I think that you are misconstruing what I said. you also infer that because I have a laissez faire attitude with respect to other people's rights, that I say nothing and do nothing when *other* people's rights are infringed. This simply isn't true. (Notwithstanding that ALL of my representatives at the state and national level have made it clear that they do not share my views and don't want to hear them either.)
When I say that freedom is working our pretty well, I mean generally and for everyone. The fact that there are scads of wannabe tyrants out there doesn't mean that freedom doesn't work. Similarly, I think that suitability is unconstitutional on its face, so you and I negotiating on what suitability means and how to properly interpret it is letting the enemy define both the playing field and the rules of the game. You simply can't win - and you won't. The focus should be on removing suitability.
In this context, I see you telling me that I have to negotiate the terms of surrender or else I will lose the fight. This makes no sense.
I also think that Trump's election, to a certain extent, repudiates your assumption that most Americans aren't paying attention and don't care about anything. More than anything else, I view his election as a rejection of the status quo in government and the demand that there be a change from the trend towards an all-powerful, all-encroaching government that dicks around with crap like suitability and executive orders and leaves people alone - at least to a greater extent than is currently done.
