Excuse you? The right to keep and bear arms ensures that the government does not have to equip the militia, the citizenry owns their own equipment. Many states required law that the citizenry own said equipment, the specifics of what the militiaman should be equipped with being enumerated in law.

The (federal) Militia Act of 1792 states "That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack."

But, sure, my premise is extremely flawed.

Coll story, but what does it have to do with whether or not a militia is "well regulated" or not? It really doesn't matter who was swanning around Michigan chasing Mormons, the only thing that does matter is whether or not they were well trained and equipped while doing so. That's what "well regulated" means. A "militia" can be a bunch of randos with a zip gun between the five of them led by a guy who lasted a week in basic before being sent home. A "well regulated militia" is an effective, disciplined, military force.

You've done nothing to refute either of the two points I made above, what am I pretending it means that it does not?

I am certainly not advocating for armed resistance against the government, nor am I suggesting that things would go well for anyone who tried, but "you can't win" is just... ignorant of history. The Viet Cong and Al-Qaeda both "won" against the US military, though the costs were astronomical for both them and the civilians caught in the middle.

Your assertion that "you can't win if you fight the government, therefore the only legal use of arms is hunting" is also nonsensical. There are more lawful uses of arms than that. Self defense springs to mind. Sporting purposes that don't involve killing something (e.g. target shooting) is another. Physical security of a building a third.

Take a hard look at definitions 3 and 4 in your own link to see why you're confidently incorrect. A militia is "well regulated" in the same manner as a clock.

See Federalist 29:

Certainly the militia is also "regulated" as per your definition, and the constitution provides for that (Art I, Sec 8) and no one is disputing such. But the term "well regulated militia" means something else, and that is "well trained and equipped." And the right of the people to keep and bear arms, which shall not be infringed, is in support of the goal of having a well regulated militia, and not subordinate to it.

It certainly did not. A well regulated militia would be one that was well trained and equipped, and your untrained farmers with minimal equipment led by former private Smith does not meet that definition. Nonetheless, the right to keep and bear arms itself is reserved to the people--the perceived need for a well regulated militia is the impetus for said right, not the beneficiary of it.

Horseshit. The Continental Congress was interested in and had Belton present his repeating flintlock to them. The Puckle gun had been around for more than half a century. The idea that "they didn't envision" that arms would evolve over time is just not supported by history.

I was about to give you a mod point, and then you turned into an asshole. Here's a hint: when you call someone a curse word, you are, in that moment, being that very curse word. No points for you!

Are retirees looking at quarterly reports before selling assets? I would generally say "no" especially since most of these are going to be a 401k where the assets are sold evenly to cover a withdrawal.

Ride sharing is to taxi company as prediction market is to casino.

Err, yes? This is like complaining that research into solar panels is ignoring that prom dress sales were down last quarter. Also:

My dude, if "AI porn is destroying discoverability" you'd better make sure no one looks at your search history.

On the one hand, we have an agent of the government acting under the color of law and involuntarily incarcerating someone due to the agent's (at best) gross negligence.

On the other hand, we have someone voluntarily entering into a contract with a company and receiving exactly what they agreed to at exactly the price they agreed to. The customer obviously believed that the value they received from their purchase, at a minimum, matched what they paid and, more likely, exceeded what they paid (else they would not have entered into the contract).

The two situations are completely different.

Safari works fine with 25 tabs open on my 8gb M1 based iPad. Why is it going to be so much worse on this device?

Qualified Immunity protects the officer from personal civil liability. It doesn't protect the department or municipality from said liability, nor does it protect the officer from criminal liability. While it is certainly problematic, it's not the bogeyman you're making it out to be.

How does the spectral wolf play into this?

A friend and I were discussing this very effect one Christmas in his three cat house. He demonstrated by scooping up a cat that (unfortunately for it) was at his feet, holding it upside down at shoulder height, and releasing it. The cat landed flat on its back, stretched like it didn't give a damn, and then ran off. I think one of the reasons God made cats is to goof on us.