Even worse is the loss of the basic ability to unlock the taskbar; RIP over/under monitor configurations.

Your absolutely right. Trump gets a pretty failing grade on 2A rights and from a general libertarian measure, and shouldn’t even be run on republican tickets. As someone who wants more Democrat aligned things like universal healthcare, UBI, police reform, and tax reform, I want those things from a libertarian framestate where those things are the most effective way for the federal government to provide for the common good with the least amount of bureaucracy and government intrusion into citizen’s lives. This means I hold all of my constitutional rights in high regard, the 2nd among them.

I hate having my options being a “choose which rights you least want to lose” adventure game. Since taking the guns is a Democrat plank compared to at least lip service in support at the Republican party level, you get shills like Trump getting the pro gun vote cause he was quiet about it for long enough. Living in the flyovers, I have been voting for my not-anto-gun Democrat at the state level, but I wish i had those options at the House/Senate and Presidental levels too because without RCV my third party votes are basically protest votes. Further off topic, I am getting feed up with more and more libertarian candidates not being libertarian but Christian nationalist lite. The cancer is spreading.

Ok, this a a good reminder not to give possible trolling the benefit of the doubt. Even though it’s feeding the troll: gun rights are not only for the far right. Marx realized the need for robust gun rights, this is nothing new. “Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary.” Don’t trust the state and the police to protect you, especially if you are a minority or revolutionary. The police have no legal duty to protect you.

As ass backwards as your understanding of sentence structure is and as intentionally obtuse an interpretation of the words “the people” as “the militia” instead of as “the people” like every other use of those words in the Bill of Rights, it doesn’t matter even if we agree with your assertion

The 2A does not GRANT or DIMINISH an individuals’ right to arms as it never addresses the subject. It only GRANTS the right to those members of the Militia.

10 USC: The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

Basically you are saying disarm only women and the elderly. That seems a little discriminatory, but you do you. Broadly speaking here, everyone is part of the militia. The militia is the citizens of the country. And if you want to argue that this doesn’t mean the people get to keep their arms when not actively participating in militia action like everyone seems to do when this is pointed out, please see the relevant legislation from the same time period as the 2nd Amendment.

Second Militia Act of 1792: How to be armed and accoutred. provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.

Clear intention that every citizen should arm themselves with military hardware, ammunition, and know how to use it. You didn’t use bayonets for hunting, this was “modern military hardware” for the day. This was not authorization to be allowed to arm militias. The US was not even allowed to have a standing army, only a permanent navy was allowed, the armed citizenry was the army as needed. And all this is moot because the premise of the 2nd being only for militia members is, again, faulty.

Let me know how your Democrat recruiting pans out when you call everyone who disagrees with abolishing the 2nd amendment pro-fascist. Really winning hearts and minds, and doing that “big tent” proud. Worked great in 2016, definitely didn’t need any of those “deplorables” to join up and there were no lasting consequences.

God I hate our 2 party system. Can’t get universal modern healthcare and universal basic income while also keeping gun rights.

Just dropping the whole basis of our legal system because lives could be in jeopardy, just throw out innocent until proven guilty and your right to privacy. Let me guess, you also disagree that it is better that 10 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man be convicted, especially if the crime is severe enough?

Law abiding citizens shouldn’t steal, use illegal substances, or assault people either, but that doesn’t matter because a statistically significant percentage of people suddenly aren’t so law abiding. Are you prepared to allow law enforcement to regularly enter your home and inventory your property to match with receipts backed up by your pay stubs to make sure your not stealing anything or committing fraud, while also ensuring you don’t have any drugs? How about regular interviews with your friends, family, and coworkers to make sure you always conduct yourself in a upstanding manner? Having to get evidence and/or reasonable articulable suspicion to search your person or property prevents police from stopping you from commiting crime before you do it.

You want to buy whipped cream? People can use those cannisters illegally. You need to go to a drug counselor for an evaluation, and pass a drug screen proving you aren’t a drug user of any kind, then you can get a permit. It needs to be renewed every year to make sure you remain sober.

A guy down the block broke the law by driving drunk, but you law abiding drivers never really want to deal with that by putting interlock systems in all motor vehicles and requiring the cops to do a blood draw, breathalyzer and field sobriety test before you are allowed to drive anywhere. Just wash their hands and walk away as if they couldn’t prevent people they don’t know from driving drunk.

And now you have lost anyone who like me would be open to voting Democrat more often instead of third party, because I don’t want to flat out lose my 2A rights. I don’t want to vote Republican because I don’t want to lose other rights in the slide towards religious fascism either. If every side is running on a platform of pick which rights you least want to lose, at least I’ll have my guns for protection when the fascists do successfully pull a coup and society collapses.

This is the other side of the argument that I don’t really understand. There shouldn’t be “monitoring” of your ownership. A law abiding citizen going in, filling out a background check and proving they aren’t prohibited from owning a gun and then buying said gun and ending their involvement with the government from that point on is just normal. We are innocent until proven guilty. We have a right to privacy. We have a right against unwarranted searches. Exercising one of your other constitutional rights shouldn’t and doesn’t mean you give up others.

The government shouldn’t be monitoring it’s citizens with regular check-ins, making sure they are good worker drones. I don’t understand the desire for the government to dictate or arbitrate every action you take, because the government doesn’t care about you as an individual. Allowing the government to monitor your personal life is a distopian trope for a reason. I don’t want to live in a police state like the UK or China, and our own police state is already bad enough.

The well regulated part means functional and effective.

The reasonable interpretation is that the founders didn’t want a federal standing army because of the temptation towards tyranny such federal power would create, and instead expected the states to draft their citizens into militias in response to threats. These citizens were expected to arrive self-armed, knowing how to use their gun, with ammunition, and with initial rations. Citing the militia acts for this, you can verify that the government saw everyone of able body as members of the militia. The militias could then slot into a temporary federal army when needed, and then sent home after the threat has passed. The “shall not be infringed” was to prevent the federal and state governments from disarming their citizens, and the temptation of tyranny over a helpless population.

We have since become the world’s largest military power through constitutional amendment and stretching of interpretation, but there has been no update to the 2nd. It doesn’t matter that a citizen militia can’t match the US military today like everyone likes to argue, we shouldn’t selectively enforce constitutional rights. Full stop. If you want to change it, get a constitutional amendment passed modifying the 2nd. If you can’t pass that threshold, then you don’t have the support you think you do. If you want to guarantee people trained, offer free training and make it attractive to do this training or include it in our compulsory education system so everyone gets it by default. By the way, everyone is already eligible for the national guard, it is essentially the current active volunteer militia. What you can’t do is make people join the national guard to be able to keep and bear arms.

If you want to just scrap the country like your later comments on this thread indicate, go find uninhabited land and found your own country that doesn’t have a constitution and can be completely redesigned at your will. Or steal some from any current inhabitants if you can, and if you find that palatable or find a group you don’t think deserve their country.

In my case I live in a place where cities are spread out and where it gets cold in the winter. My parents live 40 mile away and don’t have an EV charger or a 220v outlet in their garage. Take 10% max range off in the winter, and I would have to use the only charging station (Tesla supercharger) or spend at least 6 hours charging at their house to be comfortable getting home in case of extra traffic or detours. I semi regularly drive even further, 80-100 miles one way. I’d have to stop to charge on my way there and on my way back in the winter, adding at least 30 minutes to an already 2 hour drive. There is also poor charging density on the route, so it has to be planned.

I drive a plug in hybrid now, and can get to work and home on battery only, but only in the summer and no extra stops or alternate routes are possible. People start getting antsy under a 1/4-1/8th tank of gas, it’s worse with battery. Add to that I am able to charge at home, if you have to go visit a charging station because you live in a ln apartment or townhouse without garage space, you need at least 5 days of charge range between fill ups, because most everyone isn’t going to want to add a 30 minute stop to charge daily.

I don’t believe it did at the time, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it has been by now. I did keep 11 on one of my laptops because it honestly isn’t horrible on a single display.

Little problems here and there for me personally, but the deal breaker for me is that over/under monitor configuration is impossible because Microsoft insists that the taskbar must be locked in the same place on all monitors and it cannot be placed at the top of the display. If they want to force lockdown to iOS levels of “customization” because I apparently cannot be trusted to organize my own desktop, they can fuck right off.

I sure would, and that is what I’d argue for. I’d love it if both sides would agree to revert to the '67 borders, or even draw up and negotiate new borders if that is required at this point. Both sides have equal “claim” to the area, and this is a needless pseudo-civil war. Without the US and Israel’s surrounding Arab neighbors pouring money and ideology into it, the original '48 plan may have settled into a workable 2 state solution, but who really knows.

I also know that I have no skin in the game on either side, and honestly my opinion doesn’t matter beyond the fact that the US is allies with Israel as a democracy in the middle east that they can leverage towards favorable geopolitical stability, and which I have little power to effect. I just wanted to ask about what appeared to be dishonest propaganda that tries to conflate Israel with foreign colonizers like England, Portugal, Spain, etc, and erase pretty solidly agreed upon paleo and anthropology. We shouldn’t whitewash in either direction.

I think some citation is necessary for the assertion that the Jewish people were not historically from the Levant region, and have no ancestoral “claims” in Jerusalem and the surrounding territory. I would love to see some anthropology studies or papers on the bronze age Israelites being proto-Asyrian or Persian and not one of the Canaanite tribes.

I’d also like to point out that basically every war ever has been and will probably be a land grab, wrapped up in some rationalized or causative skin. That stretch of land in particular has been conquered over and over again throughout human history, and the inhabitants forcibly immigrated and emigrated during many of these changes of power. Mesopotamia has been birthing empires since humans discovered it and it became a cradle of human civilization.

I find that so weird and illogical, because what does anyone else’s personal and internal choices have to do with me? The only reason I could care would be if I invited you to dinner I was cooking myself and you waited until serving time to mention you don’t or can’t eat something, and that’s because I’d feel bad not being able to feed you. You are a grown ass man (place hyphen(s) wherever tickles your fancy), and get to make your own decisions and life choices. Plus there’s more for me.

Maybe it’s from growing up in the 90s and 00s, but asking about food allergies, sensitivities, and restrictions should be just another Tuesday for anyone ordering food for a group. But I’d also never expect the group to cater an entire meal around my preferences or restrictions. Grown ass man is successful hunter gatherer.

Now all bets might end up off the table if that respect doesn’t extend both ways though, because again, every grown ass man (everyone regardless of gender and older than 18-21 gets to be a “grown ass man”, with bonus “grown ass man” points if over 80 and a grandmother (Betty White being the ultimate grown ass man and I’ll die on that hill)) gets to make their own decisions and life choices. Now this doesn’t apply if you got local recommendations for ethically raised and delicious food that you’re just passing along because better ingredients make better food. _itarian choices are like religion: follow what you believe, don’t mock and detract others, there is a time and place for mutual debate based on mutual interest, and if you act like a Jehovah’s Witness that showed up at the door then expect to get treated like one.

I want limited government focused only on common defense, common good, and keeping the markets free. I feel this is best accomplished through a simple and loophole free tax codes that ensures the wealthy pay their fair share and that all wealth levels are engaged with skin in the game. I believe that this should include a land tax, and that a consumption/sales tax works better than income or wealth tax. These taxes should fund a UBI for all and centralized healthcare, replacing the bureaucratic tangle of our various social safety nets and welfare programs. All monopolies, duopolies, and oligarchies need to be crushed to keep markets free, because the invisible hand needs a paired visible hand to prevent regulatory capture by capital. Drugs should be decriminalized, 2nd amendment rights should be respected, reproductive control should be respected, the government has no business in who married who, religion should be kept to one’s self, and environmental regulation should just ensure clean water, clean air, and long term watershed protection. The market should drive pretty much everything else, with the understanding that unlimited growth is as bullshit as assuming a frictionless sphere in physics. All of these “socialist” programs actually result in functional limited government and maximum individual freedom. It’s not a communist utopia, but I consider it functional Utilitarian Georgist Libertarianism.

First, your username finally clicked and I feel slow for missing it for so long. I actually love it.

Nextly, to also be fair, the existence of a difference between private and personal property isn’t widely known, and China’s implementations of these concepts are even less well known unless someone has been more than toes deep into communist/socialist discussion. Even a lot of “communist” posters don’t have a good grasp on it and can’t really articulate the original intent behind “abolish private property”.

I would like to point out that there are currently enough homes in the US for everyone, and far more vacant homes than our entire homeless population right now. We have major density problems and collusery artificial scarcity that has long crossed over into being illegal and immoral, so we need to be building homes on the scale we did in the post war period. Houses should be much further down the commodity end of the commodity/investment scale, but until we reach a true post scarcity environment (Star Trek levels of post scarcity), I don’t foresee full decommoditization of housing working sustainably.

Lastly, while the communist state really isn’t coming for your toothbrush, obstensively communist countries have overshot going after the landlords and replaced most residential personal property with government landlords. Soviet khrushchevka blocks are a trope for a reason, even if overused.

And thank you for the actual engagement and conversation on this, I appreciate your insights.

Not to be pedantic, but you did write just the broader enforcement of property rights and not private property rights, and I approached it from that broader perspective. Under your clarification, your house does not cease to be your personal property when you leave it for work, but only if the government uses their monopoly of violence to enforce it. And yes, it was a stretch of rhetoric, but not made dishonestly.

The concern is that under this ideal scenario, what happens if you leave you house for a longer term? How does this take temporary moving into account? Examples: I get temporarily transferred for a year to a new city by my job and I fully intend to return to my home after this assignment. Rental homes/apartments aren’t a thing, so I must either buy a dwelling there for a year, or stay in a hotel for a year. If I buy a dwelling, I now own two properties as long as I can afford to pay both mortgages. More likely, I am forced to sell my long term home because I cannot rent it out for that year I am gone. If I do keep it, can I own two separate pieces of personal property or does one become private property because it is not in habitation? I have deprived someone of buying one of them by owning both, and ownership of empty dwellings is usually complained about just as much as renting them. Will my personal property rights be enforced on my vacant home for that year? Should the government allow someone to move in and use my house for that year without my permission or compensation, and only resume enforcing my rights when I move back in? Am I forced to sell and hope that I can rebuy my home when I return? A similar dwelling in an adjacent area may not factor against the sentimental value of a family or generational home. Are any of these parts different if I become temporarily disabled and move in to another person’s home for care. What about a year in the hospital or rehabilitation facility? I don’t think any of these concerns are all that absurd, even if they would affect a small percentage of the population.

You were also seemingly arguing that allowing non-residential private property rights would/should still be enforced so that the capitalist class gets to keep commercial property, unless you are classifying personal, private, and capital property as three distinct categories. Since generally the argument is that private residential property is being used as a rung of capital, I was viewing these as similar enough to be lumped together. It does seem that maybe you were hinting at this being a first step, keep the capital class from revolting while we take out the rentier class, and then move on the remaining private property in swallowable chunks as power is consolidated, which is another reason to view it at a somewhat extreme angle.

Why would anyone pay property tax if property rights stop being enforced? Unless you are actually just giving only the government property rights, allowing the writing and enforcement of evictions, which just makes the government the sole owner of all land the thus the new landlord. Even then, why pay tax when I can just go squat in anyone’s house or building while they aren’t home and it comes down to whoever is stronger getting to stay. Also no point paying tax if someone can just come take it from me. Unless you mean the police actually will enforce property rights for some people but just not others, which just means only those who can afford to employ the police have secure property while the poors just get to duke it out. Unless what you are actually saying is only don’t enforce property rights on secondary building ownership, and then only if that secondary building is not owned by a business that is not providing residential living space. Or are we also breaking up all multi-locatiln businesses the same way?

If everyone risks losing their home every time they leave for work or to get groceries, and only the strongest get to keep the best shelters, the social compact is broken and forming warring territorial clans and insular communities is the end result. Property rights are kind of a keystone for a functional society operating at a size larger than a rural village. It would cause less damage to just make owning more than a single family dwelling illegal, and force everyone to acquire a mortgage to wherever they currently live. This may partially lock your population to wherever they happen to live without finding someone to swap similarly valued dwelling units wherever you want to move to, but there are ways to lessen that impact. Alternatively, the government just seizes all property and doles it out according to whatever the government’s desires are for an area.

Careful now, your about to say the quiet part (we think certain people are too deficient to think for themselves, so we enlightened should do their thinking for them) out loud. Humans don’t have a great track record of dragging the “unenlightened savages” out of their ignorance, kicking and screaming if needs be, and North Americans in particular.