If you are thinking of becoming more involved in one of the more organized groups, remember the fact that SJW's have infected them all to various extents, as they have with all things, over the centuries. My recommendation is pick a bible and read it yourself. Starting with the gospels of Mark, John, Luke, and John. From there continue through the new testament. Reading it like you would any other book, just going through and seeing it all. Then you can go back again and read through things a bit more slowly and try to grasp things. The new testament contains everything you would need. The old testament is useful for historical context, finding specifics on gods desires for certain matters, and it also contains many prophecies of the future. Such as the prophecies of the signs the messiah would perform, as well as prophecies of what gods kingdom shall be like when the wicked are finally eradicated from the earth.
From there you can see what seems true to you and then look through the beliefs of various denominations of Christianity and see what calls to you. Here's my take on some of them. I may not be well versed in all of the details of them, or even have knowledge of all of the denominations because there are many, but here's what I know.
We start with catholics, the "OG christians". They violently repressed all over variations until they could no longer do that during the schism. They were the first to be corrupted by SJW's and oh boy, they got corrupted. Just about literally everything about them is wrong. The old testament in particular is quite clear that integrating pagan practices into god's standards of worship is a big no no, and they did that a lot to make the religion more open and inclusive to other peoples. Basically every single one of their practices, such as the trinity, the holidays, the celibacy vows for priests and nuns, the extravagant wealth, mary worship, prayer beads, the cross itself being an idol, baptisms, even how they conduct weddings, is all pagan based. They try justifying it, but really, that's not what the bible says and you'll see that as you try going through the bible without their influence.
From Catholics we had slow improvements over the past few centuries. Protestants appeared and improved by removing the sheer extravagance and mary worship, among a few other things. They still have many of the catholic practices though, like the cross, and the holidays.
Baptists are another improvement as they returned to the OG fully body immersion baptisms, as well as permitting their priests to have wives. Paul did suggest celibacy among the faithful so they could focus on gods work, but he made clear that it's entirely optional and there is nothing wrong for anyone, even priests, to have wives and children. They still maintain the cross as a symbol of faith, as well as belief in the trinity, the belief in a torturous hell, as well as the pagan holidays. Although there's a lot of variation within baptists due to its chaotic and irregular nature.
Mormons came from baptists, but the founder disliked the actual command that priests and such not be polygamous, found in 1 Timothy 3, and he decided to make his own additional bible section that permitted strange practices that go beyond the bibles actual teachings. He is actually on the record admitting he made the religion so he could have multiple wives. Still, the religion's strong in certain areas of the world.
Jehovah's Witnesses, I am one of them, so I am biased towards them, but I do recognize their own failings. Early on they purged the old pagan practices and returned to pure bible usage for any and all theological beliefs. However in the time since then they have made changes that go above and beyond the bible's commands as written. But in the end, most of those issues are honestly minor and partially pedantic. Such as men required to have short hair, or wear suits. I disagree with the belief that the preaching work is mandatory, but I accept it is a good path and recommended by the bible. Only other actual issue I have is related to the reintroduction of excommunication. Early on they didn't have this and mocked it, but in the 70's they reintroduced it. Bible standard: If a congregation member is sinful, the priest points out the conduct, and the members of the congregation treat this person as they would a non-member of the congregation. Still loving, but not quite as close and trusted. JW altered standard: The priest orders the person to be dissfellowshippped and every member of the congregation must cease close contact with that person, or be disfellowshipped themselves. They must be "treated as you would a person of the world", but in practice, they are to treat them worse than they would a random person on the street. If I meet an old worldly friend from high school, there's no problem to chat with them, catch up, and enjoy eachothers company. But if I meet a disfellowshipped old friend I am to greet them and be slightly friendly, but beyond that, treat them as cold as possible and avoid anything beyond basic interactions if possible.
These are the only denominations I have any knowledge of, there may be others that are even more pure than the JW's, but I doubt that. I do trust the JW translation of the bible though as my personally preferred one as its easy to read. The JW app also has access to multiple different bible translations to make cross referencing easy, including a new testament bible that is a straight word for word translation from the original greek. Hard to read, but useful to ensure vailidity. I regularly swap between New World Translation, American Standard, King James, and the Kingdom Interlinear if a scripture ever seems fishy.
Also wow, I wrote a lot. Sorry for putting up so much.
False equivalency. Something that a person cannot choose is not the same as something someone can choose. The fact is that police protect their own and stick together. They're a unified society unto themselves. The good officers will still protect the bad officers. If a bad officer escalates a situation where people attempt to stop that officer, such as by enforcing a red-flag law, the good officer will still protect the bad officer from the people whom are attempting to deal with this traitor. Likewise the "good" officer will still attempt to arrest the people whom handled the traitor if he cannot stop them in the act. See what I mean? Even good officers are not on our side, they're on their side.
There have always been police, they've just had various names. Might makes right, and in the mdoern era, the police are the everyday might of the government. Just because some police support the right personally does not mean though that they're on the side of the rebels. They will uphold the government and maintain law and order as, from even the good ones perspective, peace is better than revolution. If we actually do give up on civil discourse and begin fixing this nation by force, they will fight us. They wont have some revelation and join us, or if they do, they'll give up their uniform and join us.
They are the arm of the government. Some police, whom refuse to obey their orders, are good. But the thing is we have no idea who those police are, or they're soon removed from the force by their own choice, or by their superior for not obeying orders.
The "good" police will still support the bad police until it's clear to them that they're on the losing side. Good police will suffer the same as the bad until they make that choice. We also have no way of discerning at any one point which is which.
No police will ever side with the people at the beginning. Even the best of them will still work hard to maintain law and order and prevent things from getting out of hand. Hell, if things go bad, and the bad officers do start getting shot, the good ones will fight to protect them.
Here's the thing in the end. While we like police, when it comes down to it when it's US vs the GOVERNMENT, they are the governments first line of defense and will stop us if they can. It wont be until they start being killed constantly and fear for their lives every time they show up for "duty" that the red-pill will overtake the blue line. Individually they're decent people, for the most part, whom do support us with words, but when it comes down to it they are not our allies. They will ultimately join us, but not before half of them are dead. It's not nice to think about, but it's the simple reality. I just hope Trump can continue fixing the government, but I'm becoming more disillusioned as times goes by. It is funny though, liberals hate Trump, but dont seem to realize he is our last chance for peace.
There are many potential options. While I'm personally partial to the gaming PC due to the versatility and additional functionality I have at my disposal, it is not a simple thing to use as it requires technical setup. While the setup's not that complicated, for someone with no tech background it would be overwhelming.
First important part to note is if he already has spent time playing video games, and if he already owns a system. He likely is much more well versed, even at 10 years old, than you are at the various gaming systems. It would be best to speak to him regarding it and he can help likely more than we can. If he truly has never had any experience regarding video games, likely due to family not valuing such devices, your best bet would be to go for the Nintendo Switch. The games tend to be fairly low in graphic violence and are "family friendly" by design.
For the more serious gamer you're looking at Playstation 4 and Xbox One. There are differences, but in this generation, the playstation 4 won the console war and is definitely the better system of the two. The selection of games is significantly larger than the switch, and can also more violent or graphic than will be found generally among the nintendo selection, assuming that such things are important to you or your grandsons parents.
Games for playstation 4 that are single player, and he can enjoy apart from yourself are Horizon Zero dawn: A post apocalyptic world filled with robotic dinosaurs. You kill a few evil humans, but most of the fighting revolves fighting these robot dinosaurs. Spiderman was also a pleasant game that my youngest brother enjoyed before he died, I just got my PS4 back from the police following the investigation, and hope to enjoy it as he did soon. There are other games, but as I prefer PC gaming, my exact knowledge is limited.
Unless you go with the PC route you'll have to pay a monthly or yearly subscription fee for online play to play with eachother from your own console. If you do not want to pay such a fee, I also believe Nintendo switch would be best as I'm under the impression that it has a wider selection of split-screen gameplay compared to the other two variants. This will allow you two to play games together, in the same room, with or against eachother. Some games have co-operative gameplay, others adversarial. Most racing games, for example, are adversarial by their nature.
Summary: All things considered, I'd recommend the switch more than most others unless there is an interest in serious gaming.
This is one regulation I can support. A person does need about 10 hours of rest per day, and this includes truck drivers. Without proper rest they are not just a danger to themselves, but also to everyone else on the road. As such I find this slightly risky, but its limited to high priority transportation at least, so I guess its okay.
If you were giving 10 apples to 10 people, each person would get 1 apple. 10 divided by 10 = 1 per person
If you gave 10 apples to 2 people, each would get 5. 10/2 = 5 per person
If you gave 10 apples to no people, you would not give apples to anyone. 10/0=0 per person