It would be inconceivable that a private person could have any legitimate reason for having such a high-powered military-grade destructive computing device with no legitimate sporting use.

No private individual should be able to make their own games, compile their own code, render their own videos.

Only the government and rich corporations can provide the lumpenproletariat with products to consoom.

https://archive.ph/0Ho0z https:// www. theregister. com/2021/07/26/dell_energy_pcs/

Dell won't ship energy-hungry PCs to California and five other US states due to power regulations

Energy efficiency rules appear to be limiting the availability of gaming rigs

Thomas Claburn in San Francisco Mon 26 Jul 2021 // 21:35 UTC

"This product cannot be shipped to the states of California, Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Vermont or Washington due to power consumption regulations adopted by those states," the website says. "Any orders placed that are bound for those states will be canceled."

Dell confirmed to The Register that the California ban was down to power consumption regulations, saying:

Yes, this was driven by the California Energy Commission (CEC) Tier 2 implementation that defined a mandatory energy efficiency standard for PCs – including desktops, AIOs and mobile gaming systems. This was put into effect on July 1, 2021. Select configurations of the Alienware Aurora R10 and R12 were the only impacted systems across Dell and Alienware.

And come December 9, 2021, "computers with high-speed networking capability, multi-screen notebooks, notebooks with cyclical behavior, and monitors with high refresh rates" will be covered by the rules.

The requirements thus vary depending in the device's characteristics, but as a baseline, desktop computers, mobile gaming systems, and thin clients manufactured between January 1, 2019 and July 1, 2021 can consume no more than 50/80/100 kWh per year for ES scores of less than 250, 251-425, and 426-690 respectively.

For such devices manufactured after July 1, 2021, the kWh per year limit becomes 50, 60, and 75. The Alienware Aurora Ryzen Edition model cited above lists [PDF] a short-idle energy consumption of 66.29 watts and 563.01 watts when stressed.

https://archive.ph/5CiYa https:// en. wikipedia. org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

National Firearms Act of 1934

Destructive devices (DDs)There are two broad classes of destructive devices[citation needed]:

Devices such as grenades, bombs, explosive missiles, poison gas weapons, etc.

Any firearm with a bore over 0.50 inch except for shotguns or shotgun shells which have been found to be generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes. (Many firearms with bores over 0.50 inch, such as 10-gauge or 12-gauge shotguns, are exempted from the law because they have been determined to have a "legitimate sporting use".)

https://archive.ph/cI3K4 https:// www. washingtonpost. com/history/2019/08/09/they-were-killers-with-machine-guns-then-president-went-after-their-weapons/

They were killers with submachine guns. Then the president went after their weapons.

Franklin Roosevelt’s National Firearms Act of 1934 was aimed at John Dillinger, Bonnie and Clyde, and other murderous gangsters.

By Ronald G. Shafer August 9, 2019 at 2:58 p.m. UTC

In the 1930s, the violence by the notorious gangsters was fueled by Thompson submachine guns, or Tommy guns, that fired up to 600 rounds of bullets in a minute. In response, President Franklin D. Roosevelt was pressing Congress to act on his “New Deal for Crime,” specifically a bill officially called the National Firearms Act of 1934.

In 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that law didn’t violate the Constitution.

https://archive.ph/MZCie http://jpfo.org/articles-2020/1934-nfa-failed-1938-nfa-miller.htm

1934 NFA, the Failed 1938 NFA, Miller, and the Regulation of Gun Parts

-By Dean Weingarten. February 27, 2020

U.S. v. Miller was used to prevent challenges to the NFA of 1938. While Miller clearly implied that military arms were protected by the Second Amendment, FDR appointed judges ruled it did not.

In Cases v. United States, 1942, a three judge panel on the First Circuit ruled it was unlikely Miller meant military arms were protected by the Second Amendment: From Cases:

Another objection to the rule of the Miller case as a full and general statement is that according to it Congress would be prevented by the Second Amendment from regulating the possession or use by private persons not present or prospective members of any military unit, of distinctly military arms, such as machine guns, trench mortars, anti-tank or anti-aircraft guns, even though under the circumstances surrounding such possession or use it would be inconceivable that a private person could have any legitimate reason for having such a weapon. It seems to us unlikely that the framers of the Amendment intended any such result.

The judges did not want military arms protected, so they ruled they were not protected.

All three judges on the First Circuit in Cases v. United States, John Mahoney, Calvert Magruder<./a>, and Peter Woodbury, were appointed by FDR.

The Supreme Court refused to hear another Second Amendment case until 2008.