Liz

It's my understanding that you're only required to protect the information if you've actually agreed to do so, which is obviously a retirement for being given access. Elected officials are a weird area where they have a much easier time getting clearance, but they've still made agreements to protect the information.

Trump was authorized to handle classified information in the first place, which is why his mishandling was a problem. I haven't read the actual law, but I'm pretty sure ordinary people who happen across classified information have no duty at all in any direction. If you can show me an example of a random person getting in trouble for sharing classified information that they didn't steal or get others to steal, well, let me know.

Are they under any obligation to protect the classified information if they're not the ones who leaked it?

So, taking away the guns is a solution to mass shootings I just don't think we should do that. (You could argue they'd switch to cars.) The reasons get into conflicting principles in society and would derail the point in trying to make which is this:

We used to have a society with lots of easily accessible guns whose build were conducive to doing a mass shooting, and yet we didn't have mass shootings. That's really my fundamental point. Mass shootings are a social phenomenon. We can get rid of the mass shootings without getting rid of the guns. It basically involves a bunch of left-wing policy, ignoring anything they have to say about guns. Strengthen unions, M4A, fixing town planning, strengthen EPA, break up the monopolies, go after wage theft, go after business that hire under the table, uncap social security, send social workers to 911 calls that don't actually need a cop. Etc. Etc.

So, taking away the guns is a solution, I just don't think we should do that. The reasons get into conflicting principles in society and would derail the point in trying to make which is this:

We used to have a society with lots of easily accessible guns whose build were conducive to doing a mass shooting, and yet we didn't have mass shootings. That's really my fundamental point. We can get rid of the mass shootings without getting rid of the guns. It basically involves a bunch of left-wing policy, ignoring anything they have to say about guns. Strengthen unions, M4A, fixing town planning, strengthen EPA, break up the monopolies, go after wage theft, go after business that hire under the table, uncap social security, send social workers to 911 calls that don't actually need a cop. Etc. Etc.

I'm still absolutely flabbergasted they gave him that bonus. Like, legitimately, what success has the company had recently that was worth it?

Their comment was not "we need to send doctors to respond to shooters."

Their comment was "we need universal healthcare so that people don't feel the need to do these kinds of things."

"If we don't see results by 6 weeks, we're going to try a different class of drugs."

Baseball bat, knife, sword, a small amount of rope, axe, hatchet, machete, chainsaw, fireworks, gasoline...

Here's the thing:

1. You already have to pass a background check.

2. So what more do you want? After that the criteria start to become subjective and will be applied be racists to disarm minorities and poor people.

Now, I'm actually for some more generalized gun laws, like requiring that the gun or ammo be behind a lock when you're not in control of it, but that's not really relevant to stopping mass shootings. Ending mass shootings (a very small fraction of gun deaths) is way more about ending the desire to do such a thing.

We've had easy access to guns for a long time, but mass shootings only started in the 90s, when angry white men felt they were getting left behind and had no way to feel valuable in the new society we've been working to build. I would suggest this episode of Some More News to get a quick understanding of angry men, and the book Angry White Men by Michael Kimmel to get a much deeper look at who these people are and why they act and feel the way that they do.

Our military spending is not preventing us from having free college or free healthcare. Both would save us money if we switched to 100% government funded systems. No amount of military spending is preventing us from saving money.

"Highways shouldn't have guard rails because if you hit one you've already gone off the road anyway."

Popular encrypted messaging app Signal is facing criticism over a security issue in its desktop application.

Emphasis mine.