The Right To Bear Arms

[Toddsterpatriot]

Paying unemployable clowns, because they refuse to work, does not improve the efficiency of an economy.

yes, it does; capital must circulate under any form of capitalism, regardless of any work ethic.

Nah. Capital never has to flow thru your hands for capitalism to work.
It certainly doesn't have to be handed to you to make capitalism efficient.

yes, it does; simply for the market based metrics. only the right wing, merely claims to be for capitalism, except when it interferes with their national socialism.

yes, it does;

No. The economy doesn't depend on handing money to unemployables.
Taxing the successful to hand money to you does not improve economic efficiency.

simply for the market based metrics

Gibberish.

only the right wing, merely claims to be for capitalism,

Only the lift-wing claims handouts aid capitalism.

dude; we have Capitalism, for the "realism" of objective, market based metrics; not the subjectiveness, of right wing social policies, on a national basis.

only the fantastical right wing can claim, "market based metrics", is "gibberish".

just socialism bailing out capitalism, like usual; since 1929.

Capitalism doesn't need handouts for stoners.

 

[danielpalos]

yes, it does; capital must circulate under any form of capitalism, regardless of any work ethic.

Nah. Capital never has to flow thru your hands for capitalism to work.
It certainly doesn't have to be handed to you to make capitalism efficient.

yes, it does; simply for the market based metrics. only the right wing, merely claims to be for capitalism, except when it interferes with their national socialism.

yes, it does;

No. The economy doesn't depend on handing money to unemployables.
Taxing the successful to hand money to you does not improve economic efficiency.

simply for the market based metrics

Gibberish.

only the right wing, merely claims to be for capitalism,

Only the lift-wing claims handouts aid capitalism.

dude; we have Capitalism, for the "realism" of objective, market based metrics; not the subjectiveness, of right wing social policies, on a national basis.

only the fantastical right wing can claim, "market based metrics", is "gibberish".

just socialism bailing out capitalism, like usual; since 1929.

Capitalism doesn't need handouts for stoners.

Hooverville, really is that lazy.

Socialism requires social morals for free, not capital morals for a capital price.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Nah. Capital never has to flow thru your hands for capitalism to work.
It certainly doesn't have to be handed to you to make capitalism efficient.

yes, it does; simply for the market based metrics. only the right wing, merely claims to be for capitalism, except when it interferes with their national socialism.

yes, it does;

No. The economy doesn't depend on handing money to unemployables.
Taxing the successful to hand money to you does not improve economic efficiency.

simply for the market based metrics

Gibberish.

only the right wing, merely claims to be for capitalism,

Only the lift-wing claims handouts aid capitalism.

dude; we have Capitalism, for the "realism" of objective, market based metrics; not the subjectiveness, of right wing social policies, on a national basis.

only the fantastical right wing can claim, "market based metrics", is "gibberish".

just socialism bailing out capitalism, like usual; since 1929.

Capitalism doesn't need handouts for stoners.

Hooverville, really is that lazy.

Socialism requires social morals for free, not capital morals for a capital price.

Gibberish.

 

[danielpalos]

yes, it does; simply for the market based metrics. only the right wing, merely claims to be for capitalism, except when it interferes with their national socialism.

yes, it does;

No. The economy doesn't depend on handing money to unemployables.
Taxing the successful to hand money to you does not improve economic efficiency.

simply for the market based metrics

Gibberish.

only the right wing, merely claims to be for capitalism,

Only the lift-wing claims handouts aid capitalism.

dude; we have Capitalism, for the "realism" of objective, market based metrics; not the subjectiveness, of right wing social policies, on a national basis.

only the fantastical right wing can claim, "market based metrics", is "gibberish".

just socialism bailing out capitalism, like usual; since 1929.

Capitalism doesn't need handouts for stoners.

Hooverville, really is that lazy.

Socialism requires social morals for free, not capital morals for a capital price.

Gibberish.

Now you know why I cannot confide in your sincerity.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

yes, it does;

No. The economy doesn't depend on handing money to unemployables.
Taxing the successful to hand money to you does not improve economic efficiency.

simply for the market based metrics

Gibberish.

only the right wing, merely claims to be for capitalism,

Only the lift-wing claims handouts aid capitalism.

dude; we have Capitalism, for the "realism" of objective, market based metrics; not the subjectiveness, of right wing social policies, on a national basis.

only the fantastical right wing can claim, "market based metrics", is "gibberish".

just socialism bailing out capitalism, like usual; since 1929.

Capitalism doesn't need handouts for stoners.

Hooverville, really is that lazy.

Socialism requires social morals for free, not capital morals for a capital price.

Gibberish.

Now you know why I cannot confide in your sincerity.

I'm sincerely mocking your gibberish.

 

[danielpalos]

dude; we have Capitalism, for the "realism" of objective, market based metrics; not the subjectiveness, of right wing social policies, on a national basis.

only the fantastical right wing can claim, "market based metrics", is "gibberish".

just socialism bailing out capitalism, like usual; since 1929.

Capitalism doesn't need handouts for stoners.

Hooverville, really is that lazy.

Socialism requires social morals for free, not capital morals for a capital price.

Gibberish.

Now you know why I cannot confide in your sincerity.

I'm sincerely mocking your gibberish.

thank you for admitting you have nothing but fallacy, in the public domain.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Capitalism doesn't need handouts for stoners.

Hooverville, really is that lazy.

Socialism requires social morals for free, not capital morals for a capital price.

Gibberish.

Now you know why I cannot confide in your sincerity.

I'm sincerely mocking your gibberish.

thank you for admitting you have nothing but fallacy, in the public domain.

Thanks for your gibberish. It's amusing.

 

[Skull Pilot]

If it takes money - go earn it snowflake. Why is this concept so mind-boggling for you?

I have a work ethic; no employers are offering a bonus to go work and employ my, "historical work ethic from the Age of Iron".

no one who wants to get paid for not working has a work ethic

silly; i just want to, "get compensated" for Capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment on at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

I do not subscribe to forms of, "wage slavery" merely so the rich, can get richer, faster.

you don't get compensated for sitting on your ass in Mommy's basement

that is a fact of life you must accept if you ever want to be considered an adult

it is about equal protection of the law regarding the legal concept of employment, at the will of either party.

You don't really care about the law, so, why should I take You seriously when You complain about illegals to our own laws.

I don't complain about illegals I merely state that all illegal aliens re criminals by definition

how can you say you care about the law if you don't agree with that fact?

And it's your choice not to work so it is your choice not to earn any money that's not my fault so I shouldn't have to pay your lazy ass a dime

 

[P@triot]

silly; i just want to, "get compensated" for Capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment on at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

It's hard for one to wrap their mind around such a bizarre and absurd statement. Compensated for what? Quitting? Do you understand the concept of compensation? Perhaps you don't understand what that word means?

compensation [kom-puh n-sey-shuh n]
1. the act or state of compensating, as by rewarding someone for service
2. something given or received as an equivalent for services

When you quit your job - you are no longer providing a service to the company that was paying you. Yet you irrationally and absurdly believe that they should continue to pay you. So ask yourself - if your landscaper stopped cutting your grass, would you continue to pay them? If your dry cleaner stopped cleaning your clothes, would you continue to pay them? If your water company shut off the water to your house, would you continue to pay them?

No? Then you are a dirt-bag hypocrite. You want to take from everyone else but you don't want to give.

 

[danielpalos]

I have a work ethic; no employers are offering a bonus to go work and employ my, "historical work ethic from the Age of Iron".

no one who wants to get paid for not working has a work ethic

silly; i just want to, "get compensated" for Capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment on at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

I do not subscribe to forms of, "wage slavery" merely so the rich, can get richer, faster.

you don't get compensated for sitting on your ass in Mommy's basement

that is a fact of life you must accept if you ever want to be considered an adult

it is about equal protection of the law regarding the legal concept of employment, at the will of either party.

You don't really care about the law, so, why should I take You seriously when You complain about illegals to our own laws.

I don't complain about illegals I merely state that all illegal aliens re criminals by definition

how can you say you care about the law if you don't agree with that fact?

And it's your choice not to work so it is your choice not to earn any money that's not my fault so I shouldn't have to pay your lazy ass a dime

so, you don't care about State laws regarding employment at will; how about a federal Doctrine in American law? don't complain; be Patriotic and legal to our own laws.

 

[danielpalos]

silly; i just want to, "get compensated" for Capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment on at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

It's hard for one to wrap their mind around such a bizarre and absurd statement. Compensated for what? Quitting? Do you understand the concept of compensation? Perhaps you don't understand what that word means?

compensation [kom-puh n-sey-shuh n]
1. the act or state of compensating, as by rewarding someone for service
2. something given or received as an equivalent for services

When you quit your job - you are no longer providing a service to the company that was paying you. Yet you irrationally and absurdly believe that they should continue to pay you. So ask yourself - if your landscaper stopped cutting your grass, would you continue to pay them? If your dry cleaner stopped cleaning your clothes, would you continue to pay them? If your water company shut off the water to your house, would you continue to pay them?

No? Then you are a dirt-bag hypocrite. You want to take from everyone else but you don't want to give.

compensation for Capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment. Capitalism is public policy; eminent domain applies.

 

[hadit]

I think we broke him.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

silly; i just want to, "get compensated" for Capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment on at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

It's hard for one to wrap their mind around such a bizarre and absurd statement. Compensated for what? Quitting? Do you understand the concept of compensation? Perhaps you don't understand what that word means?

compensation [kom-puh n-sey-shuh n]
1. the act or state of compensating, as by rewarding someone for service
2. something given or received as an equivalent for services

When you quit your job - you are no longer providing a service to the company that was paying you. Yet you irrationally and absurdly believe that they should continue to pay you. So ask yourself - if your landscaper stopped cutting your grass, would you continue to pay them? If your dry cleaner stopped cleaning your clothes, would you continue to pay them? If your water company shut off the water to your house, would you continue to pay them?

No? Then you are a dirt-bag hypocrite. You want to take from everyone else but you don't want to give.

compensation for Capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment. Capitalism is public policy; eminent domain applies.

compensation for Capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment

Why would you, or any other unemployable person, be compensated for that? Spell it out.

Capitalism is public policy; eminent domain applies.

It's clear you don't understand eminent domain either.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I think we broke him.

He's never held a job, he was broke long before we met him.

 

[danielpalos]

silly; i just want to, "get compensated" for Capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment on at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

It's hard for one to wrap their mind around such a bizarre and absurd statement. Compensated for what? Quitting? Do you understand the concept of compensation? Perhaps you don't understand what that word means?

compensation [kom-puh n-sey-shuh n]
1. the act or state of compensating, as by rewarding someone for service
2. something given or received as an equivalent for services

When you quit your job - you are no longer providing a service to the company that was paying you. Yet you irrationally and absurdly believe that they should continue to pay you. So ask yourself - if your landscaper stopped cutting your grass, would you continue to pay them? If your dry cleaner stopped cleaning your clothes, would you continue to pay them? If your water company shut off the water to your house, would you continue to pay them?

No? Then you are a dirt-bag hypocrite. You want to take from everyone else but you don't want to give.

compensation for Capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment. Capitalism is public policy; eminent domain applies.

compensation for Capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment

Why would you, or any other unemployable person, be compensated for that? Spell it out.

Capitalism is public policy; eminent domain applies.

It's clear you don't understand eminent domain either.

I have already Told You and the right wing, over two hundred and fifty times. It is about, full employment of capital resources on an at-will basis. In effect, it would be a form of "guaranteed income" that acts like an, "oil pump" to ensure capital circulates under our form of Capitalism.

 

[danielpalos]

I think we broke him.

He's never held a job, he was broke long before we met him.

solving for capitalism's, natural rate of inefficiencies, is what socialism well regulated, can always be good for.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

silly; i just want to, "get compensated" for Capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment on at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

It's hard for one to wrap their mind around such a bizarre and absurd statement. Compensated for what? Quitting? Do you understand the concept of compensation? Perhaps you don't understand what that word means?

compensation [kom-puh n-sey-shuh n]
1. the act or state of compensating, as by rewarding someone for service
2. something given or received as an equivalent for services

When you quit your job - you are no longer providing a service to the company that was paying you. Yet you irrationally and absurdly believe that they should continue to pay you. So ask yourself - if your landscaper stopped cutting your grass, would you continue to pay them? If your dry cleaner stopped cleaning your clothes, would you continue to pay them? If your water company shut off the water to your house, would you continue to pay them?

No? Then you are a dirt-bag hypocrite. You want to take from everyone else but you don't want to give.

compensation for Capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment. Capitalism is public policy; eminent domain applies.

compensation for Capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment

Why would you, or any other unemployable person, be compensated for that? Spell it out.

Capitalism is public policy; eminent domain applies.

It's clear you don't understand eminent domain either.

I have already Told You and the right wing, over two hundred and fifty times. It is about, full employment of capital resources on an at-will basis. In effect, it would be a form of "guaranteed income" that acts like an, "oil pump" to ensure capital circulates under our form of Capitalism.

It is about, full employment of capital resources on an at-will basis.

Yes. And wasting capital by handing it to you does not use it more efficiently.

In effect, it would be a form of "guaranteed income"

That doesn't add a single dollar to GDP.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I think we broke him.

He's never held a job, he was broke long before we met him.

solving for capitalism's, natural rate of inefficiencies, is what socialism well regulated, can always be good for.

Socialism doesn't solve capitalism's inefficiencies.

 

[task0778]

I think we broke him.

He's never held a job, he was broke long before we met him.

solving for capitalism's, natural rate of inefficiencies, is what socialism well regulated, can always be good for.

Socialism doesn't solve capitalism's inefficiencies.

Socialism doesn't solve anything.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Fucking hell. How many times do I have to say this? I HAVE NOT SAID THAT THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS WAS RESTRICTED TO MILITIA SERVICE.

The right to bear arms IS MILITIA SERVICE.

What do you think the intent of the 2A is?

The right to stick a gun up your ass?

so you can only bear arms in the service of a militia

You are saying that an individual does nor have a right to carry a weapon because bearing arms doesn't mean carry a weapon it means serving in the militia.

"bear arms" means "militia duty".

So, you just said "so you can only do militia duty in the service of the militia", yes, you can only be in the militia in the militia.

Yes, I'm saying an individual does NOT have a right to carry a weapon around. Presser seemed to make that clear, and Heller confirmed this.

You can't have a license for a right. So carry and conceal permits would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL. And yet the NRA supports carry and conceal permits. Go figure. Why would they do this if there were a right to carry arms?

Think about it.

there are states that do not require a permit for concealed carry

So what? What the hell does this have to do with the argument? You just decided that because I wrote "carry and conceal permit" you'd come up with a fun fact of the day which includes "carry and conceal permit"? Wow.

Did you really not get my point at all?

I understand your point I happen to disagree

if the only rights you had as far as firearms are concerned is keeping one in your home or using it in service to the militia then one could keep but never use a gun outside the home unless called upon by the militia

is that what you think the second amendment says?

You disagree, but you have no evidence to back your claim up. You're simply believing what you want to believe and ignoring ALL OF THE EVIDENCE. All of it.

You don't have a right to take a dump. But you can.

You don't need rights to be able to do something. Rights are something considered fundamental.

What the 2A does is prevent the US federal govt from stopping you being able to own weapons and being in the militia. But you can use your guns because the law says so, in many states.

Your argument isn't logical. Because then so many things you do on a daily basis are not protected by rights would also not make sense to you. But somehow they do.

But again. You have provided NO EVIDENCE for your view. Not one single source of evidence to suggest that there is some "right to carry arms".

Even when I've shown the founding fathers saw "bear arms" as "render military service" and "militia duty", even with the Supreme Court saying that carrying arms is not protected by the Second Amendment and the latest case backing Presser up within the last decade. Even with the NRA supporting carry and conceal permits, which, if they were protected by a right, then you wouldn't need a permit in the first place, but they do.

And you're just like "This isn't convenient for my view, so I'm going to ignore it all and believe something that is convenient".

So what's the point of all this discussion then if you're not even going to accept facts?