The article claims "One of the most surprising of these techniques involves the Roth IRA, which limits most people to contributing just $6,000 each year."
That's sort of correct (the number is $8,600) wrt direct contributions but direct contributions are not the only way to fund a Roth IRA.
Roth IRAs can also be funded by converting a regular IRA or by rolling a Roth 401(k) into a Roth IRA. A regular IRA can be funded by rolling a 401(k).
This is relevant because the contribution limits for 401(k)s, roth or otherwise, are significantly higher than the IRA contribution limits.
The actual yearly contribution limit for both Roth 401(k)s and regular 401(k)s is $70k. Employers are allowed to cap the employee contribution at $23k, but the employer+employee contribution limit is $70k and employers that don't contribute their max ($70k-$23k) can let employees make up the difference. (And, if you're over 55, the $70k is actually $82k.)
Electric presses seem to be covered by the 1st amendment, and there's a much bigger "output" difference between electric presses and manual presses than there is between machine guns and flintlocks. (Not to mention that flintlocks weren't the most sophisticated personal firearms in the 1770s, just the most common.)
That said, breech loaders were used by the British during the Revolutionary War (the Ferguson Rifle) and multiple shots from a single barrel using multiple "touch holes" was well known.
> He can borrow against it which gets around taxes and that should probably be addressed
Folks who lend money against stock insist on being repaid. (In fact, they typically have the right to sell the stock to be repaid.) The money to replay was taxed. (It comes from salaries and/or stock sales. Borrowing more to repay previous loans just kicks the can down the road.)
> even in the US you "cannot yet fire in a crowded theatre".
Actually, you can yell "fire" if there is a fire.
Note that the "can't yell fire" quote comes from a decision involving folks who were distributing pamphlets opposing the WWI draft. It was written by Holmes, who also wrote "three generations of idiots are enough" to justify a eugenics law, in a case that didn't involve any idiots.
Moreover, the "fire" decision was overturned by Brandenberg v Ohio.
Feel free to tell them that they're wrong.