“A language is a dialect with an army and navy.” -Max Weinreich
The difference between “dialect” and “mutually intelligible language” is usually defined by convenience and politics and the Scots classification is not a settled matter, nor is it an important distinction outside of identity/pride.
The obvious examples are people typing in Scots or AAVE but that’s more just phonetic transcription of existing language.
This video is ten years old so the examples are outdated but the idea is sound.
Also doesn’t work when one side is supported by evidence and the others are “opinions” but given equal consideration.
Sure, you’d end up with at least two countries because many states would just refuse to join the new republic.
Then maybe they should have their own shithole country and stop taking our tax dollars.
They can ignore election results though, or fraudulently certify them.
Pipe guns exist, you can build a device that fires a 12-gauge shell in a decent garage workshop. The fancy bits, like a break action that closes properly or a spring to eject spent shells/cartridges, are where the fiddly springs and such come into play. (Of course you know this, but for the sake of conversation.)
Those homemade submachine guns are properly crazy though.
Ignoring the past doesn’t mean it didn’t happen, or that it has no bearing on the present. “Somebody else did it so the generational inequity is fine actually” is a terrible argument.
I don’t mind the idea of mandatory service to one’s country, but “military” should be optional. I’m sure there’s loads of important infrastructure projects that need doing, environment cleanup, various jobs to instill a sense of ownership and belonging while doing measurable good.
Never take any risks to improve the world, that’s how things are gonna get better!