When their social networking posts not only tell you how they v**ed, but their lifestyle bears it out, you really do have a pretty good clue.

Why?
Probably because so many of those who talk about "gun control" (now, "Gun Safety") have already told us that they want to take our guns.
The goal always has been the outlawing of guns. Look at California; more and more restrictions (including how and where you can buy ammo), all in the name of "safety," but with the obvious result of no extra safety (because there is no way for a government to make you "safe"), which means (as experience has shown) more and more restrictive laws. The end result, logically, is no guns.
The auto analogy is false, because the left sees autos as necessary, and guns as evil.
Open and honest discussion would mean admitting that laws do not affect criminals, who are the ones who commit crimes.
The idea that if we can reduce the number of guns in circulation we will reduce the number of guns used in crimes sounds good, until you realize that we have tried banning illegal drugs, with results that are not encouraging. New York discovered that requiring registration of "assault weapons" (with what purpose? The only obvious one is eventual confiscation) has resulted in "one law too far" in that registration numbers were, well, disappointing. Very few registered their gujs, because they knew full well what was going on.
With the antis being dishonest about their stated goals, it's kind of hard to have an honest discussion that starts by denying your goals.

Many people are very proud of how they v**e, and also very vocal about it.
Surely you've run across this?

ND filters can also be used to allow a bigger aperture.

You simply can not ban guns with any effectiveness. Many countries have tried, and they all have the same result: when you outlaw guns, outlaws will still have guns.
Whether we call it "gun control" or "gun safety," the result is the same: people control.
Those in power tend to want to remain in power, even if what they want is more power over the people. In our system here in the US, both major parties want more power over the people, just in different ways. Given that (and it is a given), there will always be people who will feel the need to try to stop those in power from exercising more power. Most will use the b****t box, some will use the bullet box. The trick is trying to determine which way any given individual will go, and that's simply impossible in today's era of "personal freedom."
Sorry, but we live in an imperfect world, with imperfect people, and the government simply can't protect us from the truly evil people who roam our streets. Denial of that fact seems to be a trait the left has more than the right, and that's part of life.
Incidents such as this one have been happening since the dawn of human life, and will continue as long as we exist.

If it's like most insurances, it also covers any damage caused by a malfunction - like your house burning down.
Even if covered by homeowners (or renters) insurance, insurance can be funny.
If your car's brakes malfunction, and you destroy your garage door, which insurance covers it? Unless the same insurance covers both home and auto, the ensuing conversations can be, um, interesting. Even if they are the same company, and you have different deductibles, it can still be interesting.
And, BTW, those premiums weren't wasted, they provided a valuable service: Coverage if something went wrong.

Some filters, like the CP, can't be emulated in software.
Others, like the ND filters, can be emulated, but the results, depending on how much filter you want to emulate, has drawbacks because of natural limits of the original digital image (you can only brighten so much before you lose detail).
Color filters can be easy, though.

Yes, not taking over by any stretch, but making inroads.

Electric cars are taking over in SOCAL?
Anything like any links to support that?
The electric power infrastructure must be being replaced at quite a rate.

Batteries have a problem with charging: They will accept however much current is offered.
Our phones (and a lot of other devices) are "smart" when it comes to charging; they limit how much current is delivered to the batteries.
Car batteries aren't like that; they will take whatever you throw at them. Thus, we have "slam chargers," that will put a truly amazing amount of current into a car's battery to get it charged enough to start the car in a very short time, but this damages the battery. The alternator only provides a relatively small amount of current, but over a longer time.
Electric cars also have "smart" charging systems, so it's hard to over-charge them, but they will still suck up a lot of current, if allowed.
Capacitors, OTOH, are usually designed with a specified voltage, but the current they can suck up is limited only by the charging system; a 9 minute charge time suggests the current going in can be very high, much higher than a house can provide.
Which suggests, to me, that only commercial charging sites can achieve that 9 minute time. Charging in your home will take much longer.

I posted the link to Facebook, where I have a few friends who constantly post about new cars "in the pipeline", especially flying cars.
I mentioned that the normal home electric system won't handle the 9 minute charge at all.

Ever wonder why electric cars haven't "taken off" in CA? The electric infrastructure can't handle it.

It's "patent pending" which means still under development.
Lots of things are "patent pending," with no product in sight.

Not quite.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_p**********l_e******ns_by_E*******l_College_margin

Carbonite is a fine, if slow, solution for file backup.
Unfortunately, it does not help if you lose your OS.
It also leaves your files open to inspection (and all that that entails, including blackmail). (For those who insist that online storage is secure, just remember how easy it was to hack the DNC's files)

All of which is why there are few actual warming deniers. C*****e c****e is a constant.
The problem remains, though, that connecting that change with man's actions is very hard to do, and so far, any "evidence" is clouded by the hyperbole of the true believers.
What was threatened/predicted hasn't happened, making more skeptics all the time. Computer models have proven to be only models of scenarios that have not happened.
There have been ice ages in the past, with subsequent warming periods, which climatologists can't explain. But THIS TIME, we are told, they know exactly what's happening. Except they can't quite explain why it's not happening the way they said it would.
Well, a lot of us know why: Because they don't know.
Maybe it's anthropogenic, maybe it's not. While it sounds good that it may be, in some part, the t***h, the problem remains that the "solution" will cost many trillion$, and will, at the best projections (by those who are pushing for the spending to reduce C)2 emissions) are that it would slow down the warming by a very small percentage.
IOW, we're doomed either way, by their own words.
Of course, we're not doomed at all. While the prophecies are for a greta rise in sea levels, there is no work going on here to actually prepare for that rise.
Why is that?