The Right To Bear Arms

[P@triot]

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."

As opposed to what? Socialism on a regional basis?

Again genius...socialism is exclusively left-wing.

 

[P@triot]

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

So you advocate for socialism, Barack Obama delivers it, and then you whine about it?

 

[P@triot]

silly. it is about full employment of capital resources.

Capital resources are best "employed" on production - not on paying you to sit around to do nothing.

 

[danielpalos]

nothing but propaganda and rhetoric.

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

Here is the analogy:

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.

Capital must circulate under any form of capitalism. Unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States can solve simple poverty.

There should be no homelessness due to simple poverty, in the US.

 

[danielpalos]

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?

A positive multiplier effect of two to one. Two dollars in economic multiplication for every one dollar spent on unemployment compensation.

 

[danielpalos]

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."

As opposed to what? Socialism on a regional basis?

Again genius...socialism is exclusively left-wing.

liberal socialism is left wing; national socialism is to the right of that.

 

[danielpalos]

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

So you advocate for socialism, Barack Obama delivers it, and then you whine about it?

i needed to make the income qualification, first.

 

[danielpalos]

silly. it is about full employment of capital resources.

Capital resources are best "employed" on production - not on paying you to sit around to do nothing.

dear, Only capital must circulate. I will make sure, capital does not sit around and be lazy.

 

[P@triot]

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.

He didn't ask you to Google a few terms and throw them out in a weak and transparent attempt to make think people you sound "smart". He asked you what law? Since you can't cite the law - that confirms what we all already knew. No such law exists.

 

[P@triot]

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

So you advocate for socialism, Barack Obama delivers it, and then you whine about it?

i needed to make the income qualification, first.

And you'll never do that sitting around.

 

[P@triot]

I will make sure, capital does not sit around and be lazy.

If you're concerned about currency "circulating" take a $1 bill, a $5 bill, a $10 bill, and a $20 bill and trade them with your best friend or a neighbor every day for the same denominations. There! You just circulated currency! Problem solved.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

He didn't ask you to Google a few terms and throw them out in a weak and transparent attempt to make think people you sound "smart". He asked you what law? Since you can't cite the law - that confirms what we all already knew. No such law exists.

I cited a federal Doctrine in American law and our State laws regarding the legal concept of employment at will. What part of that do y'all, not understand?

EDD should be required to establish a for-cause employment relationship to deny and disparage unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

 

[danielpalos]

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

So you advocate for socialism, Barack Obama delivers it, and then you whine about it?

i needed to make the income qualification, first.

And you'll never do that sitting around.

i practice typing, arguing, and am doing research into forming an LLC.

 

[danielpalos]

I will make sure, capital does not sit around and be lazy.

If you're concerned about currency "circulating" take a $1 bill, a $5 bill, a $10 bill, and a $20 bill and trade them with your best friend or a neighbor every day for the same denominations. There! You just circulated currency! Problem solved.

that is why, nobody should take the right wing seriously about economics.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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

No, that is not what I said.

What I said what that the "right to bear arms" is "militia duty".

Carrying arms around in the US is legal in some places and not legal in other places. This has NOTHING to do with the 2A.

Why are you going on about collective and individual rights again for?

I'm using the term "unorganized militia" because, er... because the US CONGRESS WROTE A LAW THAT USES THIS. It's not hard to understand, is it?

Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia

Here's the law on Wikipedia.

"The Militia Act of 1903 (32 Stat. 775), also known as "The Efficiency in Militia Act of 1903", also known as the Dick Act,"

"Dick championed the Militia Act of 1903, which became known as the Dick Act. This law repealed the Militia Acts of 1792 and designated the militia [per Title 10, Section 311] as two groups: the Unorganized Militia, which included all able-bodied men between ages 17 and 45, and the Organized Militia, which included state militia (National Guard) units receiving federal support."

Two groups, one was the "Unorganized Militia", all males aged 17-45 and the National Guard.

I did not make up the "unorganized militia", the US govt did.

I never, EVER used the collective argument, and I have no fucking idea why the hell you're even talking about it. In fact, when people start acting like they're talking to someone else, and not responding to what I have said, it annoys me.

Yes, your individual right to keep arms (own weapons) and bear arms (be in the militia) cannot be infringed before due process.

Well, unless of course you think criminals and the insane should be able to own weapons and be in the militia. Do you want the insane to not have their right to be in the militia infringed upon?

The problem here is, I know what you'll do. You're making a connection with the second amendment carrying guns around, which the Supreme Court has said in Presser, and backed up in Heller, is NOT protected by the 2A. But the Supreme Court says you're wrong, the Founding Father say you're wrong, and I'm telling you that you are wrong.

You have two rights that are protected by the 2A. There might be other rights out there. There are other freedoms, but the 2A does not deal with these. You can go take a crap right now. The 2A doesn't protect this. Nor does it protect carrying arms around with you, but you can still do it. You don't need the 2A to protect something for you in order to be able to do it, you do so many things every day that are not protected by the 2A. And one of those might be carrying arms around.

 

[task0778]

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?

A positive multiplier effect of two to one. Two dollars in economic multiplication for every one dollar spent on unemployment compensation.

The CBO came out with a report a few years back that estimates the multiplier effect to be anywhere from $.70 up to $1.90, depending on the model you use. The problem is that if UE benefits become indefinite that you end up creating an unhealthy dependency in a person who gradually loses his/her skill set. Or it disincentivizes people from working on getting a skill set in the first place.

 

[P@triot]

I will make sure, capital does not sit around and be lazy.

If you're concerned about currency "circulating" take a $1 bill, a $5 bill, a $10 bill, and a $20 bill and trade them with your best friend or a neighbor every day for the same denominations. There! You just circulated currency! Problem solved.

that is why, nobody should take the right wing seriously about economics.

Your'e the idiot who thinks capital should be used on lazy people sitting at home so it can be "circulated". You're completely clueless about basic economics. I just proved it. And it left you with no intelligent response.

 

[P@triot]

I cited a federal Doctrine in American law and our State laws regarding the legal concept of employment at will. What part of that do y'all, not understand?

You didn't cite anything snowflake. What is the law? Give the name of the law. Or the section of the statute. You've got nothing (as always).

 

[P@triot]

I will make sure, capital does not sit around and be lazy.

If you're concerned about currency "circulating" take a $1 bill, a $5 bill, a $10 bill, and a $20 bill and trade them with your best friend or a neighbor every day for the same denominations. There! You just circulated currency! Problem solved.

that is why, nobody should take the right wing seriously about economics.

Lets put your economic theory to test, snowflake. You go get a job (for once) and then pay me to sit at home. I assure you that I will "circulate" your currency. I'll buy flat screens for myself. iPads. Maybe take a vacation or two. I give you my word that I won't save a dime of it. And then lets see how it all works out. Ok? Deal?

No? Why not? You're too lazy to work? Why? I thought you said that this is how economies work best? Remember? Your hilarious theories on "command economies"? So I command you to go to work and then supply me with 50% of what you bring home (and it damn well better be enough for me to spend money and get some cool shit).

 

[danielpalos]

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?

A positive multiplier effect of two to one. Two dollars in economic multiplication for every one dollar spent on unemployment compensation.

The CBO came out with a report a few years back that estimates the multiplier effect to be anywhere from $.70 up to $1.90, depending on the model you use. The problem is that if UE benefits become indefinite that you end up creating an unhealthy dependency in a person who gradually loses his/her skill set. Or it disincentivizes people from working on getting a skill set in the first place.

A report I read claimed a positive multiplier of two dollars for every one dollar spent.

You make it seem like the laws of demand and supply will stop working with UE compensation under any form of capitalism. Capital must circulate; that is what achieves the positive multiplication effect.

In any case, why do you believe that persons on unemployment compensation, instead of means tested welfare, will not try to improve themselves to become more marketable?