Yeah I just paid $430 cash for a refurb S4. It's definitely expensive. Compared to my previous phone, though, two days' wages is a good deal for the upgrade.
As a former AT&T customer I guarantee the cost is even higher than that, but you'll never know how much the fees and taxes are until you start getting bills, and they'll never be the same month to month.
I have pre-paid service now. I pay $29.95 a month and I'm comforted by the fact that it is literally impossible for the carrier to charge me overages, or special taxes or fees, or whatever "fuck you" charges they want to dream up.
I just bought a new Galaxy S4, cash up front, and bought pre-paid service for it. Before that I had a Droid X, for which I paid cash, and with which I had pre-paid service.
In my opinion phone contracts are for chumps and despite all the evidence I try to think of myself as not a chump.
Yeah, but that same guy is waiting next to your old car each morning, asking you if you want to change to a new car. He doesn't always tell you what he's going to change, but you don't trust him because you didn't like yesterday's change. In this scenario, that makes you an nincompoop for agreeing to take the new car again.
If you like your old car, don't get a new car. This is obvious.
Gosh you seem to have strong feelings about it. So why are you using FF29 if you don't like it? When I don't like software, I don't use it. It's true, sometimes I get miffed along the way, but even better than biatching about it on internet forums is going and finding the software you like. You like FF28? No problem, it's there for you.
Stickshifts HAVE moved over the years. My first car had in-line automatic between the seats, my second car had three-on-the-tree on the steering wheel shaft, and now some cars have squiggly-line automatics or "techtronic" type shifts. WHOA NELLY ALL HELL IS BREAKING LOOSE! Not really, though, actually people get used to the new stuff and even usually like it.
Why would you install FF29 if you prefer FF28? Nobody is forcing you to change your software. They are offering you a change and you can take it or leave it.
If you love Netscape on Mac System 7, you can use that. If you love emacs 13 on Multics, you can use that. If you love Word 95 on Windows ME, you can use that. But if you want "the latest version of everything" then you have to balance that against having software changes you don't like.
Why do you think that is relevant? Isn't there value to lawfulness? Most people agree that it is worth the cost to pay for enforcement of laws. We often spend more than $x to catch a thief that stole $x. That's the normal machinations of policework.
Well, I didn't only tell you that it isn't double taxation, I told you why it isn't double taxation. Two times you responded by simply saying it is:
"What you're not getting is that the profits are taxed TWICE." "It is though."
So I can't be swayed by your argument because you didn't make one. Furthermore, not only do I disagree with you but it's irrelevant. The point we are discussing is whether it would cause corporations to collapse, if we taxed them the same as we tax individuals, especially if we taxed them by gross. Maybe we do quadruple taxation, quintuple, dodecinal, whatever, but the question is whether tax-on-gross would cause corporate armageddon. So far I've gotten a few people to angrily state that of COURSE it would cause collapse but then when I ask them to tell me why they obviously have no clue. You're the most recent one of those but not the most articulate.
Last word is yours if you want it! Sorry I took so long to write back, I had a nice lazy weekend.
It's not double taxation. It's just not, because the money transfers from one entity to another. If the corporation earns profits and keeps the money in a corporate bank account, it pays only corporate income tax. When money is disburse to investors, then the money changes hands, and a taxable event has occurred.
Some people want to pretend that an investor "is" the corporation but that is just rhetorical hand-waving by tax cheats to try to justify paying less. If an investor were the "same" as the corporation, then we could sue the investor when the corporation does something wrong. And they can bellyache about how unfair it is that corporations and investors are taxed this way, but obviously the benefits of incorporation are significant enough that companies choose it over partnership, or else we'd live in a world with zero corporations and 100% limited-liability partnerships, right? So whatever the costs are, it's evidently worth it.
If you want to tax corporations at 50 percent, you must negate the capital gains tax entirely. That is, no taxes on profits earned by investing in companies because the taxes owed were already paid by the company.
The taxes owed by the company are paid by the company, and then the company has money in a bank account. That money never gets taxed again. That's single taxation.
Then the money transfers from the corporate bank account to an investor's bank account. This means it is no longer the corporation's money, now it's the investor's money. The investor pays tax. That's single taxation.
Imagine a company earns some profit and pays tax on it. Now it has money in its bank account. It uses that money to pay a salary, and also to disburse to an investor. Why would the employee have to pay tax when the investor doesn't? By your reasoning "that money has already been taxed" so the employee should get it tax-free, because, hey, it's already been taxed once right? No, of course not. When money transfers from entity to entity, that is a taxable event.
To be clear, I don't want "the corporations" to pay. Corporations are imaginary. I want to fully tax the individual human beings who today get to enjoy playboy lifestyles tax-free by drawing a legal corporation around their party expenses.
PS I said "I've asked so many people to tell me why taxing corporate gross income would kill corporations, nobody can explain it" and you responded with this discussion about double taxation, but it doesn't follow: whether we tax dividends is not related to whether we allow business expense deductions, and even if it were, it doesn't explain why corporations would cease to exist if we taxed gross income.
/sigh/ I've asked so many people to tell me why taxing corporate gross income would kill corporations, nobody can explain it, although everyone assumes it. I'll ask the next person, too, I guess. Most people give it a better shot than you did before giving up.
I've heard before all that you said but I've never found it convincing at all. I'm pretty sure that if human beings manage to pay taxes on gross income without ceasing to exist, then other taxpaying entities can do the same. There has never been a time in the history of humanity when taxing companies caused the companies to die: the companies have a new cost, so they raise their prices; done, it's obvious and happens all the time.
The people who would 'lose' in this scenario are the rich motherfuckers who today don't pay their fair share because their Porches and their Thailand vacations and their jet airplanes homes are written off as business expenses. Everyone who isn't one of those rich motherfuckers would get a small bump in relative income.
The "double taxation" rhetoric is especially bothersome to me. Nobody says that a poor human is double-taxed when they earn a dollar (income tax on wages) and spend the dollar (sales tax) so it's nonsense to say that a corporation is double-taxed when it profits by a dollar and then when it gives that money away to another person as that person's income. If shareholders don't want to pay taxes on their dividends, then easy, just leave that money with the corporation and it won't get taxed as personal income, because it won't be personal income. This is what Apple is doing with its hundred billion dollars. Boo hoo, rich people want free money, yeah I know, but the world won't stop going around if they don't get it.
My basic thesis is that rich people use corporations to avoid paying their share of taxes, and therefore we should do whatever it takes to stop them. The easy way to do this is to fully embrace the "corporations are people" concept for the purposes of taxation. Just have the same rules for corps and humans, and there won't be a way to cheat.
It would destroy the corporations outright. They would not be able to operate.
I have heard that before but I don't think it makes any sense. What exactly would make the corporations collapse? They'd have a different cost structure so they'd have a different price structure. Obviously it would be a shift in where tax dollars come from so there would be rate adjustments. Individuals would find themselves with a lot more money but higher product costs, in exact proportion. Where in that is economic collapse? We'd have incentives for corporations of a different size than we have today, specifically for more smaller corporations, which would increase diversity in the marketplace and competition. In what way is that an unviable economy?
As to income tax going up to a 100 percent, I'm not sure I know what the point of that would be... are you trying to make sure that we have no billionaires?
Mmm, I'm not sure where the cutoff would be exactly, but a billion dollars? Yeah maybe I'm trying to make sure there are no accumulations of power that large. Maybe two billion? I don't know. Somewhere in that ballpark. Richass people could still found plenty of corporations with a billion dollars.
Do great works. It does happen. And you'd lose that if you made that impossible.
Yeah it would be a tradeoff like everything is. We'd get a more shared economy, we'd avoid excessive accumulations of power, we'd increase competition, we'd make the tax code more equitable -- and we'd lose out on the larger-than-1-billion-dollar corporations that occasionally get started all with money from one single person (are you sure that ever happens?).
I think your idea is that the government should control everything and nothing big should exist except for the government.
Mmm, sort of, but "the government" isn't one thing, either. I'm a big checks-and-balances guy which is the entire reason I oppose accumulation of excessive power (money). I don't even want a President to amass unchecked power, much less do I want an unelected evil asshole to do so. Our American system is not perfect but it's pretty good from the government side, but the nongovernment private sector is a scary source of tyrannical power.
Sure. $100M sounds pretty good. The way I would structure it is:
1. Corporations pay taxes exactly the same as individuals 1A. That means the same rates and brackets apply 1B. That means we either eliminate the Business Expense Deduction, or we make all Living Expenses deductible, so that both corporations and individuals pay gross or net, but corporations don't get to pay net while individuals have to pay gross 2. The income rate scales up slowly and tops out at 100%, perhaps at an income of something like $100million
This would have a couple effects:
* Rich assholes would no longer be able to avoid taxes by calling their vacations and fancy clothes "business expenses" * Corporations would be naturally limited in size as they balance higher tax rates with efficiencies of scale * We would mitigate the disastrous accumulation of power (wealth) which Americans have always known to be bad for freedom
Well, last time Netflix raised prices that was followed immediately by a drastic (drastic!) reduction in shows available for streaming. So I don't think there is any good reason to connect higher prices with greater selection -- the evidence suggests the opposite correlation.
I don't know. Netflix was $8 then $10. If it goes to $12/month then that will be about six dollars for every movie I watch. At that price I'd rather just buy a little extra weed and play WordFeud.
And in fact I already made that choice and dropped Netflix six or eight months ago. Their streaming selection had dwindled to the point where I couldn't even find any science documentaries anymore. What am I going to do then? Watch a superhero movie? No thanks. There are torrents for that. I had Netflix for three or four years but it just stopped delivering value.
Yep. And there it is, the diversification of the market: the same reason we have both dustbrooms and pushbrooms; the reason we have both cement mixers and racecars.
Not to be pedantic, but my nearest dictionary (the Dictonary application on my Mac) defines "ax" as
1. a tool typically used for chopping wood
Moreover, in my opinion (whatever it's good for) the difference between those two tools is that a splitting maul is a big, wide-angled wedge. Truly the wide wedge makes it easier to split wood, but an axe can also split wood, and in any case this tool is to skinny to meet my personal expectations of a maul. Finally, maul is defined as
1. a tool with a heavy head and a handle, used for tasks such as ramming, crushing, and driving wedges
Therefore, I see your pedantry and raise you two dictionary definitions.
Is there plain text in the Constitution that prohibits all imprisonment? I don't know anywhere that it says so. The 13th Amendment even explicitly specifies that involuntary servitude is okay for crime punishment.
The plain text of the Second Amendment gives ALL PEOPLE (not only citizens, not only Americans, not only the law abiding) the right to keep and bear ALL ARMS (not only the ones available when the Amendment was adopted, not only personal arms) at all times in all places with no exceptions. I say that because it does not give any exceptions.
Of course, to say that I have a constitutional right to take a nuclear bomb into a federal courthouse is facially preposterous -- nobody believes the Amendment means that -- which means nobody is actually a 'textualist' in the strict sense because that would be preposterous. Textualists are people who think we should focus much more on the plain text, and do much less interpretation, but even the ones who pretend to be hard-liners really aren't, because none of them will make the claim that convicted homicidal maniacs have a Constitutional right to own nuclear bombs.
Therefore the plain text cannot be used for interpretation. We MUST apply human reason to it. People who say otherwise are, in my opinion, nutters.
"I do believe we should take into account the general idea of what the founding fathers had in mind"
Phew, thank goodness, you removed yourself from the textual literalist ideological position, and admitted that the text has to be interpreted by humans, at least by some tiny degree. That's good. Now we only differ by degree: you think my degree is too permissive; I think your degree is unrealistic.
I wish you luck in your quest to give dynamite to homicidal pre-teens and to banish the Air Force (which is not a delegated power, only Armies and Navies are mentioned) among other things that I think are silly.
Okay, so tomorrow you would give H-bombs to death row inmates because the text plainly says we have to do that, and just wait for the political machinery to get around to amending the text? Serious question, if you were President, that's what you'd do? And when a guy comes to a Federal court building shouting about Allah and wearing a suicide vest, you'd let him into the building because to do otherwise would "infringe" on the plain text of the Second Amendment? He's just bearing arms, after all, until you have time to go through a few election cycles to get that new Amendment through. Serious question, is that what you are saying?
That's fine and all but excuse the rest of us for rolling our eyes.
I've sometimes confused Second Amendment literalists by saying that the Amendment only gives you the right to keep and bear arms, not to acquire them. Therefore, the government would be perfectly within its rights to prohibit the acquisition of any arms, thus making it illegal for any person born after the passing of that law to have a gun in the first place to keep or bear. Tah dah! See literal textual absurdity goes both ways.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah I just paid $430 cash for a refurb S4. It's definitely expensive. Compared to my previous phone, though, two days' wages is a good deal for the upgrade.
As a former AT&T customer I guarantee the cost is even higher than that, but you'll never know how much the fees and taxes are until you start getting bills, and they'll never be the same month to month.
I have pre-paid service now. I pay $29.95 a month and I'm comforted by the fact that it is literally impossible for the carrier to charge me overages, or special taxes or fees, or whatever "fuck you" charges they want to dream up.
I just bought a new Galaxy S4, cash up front, and bought pre-paid service for it. Before that I had a Droid X, for which I paid cash, and with which I had pre-paid service.
In my opinion phone contracts are for chumps and despite all the evidence I try to think of myself as not a chump.
If you live in Madison, WI I suggest U-Wireless.
Yeah, but that same guy is waiting next to your old car each morning, asking you if you want to change to a new car. He doesn't always tell you what he's going to change, but you don't trust him because you didn't like yesterday's change. In this scenario, that makes you an nincompoop for agreeing to take the new car again.
If you like your old car, don't get a new car. This is obvious.
I'm having a hard time believing this story because I'm pretty sure AOL ceased to exist fifteen years ago.
Gosh you seem to have strong feelings about it. So why are you using FF29 if you don't like it? When I don't like software, I don't use it. It's true, sometimes I get miffed along the way, but even better than biatching about it on internet forums is going and finding the software you like. You like FF28? No problem, it's there for you.
Stickshifts HAVE moved over the years. My first car had in-line automatic between the seats, my second car had three-on-the-tree on the steering wheel shaft, and now some cars have squiggly-line automatics or "techtronic" type shifts. WHOA NELLY ALL HELL IS BREAKING LOOSE! Not really, though, actually people get used to the new stuff and even usually like it.
Why would you install FF29 if you prefer FF28? Nobody is forcing you to change your software. They are offering you a change and you can take it or leave it.
If you love Netscape on Mac System 7, you can use that. If you love emacs 13 on Multics, you can use that. If you love Word 95 on Windows ME, you can use that. But if you want "the latest version of everything" then you have to balance that against having software changes you don't like.
Why do you think that is relevant? Isn't there value to lawfulness? Most people agree that it is worth the cost to pay for enforcement of laws. We often spend more than $x to catch a thief that stole $x. That's the normal machinations of policework.
Well, I didn't only tell you that it isn't double taxation, I told you why it isn't double taxation. Two times you responded by simply saying it is:
"What you're not getting is that the profits are taxed TWICE."
"It is though."
So I can't be swayed by your argument because you didn't make one. Furthermore, not only do I disagree with you but it's irrelevant. The point we are discussing is whether it would cause corporations to collapse, if we taxed them the same as we tax individuals, especially if we taxed them by gross. Maybe we do quadruple taxation, quintuple, dodecinal, whatever, but the question is whether tax-on-gross would cause corporate armageddon. So far I've gotten a few people to angrily state that of COURSE it would cause collapse but then when I ask them to tell me why they obviously have no clue. You're the most recent one of those but not the most articulate.
Last word is yours if you want it! Sorry I took so long to write back, I had a nice lazy weekend.
It's not double taxation. It's just not, because the money transfers from one entity to another. If the corporation earns profits and keeps the money in a corporate bank account, it pays only corporate income tax. When money is disburse to investors, then the money changes hands, and a taxable event has occurred.
Some people want to pretend that an investor "is" the corporation but that is just rhetorical hand-waving by tax cheats to try to justify paying less. If an investor were the "same" as the corporation, then we could sue the investor when the corporation does something wrong. And they can bellyache about how unfair it is that corporations and investors are taxed this way, but obviously the benefits of incorporation are significant enough that companies choose it over partnership, or else we'd live in a world with zero corporations and 100% limited-liability partnerships, right? So whatever the costs are, it's evidently worth it.
If you want to tax corporations at 50 percent, you must negate the capital gains tax entirely. That is, no taxes on profits earned by investing in companies because the taxes owed were already paid by the company.
The taxes owed by the company are paid by the company, and then the company has money in a bank account. That money never gets taxed again. That's single taxation.
Then the money transfers from the corporate bank account to an investor's bank account. This means it is no longer the corporation's money, now it's the investor's money. The investor pays tax. That's single taxation.
Imagine a company earns some profit and pays tax on it. Now it has money in its bank account. It uses that money to pay a salary, and also to disburse to an investor. Why would the employee have to pay tax when the investor doesn't? By your reasoning "that money has already been taxed" so the employee should get it tax-free, because, hey, it's already been taxed once right? No, of course not. When money transfers from entity to entity, that is a taxable event.
To be clear, I don't want "the corporations" to pay. Corporations are imaginary. I want to fully tax the individual human beings who today get to enjoy playboy lifestyles tax-free by drawing a legal corporation around their party expenses.
PS I said "I've asked so many people to tell me why taxing corporate gross income would kill corporations, nobody can explain it" and you responded with this discussion about double taxation, but it doesn't follow: whether we tax dividends is not related to whether we allow business expense deductions, and even if it were, it doesn't explain why corporations would cease to exist if we taxed gross income.
/sigh/ I've asked so many people to tell me why taxing corporate gross income would kill corporations, nobody can explain it, although everyone assumes it. I'll ask the next person, too, I guess. Most people give it a better shot than you did before giving up.
"The tablets run Windows"
The military is getting ripped off.
I've heard before all that you said but I've never found it convincing at all. I'm pretty sure that if human beings manage to pay taxes on gross income without ceasing to exist, then other taxpaying entities can do the same. There has never been a time in the history of humanity when taxing companies caused the companies to die: the companies have a new cost, so they raise their prices; done, it's obvious and happens all the time.
The people who would 'lose' in this scenario are the rich motherfuckers who today don't pay their fair share because their Porches and their Thailand vacations and their jet airplanes homes are written off as business expenses. Everyone who isn't one of those rich motherfuckers would get a small bump in relative income.
The "double taxation" rhetoric is especially bothersome to me. Nobody says that a poor human is double-taxed when they earn a dollar (income tax on wages) and spend the dollar (sales tax) so it's nonsense to say that a corporation is double-taxed when it profits by a dollar and then when it gives that money away to another person as that person's income. If shareholders don't want to pay taxes on their dividends, then easy, just leave that money with the corporation and it won't get taxed as personal income, because it won't be personal income. This is what Apple is doing with its hundred billion dollars. Boo hoo, rich people want free money, yeah I know, but the world won't stop going around if they don't get it.
My basic thesis is that rich people use corporations to avoid paying their share of taxes, and therefore we should do whatever it takes to stop them. The easy way to do this is to fully embrace the "corporations are people" concept for the purposes of taxation. Just have the same rules for corps and humans, and there won't be a way to cheat.
It would destroy the corporations outright. They would not be able to operate.
I have heard that before but I don't think it makes any sense. What exactly would make the corporations collapse? They'd have a different cost structure so they'd have a different price structure. Obviously it would be a shift in where tax dollars come from so there would be rate adjustments. Individuals would find themselves with a lot more money but higher product costs, in exact proportion. Where in that is economic collapse? We'd have incentives for corporations of a different size than we have today, specifically for more smaller corporations, which would increase diversity in the marketplace and competition. In what way is that an unviable economy?
As to income tax going up to a 100 percent, I'm not sure I know what the point of that would be... are you trying to make sure that we have no billionaires?
Mmm, I'm not sure where the cutoff would be exactly, but a billion dollars? Yeah maybe I'm trying to make sure there are no accumulations of power that large. Maybe two billion? I don't know. Somewhere in that ballpark. Richass people could still found plenty of corporations with a billion dollars.
Do great works. It does happen. And you'd lose that if you made that impossible.
Yeah it would be a tradeoff like everything is. We'd get a more shared economy, we'd avoid excessive accumulations of power, we'd increase competition, we'd make the tax code more equitable -- and we'd lose out on the larger-than-1-billion-dollar corporations that occasionally get started all with money from one single person (are you sure that ever happens?).
I think your idea is that the government should control everything and nothing big should exist except for the government.
Mmm, sort of, but "the government" isn't one thing, either. I'm a big checks-and-balances guy which is the entire reason I oppose accumulation of excessive power (money). I don't even want a President to amass unchecked power, much less do I want an unelected evil asshole to do so. Our American system is not perfect but it's pretty good from the government side, but the nongovernment private sector is a scary source of tyrannical power.
Sure. $100M sounds pretty good. The way I would structure it is:
1. Corporations pay taxes exactly the same as individuals
1A. That means the same rates and brackets apply
1B. That means we either eliminate the Business Expense Deduction, or we make all Living Expenses deductible, so that both corporations and individuals pay gross or net, but corporations don't get to pay net while individuals have to pay gross
2. The income rate scales up slowly and tops out at 100%, perhaps at an income of something like $100million
This would have a couple effects:
* Rich assholes would no longer be able to avoid taxes by calling their vacations and fancy clothes "business expenses"
* Corporations would be naturally limited in size as they balance higher tax rates with efficiencies of scale
* We would mitigate the disastrous accumulation of power (wealth) which Americans have always known to be bad for freedom
Well, last time Netflix raised prices that was followed immediately by a drastic (drastic!) reduction in shows available for streaming. So I don't think there is any good reason to connect higher prices with greater selection -- the evidence suggests the opposite correlation.
They also announced that prices will increase for existing customers "soon". You can even suss that out of the article linked here:
Gould said the company is approaching 50 million global subscribers, and a $1-2 price increase would raise $600 million to $1.2 billion.
50M subscribers x12 months x$1 is $600M
50M subscribers x12 months x$2 is $1.2B
Other articles made this implication clear by quoting the rest of Netflix's statement.
I don't know. Netflix was $8 then $10. If it goes to $12/month then that will be about six dollars for every movie I watch. At that price I'd rather just buy a little extra weed and play WordFeud.
And in fact I already made that choice and dropped Netflix six or eight months ago. Their streaming selection had dwindled to the point where I couldn't even find any science documentaries anymore. What am I going to do then? Watch a superhero movie? No thanks. There are torrents for that. I had Netflix for three or four years but it just stopped delivering value.
Yep. And there it is, the diversification of the market: the same reason we have both dustbrooms and pushbrooms; the reason we have both cement mixers and racecars.
Not to be pedantic, but my nearest dictionary (the Dictonary application on my Mac) defines "ax" as
1. a tool typically used for chopping wood
Moreover, in my opinion (whatever it's good for) the difference between those two tools is that a splitting maul is a big, wide-angled wedge. Truly the wide wedge makes it easier to split wood, but an axe can also split wood, and in any case this tool is to skinny to meet my personal expectations of a maul. Finally, maul is defined as
1. a tool with a heavy head and a handle, used for tasks such as ramming, crushing, and driving wedges
Therefore, I see your pedantry and raise you two dictionary definitions.
Mmm hmm. Okay. You said that according to my argument, all imprisonment would be unconstitutional. Explain the reasoning there; I don't get it.
Is there plain text in the Constitution that prohibits all imprisonment? I don't know anywhere that it says so. The 13th Amendment even explicitly specifies that involuntary servitude is okay for crime punishment.
The plain text of the Second Amendment gives ALL PEOPLE (not only citizens, not only Americans, not only the law abiding) the right to keep and bear ALL ARMS (not only the ones available when the Amendment was adopted, not only personal arms) at all times in all places with no exceptions. I say that because it does not give any exceptions.
Of course, to say that I have a constitutional right to take a nuclear bomb into a federal courthouse is facially preposterous -- nobody believes the Amendment means that -- which means nobody is actually a 'textualist' in the strict sense because that would be preposterous. Textualists are people who think we should focus much more on the plain text, and do much less interpretation, but even the ones who pretend to be hard-liners really aren't, because none of them will make the claim that convicted homicidal maniacs have a Constitutional right to own nuclear bombs.
Therefore the plain text cannot be used for interpretation. We MUST apply human reason to it. People who say otherwise are, in my opinion, nutters.
"I do believe we should take into account the general idea of what the founding fathers had in mind"
Phew, thank goodness, you removed yourself from the textual literalist ideological position, and admitted that the text has to be interpreted by humans, at least by some tiny degree. That's good. Now we only differ by degree: you think my degree is too permissive; I think your degree is unrealistic.
I wish you luck in your quest to give dynamite to homicidal pre-teens and to banish the Air Force (which is not a delegated power, only Armies and Navies are mentioned) among other things that I think are silly.
Okay, so tomorrow you would give H-bombs to death row inmates because the text plainly says we have to do that, and just wait for the political machinery to get around to amending the text? Serious question, if you were President, that's what you'd do? And when a guy comes to a Federal court building shouting about Allah and wearing a suicide vest, you'd let him into the building because to do otherwise would "infringe" on the plain text of the Second Amendment? He's just bearing arms, after all, until you have time to go through a few election cycles to get that new Amendment through. Serious question, is that what you are saying?
That's fine and all but excuse the rest of us for rolling our eyes.
I've sometimes confused Second Amendment literalists by saying that the Amendment only gives you the right to keep and bear arms, not to acquire them. Therefore, the government would be perfectly within its rights to prohibit the acquisition of any arms, thus making it illegal for any person born after the passing of that law to have a gun in the first place to keep or bear. Tah dah! See literal textual absurdity goes both ways.