Got it, now I understand. I agree that it is trivial, but I don't think it is meaningless. > telling legislators then "the first thing you need to understand i

Got it, now I understand. I agree that it is trivial, but I don't think it is meaningless. > telling legislators then "the first thing you need to understand is that guns will still exist" is true in a meaningless way that doesn't convey anything I disagree: if the legislators vote those laws and then tell the police and the military that criminals will never have guns again, then I think it would be worth letting them know that guns will still exist. Again: trivial, but not meaningless. > "if it's still technically possible it's not worth/possible to outlaw" Right, I understand your point here, and that's not what I meant. I just meant that some politicians sound like they believe that people have to go to a specialized store and present an ID to get access to E2EE. And with this vision of the world, I understand that they may consider the benefits of "enforcing strict E2EE laws". But that's not how it works (and in that sense it's pretty different from guns), and they need to understand it.