In 1700s terminology, the process of regulating (training) the militia has to take place after first gathering the 'irregular' militia, whose members bring their own weapons. This was established even in colonial times. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulator_Movement_in_North_Ca... You'll recall the Baker Street Irregulars, and Paul Revere's "You know the rest, in the books you have read, how the British Regulars fired and fled." The 2A's 'Arms' also covers non-gunpowder weapons. The right of the People to keep arms comes prior to issues related to their use.
The point about militia is a short statement for why the right to bear arms is important, rather than trying to restrict or qualify the right.
The ability to form militias is so important, that everyone should have the right to bear arms, in order to enable this.
The idea is that it prevents the idea of a "special militia" having some selection criteria, so the government of the day cant make qualifying for its group a requirement to own guns.
I agree, that clause is there to explain why. To my eye, Madison appears to have been thinking mostly about state militias versus a standing (national) army. We obviously don't muster any of those today, I suppose the closest we come is the National Guard.
According to the first militia act, which defines the militia ss every able bodied male over 18... everyone is required to own a firearm... yeah, it's a musket, but it was the most common weapon of the time, today it would likely be a 9mm handgun and an AR-15.
It would also mean having regular meetups in your community to discuss any coordination necessary in times of emergency... Where to show up with your gun(s), who is in charge, who to communicate with, etc.
The "well-regulated militia" bit is given as the rationale behind the amendment. That does not therefore mean that the right codified by the amendment only applies to those who are a part of a militia.
Total household wealth in the US is about ~170 trillion dollars. Those 12 own about 1% of all US wealth. Not shabby for a dozen people but the main issue of American society isn't the handful of people who hit the news but mostly the top 19% below them. Richard Reeves wrote a good book on the topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dream_Hoarders
It's the upper middle class that fills educational institutions, prevents the construction of new property, hogs most of the old property and in general has impacted the upward mobility of the lower classes. Musk has a lot of issues, but he's not really getting in the way of people getting richer themselves.
It’s easier for the top 10% to blame the top 0.1% and absolve themselves, in spite of the knowledge that this changes nothing. Americans especially are averse to the idea that the middle class owes anything to anyone.
The ultra rich are also a problem. Wealth makes it easy to get wealthier. You can take unlimited risks. Copy the ideas of startups. Act in anti competitive ways. Live off loans. Etc
True - though I would say that the elderly have had a chance to earn and invest longer than the young, so it's not exactly like that's a nefarious plot. But a better tax structure would make that less glaring (same for the multibillionaires, only more so).
Those guys own squat compared to the assets the boomers own personally and fractionally.
That said, they do get to exercise infinitely more control and power than a bunch of old people who own non-voting shares and real property that's only valuable at the whim and pleasure of the local regulators.
You can do it to yourself[1], I am using Tommy for presence detection in Home Assistant, works great (my house is small, so two ESP32s works fine, I am sure having 3-4 would let it see my cat breathing).
Not the OP, but I would think most people would expect to see a word processor, a spreadsheet, some kind of presentation tool, and maybe a simple database. That's not just comparing to MS Office, that's LibreOffice as well? La Suite seems to have more and better collaboration tools than LO, but it is also less document-focused, just looking through their repos.
It is a wonderful catalog, but I don't find it to be as useful for learning to tie the actual knots as books by Budworth, Pawson, etc. (or Youtube, these days)
One of the cool aspects of knots for this audience is that they have a unix-like aspect where multiple individually-useful knots can be "piped" together, the example I like to use is the Trucker's Hitch:
I think "If water kill your child / Water you go use" is fairly profound, and a good demonstration of the idea that the pidgin expression refers to. And it rocks, of course.
The dangers are obvious (and also there are some fascinating insights into how healthcare works practically in China). I wonder if some kind of "second opinion" antagonistic approach might reduce the risks.
Medical Advice Generative Adversarial Networks would be a good idea.
I see some of this adversarial second-guessing introspection from Claude sometimes. ("But wait. I just said x y and z, but that's inconsistent with this other thing. Let me rethink that.")
Sometimes when I get the sense that an LLM is too sycophantic, I'll instruct it to steelman the counter-argument, then assess the persuasiveness of that counter-argument. It helps.
I hadn't really even seen much in the way of recent, first / second person accounts of what it's like to receive chronic care in modern China. It's sad but maybe not surprising to see that it's dysfunctional in its own special way.
reply