The Right To Bear Arms

[jon_berzerk]

Fine, man says that rights come from a creator, or a God or whoever. Great. But that's man speaking. So, man made the theory of rights, and then decided to impose their religion on it.... well.... that doesn't stop it coming from human beings.

We can see the evolution of rights. In 1AD rights didn't exist, and nor did 1AD. We made them both. We can look from the Magna Carta, through the English Bill of Rights to the US Bill of Rights how they have developed and changed.

The Founding Fathers DEBATED the wording and what should and what should not be in the Bill of Rights. That means they helped shape them. They were humans, last I heard.

doesn't change the fact that even if you believe evolution created man that rights are acknowledged to be inherent in human beings as much as DNA is.

It also doesn't change the fact that other people believe that rights are man made and that history shows they are man made. I don't care if some people believe they are from some kind of creator, it doesn't make it true just because someone believes it.

the acknowledgement in the Declaration was that rights were not made but were already extant in the person from the moment of birth

Yes, I know. Again, does writing something down make it true?

It's not the writing it's the idea behind it.

--LOL he is not going to ever be able to grasp what the forefathers meant

just not wired for such

--LOL

 

[hadit]

why was the perpetrator "worrying" and not, being happy, to such an extent, he had to "rebel against authority"?

Probably because he has to live in a country where liberty is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution but constantly stripped by left-wing hatriot fascists.

why was that Person not home having a peaceful time with family and friends?

Failed left-wing policy probably cost him both his job and his home. I know it did that to a LOT of people. Barack Obama sure got extremely wealthy though - didn't he?

why can we afford a war on drugs, and not unemployment compensation, simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States?

And there it is, the inevitable lament. We get it, you want to get paid for not working.

 

[frigidweirdo]

It also doesn't change the fact that other people believe that rights are man made and that history shows they are man made. I don't care if some people believe they are from some kind of creator, it doesn't make it true just because someone believes it.

the acknowledgement in the Declaration was that rights were not made but were already extant in the person from the moment of birth

Yes, I know. Again, does writing something down make it true?

It's not the writing it's the idea behind it.

Sure it is.

But does the idea change if rights are God Given, or if they were developed by humans?

No, not really. Rights are something more fundamental than laws. In the constitution those rights are really something the govt can't take away. It doesn't matter if you think they're from God, or just made by humans. As long as the actual thing works.

It's like teaching kids. You can put their name on the board, but the name on the board doesn't do anything unless you follow it up with the actual discipline that goes behind it, right?

I just prefer to tell people what something is, rather than dress it up and treat them like a fool.

I never said they were god given I said they are as much a part of our existence as is our DNA
That is the idea behind the words.

In the 18th century they didn't have the vocabulary or the knowledge we do now so of course the words that conveyed the idea are both eloquent in the idea yet clumsy in the execution

Well the problem is they are a part of US existence, and yet people will sweep them aside and treat them as nothing if it doesn't suit their agenda.

How many times in the past 20 years have I stated what the 2A means, backed it up with evidence, only to have someone find this inconvenient and then just go off on one about this that or the other that is convenient for them, but has nothing to back it up? Countless.

 

[Skull Pilot]

the acknowledgement in the Declaration was that rights were not made but were already extant in the person from the moment of birth

Yes, I know. Again, does writing something down make it true?

It's not the writing it's the idea behind it.

Sure it is.

But does the idea change if rights are God Given, or if they were developed by humans?

No, not really. Rights are something more fundamental than laws. In the constitution those rights are really something the govt can't take away. It doesn't matter if you think they're from God, or just made by humans. As long as the actual thing works.

It's like teaching kids. You can put their name on the board, but the name on the board doesn't do anything unless you follow it up with the actual discipline that goes behind it, right?

I just prefer to tell people what something is, rather than dress it up and treat them like a fool.

I never said they were god given I said they are as much a part of our existence as is our DNA
That is the idea behind the words.

In the 18th century they didn't have the vocabulary or the knowledge we do now so of course the words that conveyed the idea are both eloquent in the idea yet clumsy in the execution

Well the problem is they are a part of US existence, and yet people will sweep them aside and treat them as nothing if it doesn't suit their agenda.

How many times in the past 20 years have I stated what the 2A means, backed it up with evidence, only to have someone find this inconvenient and then just go off on one about this that or the other that is convenient for them, but has nothing to back it up? Countless.

what does it mean?

other than the people have the right to keep and bear arms that is

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yes, I know. Again, does writing something down make it true?

It's not the writing it's the idea behind it.

Sure it is.

But does the idea change if rights are God Given, or if they were developed by humans?

No, not really. Rights are something more fundamental than laws. In the constitution those rights are really something the govt can't take away. It doesn't matter if you think they're from God, or just made by humans. As long as the actual thing works.

It's like teaching kids. You can put their name on the board, but the name on the board doesn't do anything unless you follow it up with the actual discipline that goes behind it, right?

I just prefer to tell people what something is, rather than dress it up and treat them like a fool.

I never said they were god given I said they are as much a part of our existence as is our DNA
That is the idea behind the words.

In the 18th century they didn't have the vocabulary or the knowledge we do now so of course the words that conveyed the idea are both eloquent in the idea yet clumsy in the execution

Well the problem is they are a part of US existence, and yet people will sweep them aside and treat them as nothing if it doesn't suit their agenda.

How many times in the past 20 years have I stated what the 2A means, backed it up with evidence, only to have someone find this inconvenient and then just go off on one about this that or the other that is convenient for them, but has nothing to back it up? Countless.

what does it mean?

other than the people have the right to keep and bear arms that is

What it doesn't mean.

The right to bear arms is not the right to carry guns around with.
The right can also be infringed. These are the two most common mistakes people make.

The right to keep arms is the right to own guns. The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. The 2A prevents the US federal govt (and now state govts) from preventing you from being able to own arms, this does not mean they can't ban certain weapons, just that you have to be able to get guns, and the they can't prevent you from being in the militia, hence why the made the Dick Act and stuck all males aged 17-45 in the "unorganized militia". Rather convenient.

 

[2aguy]

It's not the writing it's the idea behind it.

Sure it is.

But does the idea change if rights are God Given, or if they were developed by humans?

No, not really. Rights are something more fundamental than laws. In the constitution those rights are really something the govt can't take away. It doesn't matter if you think they're from God, or just made by humans. As long as the actual thing works.

It's like teaching kids. You can put their name on the board, but the name on the board doesn't do anything unless you follow it up with the actual discipline that goes behind it, right?

I just prefer to tell people what something is, rather than dress it up and treat them like a fool.

I never said they were god given I said they are as much a part of our existence as is our DNA
That is the idea behind the words.

In the 18th century they didn't have the vocabulary or the knowledge we do now so of course the words that conveyed the idea are both eloquent in the idea yet clumsy in the execution

Well the problem is they are a part of US existence, and yet people will sweep them aside and treat them as nothing if it doesn't suit their agenda.

How many times in the past 20 years have I stated what the 2A means, backed it up with evidence, only to have someone find this inconvenient and then just go off on one about this that or the other that is convenient for them, but has nothing to back it up? Countless.

what does it mean?

other than the people have the right to keep and bear arms that is

What it doesn't mean.

The right to bear arms is not the right to carry guns around with.
The right can also be infringed. These are the two most common mistakes people make.

The right to keep arms is the right to own guns. The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. The 2A prevents the US federal govt (and now state govts) from preventing you from being able to own arms, this does not mean they can't ban certain weapons, just that you have to be able to get guns, and the they can't prevent you from being in the militia, hence why the made the Dick Act and stuck all males aged 17-45 in the "unorganized militia". Rather convenient.

Sorry......you haven't shown any such thing......even the Supreme Court says you are wrong...the Heller, Caetano, and Miller decisions at the very least, show you are wrong......and as to infringing.....no one disagrees with you...we disagree with you when it comes to how much is allowed......we all agree criminals and the dangerously mentally ill can be kept away from guns...but beyond that...you are wrong.

 

[Skull Pilot]

It's not the writing it's the idea behind it.

Sure it is.

But does the idea change if rights are God Given, or if they were developed by humans?

No, not really. Rights are something more fundamental than laws. In the constitution those rights are really something the govt can't take away. It doesn't matter if you think they're from God, or just made by humans. As long as the actual thing works.

It's like teaching kids. You can put their name on the board, but the name on the board doesn't do anything unless you follow it up with the actual discipline that goes behind it, right?

I just prefer to tell people what something is, rather than dress it up and treat them like a fool.

I never said they were god given I said they are as much a part of our existence as is our DNA
That is the idea behind the words.

In the 18th century they didn't have the vocabulary or the knowledge we do now so of course the words that conveyed the idea are both eloquent in the idea yet clumsy in the execution

Well the problem is they are a part of US existence, and yet people will sweep them aside and treat them as nothing if it doesn't suit their agenda.

How many times in the past 20 years have I stated what the 2A means, backed it up with evidence, only to have someone find this inconvenient and then just go off on one about this that or the other that is convenient for them, but has nothing to back it up? Countless.

what does it mean?

other than the people have the right to keep and bear arms that is

What it doesn't mean.

The right to bear arms is not the right to carry guns around with.
The right can also be infringed. These are the two most common mistakes people make.

The right to keep arms is the right to own guns. The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. The 2A prevents the US federal govt (and now state govts) from preventing you from being able to own arms, this does not mean they can't ban certain weapons, just that you have to be able to get guns, and the they can't prevent you from being in the militia, hence why the made the Dick Act and stuck all males aged 17-45 in the "unorganized militia". Rather convenient.

the right to bear arms has nothing to do with a militia
the militia is secondary to the right to keep and bear arms

 

[Skull Pilot]

J. Neil Schulman: The Unabridged Second Amendment

 

[2aguy]

It's not the writing it's the idea behind it.

Sure it is.

But does the idea change if rights are God Given, or if they were developed by humans?

No, not really. Rights are something more fundamental than laws. In the constitution those rights are really something the govt can't take away. It doesn't matter if you think they're from God, or just made by humans. As long as the actual thing works.

It's like teaching kids. You can put their name on the board, but the name on the board doesn't do anything unless you follow it up with the actual discipline that goes behind it, right?

I just prefer to tell people what something is, rather than dress it up and treat them like a fool.

I never said they were god given I said they are as much a part of our existence as is our DNA
That is the idea behind the words.

In the 18th century they didn't have the vocabulary or the knowledge we do now so of course the words that conveyed the idea are both eloquent in the idea yet clumsy in the execution

Well the problem is they are a part of US existence, and yet people will sweep them aside and treat them as nothing if it doesn't suit their agenda.

How many times in the past 20 years have I stated what the 2A means, backed it up with evidence, only to have someone find this inconvenient and then just go off on one about this that or the other that is convenient for them, but has nothing to back it up? Countless.

what does it mean?

other than the people have the right to keep and bear arms that is

What it doesn't mean.

The right to bear arms is not the right to carry guns around with.
The right can also be infringed. These are the two most common mistakes people make.

The right to keep arms is the right to own guns. The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. The 2A prevents the US federal govt (and now state govts) from preventing you from being able to own arms, this does not mean they can't ban certain weapons, just that you have to be able to get guns, and the they can't prevent you from being in the militia, hence why the made the Dick Act and stuck all males aged 17-45 in the "unorganized militia". Rather convenient.

This is just from Heller.....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf


Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.” We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

-------
Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.”

We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Sure it is.

But does the idea change if rights are God Given, or if they were developed by humans?

No, not really. Rights are something more fundamental than laws. In the constitution those rights are really something the govt can't take away. It doesn't matter if you think they're from God, or just made by humans. As long as the actual thing works.

It's like teaching kids. You can put their name on the board, but the name on the board doesn't do anything unless you follow it up with the actual discipline that goes behind it, right?

I just prefer to tell people what something is, rather than dress it up and treat them like a fool.

I never said they were god given I said they are as much a part of our existence as is our DNA
That is the idea behind the words.

In the 18th century they didn't have the vocabulary or the knowledge we do now so of course the words that conveyed the idea are both eloquent in the idea yet clumsy in the execution

Well the problem is they are a part of US existence, and yet people will sweep them aside and treat them as nothing if it doesn't suit their agenda.

How many times in the past 20 years have I stated what the 2A means, backed it up with evidence, only to have someone find this inconvenient and then just go off on one about this that or the other that is convenient for them, but has nothing to back it up? Countless.

what does it mean?

other than the people have the right to keep and bear arms that is

What it doesn't mean.

The right to bear arms is not the right to carry guns around with.
The right can also be infringed. These are the two most common mistakes people make.

The right to keep arms is the right to own guns. The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. The 2A prevents the US federal govt (and now state govts) from preventing you from being able to own arms, this does not mean they can't ban certain weapons, just that you have to be able to get guns, and the they can't prevent you from being in the militia, hence why the made the Dick Act and stuck all males aged 17-45 in the "unorganized militia". Rather convenient.

the right to bear arms has nothing to do with a militia
the militia is secondary to the right to keep and bear arms

Well, you're wrong and I'm going to prove you're wrong.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

This is a document from the debates in the House on the future Second Amendment.

Mr Gerry said: "Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

This was about a clause of the future Second Amendment that read: "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

Then Mr Gerry said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."

Yeah, the same person used "militia duty" and "bear arms" synonymously. Go figure.

Then "Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

So, we have "render military service", "militia duty" and "bear arms" all meaning the same thing.

In fact in different versions of what would become the 2A, "bear arms" and "render military service" would replace each other.


June 8th 1789

"but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

August 17th 1789

"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

August 24th 1789

"but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

August 25th 1789

"but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."

So, it has a lot to do with the militia, actually.

But then, I'm willing to see what evidence you have, though, I do have a lot more to go on than just this, this is just a start...

 

[frigidweirdo]

J. Neil Schulman: The Unabridged Second Amendment

Yeah. partisan nonsense half of it.

 

[2aguy]

I never said they were god given I said they are as much a part of our existence as is our DNA
That is the idea behind the words.

In the 18th century they didn't have the vocabulary or the knowledge we do now so of course the words that conveyed the idea are both eloquent in the idea yet clumsy in the execution

Well the problem is they are a part of US existence, and yet people will sweep them aside and treat them as nothing if it doesn't suit their agenda.

How many times in the past 20 years have I stated what the 2A means, backed it up with evidence, only to have someone find this inconvenient and then just go off on one about this that or the other that is convenient for them, but has nothing to back it up? Countless.

what does it mean?

other than the people have the right to keep and bear arms that is

What it doesn't mean.

The right to bear arms is not the right to carry guns around with.
The right can also be infringed. These are the two most common mistakes people make.

The right to keep arms is the right to own guns. The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. The 2A prevents the US federal govt (and now state govts) from preventing you from being able to own arms, this does not mean they can't ban certain weapons, just that you have to be able to get guns, and the they can't prevent you from being in the militia, hence why the made the Dick Act and stuck all males aged 17-45 in the "unorganized militia". Rather convenient.

the right to bear arms has nothing to do with a militia
the militia is secondary to the right to keep and bear arms

Well, you're wrong and I'm going to prove you're wrong.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

This is a document from the debates in the House on the future Second Amendment.

Mr Gerry said: "Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

This was about a clause of the future Second Amendment that read: "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

Then Mr Gerry said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."

Yeah, the same person used "militia duty" and "bear arms" synonymously. Go figure.

Then "Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

So, we have "render military service", "militia duty" and "bear arms" all meaning the same thing.

In fact in different versions of what would become the 2A, "bear arms" and "render military service" would replace each other.


June 8th 1789

"but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

August 17th 1789

"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

August 24th 1789

"but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

August 25th 1789

"but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."

So, it has a lot to do with the militia, actually.

But then, I'm willing to see what evidence you have, though, I do have a lot more to go on than just this, this is just a start...

Wow....you didn't eat breakfast this morning did you? Those quotes say nothing about the right to bear arms.....at all, other than religious people don't have to be forced into the militia.....you have no point.....

Considering bearing arms and militia service are two different things in your quotes.......wow, the stupid is strong with you ......

Please....leave this topic to the grown ups....

 

[2aguy]

I never said they were god given I said they are as much a part of our existence as is our DNA
That is the idea behind the words.

In the 18th century they didn't have the vocabulary or the knowledge we do now so of course the words that conveyed the idea are both eloquent in the idea yet clumsy in the execution

Well the problem is they are a part of US existence, and yet people will sweep them aside and treat them as nothing if it doesn't suit their agenda.

How many times in the past 20 years have I stated what the 2A means, backed it up with evidence, only to have someone find this inconvenient and then just go off on one about this that or the other that is convenient for them, but has nothing to back it up? Countless.

what does it mean?

other than the people have the right to keep and bear arms that is

What it doesn't mean.

The right to bear arms is not the right to carry guns around with.
The right can also be infringed. These are the two most common mistakes people make.

The right to keep arms is the right to own guns. The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. The 2A prevents the US federal govt (and now state govts) from preventing you from being able to own arms, this does not mean they can't ban certain weapons, just that you have to be able to get guns, and the they can't prevent you from being in the militia, hence why the made the Dick Act and stuck all males aged 17-45 in the "unorganized militia". Rather convenient.

the right to bear arms has nothing to do with a militia
the militia is secondary to the right to keep and bear arms

Well, you're wrong and I'm going to prove you're wrong.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

This is a document from the debates in the House on the future Second Amendment.

Mr Gerry said: "Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

This was about a clause of the future Second Amendment that read: "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

Then Mr Gerry said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."

Yeah, the same person used "militia duty" and "bear arms" synonymously. Go figure.

Then "Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

So, we have "render military service", "militia duty" and "bear arms" all meaning the same thing.

In fact in different versions of what would become the 2A, "bear arms" and "render military service" would replace each other.


June 8th 1789

"but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

August 17th 1789

"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

August 24th 1789

"but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

August 25th 1789

"but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."

So, it has a lot to do with the militia, actually.

But then, I'm willing to see what evidence you have, though, I do have a lot more to go on than just this, this is just a start...

PLease....read Heller, Miller and Caetano.....

This is just from Heller.....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf


Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.” We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

-------
Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.”

We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

 

[The Original Tree]

This is all explained here. Lefty has no clue what he is talking about.
The Affordable Gun Care Act

 

[frigidweirdo]

This is all explained here. Lefty has no clue what he is talking about.
The Affordable Gun Care Act

Funny how it's always someone else explaining it....

 

[danielpalos]

why was the perpetrator "worrying" and not, being happy, to such an extent, he had to "rebel against authority"?

Probably because he has to live in a country where liberty is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution but constantly stripped by left-wing hatriot fascists.

why was that Person not home having a peaceful time with family and friends?

Failed left-wing policy probably cost him both his job and his home. I know it did that to a LOT of people. Barack Obama sure got extremely wealthy though - didn't he?

why can we afford a war on drugs, and not unemployment compensation, simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States?

and not unemployment compensation, simply for being unemployed

Sorry, dude, we're still not gonna give you unemployment compensation just because you never had a job.

employment is at-will, not for-cause; and, edd should have to prove such a relationship exists, at law.

 

[danielpalos]

why can we afford a war on drugs, and not unemployment compensation, simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States?

Because drugs are crime. And we have to fund law enforcement. However, at-will unemployment is an idiot committing a self-inflicted wound. Take care of your finances, have money stacked away, and you can quit your job. If not, get your ass to work. Society is not supporting you. That is your job as a big boy or girl.

That being said - I do not agree with a federal agency for drugs as that is not the constitutional responsibility of the federal government. It should be handled by each individual state.

there is no Prohibition clause in our federal Constitution since the repeal of that historical mistake, last millennium.

And, the law is the law, don't advocate for being illegal to some laws, but not others.

 

[danielpalos]

i don't take the right wing seriously about the law, from Inception.

That's ok snowflake - nobody takes you seriously about anything. The fact that you don't even know that "i" is a proper pronoun which should be capitalized or that the first letter of any sentence is capitalized illustrates your limited IQ.

having nothing but fallacy for your Cause, means you are literally, incredible.

 

[danielpalos]

you have to get a job first

why do you think i am advocating for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis; to learn how to build a keep, and put keep building on my resume.

What? How does getting paid by the federal government to quit your job help your résumé?!? Are you not aware that most employers don't look for people who quit their jobs?!?

why do you think i am advocating for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis; to learn how to build a keep, and put keep building on my resume.

it takes money to build a keep, even for fun and practice.

 

[danielpalos]

it depends on the situation. however, from a, hypothetical "tactical" perspective, simply "diving into the guy" would probably knock the guy off of the officer and give the officer enough time to recover; and proceed with any further, coercive use of force of the State.

at least until i can build a keep.

you have to get a job first

why do you think i am advocating for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis; to learn how to build a keep, and put keep building on my resume.

being unemployed and collecting welfare is not a resume builder

learning how to build a keep and putting it on my resume, does help, "build" that resume.