Ahem…

Since you’re outsourcing this, the adjudicator is either the first contract killer involved, or the second contract killer you specifically hired to deal with that first contract killer.

The laundromat has angry people who don’t want to be there,

I live in a college town. The laundromat nearest me has a bar.

Just tell them you’re contagious, and don’t want to pass it on to them.

As opposed to going to your next job after 8 hours?

She doesn’t have a significant enough presence to challenge Trump. People may know her name, but they couldn’t pick her out of a lineup.

Kelly just has to stand there while being introduced as “Astronaut” or “Fighter Pilot” to remind everyone that Trump hasn’t actually done anything with his life.

Kelly’s “blue” credentials are sound, and his history will appeal to many otherwise “red” voters. He is a real threat to poach votes from Trump’s base in red and swing states.

Harris can’t do that. She’s a lawyer, and everyone hates lawyers.

But nobody votes for the bottom of the ticket. Harris/Kelly loses; Kelly/Harris wins.

Harris will get steamrolled by either Trump or Vance; Kelly wipes the floor with both of them. I think Kelly needs to be on the top of the ticket, and Harris needs to step down as well.

Adam Schiff is a lawyer and California Democrat. He would easily win the blue states, but so would about 30 million other Democrats.

The red states will hate him, and he’s opposed by BLM, so he won’t be competitive in the swing states either.

There’s nothing special about him.

Agreed. I’m rather tired of the nation being run by workaholics. I want to retire someday. I want a candidate who shares that value, and builds a nation where I can do that.

Ideally, I think the oldest a candidate should be is 57 at the beginning of their first term, so that they retire from professional politics by 65.

That being said, no candidate is ever going to be perfect, and, he’s still 24 years better than the current option.

Mark Kelly.

Navy Pilot, Navy Captain, Astronaut, Senator, husband of Gabby Giffords, twin brother of Scott Kelly with similar resumé, and he’s only 60. He and his brother can each win two terms and still be younger than Trump is now.

He also flips red states blue: he’s pretty much the only Democrat who has won anything in Arizona in decades.

Fuck that noise. Walmart is infinitely worse for communities than Amazon.

Any critical devices should be airgapped while in service.

Funny, mine did a couple BSODs then restarted just fine, at first. Then a fist shaped hole appeared in the monitor and it wouldn’t turn on again.

Weird bug.

Substantially less than 100%. The terms are not synonymous.

10USC246 is substantially less than 100%, yes.

But, “male” can be dropped from that definition tomorrow. Which means that although females didn’t meet the legislative definition, they did meet the constitutional definition yesterday. They had to, or Congress couldn’t add them to its narrower definition.

Some of the authors. If it was sufficiently representative, it would have made it into the Constitution itself.

Non sequitur.

This still does not establish the constitutional meaning.

That argument devolves into absurdity. You can make the same argument for each and every word in the constitution. By prohibiting any sort of context by which to derive the meaning of language, not a single word in the constitution has any meaning whatsoever.

It is only through contemporary context that the meaning of a word can be derived, and there is no body of work closer than the Federalist papers by which to gain such context.

Properly" being the functional term here. “Armed and equipped” is not the same as “Properly armed and equipped”.

You shouldn’t have conceded the rest of that and focused on “properly”, because I can accept that condition. I fully agree, “properly” is the functional term.

Article I Section 8 clause 18 empowers Congress “to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers”

Congress determines the “proper” way to arm and equip the militia, and this is the method they have chosen.

10 USC 246 does not cover males under 17 or over 45,

When you look at their whole lifetime, 10 USC 246 covers all males, and some females. More than 50% of the people.

The Federalist Papers are not the Constitution.

They are not, but they certainly do provide insight into the language used in the constitution, as well as the intent of the authors.

If you draw a distinction between the constitutional and legislative

Congress is not empowered to alter the meaning of the constitution. If Congress chooses to discuss a term used in the constitution, their usage does not alter the constitutional meaning, but only establishes a legislative meaning.

Congress cannot redefine “speech” to mean “feces” and then claim that the first amendment only protects the right to take a shit.

The distinction I draw between legislative and constitutional meanings clearly and directly arises from the limits to Congressional authority. Congress does not have the power to change the meaning of militia; their use of the term “militia” cannot be considered authoritative.

There is no such distinction for the Federalist papers. The same people who wrote the constitution also wrote the Federalist papers. The papers were written for the specific purpose of explaining and promoting the Constitution, by the very people who wrote it. Their explanations in the papers were the basis for the states to ratify the constitution, so even if the authors meant something else (they didn’t), the states accepted and enacted the constitution in the context of the papers.

Basically, your distinction is arbitrary, capricious, and rejected.

I am a proponent of disciplining the whole nation

Such discipline is only constitutionally permissible under the Militia clauses.

and have no problem whatsoever considering the disciplined portion to be unambiguously a part of the Militia.

That portion being the “whole nation”.

If Congress does indeed reinstate assembly to properly arm and equip every member of the People,

What if I argue that Congress found a different way to ensure the population was “properly armed and equipped” that didn’t require annual assembly?

What if Congress found a method by which so many members of the militia would be armed that assembly would not be required to verify?

Congress did establish the Federal Firearm Licensee system, which regulates the commercial sale of firearms to the general public. It can be reasonably argued that the FFL system was enacted but just under their power to regulate interstate commerce, but also under their power to arm the militia.

Does that satisfy your pedantry?

10 USC 246 already covers the entire male population (at some point in their lives) as well as some specific females. There is nothing preventing Congress from opening it up to the remaining females. That is concrete, tangible evidence to support my interpretation.

The Federalist Papers, specifically #29, discuss the militia as being comprised of “the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens”. It refers to a “scheme of disciplining the whole nation”

While most of the paper discusses “the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service” (aka: The National guard) it also discusses militia obligations on “the people at large”:

Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.

Congress does not see fit to maintain such assemblies today, but they did exist back then, and they could be reinstated at will tomorrow. Any member of the “people at large”, is thus also a member of the militia.

So long as the definition of one excludes some members of the other, no matter how large the subset, they are not synonymous

Agreed.

While the legislative definition does this, the constitutional meaning does not exclude anyone. TCase-by-case circumstances might render specific individuals unsuitable for being called forth under the militia clauses, but they are excluded by executive or judicial action, and not by definition. The constitutional meaning does not exclude anyone.

Under the constitutional meaning, the most heinous criminal in death row is still a member of the militia, and can theoretically be called forth, even though no executive officer would ever allow him to serve such a purpose. He is not deprived of the right to keep and bear arms due to not being in the militia. He is “deprived of life, liberty, or property”, including RKBA, through “due process” in accordance with the 5th amendment.

You don’t seem to be offended by the concept, just the specific vocabulary. Your use of “adults” is perfectly consistent with my meaning and intent.

The current legislative definition, and the fact that Congress is free to expand it, gives me everything I need. I don’t even need to resort to the myriad contemporaneous statements by the founding fathers describing the militia as the “yeomanry” or the "whole body of the people.

Your acceptance of a training program that would apply to everyone upon reaching adulthood was an unexpected piece of evidence, but a welcome one.

And, lest we forget, this whole argument rests on the complete lie that the right to keep and bear arms is contingent on militia “service”. It is clearly guaranteed to “the people.”