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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

That was uncalled for.

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

The hotter it gets, the thicker the oxide layer form

This is accurate enough for tempering of most cutting tools, but technically, the oxide layer will continue to grow if you hold a lower temperature for a longer than normal time, and might not fully develop if you reach a higher temperature for a shorter than normal period of time.

This property useful if you are trying to develop a specific color rather than achieve a specific metallurgy. You can heat to a lower temperature for a longer time to develop a deeper, more consistent color.

In my experience, it’s easier to develop colors with an oven or propane torch rather than a forge or acetylene.

I won’t say that this blade is properly heat treated; it probably isn’t. In welding, the problem is the wide variation of heat affects in a very small zone. You can have material that is very brittle just millimeters away from material that is very soft and ductile.

You’re describing “normalization”, which is a process that makes steel uniformly tough, but “plastic”. When you flex it, it bends, and stays bent. “Annealing” is a similar process, where the temperature is raised a bit higher, and the cooling slowed even more. “Annealing” leaves the steel very soft.

In tool making, you’re first looking for high hardness (acquired with a “quenching” process). This makes it very brittle; it has no elasticity.

Next, you’re dialing back that hardness with a “tempering” process, which is done at a lower temperature than the normalization process, and the cooling can be much faster. When tempered, it’s still very hard, (significantly harder than “normalized”) but now it is slightly elastic. It will flex, but beyond a critical point, it just snaps; it probably won’t take on a permanent bend.

These colors are oxide layers that form at temperatures in the “tempering” range.

Uh… You might be confusing welding and heat treating concepts…

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.

Neither of those options is particularly appealing to me. I’d look at building a more respectable file server, with 4 or more SATA ports. I’d have a relatively tiny SSD to host the OS, and any number of HDDs in some variety of RAID array

SSDs are fast; HDDs are slow. I would not want my operating system hosted on an HDD if there is any way to avoid it. An external USB drive would have slow file operations to and from that drive; an internal HDD would slow the entire system.

Hash browns, hash browns, hash browns, home fries, home fries,

You can give a mortgage to anyone who wants it, just not the type of mortgage that you’re thinking of. Private mortgages don’t have the follow on effects that traditional mortgages have. Private mortgages aren’t bought and sold on a secondary market. Private mortgages aren’t wrapped up into CDOs or other derivative investment products. A lender who issues a private mortgage can’t turn around and sell it to a different lender. They can’t package up a bunch of garbage loans into a new security and sell it to an unsuspecting buyer. The 2008 housing market collapse wasn’t because of bad mortgages. It was because of the entire house of cards that was built on top of them.

Whether Adam rents a home to Bob, or Adam issues a private mortgage and sells to Bob, Adam is taking substantially the same risk on Bob. Adam is already prepared to take that risk as Bob’s landlord; there is no valid reason why he shouldn’t take that exact same risk as Bob’s lender.

Land contracts are another option.

A land contract is, effectively, a rent-to-own arrangement. The tenant/buyer earns equity from day one. But, if they default on the contract on the first 3 or 5 years, they lose that equity. After that 3 or 5 year period, the equity they built is, effectively, the down payment on their mortgage.

Agreed, all the NBs I know are chill.

Their “allies”, not so much.

Owner occupancy credit against property taxes to hold them at their current rates, or even drop them a bit. Next, we target an 85% owner-occupancy rate, increasing the property taxes every year that owner-occupancy rate is below 80%, and reducing them any time it is above 90%. We will end up with a massive increase in property tax rates, but those increased taxes will only be paid by investors.

On-site landlords, living in one unit of a duplex, triplex, or quadplex will be able to claim the credit. Off-site landlords, (or landlords living in a complex of 5 or more units) will not be able to claim the credit.

Investor-owners will be fighting tooth and nail to convert their tenants into buyers: they will be offering land contracts, private mortgages, converting apartments to condominiums, etc. They will be earning considerably greater profits selling than they would be able to renting, while charging less.

Lenders who elect to foreclose will be saddled with the property tax rate from the moment they file, so they will have one hell of a financial incentive to cooperate with the borrower.

An owner-occupancy tax credit will give renting the death it deserves.

I shit you not, that is the etymological distinction between the two.

How strictly that distinction is observed is an open question.