The definitive guide to the 2nd Amendment

[P@triot]

Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment really is, Institutional, not Individual.

No snowflake...it is 100% “individual”. Talented people, driven people, reliable people, etc. don’t become unemployed (at least not for any significant period of time).

Because you’re completely unemployable, you want to blame it on capitalism.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment really is, Institutional, not Individual.

No snowflake...it is 100% “individual”. Talented people, driven people, reliable people, etc. don’t become unemployed (at least not for any significant period of time).

Because you’re completely unemployable, you want to blame it on capitalism.

Well, he's sort of right. Capitalism dictates hiring employees who are actually useful, so it kind of IS capitalism which prevents him from being employed.

 

[danielpalos]

natural rights should matter.

So now your position is that you have a “natural right” to rape women? No wonder nobody takes the left seriously about anything.

Only the right wing seems to believe, women don't have natural rights.

 

[danielpalos]

Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment really is, Institutional, not Individual.

No snowflake...it is 100% “individual”. Talented people, driven people, reliable people, etc. don’t become unemployed (at least not for any significant period of time).

Because you’re completely unemployable, you want to blame it on capitalism.

The unequal application of the law, is Institutional, not Individual. Employment is at-will.

 

[danielpalos]

Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment really is, Institutional, not Individual.

No snowflake...it is 100% “individual”. Talented people, driven people, reliable people, etc. don’t become unemployed (at least not for any significant period of time).

Because you’re completely unemployable, you want to blame it on capitalism.

Well, he's sort of right. Capitalism dictates hiring employees who are actually useful, so it kind of IS capitalism which prevents him from being employed.

Public policy which favors Capitalists of wealth. Why is there no, fine or fee, for simply exercising their employers' right to fire anyone but not to hire anyone?

 

[Wry Catcher]

In re the OP:

the 2nd A. clearly states it is the right of the people in a free State to keep and bear arms, and the clear inference is those people vetted by the State and trained under the provisions of Art. I, sec 8 and clause 16.

It is clear that Scalia bent over backwards and upside down to try and convince the people that the 2nd A. has zero to do with you or other's not in the militia, and thus not vetted, disciplined or trained.

It is the Right of each of the several states to have arms that shall not be infringed, and the State under the 10th Amendment to organize, arm and discipline their militia.

 

[danielpalos]

In re the OP:

the 2nd A. clearly states it is the right of the people in a free State to keep and bear arms, and the clear inference is those people vetted by the State and trained under the provisions of Art. I, sec 8 and clause 16.

It is clear that Scalia bent over backwards and upside down to try and convince the people that the 2nd A. has zero to do with you or other's not in the militia, and thus not vetted, disciplined or trained.

It is the Right of each of the several states to have arms that shall not be infringed, and the State under the 10th Amendment to organize, arm and discipline their militia.

only the unorganized militia whines about gun control.

 

[P@triot]

The unequal application of the law, is Institutional, not Individual. Employment is at-will.

There is no “unequal application” of the law (except for when Dumbocrats were in charge).

 

[P@triot]

Why is there no, fine or fee, for simply exercising their employers' right to fire anyone but not to hire anyone?

Please, for the love of God, stop using commas. You literally have no idea how or where to use them. It’s embarrassing.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Why is there no, fine or fee, for simply exercising their employers' right to fire anyone but not to hire anyone?

Please, for the love of God, stop using commas. You literally have no idea how or where to use them. It’s embarrassing.

He literally does, not know where, to, place a, comma.

Instead of:

“Let’s go eat, Grandma.’

We get:

“Let’s, go eat Grandma.”

 

[P@triot]

Why is there no, fine or fee, for simply exercising their employers' right to fire anyone but not to hire anyone?

That’s not even a coherent sentence. First you say there is no “fine or fee” when employer fires someone and then you say “but not to hire anyone”. In both cases you’re dumb ass is acknowledging there are no fines, yet you use the word “but” as if there was a fine for one and not for the other.

You literally have the IQ of a garden snail.

 

[P@triot]

Why is there no, fine or fee, for simply exercising their employers' right to fire anyone but not to hire anyone?

Please, for the love of God, stop using commas. You literally have no idea how or where to use them. It’s embarrassing.

He literally does, not know where, to, place a, comma.

Instead of:

“Let’s go eat, Grandma.’

We get:

“Let’s, go eat Grandma.”

Dude...it’s killing me. He has the grammar of kindergartener!

 

[P@triot]

Why is there no, fine or fee, for simply exercising their employers' right to fire anyone but not to hire anyone?

Please allow me to educate you. Here is how your sentence should be written...

Why is there no fine, or fee, for an employer simply exercising their right to fire anyone but not to hire anyone?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Dude...it’s killing me. He has the grammar of kindergartener

He is an illegal Mexican, so English is likely new to him.

 

[P@triot]

Dude...it’s killing me. He has the grammar of kindergartener

He is an illegal Mexican, so English is likely new to him.

That explains a lot.

 

[danielpalos]

The unequal application of the law, is Institutional, not Individual. Employment is at-will.

There is no “unequal application” of the law (except for when Dumbocrats were in charge).

of course there is. or, the right wing wouldn't need to whine about Taxes. Because, our economy would be more efficient.

 

[P@triot]

There is no “unequal application” of the law (except for when Dumbocrats were in charge).

of course there is. or, the right wing wouldn't need to whine about Taxes

So you are openly admitting that the tax laws are not "applied equally" to U.S. citizens? Oops.

 

[Wry Catcher]

This thread it about the 2nd A. It seems the two Grammar Nazi's above have engaged in a circle jerk of jerks.

 

[danielpalos]

Why is there no, fine or fee, for simply exercising their employers' right to fire anyone but not to hire anyone?

That’s not even a coherent sentence. First you say there is no “fine or fee” when employer fires someone and then you say “but not to hire anyone”. In both cases you’re dumb ass is acknowledging there are no fines, yet you use the word “but” as if there was a fine for one and not for the other.

You literally have the IQ of a garden snail.

Capitalists don't even have to pay taxes on jobs listed as open for more than a few months, that they haven't been able to fill. tax for continued listing that position, or no tax if they increase the pay every three months, until the position is filled.

 

[P@triot]

Because, our economy would be more efficient.

It is - every time we get rid of the Dumbocrats and their failed left-wing policies. Sadly though, the American people keep getting duped into going back to them now and again and they collapse our economy.