I have little to comment on regarding the motivation for your post -- I am not up to date with what's happening in the EU -- but, for an encrypted messaging-app alternative to Signal, I can recommend Matrix.

For more in depth information, I'll refer you to this Wikipedia article on digital signatures. But, the long and short of it is that I distribute a public key which would be used alongside that signature to verify if that signature was generated by my private key for the content that is contained in the given post.

content-signature:Hdv6ZJpsd8MxqdThHqSL5gs/cQ+AbxhOPdoRYYOyL8Ip4/dA6VM3oWtTvItLLO1x+I8DiS+Al7ay5e4TasdNNvrXh5cFmq7+b/L523/tJTqheCpv4tNDETp2H6FY9tJa0HmtmIv4jskdeAMrV0Rnmf1HoqMjO729mGdi1fGxLKVIszlBc4TUKtwzLOOFqBYR5zJCeRw7hbNydGnFRCcJcKfhTX/ANkRChqmCU8AR8Vnb99IMUnchWosjno/88WyoVZEpp/M06iMhw63wKsLzwfDySES3UbMAQwLOEYYtC3B8Y+ApeySAfUkssQjVy7bQUtiE7t/5eYoOTCOBQMUJpQ==

Correct, people shouldn't go around shooting people that they don't like, but that isn't what happened here -- Alan Colie was acting in self-defence. That is, of course, unless you are of the opinion that people shouldn't be allowed to use firearms in self-defence.

bUDnRZ0kjJqfm8GENhao9dovO6CydCHTMb8Fz1TYwUic8xy6bD8bTg6VkagwSSwVhltuqEdYkZnT/02TOcKdOJ9VKvL//3scGs/TlSSPZ8LU1SvaoYyb/czu4qi25f6hTh2S8iMkQ7e3bbvlKvnACnsFMZL3afsWICGwXXSZxk5VodS18XZ1m3fUJLxdjMju+M2U0WuXyMVNCP7LI2wQI2gs2SH/LoFZPQLiRvsv6o6ryQyWIp2MlBWbT9oj/wAycuWmPnn3oFTt3xUm7LdSX8kFEArCy44Zv0zyNn1Utyt7AX+KJT3XWgdqTDuC4cBIHOOUhuEzOOoQ89iXs312kA==

I think lemm.ee has no NSFW allowed

Lemm.ee allows NSFW.

EDIT (2023-10-01T07:00Z): Unless you meant that you can't upload NSFW to lemm.ee, then you are correct -- you cannot -- that is, aside from the fact that all image uploads are currently banned on lemm.ee due to CSAM concerns.

What do you mean? I’m saying saying most voters enjoy their own representatives poor health.

Yeah, that's what I just said that you said.

I would argue, with a rather high degree of confidence, that this would never occur. If it did, it would certainly indicate a complete degredation in the core functions of the government, as well as the trust that the public has in its operation -- I suspect that a revolution would be imminent. Furthermore, due its unstable nature, I would wager that it would be rather fleeting.

Out of curiosity, what is your justification for removing a natural born citizen clause?

My argument is based on principle; therefore, it would be in opposition to any such restriction whose purpose is to "ensure" the competency of the candidate; however, it should be noted that there is a difference between such a restriction based on competency, and another based on, for lack of a better term, trustworthiness, e.g. a natural born citizen clause (this is not an argument for, or against the natural born citizen clause, I'm simply outlining the scope of my previous statement).

We already have restrictions on other government jobs about how old you can be.

For the sake of clarity, are you referring to the minimum age limits of U.S. government officials?

It’s not breaking new ground or saying anything new that Congress and other elected officials should not be able to serve in excess of 10 years.

My argument isn't that it should be avoided because of it's novelty, I'm saying that, in order to justify such rules, one must be of the belief that the voters are unable to determine the competency of who they elect. Given that a democracy is founded upon the idea of a government ruled by, of, and for the people, it is of paramount importance that the people be able to make such decisions for themselves.

Your example is fundamentally flawed. Plutonium on its own does not create the threat of a nuclear bomb -- plutonium is used in the manufacturing of nuclear bombs. The only threat of plutonium would be the levels of radiation that it would produce, as such, one would need to make sure that the plutonium is properly shielded in order to protect the public.

That being said, I do understand the point that you are trying to make, and I do agree with it -- if one looks at things through the perspective of the non-aggression principle, an argument could certainly be made that there exists examples of items whose mere existence is a threat to the safety of others. For example, stockpiling large amounts of fertilizer (e.g. ANFO), improper storage, and handling of dangerous pathogens, nuclear bombs, etc. These examples, by their mere existence, creates a threat to the livelihood those around it, as such, an argument could certainly be made that they should be regulated by law to ensure the safety of the surrounding public; however, in general, I do not see firearms as falling within this category, or, at the very least, it heavily depends on context. I would look at it from the perspective of whether or not the situation at hand constitutes reckless endangerment. For example, say you leave, unattended, a loaded firearm on a public bench. This could be argued to constitute reckless endangerment as the firearm could easily be accidentally discharged by an unassuming passerby -- since an item in the public domain could certainly be expected to be interacted with by a member of the public -- thereby creating a threat to the safety of others -- the individual whom is the owned of that firearm could thus be considered as responsible for endangering others. Another example would be leaving a loaded firearm unattended in a residence with children around. This could be argued as negligence for the safety of the child, and could be legally treated as such. However, if your firearm is in a location that, on its own, creates no immediate threat to the safety of others, and the only way for it to become unsafe if it is taken from that originally safe location by an individual who is not reasonably expected to interact with it -- e.g. theft, and trespass -- why should one be responsible for that outcome?

Being individually free does not necessitate an oppressive structure within the collective -- if all individuals are free, then the collective must also be free.

One must still not forget that their liberties do not trump the liberties of others. Freedom is something we enjoy as a collective. If there is inequality in this then the collective is no longer free, but is, instead, oppressive.

In short, the Gadsden flag is not about one being free to trample on the rights of others, but, instead, upholding the freedoms of the collective by respecting the liberties of each unique individual. Inequality in freedom is oppression.