The Right To Bear Arms

[danielpalos]

Only well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State; not, the unorganized militia.

Where does it say "only"?, what does "keep" mean?, and why the comma between the two sentences if not to show grammatically that the two are not necessary to be one and the same in order to have both and how would law makers be able to enact gun control without infringing upon those rights?...what it really means is that any attempt to infringe on that rihgt is an attack on the 2nd amendment and the constitution itself which this thread/the OP correctly pointed out.

Our social Contract has specific terms; not just hearsay and soothsay, like the right wing.

Well regulated militia, is specifically in our social Contract as a Contractual Term.

does that contract apply to "keep" and bear arms as well?

Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

Whole lotta translation in your posts, don't see anything you are claiming coming from the second amendment...What do they mean by "keep"...and if your interpretation has any merit why do we need a constitutional amendment for this translation:

shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union

It would seem that every government in the world gives that "right", even/especially the most tyrannical.

Keep and bear means exactly that. It is not the same nor synonymous with, acquire and possess.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And unemployed, not getting a check is unemployed, not getting a check.
Only lazy morons never get it.

employment at the will of either party, not just the employer, for unemployment compensation purposes.

employment at the will of either party, not just the employer,

Absolutely!!

for unemployment compensation purposes

Never!!

should we ask for truth in legislative advertising in "at-will employment States" and "right to work States"?

Ask for whatever you like.
I'm sure you'll be just as successful as you are when you ask for handouts for not working.

I am advocating, being legal to our own laws, simply for the sake of public morals.

Yup. Our own laws say no unemployment benefits if you quit or never worked. Morally.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

Wow.

I didn't know you could produce a completely twisted pretzel with a keyboard.

I stand corrected.

 

[danielpalos]

employment at the will of either party, not just the employer, for unemployment compensation purposes.

employment at the will of either party, not just the employer,

Absolutely!!

for unemployment compensation purposes

Never!!

should we ask for truth in legislative advertising in "at-will employment States" and "right to work States"?

Ask for whatever you like.
I'm sure you'll be just as successful as you are when you ask for handouts for not working.

I am advocating, being legal to our own laws, simply for the sake of public morals.

Yup. Our own laws say no unemployment benefits if you quit or never worked. Morally.

which laws? we have a federal Doctrine in American law, and State laws regarding the concept of employment at the will of either party, not just the employer for unemployment compensation purposes.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

Wow.

I didn't know you could produce a completely twisted pretzel with a keyboard.

I stand corrected.

I learned how to do it, arguing with the right wing.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

employment at the will of either party, not just the employer,

Absolutely!!

for unemployment compensation purposes

Never!!

should we ask for truth in legislative advertising in "at-will employment States" and "right to work States"?

Ask for whatever you like.
I'm sure you'll be just as successful as you are when you ask for handouts for not working.

I am advocating, being legal to our own laws, simply for the sake of public morals.

Yup. Our own laws say no unemployment benefits if you quit or never worked. Morally.

which laws? we have a federal Doctrine in American law, and State laws regarding the concept of employment at the will of either party, not just the employer for unemployment compensation purposes.

which laws?

All of them.

we have a federal Doctrine in American law, and State laws regarding the concept of employment at the will of either party,

And none of that gives you unemployment if you quit or if you never worked.
Your "idea" is a non-starter in all 50 states plus DC!!!

not just the employer for unemployment compensation purposes

Guidelines for UE are clearly spelled out. You don't qualify. Clearly. Or morally.

 

[danielpalos]

should we ask for truth in legislative advertising in "at-will employment States" and "right to work States"?

Ask for whatever you like.
I'm sure you'll be just as successful as you are when you ask for handouts for not working.

I am advocating, being legal to our own laws, simply for the sake of public morals.

Yup. Our own laws say no unemployment benefits if you quit or never worked. Morally.

which laws? we have a federal Doctrine in American law, and State laws regarding the concept of employment at the will of either party, not just the employer for unemployment compensation purposes.

which laws?

All of them.

we have a federal Doctrine in American law, and State laws regarding the concept of employment at the will of either party,

And none of that gives you unemployment if you quit or if you never worked.
Your "idea" is a non-starter in all 50 states plus DC!!!

not just the employer for unemployment compensation purposes

Guidelines for UE are clearly spelled out. You don't qualify. Clearly. Or morally.

employment is at will. edd should be required to show a for-cause employment relationship to deny or disparage unemployment benefits in any at-will employment State. it really is that simple.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Ask for whatever you like.
I'm sure you'll be just as successful as you are when you ask for handouts for not working.

I am advocating, being legal to our own laws, simply for the sake of public morals.

Yup. Our own laws say no unemployment benefits if you quit or never worked. Morally.

which laws? we have a federal Doctrine in American law, and State laws regarding the concept of employment at the will of either party, not just the employer for unemployment compensation purposes.

which laws?

All of them.

we have a federal Doctrine in American law, and State laws regarding the concept of employment at the will of either party,

And none of that gives you unemployment if you quit or if you never worked.
Your "idea" is a non-starter in all 50 states plus DC!!!

not just the employer for unemployment compensation purposes

Guidelines for UE are clearly spelled out. You don't qualify. Clearly. Or morally.

employment is at will. edd should be required to show a for-cause employment relationship to deny or disparage unemployment benefits in any at-will employment State. it really is that simple.

employment is at will.

And unemployment benefits are not. It really is that simple.

 

[danielpalos]

I am advocating, being legal to our own laws, simply for the sake of public morals.

Yup. Our own laws say no unemployment benefits if you quit or never worked. Morally.

which laws? we have a federal Doctrine in American law, and State laws regarding the concept of employment at the will of either party, not just the employer for unemployment compensation purposes.

which laws?

All of them.

we have a federal Doctrine in American law, and State laws regarding the concept of employment at the will of either party,

And none of that gives you unemployment if you quit or if you never worked.
Your "idea" is a non-starter in all 50 states plus DC!!!

not just the employer for unemployment compensation purposes

Guidelines for UE are clearly spelled out. You don't qualify. Clearly. Or morally.

employment is at will. edd should be required to show a for-cause employment relationship to deny or disparage unemployment benefits in any at-will employment State. it really is that simple.

employment is at will.

And unemployment benefits are not. It really is that simple.

California is an at-will employment State. Should we draft a letter to our State legislature, and simply ask them to do their Job, and faithfully execute a federal Doctrine in American law and our very own State laws regarding employment at will, for unemployment compensation purposes?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yup. Our own laws say no unemployment benefits if you quit or never worked. Morally.

which laws? we have a federal Doctrine in American law, and State laws regarding the concept of employment at the will of either party, not just the employer for unemployment compensation purposes.

which laws?

All of them.

we have a federal Doctrine in American law, and State laws regarding the concept of employment at the will of either party,

And none of that gives you unemployment if you quit or if you never worked.
Your "idea" is a non-starter in all 50 states plus DC!!!

not just the employer for unemployment compensation purposes

Guidelines for UE are clearly spelled out. You don't qualify. Clearly. Or morally.

employment is at will. edd should be required to show a for-cause employment relationship to deny or disparage unemployment benefits in any at-will employment State. it really is that simple.

employment is at will.

And unemployment benefits are not. It really is that simple.

California is an at-will employment State. Should we draft a letter to our State legislature, and simply ask them to do their Job, and faithfully execute a federal Doctrine in American law and our very own State laws regarding employment at will, for unemployment compensation purposes?

California is an at-will employment State.

California is not an at-will employment benefits State. None are.

Should we draft a letter to our State legislature, and simply ask them to do their Job,

Sure. Let me know when they stop laughing.

 

[danielpalos]

which laws? we have a federal Doctrine in American law, and State laws regarding the concept of employment at the will of either party, not just the employer for unemployment compensation purposes.

which laws?

All of them.

we have a federal Doctrine in American law, and State laws regarding the concept of employment at the will of either party,

And none of that gives you unemployment if you quit or if you never worked.
Your "idea" is a non-starter in all 50 states plus DC!!!

not just the employer for unemployment compensation purposes

Guidelines for UE are clearly spelled out. You don't qualify. Clearly. Or morally.

employment is at will. edd should be required to show a for-cause employment relationship to deny or disparage unemployment benefits in any at-will employment State. it really is that simple.

employment is at will.

And unemployment benefits are not. It really is that simple.

California is an at-will employment State. Should we draft a letter to our State legislature, and simply ask them to do their Job, and faithfully execute a federal Doctrine in American law and our very own State laws regarding employment at will, for unemployment compensation purposes?

California is an at-will employment State.

California is not an at-will employment benefits State. None are.

Should we draft a letter to our State legislature, and simply ask them to do their Job,

Sure. Let me know when they stop laughing.

How can that be, without being illegal to a federal doctrine and State laws regarding the concept of employment at will?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

which laws?

All of them.

we have a federal Doctrine in American law, and State laws regarding the concept of employment at the will of either party,

And none of that gives you unemployment if you quit or if you never worked.
Your "idea" is a non-starter in all 50 states plus DC!!!

not just the employer for unemployment compensation purposes

Guidelines for UE are clearly spelled out. You don't qualify. Clearly. Or morally.

employment is at will. edd should be required to show a for-cause employment relationship to deny or disparage unemployment benefits in any at-will employment State. it really is that simple.

employment is at will.

And unemployment benefits are not. It really is that simple.

California is an at-will employment State. Should we draft a letter to our State legislature, and simply ask them to do their Job, and faithfully execute a federal Doctrine in American law and our very own State laws regarding employment at will, for unemployment compensation purposes?

California is an at-will employment State.

California is not an at-will employment benefits State. None are.

Should we draft a letter to our State legislature, and simply ask them to do their Job,

Sure. Let me know when they stop laughing.

How can that be, without being illegal to a federal doctrine and State laws regarding the concept of employment at will?

How can states refuse to give unemployment benefits to those who quit or refuse to work? Easily.

You should sue! Let me know how that works out.

 

[danielpalos]

employment is at will. edd should be required to show a for-cause employment relationship to deny or disparage unemployment benefits in any at-will employment State. it really is that simple.

employment is at will.

And unemployment benefits are not. It really is that simple.

California is an at-will employment State. Should we draft a letter to our State legislature, and simply ask them to do their Job, and faithfully execute a federal Doctrine in American law and our very own State laws regarding employment at will, for unemployment compensation purposes?

California is an at-will employment State.

California is not an at-will employment benefits State. None are.

Should we draft a letter to our State legislature, and simply ask them to do their Job,

Sure. Let me know when they stop laughing.

How can that be, without being illegal to a federal doctrine and State laws regarding the concept of employment at will?

How can states refuse to give unemployment benefits to those who quit or refuse to work? Easily.

You should sue! Let me know how that works out.

Should I use a federal doctrine, in my argument?

At-will employment is generally described as follows: "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

employment is at will.

And unemployment benefits are not. It really is that simple.

California is an at-will employment State. Should we draft a letter to our State legislature, and simply ask them to do their Job, and faithfully execute a federal Doctrine in American law and our very own State laws regarding employment at will, for unemployment compensation purposes?

California is an at-will employment State.

California is not an at-will employment benefits State. None are.

Should we draft a letter to our State legislature, and simply ask them to do their Job,

Sure. Let me know when they stop laughing.

How can that be, without being illegal to a federal doctrine and State laws regarding the concept of employment at will?

How can states refuse to give unemployment benefits to those who quit or refuse to work? Easily.

You should sue! Let me know how that works out.

Should I use a federal doctrine, in my argument?

At-will employment is generally described as follows: "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."

Should I use a federal doctrine, in my argument?

Whichever argument works best....perhaps, I'm lazy but still want money....gimme!

At-will employment is generally described as follows

Thanks for the info! You may have noticed, it didn't mention unemployment benefits.

 

[danielpalos]

California is an at-will employment State. Should we draft a letter to our State legislature, and simply ask them to do their Job, and faithfully execute a federal Doctrine in American law and our very own State laws regarding employment at will, for unemployment compensation purposes?

California is an at-will employment State.

California is not an at-will employment benefits State. None are.

Should we draft a letter to our State legislature, and simply ask them to do their Job,

Sure. Let me know when they stop laughing.

How can that be, without being illegal to a federal doctrine and State laws regarding the concept of employment at will?

How can states refuse to give unemployment benefits to those who quit or refuse to work? Easily.

You should sue! Let me know how that works out.

Should I use a federal doctrine, in my argument?

At-will employment is generally described as follows: "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."

Should I use a federal doctrine, in my argument?

Whichever argument works best....perhaps, I'm lazy but still want money....gimme!

At-will employment is generally described as follows

Thanks for the info! You may have noticed, it didn't mention unemployment benefits.

what reason is there to deny or disparage unemployment benefits on an at=will basis in our at-will employment States?

EDD should be legal to the law, and be required to show for-cause employment criteria to deny or disparage unemployment benefits on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

California is an at-will employment State.

California is not an at-will employment benefits State. None are.

Should we draft a letter to our State legislature, and simply ask them to do their Job,

Sure. Let me know when they stop laughing.

How can that be, without being illegal to a federal doctrine and State laws regarding the concept of employment at will?

How can states refuse to give unemployment benefits to those who quit or refuse to work? Easily.

You should sue! Let me know how that works out.

Should I use a federal doctrine, in my argument?

At-will employment is generally described as follows: "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."

Should I use a federal doctrine, in my argument?

Whichever argument works best....perhaps, I'm lazy but still want money....gimme!

At-will employment is generally described as follows

Thanks for the info! You may have noticed, it didn't mention unemployment benefits.

what reason is there to deny or disparage unemployment benefits on an at=will basis in our at-will employment States?

EDD should be legal to the law, and be required to show for-cause employment criteria to deny or disparage unemployment benefits on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

what reason is there to deny or disparage unemployment benefits

Because they're only for people who worked and were laid off, not for cause.

EDD should be legal to the law,

EDD follows the law and doesn't pay quitters or never workers. You're out of luck.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.​

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

the govt of Venezuela recently took away guns and now the people have to revolt against the liberal govt with sticks and stones!!


"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"

-- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

 

[danielpalos]

How can that be, without being illegal to a federal doctrine and State laws regarding the concept of employment at will?

How can states refuse to give unemployment benefits to those who quit or refuse to work? Easily.

You should sue! Let me know how that works out.

Should I use a federal doctrine, in my argument?

At-will employment is generally described as follows: "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."

Should I use a federal doctrine, in my argument?

Whichever argument works best....perhaps, I'm lazy but still want money....gimme!

At-will employment is generally described as follows

Thanks for the info! You may have noticed, it didn't mention unemployment benefits.

what reason is there to deny or disparage unemployment benefits on an at=will basis in our at-will employment States?

EDD should be legal to the law, and be required to show for-cause employment criteria to deny or disparage unemployment benefits on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

what reason is there to deny or disparage unemployment benefits

Because they're only for people who worked and were laid off, not for cause.

EDD should be legal to the law,

EDD follows the law and doesn't pay quitters or never workers. You're out of luck.

Why not be moral and legal to a federal doctrine and your own State law regarding the legal concept of employment at will; instead of merely, "hating the poor" through administrative laws.

 

[danielpalos]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.​

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

the govt of Venezuela recently took away guns and now the people have to revolt against the liberal govt with sticks and stones!!


"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"

-- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Our First Amendment is First, not Second.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How can states refuse to give unemployment benefits to those who quit or refuse to work? Easily.

You should sue! Let me know how that works out.

Should I use a federal doctrine, in my argument?

At-will employment is generally described as follows: "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."

Should I use a federal doctrine, in my argument?

Whichever argument works best....perhaps, I'm lazy but still want money....gimme!

At-will employment is generally described as follows

Thanks for the info! You may have noticed, it didn't mention unemployment benefits.

what reason is there to deny or disparage unemployment benefits on an at=will basis in our at-will employment States?

EDD should be legal to the law, and be required to show for-cause employment criteria to deny or disparage unemployment benefits on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

what reason is there to deny or disparage unemployment benefits

Because they're only for people who worked and were laid off, not for cause.

EDD should be legal to the law,

EDD follows the law and doesn't pay quitters or never workers. You're out of luck.

Why not be moral and legal to a federal doctrine and your own State law regarding the legal concept of employment at will; instead of merely, "hating the poor" through administrative laws.

Their refusal to pay you is both moral and legal.
Employment at will has nothing to do with unemployment benefits for quitters or never workers.
I don't hate you because you're poor.
I don't even hate you because you're a lazy whiner.