SkepticalButOpenMinded

Oof, I keep going in circles. I understand what you mean, but I honestly don’t have such clarity as to who would be better. Trump literally tried to overthrow the US government.

Also, DeSantis may be more book smart, but he just isn’t charismatic enough to wield as much cult-like influence. Trump is scarily adept at manipulating his base.

I was curious about this, so I looked into it. According to the Duke center for Firearms Law, one study found that "nearly 95 percent of all uses of “bear arms” conveyed the idiomatic sense relating serving in the military". Another found usage to be 66% military, 21% both military and civilian, and 13% ambiguous. But it sounds like there are a lot of primary sources uses of non-military contexts, especially directly preceding the war for independence.

I'm on your side and I think this is an interesting point, but personally, I'm not convinced this is the strongest argument. We should be able to regulate firearms, even if "bear arms" means "carry arms for private use".

I wouldn’t worry about this. The vast majority of Americans don’t even know who this guy is. This is more of a “not those guys” protest preference, just like how generic Dems and Republicans poll better than specific candidates.

I could be wrong, but that’s not been my impression at all. The last few releases of all their operating systems have been pretty light on whiz-bang features, but fairly stable. I haven’t noticed any problems, much less anything “dire”. I hate their new settings app on Mac, but that’s more of a design decision, not a bug.

From the perspective of realpolitik, I’m not convinced abandoning support for Israel will win him more votes from pro-Palestine groups than he loses from pro-Israel groups. Lots of moderate Americans support Israel implicitly.

Either way, it’s politically costly with no upside for him. I think Biden’s only hope on this file is for the Gaza war to end quickly before the next election, but I don’t see that happening. Looks like Israel’s plan is an indefinite multi-year occupation of Gaza under an authoritarian police state.

I think a lot of it is also “national mood”. The world is a bummer right now and people feel fed up. For a lot of voters, including sadly many on the left, “vibes” are more important than facts.

On one hand, there’s the risk that someone might get murdered by their spouse. On the other, the risk that someone is wrongfully deprived of their guns for a period of time.

Which risk should we minimize? This doesn’t seem like a tough decision to me.

Me too. I’d be so exhausted if I had to put up with what she puts up with, but she keeps fighting.

I am glad you are diverging from the disgusting argument that random Palestinian children are valid military targets.

But the US is literally one of the countries least critical of Israel. It’s like saying “Well the fact that Fox News hasn’t condemned Trump is pretty telling.” No it’s not. That attack has drawn international condemnation. Even the US agrees that the way that the war is being waged leads to a needlessly dire humanitarian crisis. People are drinking salt water and subsisting on a starvation diet.

I am not one of those people who thinks this is some easy choice for Israel. But I read comments like yours and wonder if there is literally anything the IDF and Likud can do, no matter how extreme, that you won’t defend?

Then I guess there are a lot of pro-gun conservatives who have an ulterior motive! The sentence isn’t even grammatical according to the rules of modern English because the controversial comma separates a subject from its predicate.

The whole question is whether the beginning is a merely “prefatory clause” that has no effect on the application of the second half. The other interpretation is that the beginning is not just idle small talk: People have the right to keep and bear arms insofar as it’s conducive to a well-regulated militia.

Now, you may disagree with that interpretation, but the existence of at least two rival interpretations is the very definition of ambiguity.

Are you justifying killing children because “some of them” might be combatants? Absolutely fuck that. The IDF said that they bombed the refugee camp to target a single Hamas commander. That’s not inevitable collateral damage, that’s sending a message that no where is safe. And I take it you wouldn’t be that sympathetic to the argument that no Israeli is a civilian because they all serve in the military.

Look, I understand that war is going to have gray areas. But that doesn’t mean anything goes. At a certain point we need the moral courage to recognize when things cross a line. Hamas absolutely crossed a line and they should be condemned. But so has Israel.