you've offered a lot of text but zero citations that support your argument

Are you being intellectually lazy, or are you arguing in bad faith?

10 USC 246.

I have cited it multiple times now. While I prefer to use the broader, constitutional meaning, the legislated definition, codified as 10 USC 246 is sufficient to demonstrate my point.

It's all bullshit, neither she nor they are a militia in any logical sense

I will be happy to consider your argument if and when you provide a definition of militia. As you have not provided any such definition, your argument above is meaningless.

You really are convinced this is a thing....

I have ample justification for that conviction. You can disagree, of course, but you have provided no logical basis for that disagreement. Again, you will need to provide and support a contrary definition of "militia" as it is used in Article I and 2A in order to rationally make your claims.

Based on your suggestion to enlist if I wanted to secure the nation, I suspect that your definition of "militia" will be more consistent with how the founding fathers used the terms "armies" and "Navy" than how they used "militia".

I do think we can agree that the modern usage of "militia" to mean a "privately organized paramilitary group" is not at all what is meant by the second amendment. Those ass clowns are closer to "insurrectionists" than "militia".

I did enlist, 24 years ago. The proper epithet for me is "Chairborne Ranger", not "Gravy Seal".

I do agree with you: what the constitution refers to as the militia is not the various "gaggles of fuckwits" that regularly claim the title. Those nitwits calling themselves "militia" and dressing up in military surplus are some weird motherfuckers, but they are only "militia" in the same sense that that the local PTA, or an adult, recreational soccer league, or a knitting circle are "militia". It is their status as members of the citizenry that makes them militia, not their participation in some sort of outdoor paramilitary adventure club.

As you have never learned what "militia" actually means, it is unsurprising that you have never learned the difference between "militia" and "military".

The militia is charged with providing the security of a free state. The militia may be called forth to enforce law, suppress insurrection, and repel invasion. The military can only perform that last function.

Under the Posse Comitatus act, the military is expressly prohibited from enforcement of law and suppression of insurrection. Those activities may only be performed by the militia. The various people being paid to perform those activities have been "called forth" for that purpose, but one need not be formally "called forth" to act.

A woman walking across a parking lot, clutching the little can of pepper spray on her keychain, is not a "gaggle of fuckwits".

Her presence deterring would-be criminals from attacking herself or anyone else in the area is an action envisioned by the Second Amendment. She is a militiaman. She is providing the security of a free state.

If the only weapon she chooses to carry is aerosolized taco sauce, she is also in dire need of better training. Congress has been negligent in its duty to effectively train her, or the rest of the general public who comprise the militia.

When we teach her how to use a gun, when to use a gun, when not to use a gun, we also provide that same lesson to the "gaggles of fuckwits" you are referring to, reducing how "fuckwit" they are. We also show her would-be attackers that she is a much harder target, not worth the risk.

Is there anything you have done for which, if I had done the same actions, I would be irredeemable?

Is there anything that you have done, for which if I had done, you would expect me to jump into the volcano?

Feel free to judge yourself just a tiny bit more harshly than you would judge others. But only slightly. Give yourself as much of a break as you would give me after expressing remorse for my actions.

What is the militia?

That isn't a flippant question. I'd like a serious answer.

I'd like to know both the constitutional definition of "militia", as used in Article I Section 8 and 2nd Amendment, as well as the legislative definition, as codified in 10 USC 246.

The answers I have learned are that the militia is "the whole body of the people" (constitutional meaning) and "every able bodied male citizen, aged 17 to 45". (Legislative, paraphrased)

When you algebraically substitute either of those answers back into the 2nd amendment, you arrive at the only reasonable perspective: The whole body of the people, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

"But what about the well regulated part? Isn't the militia unregulated?"

The militia is regulated under the powers granted to Congress under Article I Section 8 parts 15 and 16. Congress does have some regulations governing the militia. They have enacted legislation defining what part of the militia they intend to call forth, and how they intend to do that. They have enacted legislation obligating every male to register with selective service. They can enact many, many more regulations on the whole of the militia. If you feel YOU are not adequately regulated, I suggest you notify your congressional representatives, as they are the only ones currently empowered to adjust regulation of the militia.

You'll have my support; I specifically called for such regulation in my last post.

TL;DR: You don't get to complain about a lack of regulation when I'm specifically asking for more regulation.

By that logic - there has been no call-up of militia.

You don't get called up to the militia. You get called forth from the militia. In joining the Army, you were, indeed, called forth from the militia and you answered that call. Your right to keep and bear arms was not contingent on there having been a call, nor on you answering a call. The right was guaranteed to you, because you have the individual and collective responsibility to secure the state.

no uniformity in your 'militia', regarding equipment training and supply does not represent a well regulated militia.

Don't tell me. Tell Congress that you want to be subjected to additional regulation in your role as a militiaman. They seem to think that they have enough regulation on the militia already. You tell me what else you think you should be required to do. Not to secure your right to keep and bear arms: they are expressly prohibited from infringing in gun ownership. They can't stop you from owning a gun, but they can compel you to participate in militia training, as you are a member of the militia.

https://caes.ucdavis.edu/news/feeding-cattle-seaweed-reduces-their-greenhouse-gas-emissions-82-percent

This is where Finland and Sweden excel. Because they have mandatory military service, everyone with a gun has been trained in all aspects of it's use/care.

Article I Section 8 parts 15 and 16 empower Congress to require such training every member of the militia, and they have indicated that the militia is comprised of every able bodied male citizen, aged 17 to 45. (10 USC 246)

Congress can require training on safe handling. They can require training on the laws governing use of force in self defense and defense of others. They don't need to mandate additional military or militia service to achieve this.

The mother did not drive him to Kenosha, or across state lines, and she was not involved in acquiring the rifle.

He drove himself to Kenosha. Dominic Black acquired the rifle. It's unclear whether it was Dominic Black or Rittenhouse who drove him home, but his mother was not in the car. Hours later, his mother drove him to the police station in his home town - not in Kenosha, not in Wisconsin - where he finally surrendered himself.

Frankly, it's disgusting that even basic facts of this case are so poorly known. I am still seeing claims that Rosenbaum, Huber, and Grosskreutz were black.

The volcano is very likely causing the thunderstorm. Thunderstorms develop when convective activity pushes hot, moist air to high altitude. The high heat from the volcano very likely induces the convective flow necessary to generate the storm.

It's not the IT folks who need to be pushed. It's the users.

By that argument, a "no shirt, no shoes, no service" policy is terrorism. "$1000 fine for littering" is terrorism. "Keep off the grass" is terrorism.

Uh huh.

I have zero doubt that you would call 911 should the "need" arise. So you're a terrorist as well. As am I. There is literally zero distinction between you, me, and Mohamed Atta.

A puppy would qualify as a terrorist. A house cat. A sheep. A blackberry bush. An amoeba qualifies as a terrorist under this insane definition.

"Disrespectful" would be telling you that you in particular should continue to use windows or mac, and avoid Linux like the plague.

If I wanted your clothes, I wouldn't have left them at goodwill.

Do you actually want to run an application that doesn't exist on Linux?

I use a virtual machines for the 2 or 3 times a year I need to use a couple garbage windows-only programs. Usually for configuring some arcane piece of proprietary hardware that people were getting rid of because it is incompatible with everything.

In my area, I would not feel insulted by a $4 tip for a ~2-mile delivery.

Well, yeah. I mean, help desk deals with users at their moment of peak incompetence. If 1 in 20 users can't figure out that "Office" is now "Libre office", help desk is going to be swamped.

The solution is to merge help desk and HR, so that something productive can be done about PEBCAK issues.

Or, and hear me out on this: terrorist doesn't mean "fucking anything ever". The term actually only refers to those who use or threaten unlawful violence in an attempt to achieve an effect that could only be lawfully acquired through executive, legislative, judicial, or democratic processes.

A $4 tip plus $2 from the service nets me $6. I average 3 to 5 deliveries per hour, grossing $18 to $30 total. Minus $3 to $5 in expenses, and I'm earning $13 to $27/hr on that. Not great, but not terrible.

The 15% or 20% guidelines are based on the amount of work performed by the tipped employees (who earn less than minimum wage before tips.) the amount of the check correaponds pretty closely to how much time a waiter has to spend serving a table.

Drivers are not usually employees; they usually have $0/hr in wages, and pay their own fuel and vehicle expenses. Delivery services typically pay $2 per trip, and a trip will involve 2-4 stops. The base pay from the delivery service does not even cover fuel costs, let alone the driver's time.

The amount of work a delivery driver performs is not at all related to the amount of the check. The 15%/20% rules are not remotely close to the amount of work the driver performs. $8 on a $20 order is a garbage tip if it's a 10-mile delivery to a fourth-floor walkup. $4 on a $70 order might be a decent tip if it's a 1-mile delivery to a front porch.

The appropriate tip for delivery is based on mileage, not food price. $1 for pickup, $1 for dropoff, and $1 per mile is a pretty basic tip. A driver can complete about 3, $2 runs per hour. $3 tips gives him a gross income of about $15/hr, and he can net about $10-12 of that after expenses.

I imagine we'll synthesize whatever chemical is inhibiting the methane production and it'll become a standard feed supplement.

Hopefully, it can be produced by some type of GMO grass and can be sown into hay fields.

We The People.

Some of y'all motherfuckers need to take a goddamn civics class.

That was uncalled for.

That's arguably treason.

"Do you know why I pulled you over?"

"Because you got straight C's in high school."

Ads. We need these folks taking out issues ads, raising the profile of taxing the ultra-rich.

Hi, I'm Bill Gates, and I am spending more on this ad campaign than I paid in taxes.

Paid for by Bill Gates

Fuck that. The problem isnt that people want bigger cars. The problem is that NHTSA's CAFE standards favor manufacture of larger cars.

CAFE slowly reduces the amount of emissions that vehicles can have, but they fucked it up: the required reductions are greatest on the smallest, most efficient cars, and lowest on the largest vehicles. Manufacturers "comply" with these standards by dropping their smallest cars from their lineup, and increasing the sizes of everything left on the market.

Fix the fucking standards to favor smaller cars, and manufacturers will follow.

NGO: Non-governmental organization

GDPR: General Data Protection Regulation. A set of European laws intended to empower individuals to control personal data held by companies.

"noyb" is a European privacy rights organization, who appears to prefer to style their name with lowercase letters. The name is an acronym for "none of your business".

Yes, but, it is also possible to achieve greater than 100% efficiency in using electrical energy for heat. You can use electricity to move heat from where you don't need it to where you want it. The amount of heat energy you move can be greater than the amount of electrical energy put into the system, so it's greater than 100% electrically efficient. It's well below 100% thermal efficiency, of course.

COVID-19 remains an important public health threat, but it is no longer the emergency that it once was, and its health impacts increasingly resemble those of other respiratory viral illnesses, including influenza and RSV," the agency wrote.

Instead of treating COVID like Influenza and RSV, let's treat Influenza and RSV like COVID. Cough more than twice in 24 hours, put on a fucking mask.

The "greatest generation" never retired. They worked themselves into the grave, and left everything to their entitled boomer kids while running all social welfare programs into the ground.

Now the boomers are flush with cash and collecting social security that we will never see and the last of the pensions that we will never see.

Hear me out on this, but I don't think the public should be seeing most body cam footage. I don't think anyone should be seeing most bodycam footage, including the officer that shot the video and their department.

When I inform a cop of a crime, I don't particularly want that conversation released to the general public. While I don't technically have "privacy" while providing such a tip, I don't think it unreasonable that my identity and information should be held in fairly strict confidence.

Body cam footage isn't supposed to be released under public records requests. Metadata indicating that footage was shot at a particular time and place should be released, but the footage itself should only be accessible with a subpoena. Not even the cop who shot it should have access to that footage without a subpoena. That footage should go into a black hole, and only be pulled out with judicial oversight. Only the metadata should be widely available, to inform potential complainants of what video they can subpoena.

The video should be easily accessible to complainants, plaintiffs, or defendants through subpoena, but that's about it.

At the same time, I think a body camera should serve as an officer's time clock. They should only be paid while their camera is turned on, and they should not be entitled to any privileges, powers, or protections afforded to law enforcement officers (especially including qualified immunity) while scheduled to work, but not on camera.

We didn't "switch" to unleaded gas in the 1970s. We added unleaded, required gas stations to offer it, and vehicle manufacturers were prohibited from making new cars that required it.

Leaded gas was still being offered at some stations well into the 1990s.

It's a layoff, but without having to call it a layoff.

Just to clarify, this is not an example of Poe's Law. Florida is really, actually, truthfully, no bullshit, banning most dictionaries in schools.

Florida law currently prohibits books that depict or describe sexuality. Most decent dictionaries include definitions of sexual terminology. Consequently, schools are pulling dictionaries, encyclopedias, and a wide variety of classical works and reference materials, rather than risk criminal charges.

That kids won't be able to look up the definition of "insurrection" at school is a welcome side effect for them.

Nah, that brain tumor just has its own rib cage, vertebral column, sternum...

Psych!

Supersized SUVs aren't because Americans want big cars. They are due to poorly crafted emissions standards.

Engines are expensive and complex. Transmissions are expensive and complex. Body panels are simple and cheap. So, when manufacturers were told that they needed to tighten up emissions standards, regulators expected them to do R&D on engines and drivetrains. Instead, they just stamped longer and wider body panels, bumping their model up into a larger class that allowed greater emissions.

Don't you think he looks tired?