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==

I don't. The string at the end of my comments is a digital signature which serves as a means to verify that I was the one that posted it, and that it wasn't modified by an admin, or any other external entity.

content-signature:GHnwqVFVDJFDAGt7Xg1oQecp04BoH+qJucdpFOblrg+YxSx8Vp7DfxEQudqcxK1+7yiOjgKvnVDCRP6oU7XTjttdl6sdMpFq9LcFHQ6OlVtjsvaSoIobck4ARimWs5vvTYMTBp6kCNYmhczFniJ52q3Blps7G1bw5q7sOf1z4rWG+CB99jb//02+x6KVjllnoiZJdVhqfa69dryG49W8QxTLvHqr20kTmAQzEpAK/kWgGL2/FLNhUYjvmVQtQAUJlXo/GJtj93AHyrApqwXEVmGSe/imIrosGgugG3UZSRGJzYd+/KwOVxsZNkTe+eMIyV8ceeouy9LcorEKJ1mq/g==

I think it’s sensible to ignore prohibitions of this nature

While sensible, I would argue that it is ill-advised (depending on context). One would instead be better suited to protest for this right, or to build grassroots support with the hope of democratically achieving it.

freedom is a practice.

I do strongly agree with this statement; however, the rule of law must be respected unless one is absolutely certain that there is no other choice. I think the declaration of independence puts it succinctly:

[...] Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government [...] Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. [...]

uNWFd160lwjPncmmtOMI7pnIQxbDjNaaogkRHv4troRYz5retihmjDJQuz/87YT91VYC5npys3BFwROqsqgQ7+4WAYIBob+nRktqKeu44el2IjlKjAh9OGlOMTroThnIte2FuswNR7A+jyx6uC5F4/Ryl7Fatk5tjHX91HAdpmRksqer5SYLgQzYYt9J5k28ZuyvhDSwQfWf5Ur4lF74j7+qDVH61kV7qFIfM4gJOy9vKHfP7k21+eKD9Wlv6RDFmk/Y8j/urt35zfdH5m/zGS36qo8RhIu3nap26ybFXb41SiLG0iOH+/iJLqgzALhpmLPO+6m7qGHCCdCXxws7fQ==

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 certainly could link my server into play as well just to keep an always online device in the mix

Yep! That should work perfectly fine.

Neat idea! Although, it would probably be more practical to use a centralized model since if one peer is offline, then the syncing would not occur. That is, if my assumption is correct that you are thinking of directly syncing between 2 devices.

That assumes the consumer has perfect knowledge of a businesses practices

This is actually a very good point. I'm not sure that I have a solution for it at the moment. The lazy argument would be that information eventually leaks out, but that is not, in the slightest, a guarantee. I will have to think on that.

and has the resources to vote with their wallet

This outlines the need for a competitive free market. If a business is making an undesirable decision, then the consumer would have other options to choose from, or a competitor without those practices would enter the market to scoop up those who are disillusioned.

They are also incentivised to eliminate competition

The wilful direct elimination of competition is anti-competitive behavior, and is, therefore, incompatible with a competitive free market, and should thus be prohibited.

Every constitutional right has limits.

Generally, I would be inclined to say yes, but things become more tricky when the constitutional right in question specifically states "Shall not be infringed". That being said, the limits in question could certainly lie within the definion of "Arms", and "bear".

There is no legal use of a gun that requires a gun capable of holding more than 6 rounds. More than 90% of self defense situations end with only 2-3 shots being fired. Long, drawn out gun fights with both sides firing 20-30 rounds simply don’t happen in self defense situations. It’s just a fiction from movies. You certainly don’t need that many rounds to bring down a deer.

Don't forget the original intent of the 2nd Amendment (I encourage you to read the Federalist Papers, to hear it striaght from the source) was to ensure that the people have the capability to resist their own government. Without a populace who believes in it, and will defend it with force if need be, a constitution is no more than a piece of paper, and a dream. Pay close attention to the wording of the 2nd Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

As well as how it would interract with what was stated in the declaration of independence:

[...] We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. [...]

I try to look at these examples from the perspective of the Non-Agression Principle -- to come to the conclusion that a specific technology must be kept from the public, it must be shown that that technology, by it's very nature of existence, infringes on the rights and freedoms of those around it. For example, if we look a nuclear warhead, as you mentioned, it could certainly be argued that it's private ownership would violate the NAP, as it's very existence is an indiscriminate threat to the life, and property of any proximal to it. A similar argument could be made for your other example of anthrax. Making a similar argument for an outright ban on the civilian ownership of a fighter-jet is much more difficult to justify, however. I would argue that it would, instead, be more logical to regulate, rather than prohibit, the civilian ownership of a fighter-jet, much in the same manner as the civilian ownership of any other typical aircraft.

It also should be noted that it entirely depends on wording/language. The 2nd Amendment specifically states "[...] the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.". One needs to have a precise definition for "bear", and "Arms". Perhaps it could be argued that an individual cannot "bear" a nuclear warhead. Perhaps "Arms" are only those used by the military, or other federal entities. I have no definite answer, but these are the sorts of things that one must consider.

For one to be able to utter such words openly is evidence that one enjoys the existence of non-zero amounts of freedom 😉 one must not be complacent in their good-fortune to be born into a society with such freedoms. There are many places in the world with no such guarantees.

If constituents are supposed to be trusted in determining the competency of who they want to elect there should be no age limits at all.

This is the opinion that currently I hold.

President has a 2 term limit, so there is no reason Congress or Justices should not also be subject to predefined limits to how often they can hold an office, to say nothing of other elected officials down the line.

My argument isn't that of whether it's possible to make such rules, it is instead, from a point of principle, whether we should make such rules.

for example to 777 as a temporary solution

Just tried this, and still nothing.

# chmod -R 777 data-directory