agamemnonymous

Squares and rectangles, you can't generalize a subset as synonymous with its superset.

Congress should establish a requirement that every American be trained on safe handling procedures, as well as on the laws governing the use of force in self defense and defense of others.

You won't hear any argument from me on this point, I do believe the states should organize and train adults with some degree of competency, although this was written when Militias were the primary national defense in lieu of the standing Army we now maintain.

But the rest of your interpretation reads more like you're working backwards from the conclusion you want to prove.

Do the states not have the authority to appoint officers over you, or train you according to the discipline prescribed by Congress?

Can you not be called forth to enforce law, suppress insurrection, or repel invasion?

Broadly speaking, no I would not say that's the case .

The founders did not make a habit of codifying lazy verbage, if they meant People in general they would have written People in general. They chose the words they did to convey specific and distinct meanings. Militia refers particularly to that portion of a community trained for "martial exercise". If you're not trained, I'd argue specifically trained by the state, you're not part of the Militia. A candidate for it perhaps, but not a member until you've been trained by the state for the purpose.

Could be worse, coulda been an entire Coca-Cola bottle

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the ~~Militia~~ People, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the ~~Militia~~ People according to the discipline prescribed by Congress

Can't say I agree with your conclusion there, that's a pretty significant change of meaning. The Militia is explicitly described as something that is organized, armed, disciplined, and trained by Officers.

An activity that it is easy to learn the basics of, but difficult to gain proficiency in, may be described as having "a steep learning curve".

That's what the phrase means, I've never heard someone use it to refer to a learning curve that starts steep. I've always heard it used to refer to activities where initial progress is slow and proficiency is delayed until after significant experience. A "standard" learning curve is a diagonal line, a "steep" learning curve is more like an exponential function.

This assumes he was shot at directly. A stage blood pack in the midst of anticipated gunfire sounds more likely to me than a triumphant, exposed rise after actually being hit.

Still, far from a certainty. But the rhetorical power of such an event, the uncharacteristically brave behavior, and the similarity to known false flags in ahem historical regimes prevent me from discarding the hypothesis.

This great song is one of the weakest on the album. Wild.

The word "meme" was coined by Richard Dawkins in The Selfish Gene to allude to the concept of a unit of cultural information subject to mutation and selective pressure. The whole image-macro-overlaid-with-text interpretation is just an easily evolved exemplar which rose in popularity relatively recently.

A screenshot of a comment can effectively communicate a cultural concept. In some cases, much of the context of the concept being communicated is intrinsic to being a comment (green texts, Tumblr comment chains, etc).

You're right and the down votes are reactionary. The alternative to the state having a monopoly on violence is even more violent parties. The benefit of a monopoly is violence resting with the state is that the violence is subjected to checks and balances. Perhaps those checks and balances aren't as restrictive as we might like, but the alternative is unchecked violence.

Obviously we prefer no violence, and yes violence is abused by parties within the state. But that's a separate issue. If we dismantled the monopoly, violence would skyrocket and what little regulation our institutions enforce would vanish. That's objectively worse

The world is a nasty place, solutions being unsavory doesn't preclude them being the best option.

The case, in my mind, for the false flag hypothesis is simple: he's a blithering coward. If a serious attempt was made on his life, nothing about his prior behavior suggests he would be fist-pumping. His confidence betrays comfort. Further, he idolizes those who have used similar false flags. Maintaining composure in such an event is so remote a possibility, that the probability of an orchestrated scenario with foreknowledge, a common blood capsule, and collateral damage seems comparatively likely.

Not certain, of course, but probable enough for consideration. Certainly it's far too early to draw concrete conclusions one way or another. However, if it were a false flag, how would it look differently?

As Adrian Veidt said, "He's got a poison capsule. Don't bite down! Don't bite down you scum. I want to know who sent you."

Freckles

Who's they?