It's not actually about winning against the military. The civics justification for having guns is to make harassment campaigns more accessible when necessary. (Any sustained resistance resistance campaign would have to have outside supply lines.) No modern rebel group has taken on an established military on equal footing. The goal is to make oppressing the population extremely annoying, not to actually be in control yourself. In order to actually run a government you need a different set of skills than to run a resistance campaign, but a resistance campaign might become necessary until we can restore the government to a just one.
There's other justifications for individual ownership of firearms, but that's the one most similar to what you're thinking of.
I know nothing about how flatpak works other than that it's containerized. But this meme tells me it's the OS's responsibility to create the flatpak, and not the developer's? Is that right?
The way the parties nominate candidates for president is an absolute mess, but the nominations aren't official until the parties hold a closed convention with delegates who vote for candidates to be the nominee. Back in the day these delegates used to actually be the people who decided who got nominated. These days they're more like a ceremonial role, with a lot of them (I think) being required to vote in line with the way people voted in their state's primary.
Anyway, I'd have to look it up to be 100% sure, but I'm pretty sure enough delegates have some kind of autonomy that it's possible they could nominate someone other than Biden. Who they would end up agreeing on....? Heck if I know.
I feel like my tools should work together instead of having their parameters set individually. If I select something, it's because I want to do stuff with it. Imagine hitting play on a video and then also having to hit play on the audio.
You might also have discalcula, which is a real but somewhat uncommon thing where you're absolutely shit at math. I have no idea how to get tested for it though.
Not that I actually consider the Bible to be an authoritative source on morality (see: slavery), but are those faithful to the original texts? I only ask because it's my understanding that sexuality wasn't viewed as a straight-gay spectrum back then, but instead as a dominate-submissive spectrum. Like, if they were to actually have a problem with same sex acts, it was more to do with messing with the social order than any inherit sexuality problems.
Is that the "lay with another man" bit? I'm pretty sure there's arguments over the original text, and scholars think it originally meant "don't have sex with little boys" not don't have sex with men.