All they have to do is, instead of calling it a “law”, call it “militia regulation” instead. “Militia” is the entire arms bearing populace; if you own a gun, you are, by definition, part of the Militia. And the 2nd amendment doesn’t merely say “everyone has a gun”; it does so in context of maintaining a “well regulated militia”. All the right to “keep and bear arms” does is prevent them from requiring we store our arms in a central armory (which was one of the controversies over the matter in England when the right was in development).

I would say we also have a right to own a car. That doesn’t prevent them from requiring we maintain the capacity to bear responsibility if we should accidentally exercise that right improperly.

Because I played Dragon Quest and Zelda, I developed an unfortunate predilection for walking into strangers houses and smashing pots and vases and stuff. Took years of therapy to break that habit. :(

I still can’t even look at a barrel.

More accurate than you might think.

WTF is up with Hexbear users?

What makes you think that’s likely?

Or wait, are you just Onioning?

Or will you decide which it is later?

I think properly funded schools with properly paid special needs instructors would leave far fewer students behind than allowing homeschooling.

True, but what if that’s not the choice being prevented? What if the choice is between not between individually sought resources and state provided resources, but between individually sought resources and none at all? Should we really deny people without access to decent school systems the right to pursue other options?

I believe good public schooling is better than home schooling. But the solution isn’t to ban homeschooling. It’s to make the public schooling better. In many places, public schooling is very very bad, and it isn’t going to get any better any time soon.

And I don’t think we should be so quick to deny people their rights just because they believe things that are different from what we believe.

The founders had it right. You should have to own at least 500k of real estate to vote. :p

Generally speaking, the purge has to happen after victory.

Americans need to stop referring to liberals as leftists.

Because it’s only rape if men do it.

Ironic that I am being attacked by both sides at the same time.

The naivete of capitalist fundamentalism. It doesn’t actually work that way. You’d know if you’d experienced anything outside the bubble you were born in.

“Business” isn’t all evil coproate entities sucking at the teat of other peoples work. It’s also small operators who put in a lot of time for not very much money. As a pest control technician, I’ve seen how the rich live from the outside. But I’ve also seen how small business operators (my bosses, in some cases) live. They weren’t doing much better than my middle management father, and putting in a lot more man-hours to get it.

“demand” is not only willingness, but also ability to pay. If a business is going to pay employees more, it has to come from somewhere. If rents are rising and investors have other places to put their money, then it’s going to have to come from the customers. And the customers don’t have infinite money any more than anyone else does.

There are plenty of services that provide value to society, but don’t necessarily bring in massive amounts of revenue. There’s even a value to the workers themselves, the pride in providing a service to customers on need rather than having to come up with sketchy ways to squeeze yet more money out of the upper middle class. And don’t forget: restaurant owners aren’t rich. Most of them aren’t even upper middle. Divide their take-home by the number of hours they work, and many small business owners are doing poorly, sacrificing income for the sake of running their own business. The workers need to be able to sustain themselves, but just as most of the income of the rich comes from a source other than their labor, there’s no reason 100% of anyone’s income has to come from their labor.

A UBI would put more money in both the worker’s pocket, and their customers. Not only would it make it possible for workers to sustain themselves without breaking small businesses operating at the margin, it would also make it easier for the customers to absorb higher wages, should it become necessary.

Are you being sarcastic?

Not every employer can afford to pay more. Restaurants in particular operate on very thin margins. If the minimum wage, whether natural or legal, goes above what they can afford, the outcome isn’t restaurants that pay more, it’s fewer restaurant jobs.

This is just one of the many reasons why people who actually care about the poor, working or otherwise, should be transitioning away from a massive package of subsidies and entitlements that separately target an innumerable number of groups that need some kind of help (including workers whose wages are insufficient to live) and toward a single Basic Income program. In addition to being much cheaper to administer and much easier to access, it would also allow us to put the burden on those privileged individuals and entities that can actually afford to bear the burden, rather than putting up a sign that says “your business must be at least this profitable to operate”.

Don’t forget that the anarcho-capitalists have been muddying branding. Some folks may not realize that anarchism is not the same thing as absolute landlordism.

Just because some people have known about something for more than a hundred years, doesn’t mean all people have known something for more than a hundred years. I am a fan of Henry George’s work, but I wouldn’t be all “ho hum” if someone who was ignorant of George’s work (and derivatives) nevertheless managed to figure it out independently and present it to new people. I would be thrilled to see the idea spreading.