The Right To Bear Arms

[frigidweirdo]

"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?

but in your interpretation you have no right to use a firearm for any purpose other than serving in the militia

which means you have no right to use a firearm for self defense

and FYI I gave you an analysis of the Second by an acknowledged expert in the usage of the English language.

Well, yes, from the 2A.

There's a right to self defense but it's not to be found in the 2A.

Think about it. What are the first words of the 2A? Is it "self defence" or "militia"?

Yes, you gave me someone else's view, you posted a link, you didn't even bother to write anything for yourself. FYI I don't count that as anything. Make your OWN argument, if I wanted to talk to the person who wrote that article, I'd talk to them.

FYI you didn't prove anything.

 

[frigidweirdo]

"it", what is "it"? I wrote a long post, am I supposed to know what "it" is when you use it without context?

But, the amendment DID say that.

It's like saying that the amendment doesn't talk about guns, but only arms, if they had meant guns, wouldn't they have said guns? You argument makes no sense.

When "bear arms" means "render military service" or "militia duty", and then you complain when they didn't write "militia duty", you have to wonder how much you don't want this to be true, how much of this FACT you're willing to ignore.

Do you accept that the founding fathers saw "bear arms" "render military service" and "militia duty" synonymously? Or are you rejecting this?

The right to bear was not restricted by service to a militia. If it was then a gun could be owned but never used unless serving in the militia

you really think that is the intent of the second amendment?

The security needs of a free State and the Union; not, natural rights.

the bill of rights is about the people not the states not the federal government.

It is a very clear list of rights that belong to the people not the government

Totally wrong. The Bill of Rights is about the govt.

It basically states what the government cannot do.

and it cannot violate the rights of the people

so it is about protecting the rights of the people from government overstep

It's called the Bill of Rights and rights belong to the people.

Well, yes, it can't violate the rights, but it can infringe upon them.

Rights can "belong" to whoever you like, the Constitution doesn't give rights, it merely prevents the govt from doing certain things.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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?

but in your interpretation you have no right to use a firearm for any purpose other than serving in the militia

which means you have no right to use a firearm for self defense

and FYI I gave you an analysis of the Second by an acknowledged expert in the usage of the English language.

Well, yes, from the 2A.

There's a right to self defense but it's not to be found in the 2A.

Think about it. What are the first words of the 2A? Is it "self defence" or "militia"?

Yes, you gave me someone else's view, you posted a link, you didn't even bother to write anything for yourself. FYI I don't count that as anything. Make your OWN argument, if I wanted to talk to the person who wrote that article, I'd talk to them.

FYI you didn't prove anything.

Neither did you.
You gave me your opinion on what the framers meant and unless you can say that "bear arms " meant exclusively military service you haven't proven anything.

One example of the term Bear arms used in reference to non military service negates your argument

and here is a refute to your bear arms as a military only

What did it mean to 'bear arms' in 1791?

 

[Skull Pilot]

The right to bear was not restricted by service to a militia. If it was then a gun could be owned but never used unless serving in the militia

you really think that is the intent of the second amendment?

The security needs of a free State and the Union; not, natural rights.

the bill of rights is about the people not the states not the federal government.

It is a very clear list of rights that belong to the people not the government

Totally wrong. The Bill of Rights is about the govt.

It basically states what the government cannot do.

and it cannot violate the rights of the people

so it is about protecting the rights of the people from government overstep

It's called the Bill of Rights and rights belong to the people.

Well, yes, it can't violate the rights, but it can infringe upon them.

Rights can "belong" to whoever you like, the Constitution doesn't give rights, it merely prevents the govt from doing certain things.

and one right particular shall not be infringed

the right of the people to keep and bear arms

it is the only right of the people mentioned in the Bill of Rights for which the term "shall not be infringed" was used

 

[frigidweirdo]

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?

but in your interpretation you have no right to use a firearm for any purpose other than serving in the militia

which means you have no right to use a firearm for self defense

and FYI I gave you an analysis of the Second by an acknowledged expert in the usage of the English language.

Well, yes, from the 2A.

There's a right to self defense but it's not to be found in the 2A.

Think about it. What are the first words of the 2A? Is it "self defence" or "militia"?

Yes, you gave me someone else's view, you posted a link, you didn't even bother to write anything for yourself. FYI I don't count that as anything. Make your OWN argument, if I wanted to talk to the person who wrote that article, I'd talk to them.

FYI you didn't prove anything.

Neither did you.
You gave me your opinion on what the framers meant and unless you can say that "bear arms " meant exclusively military service you haven't proven anything.

One example of the term Bear arms used in reference to non military service negates your argument

and here is a refute to your bear arms as a military only

What did it mean to 'bear arms' in 1791?

Are you fucking kidding me? I presented loads of evidence and you're just doing what all the other people who find it inconvenient for their desire to have something else do. They dismiss it, ignore it. Pretend that their zero evidence is more than the founding fathers.

I showed you where it is totally clear that "bear arms" means "render military service" and "militia duty", in fact I even showed you where they switched between the two in different draft versions.

Look, I'm not going to fuck around here. I presented evidence that you have not refuted at all. You've presented NOTHING.

I'm not going to go around wasting my time trying to convince someone who is willing to ignore the truth.

So, until you decide you want to debate PROPERLY, I'm not wasting my time with you. If you want to wallow in ignorance, that's your problem. If you want to know the truth, then you can debate with me.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The security needs of a free State and the Union; not, natural rights.

the bill of rights is about the people not the states not the federal government.

It is a very clear list of rights that belong to the people not the government

Totally wrong. The Bill of Rights is about the govt.

It basically states what the government cannot do.

and it cannot violate the rights of the people

so it is about protecting the rights of the people from government overstep

It's called the Bill of Rights and rights belong to the people.

Well, yes, it can't violate the rights, but it can infringe upon them.

Rights can "belong" to whoever you like, the Constitution doesn't give rights, it merely prevents the govt from doing certain things.

and one right particular shall not be infringed

the right of the people to keep and bear arms

it is the only right of the people mentioned in the Bill of Rights for which the term "shall not be infringed" was used

Yeah, let criminals have guns, let those in prisons have guns, let the insane have guns, because it shall not be infringed.

Oh, come on.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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?

but in your interpretation you have no right to use a firearm for any purpose other than serving in the militia

which means you have no right to use a firearm for self defense

and FYI I gave you an analysis of the Second by an acknowledged expert in the usage of the English language.

Well, yes, from the 2A.

There's a right to self defense but it's not to be found in the 2A.

Think about it. What are the first words of the 2A? Is it "self defence" or "militia"?

Yes, you gave me someone else's view, you posted a link, you didn't even bother to write anything for yourself. FYI I don't count that as anything. Make your OWN argument, if I wanted to talk to the person who wrote that article, I'd talk to them.

FYI you didn't prove anything.

Neither did you.
You gave me your opinion on what the framers meant and unless you can say that "bear arms " meant exclusively military service you haven't proven anything.

One example of the term Bear arms used in reference to non military service negates your argument

and here is a refute to your bear arms as a military only

What did it mean to 'bear arms' in 1791?

Are you fucking kidding me? I presented loads of evidence and you're just doing what all the other people who find it inconvenient for their desire to have something else do. They dismiss it, ignore it. Pretend that their zero evidence is more than the founding fathers.

I showed you where it is totally clear that "bear arms" means "render military service" and "militia duty", in fact I even showed you where they switched between the two in different draft versions.

Look, I'm not going to fuck around here. I presented evidence that you have not refuted at all. You've presented NOTHING.

I'm not going to go around wasting my time trying to convince someone who is willing to ignore the truth.

So, until you decide you want to debate PROPERLY, I'm not wasting my time with you. If you want to wallow in ignorance, that's your problem. If you want to know the truth, then you can debate with me.

totally clear but not exclusive

and FYI no one has the right to be in the militia (military)( since their application can be denied by the government for a host of reasons

As far back as the first SCOTUS the Second was regarded as protecting individual rights to keep and bear arms

James Wilson an original SCOTUS Justice

Significantly, the Second Amendment did not grant or bestow any right on the people; instead, it simply recognized and provided what Constitution signer James Wilson called “a new security” for the right of self-defense that God had already bestowed on every individual. [2]

The right to bear arms in self defense is an INDIVIDUAL right

 

[frigidweirdo]

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?

but in your interpretation you have no right to use a firearm for any purpose other than serving in the militia

which means you have no right to use a firearm for self defense

and FYI I gave you an analysis of the Second by an acknowledged expert in the usage of the English language.

Well, yes, from the 2A.

There's a right to self defense but it's not to be found in the 2A.

Think about it. What are the first words of the 2A? Is it "self defence" or "militia"?

Yes, you gave me someone else's view, you posted a link, you didn't even bother to write anything for yourself. FYI I don't count that as anything. Make your OWN argument, if I wanted to talk to the person who wrote that article, I'd talk to them.

FYI you didn't prove anything.

Neither did you.
You gave me your opinion on what the framers meant and unless you can say that "bear arms " meant exclusively military service you haven't proven anything.

One example of the term Bear arms used in reference to non military service negates your argument

and here is a refute to your bear arms as a military only

What did it mean to 'bear arms' in 1791?

Are you fucking kidding me? I presented loads of evidence and you're just doing what all the other people who find it inconvenient for their desire to have something else do. They dismiss it, ignore it. Pretend that their zero evidence is more than the founding fathers.

I showed you where it is totally clear that "bear arms" means "render military service" and "militia duty", in fact I even showed you where they switched between the two in different draft versions.

Look, I'm not going to fuck around here. I presented evidence that you have not refuted at all. You've presented NOTHING.

I'm not going to go around wasting my time trying to convince someone who is willing to ignore the truth.

So, until you decide you want to debate PROPERLY, I'm not wasting my time with you. If you want to wallow in ignorance, that's your problem. If you want to know the truth, then you can debate with me.

totally clear but not exclusive

and FYI no one has the right to be in the militia (military)( since their application can be denied by the government for a host of reasons

As far back as the first SCOTUS the Second was regarded as protecting individual rights to keep and bear arms

James Wilson an original SCOTUS Justice

Significantly, the Second Amendment did not grant or bestow any right on the people; instead, it simply recognized and provided what Constitution signer James Wilson called “a new security” for the right of self-defense that God had already bestowed on every individual. [2]

The right to bear arms in self defense is an INDIVIDUAL right

"totally clear", right, so you're rejecting something that is totally clear?

"but no exclusive"..... which means what?

You're wrong about the right to be in the militia. Why do you think they made the Dick Act in 1902? All 17-45 years are in the unorganized militia. The govt can reject you from being in the NATIONAL GUARD, it didn't apply to the states, they could kick you out if they wanted. But they made the Dick Act as a convenient way of getting around the right to bear arms, so they could make the National Guard. Without what they did, yes, people would have been able to demand to be in the National Guard. Now the govt can say, but, but, but, you're in the unorganized militia.

Why else do you think they made a militia that DOESN'T DO ANYTHING??????

Why did you bring up the individual issue? This has nothing to do with what we've spoken about at all. But all of a sudden you feel the need to bring it up. Yes, the 2A, like all other parts of the Bil of Rights, protects individuals. We don't need to argue about this any more, we agree with this.

Individuals have the right to be in the militia.

"Significantly, the Second Amendment did not grant or bestow any right on the people; instead, it simply recognized and provided what Constitution signer James Wilson called “a new security” for the right of self-defense that God had already bestowed on every individual. [2]"

Wait, is this a quote? If you're going to quote shit, QUOTE IT, it needs QUOTATION MARKS, otherwise you're saying it, and your claim to have written it, in which case it's plagiarism.

Also, like I said before, the Bill of Rights doesn't give rights, it merely prevents the govt from doing things that would potentially infringe on your rights. We've done this already. Your non-quote/quote that you didn't quote doesn't bring anything new here.

There is a right to self defense, this right does NOT come from the 2A. The right to self defense is the same as the right to privacy, not in the Constitution but assumed to exist and the Supreme Court has stated that it is protected by the Bill of Rights, just not the 2A.

There is not "right to bear arms in self defense", that would imply there isn't a right to defend yourself in any other way. There is a right to own weapons. There is a right to self defense. And you are able, BY LAW, to use those guns you can own in self defense, just as you can use a TV, your fists, a dead man's penis, whatever the fuck you can physically use to try and defend yourself. There is not a right to a TV simply because you can defend yourself with it. So why would there be a right to a gun simply because you can defend yourself with it? There isn't. There IS a right to own a weapon, but it doesn't come from the right to self defense.


https://wallbuilders.com/founders-second-amendment/#_edn2

 

[Skull Pilot]

but in your interpretation you have no right to use a firearm for any purpose other than serving in the militia

which means you have no right to use a firearm for self defense

and FYI I gave you an analysis of the Second by an acknowledged expert in the usage of the English language.

Well, yes, from the 2A.

There's a right to self defense but it's not to be found in the 2A.

Think about it. What are the first words of the 2A? Is it "self defence" or "militia"?

Yes, you gave me someone else's view, you posted a link, you didn't even bother to write anything for yourself. FYI I don't count that as anything. Make your OWN argument, if I wanted to talk to the person who wrote that article, I'd talk to them.

FYI you didn't prove anything.

Neither did you.
You gave me your opinion on what the framers meant and unless you can say that "bear arms " meant exclusively military service you haven't proven anything.

One example of the term Bear arms used in reference to non military service negates your argument

and here is a refute to your bear arms as a military only

What did it mean to 'bear arms' in 1791?

Are you fucking kidding me? I presented loads of evidence and you're just doing what all the other people who find it inconvenient for their desire to have something else do. They dismiss it, ignore it. Pretend that their zero evidence is more than the founding fathers.

I showed you where it is totally clear that "bear arms" means "render military service" and "militia duty", in fact I even showed you where they switched between the two in different draft versions.

Look, I'm not going to fuck around here. I presented evidence that you have not refuted at all. You've presented NOTHING.

I'm not going to go around wasting my time trying to convince someone who is willing to ignore the truth.

So, until you decide you want to debate PROPERLY, I'm not wasting my time with you. If you want to wallow in ignorance, that's your problem. If you want to know the truth, then you can debate with me.

totally clear but not exclusive

and FYI no one has the right to be in the militia (military)( since their application can be denied by the government for a host of reasons

As far back as the first SCOTUS the Second was regarded as protecting individual rights to keep and bear arms

James Wilson an original SCOTUS Justice

Significantly, the Second Amendment did not grant or bestow any right on the people; instead, it simply recognized and provided what Constitution signer James Wilson called “a new security” for the right of self-defense that God had already bestowed on every individual. [2]

The right to bear arms in self defense is an INDIVIDUAL right

"totally clear", right, so you're rejecting something that is totally clear?

"but no exclusive"..... which means what?

You're wrong about the right to be in the militia. Why do you think they made the Dick Act in 1902? All 17-45 years are in the unorganized militia. The govt can reject you from being in the NATIONAL GUARD, it didn't apply to the states, they could kick you out if they wanted. But they made the Dick Act as a convenient way of getting around the right to bear arms, so they could make the National Guard. Without what they did, yes, people would have been able to demand to be in the National Guard. Now the govt can say, but, but, but, you're in the unorganized militia.

Why else do you think they made a militia that DOESN'T DO ANYTHING??????

Why did you bring up the individual issue? This has nothing to do with what we've spoken about at all. But all of a sudden you feel the need to bring it up. Yes, the 2A, like all other parts of the Bil of Rights, protects individuals. We don't need to argue about this any more, we agree with this.

Individuals have the right to be in the militia.

"Significantly, the Second Amendment did not grant or bestow any right on the people; instead, it simply recognized and provided what Constitution signer James Wilson called “a new security” for the right of self-defense that God had already bestowed on every individual. [2]"

Wait, is this a quote? If you're going to quote shit, QUOTE IT, it needs QUOTATION MARKS, otherwise you're saying it, and your claim to have written it, in which case it's plagiarism.

Also, like I said before, the Bill of Rights doesn't give rights, it merely prevents the govt from doing things that would potentially infringe on your rights. We've done this already. Your non-quote/quote that you didn't quote doesn't bring anything new here.

There is a right to self defense, this right does NOT come from the 2A. The right to self defense is the same as the right to privacy, not in the Constitution but assumed to exist and the Supreme Court has stated that it is protected by the Bill of Rights, just not the 2A.

There is not "right to bear arms in self defense", that would imply there isn't a right to defend yourself in any other way. There is a right to own weapons. There is a right to self defense. And you are able, BY LAW, to use those guns you can own in self defense, just as you can use a TV, your fists, a dead man's penis, whatever the fuck you can physically use to try and defend yourself. There is not a right to a TV simply because you can defend yourself with it. So why would there be a right to a gun simply because you can defend yourself with it? There isn't. There IS a right to own a weapon, but it doesn't come from the right to self defense.

so according to you the intent of the framers was to restrict the bearing of arms solely to service in the militia

therefore while you have the right to self preservation you do not have the right to carry a firearm to be used to defend yourself

you really think that was the intent?

The rights protected in the Bill of Rights are not collective rights

By using the term an unorganized militia you negate the entire collective argument that bear arms means solely militia service in the sense that I can call my self a member of an unorganized militia and therefore bear arms everywhere I go

therefore my individual right to keep and bear arms (concealed or open carry) is intact and cannot be infringed

 

[Rustic]

the bill of rights is about the people not the states not the federal government.

It is a very clear list of rights that belong to the people not the government

Totally wrong. The Bill of Rights is about the govt.

It basically states what the government cannot do.

and it cannot violate the rights of the people

so it is about protecting the rights of the people from government overstep

It's called the Bill of Rights and rights belong to the people.

Well, yes, it can't violate the rights, but it can infringe upon them.

Rights can "belong" to whoever you like, the Constitution doesn't give rights, it merely prevents the govt from doing certain things.

and one right particular shall not be infringed

the right of the people to keep and bear arms

it is the only right of the people mentioned in the Bill of Rights for which the term "shall not be infringed" was used

Yeah, let criminals have guns, let those in prisons have guns, let the insane have guns, because it shall not be infringed.

Oh, come on.

The plural of "anecdote" is not "data."

 

[danielpalos]

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.

I love your sarcasm.

Do you not really believe in capitalism and a positive economic multiplier effect?

Handing you money for not working is not capitalism.
Handing you money for not working has a negative multiplier effect.

nothing but propaganda and rhetoric.

it about market based metrics and circulating capital; that, produces a positive multiplier effect.

Here is the analogy:

For if liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in the government to the utmost.--Aristotle

it about market based metrics and circulating capital; that, produces a positive multiplier effect.

Why do you feel that handing you money for not working would have a positive multiplier?
Why would handing you money increase GDP?

Aristotle wasn't talking about handouts to the lazy.

Because it would be spent, keeping You employed. Any more silly questions.

 

[danielpalos]

Socialism doesn't solve anything.

Government is Socialism.

Civilization is socialism...It working together and living with each other....Paving that road for all, police, military, educating our children, etc.

It appears that you don't really know what socialism is.

why do you believe you do?

Most people define socialism as governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. The idea under socialism is that the government determines and provides its citizens with the things it believes that they need. These days there are quite a few young people who think there's nothing wrong with that, that it sounds cool. Except it isn't and this is why:

Socialism is Government. Our fiscal policies, and our alleged wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror; are command economics.

 

[danielpalos]

the alleged right of, infidels, protestants, and renegades, to our supreme law of the land, to practice their custom and habit if it impairs the security and domestic tranquility of our free States.

The only thing impairing "the domestic tranquility of our free states" are you fascist left-wing hatriots who want to shred the U.S. Constitution, trample on liberty, and control everyone else because your small and insignificant lives make you hunger for power.

projecting much whenever it is not specifically about guns? it is the right wing that has no problem "throwing equal protection of the law, and capitalism, under the buss, when it interferes with their socialism on a national basis."

 

[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.

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.

What state law says you have the right to a paycheck if you choose to be unemployed?

A federal doctrine in American law and our own State laws regarding the legal concept of employment at will.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

I love your sarcasm.

Do you not really believe in capitalism and a positive economic multiplier effect?

Handing you money for not working is not capitalism.
Handing you money for not working has a negative multiplier effect.

nothing but propaganda and rhetoric.

it about market based metrics and circulating capital; that, produces a positive multiplier effect.

Here is the analogy:

For if liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in the government to the utmost.--Aristotle

it about market based metrics and circulating capital; that, produces a positive multiplier effect.

Why do you feel that handing you money for not working would have a positive multiplier?
Why would handing you money increase GDP?

Aristotle wasn't talking about handouts to the lazy.

Because it would be spent, keeping You employed. Any more silly questions.

Because it would be spent, keeping You employed.

DERP!

Any more silly questions.

Yes. Why do you feel money not handed to the lazy doesn't get spent?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

What state law says you have the right to a paycheck if you choose to be unemployed?

A federal doctrine in American law and our own State laws regarding the legal concept of employment at will.

Employment at will doesn't involve handouts for the lazy.

 

[danielpalos]

I love your sarcasm.

Do you not really believe in capitalism and a positive economic multiplier effect?

Handing you money for not working is not capitalism.
Handing you money for not working has a negative multiplier effect.

nothing but propaganda and rhetoric.

it about market based metrics and circulating capital; that, produces a positive multiplier effect.

Here is the analogy:

For if liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in the government to the utmost.--Aristotle

it about market based metrics and circulating capital; that, produces a positive multiplier effect.

Why do you feel that handing you money for not working would have a positive multiplier?
Why would handing you money increase GDP?

Aristotle wasn't talking about handouts to the lazy.

Because it would be spent, keeping You employed. Any more silly questions.

Because it would be spent, keeping You employed.

DERP!

Any more silly questions.

Yes. Why do you feel money not handed to the lazy doesn't get spent?

silly. it is about full employment of capital resources.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

What state law says you have the right to a paycheck if you choose to be unemployed?

A federal doctrine in American law and our own State laws regarding the legal concept of employment at will.

Employment at will doesn't involve handouts for the lazy.

so, i have to be rich to get a bailout?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Handing you money for not working is not capitalism.
Handing you money for not working has a negative multiplier effect.

nothing but propaganda and rhetoric.

it about market based metrics and circulating capital; that, produces a positive multiplier effect.

Here is the analogy:

For if liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in the government to the utmost.--Aristotle

it about market based metrics and circulating capital; that, produces a positive multiplier effect.

Why do you feel that handing you money for not working would have a positive multiplier?
Why would handing you money increase GDP?

Aristotle wasn't talking about handouts to the lazy.

Because it would be spent, keeping You employed. Any more silly questions.

Because it would be spent, keeping You employed.

DERP!

Any more silly questions.

Yes. Why do you feel money not handed to the lazy doesn't get spent?

silly. it is about full employment of capital resources.

Yes, your claim that handouts better employ capital is silly. And stupid.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

What state law says you have the right to a paycheck if you choose to be unemployed?

A federal doctrine in American law and our own State laws regarding the legal concept of employment at will.

Employment at will doesn't involve handouts for the lazy.

so, i have to be rich to get a bailout?

When are you going to repay your bailout?

What interest rate are you willing to pay?