The zeitgeist right now is seething white hot anger due to institutional protection of rich and powerful people to the point where a lot don’t care about risk of collateral damage as long as the person was *probably* complicit or active. You’re right, but we’re tribalistic apes at our core.

I feel the unwritten implication here is that we want people investigated who were reasonably personally involved with Epstein for years, rather than simply mentioned.

Wasn’t even aware he was mentioned

Generally agree except for Norman Finkelstein.

Imagine you’re a partisan in occupied France. Are you going to bother with the Wehrmacht?

I am certain that’s not the case. He doesn’t really consider blue states to be an impediment because they aren’t really, and losing territory would wound his ego.

I’ve advocated for gun ownership and armed protest for years after being inspired by multiple successful protests and skirmishes in US history.

I am finding that very few people are on the same page with me, liberal or “conservative”.

As someone who underwent a shift on this topic in the past few years, it’s not really a mystery.

Israel has spurned most of it and their efforts to control the narrative have made it worse.

Not sure I’m getting into feelings. I am arguing based on written English, history, and legal precedent solely because I think the narrative that the right applies to the individual for the collective good and not the collective.

I figure between neoliberalism and Trumpism we’re screwed either way

The justification of the second amendment is the furtherance of a well trained militia, but this isn’t the *right* it protects. As per Pressler pg 116 U. S. 265-266 it doesn’t protect a right to a militia, but that the stated cannot prohibiting people from keeping and bearing arms.

That’s the justification of the second amendment. For the right of the people to keep and bear arms so they can better serve in civil defense. I don’t want to diagram sentences or anything.

I’m open to change to something like a Czech style system, given our strong firearms tradition.

Relevant portion is found between page 116 US 264 and 265. Presser was a goofball and the commentary just clarifies the purpose and legal intent behind the 2nd, which was consistent with the Dick Act 17 years later. I also read the bulk of the Heller decision including the minority.

It wasn’t about personal gun ownership, he argued that parading as a militia was a part of the second amendment. SCOTUS clarifies that all capable people are reserve militia, states cannot prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms but also this doesn’t apply to parades and drills.

Well Pressler (1886) affirmed it was an individual right irrespective of participation in a militia but then Miller (1939) basically argued that weapon bans were legal if the weapon would not be used in civil defense and then McDonald (2010) was like “okay whatever it applies to handguns.”

That’s true. You could own cannons and automatic weapons until 1934 or so.

US vs Miller was the first time that federal weapons laws were interpreted in the context of a militia to the best of my knowledge.

Your argument would be so much better if you argued like, “hey yes, this was written to support a militia so we should nationally do a Switzerland thing”, or argued it’s irrelevant because of the NG like RGB did.

It’s weird to retcon history and case law.

The reserve militia is explicitly written into the dick act.

Well regulated in this context isn’t referring to legal restrictions on weapons but rather being in functioning order, trained and proficient. I can’t see any arguments otherwise given federal case law.

There’s not any cohesive arguments to make saying it wasn’t the intention of the founders for people to be armed, as it was important for the militia, which per the Dick act includes everyone able bodied. I like that RBG at least tried to argue it was obsolete instead of pretending she can’t read.

I mean that entirely depends on whether you consider informal colonial militia to be the same organization as was formally formed in 1903, but it doesn’t really help the argument because every capable citizen is a part of the informal militia. Nor does the second make more sense in this context.

It also makes zero sense in the context of the national guard since you aren’t issued duty weapons to keep and bear and up until 2016 you couldn’t even carry a gun on a military base unless it was directly related to your MOS.

It’s wrong/irrelevant though. Even if you ignore the plain English around the right of the people, and pretend it necessitates militia involvement, the Dick Act of 1903 delineates between the reserve Militia, which is all able bodied men 17-45 and the Organized militia which is the National guard.

Correct. Glad someone else knows about the Dick Act. Guns and gun law were my autistic hyper fixation in 2011 to 2015.

Which is a dubious interpretation since the national guard didn’t exist at the time and contradicts your point since the national guard doesn’t have access to weapons outside of deployment or training. Military members in general do not have the ability to keep and bear arms on base unless MP.

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms”

Keep would imply ownership unless there some sort of widespread gun borrowing program.

If we’re using a political compass Trump supporters actually might be more economic left than mainstream liberals considering the tariffs and government part ownership of companies. This isn’t a gotcha or anything, it’s just weird they go to such efforts to hamper the market with no useful benefits.

There’s epidemiological toxicology where they mostly guess about a group of people’s exposure to a toxin.

They’re complicit as long as MAGA supports Revisionist Zionist claims. I got thrown off that they accused Wikipedia of being antisemitic(massive red flag), and then I looked at their Wikipedia page and there have been a lot of really unethical internal decisions that staff quit over.

It’s working so well. We can definitely fix this issue by wearing those dumb little pink hats and politely protesting in our designated free speech zone.

Weird little gay kid.

The last games I’ve bought were Elin, Schedule 1, Prey (2017) and a few others all for at or under $20. It’s been a long time since I’ve bought a $60 game (Baldur’s Gate was last)