I use Sublime every day and have for the last year. Before that, I was using free editors that were ok but had some annoying weaknesses. $80 doesn't seem like all that much for a professional tool that I use to help make my living every single day. Compare this to my neighbor, a professional mechanic who has $150k invested in SnapOn tools - and makes less money than I do.

When a consensus is reached among the governed that the government no longer represents them. Admission on the part of the government is not expected or necessary.

So, wouldn't that by definition be war? If the governed reach that consensus, I expect the government would just declare them "terrorists," and their actions "illegal."

Do you remember something called the "Revolutionary War"? It was an event in history that happened when the people who wrote the 2nd amendment fought the British government for control of the country.

Yes, and the country they were fighting against labeled them "Rebels" and tried to kill them.

The point I'm trying to make is that there is no way US Law would explicitly allow a means to destroy the USA (via the second amendment or otherwise).

It does though. Things were quite different when the constitution was written. The federal government was never supposed to wield absolute power over the states. "...consent of the governed..." etc. It's pretty clear that they believed that a populace should be able to abolish their own government - they did so themselves.

Today washington would be a little crater with horse remains and some drone circling above.

Yes, It would be a civil war. And that's exactly what governments today do. Turkey, Sudan, Bosnia, etc.

Belize is awesome, they like foreigners with money, nice climate year around, and they have far fewer laws than we do.

It's long-form journalism and I think it's perceived to have more value than bullet-point style reporting. While there can be value in long-form stories, 98% of the time I just want the bullet points so I can decide if the story is worth reading.

Radioshack TRS-80, later an Apple IIC Plus that was the computer I first really started learning on.

I would have helped you. But I'm categorically insane.

It's a fancy way of making yourself appear to be a victim, conveniently with zero external evidence to support that claim.

These are the kinds of issues you're supposed to discuss before you marry someone. She has higher standards, and she ends up doing all kinds of (unnecessary in her husband's mind) work to keep those standards, which are hers alone.

Discussion is one thing, but I think the real test is cohabitation. There are lots of things you think you can deal with in theory, but when faced with it every day, you are forced to either 1) come to a compromise, 2) let it go, or 3) quietly seethe about it for the rest of your life.

Fortunately, my wife is a clinical psychologist, so #3 was off the table in our house.

However it's done, it's my opinion that a couple should come to an understanding about practical and mundane details of their life situation before making serious commitments.

It sounds like you've got a good thing going...1 and 2 I can deal with, the quiet seething is a no-go.

Term is used incorrectly to lambast half of the human species. It's not nitpicking to expect someone to use words correctly.