A bayonet mount;

(G) A grenade launcher; or

(H) A threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward hand grip, or silencer.

https://legiscan.com/HI/text/SB401/id/3226101