The Right To Bear Arms

[danielpalos]

Should I use a federal doctrine, in my argument?

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.

No, it isn't. It is setting a Bad example for less fortunate illegals.

 

[skookerasbil]

gun grabbing has never been more unpopular than it is in 2017.............actually, nobody is caring about it at the present time. Probably the only other voter concern more boring is global warming right now.

 

[westwall]

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.

The First would already be gone were it not for the Second.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

No, it isn't. It is setting a Bad example for less fortunate illegals.

No, it isn't.

Prove it.

It is setting a Bad example for less fortunate illegals.

They need to return home. The example we set by not paying you is not relevant.

 

[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.

The First would already be gone were it not for the Second.

No, it wouldn't, except in right wing fantasy.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

No, it isn't. It is setting a Bad example for less fortunate illegals.

No, it isn't.

Prove it.

It is setting a Bad example for less fortunate illegals.

They need to return home. The example we set by not paying you is not relevant.

The is employment at the will of either party; can you prove otherwise?

Being illegal to our own laws, is just plain abominable.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

No, it isn't. It is setting a Bad example for less fortunate illegals.

No, it isn't.

Prove it.

It is setting a Bad example for less fortunate illegals.

They need to return home. The example we set by not paying you is not relevant.

The is employment at the will of either party; can you prove otherwise?

Being illegal to our own laws, is just plain abominable.

The is employment at the will of either party;

Exactly.
And unemployment benefits are not.

Being illegal to our own laws, is just plain abominable.

Your gibberish will not help you get unemployment benefits you don't deserve.

 

[Tom Horn]

This thread is almost 5 years old.

 

[Lakhota]

Even radical Antonin Scalia said the 2nd Amendment has limitations.

 

[P@triot]

Even radical Antonin Scalia said the 2nd Amendment has limitations.

It says it all that Lakhota believes anyone who upholds the U.S. Constitution is a "radical". That's how bat-shit crazy she is.

 

[Rustic]

More frivolous gun laws are never reasonable...

 

[Flash]

Even radical Antonin Scalia said the 2nd Amendment has limitations.

Yea but he is not around to tell us what the limitations are, is he? I suspect his limitations and the limitations of you filthy ass Libtard Moon Bats are very different. What we know he did say was that the Second Amendment was an individual right protected by the Constitution of the United States. He also said that according to the Bill of Rights Libtard DC and Libtard Chicago did not have the authority to prevent Mr. Heller and Mr McDonald from possessing firearms. Most Liberals hate that interpretation.

 

[2aguy]

Even radical Antonin Scalia said the 2nd Amendment has limitations.

Yeah....he said that felons can't have guns, and he said the dangerously mentally ill can't have guns.......he also said the First Amendment also has limitations......

You guys keep think he said something he didn't say....

 

[danielpalos]

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.

No, it isn't. It is setting a Bad example for less fortunate illegals.

No, it isn't.

Prove it.

It is setting a Bad example for less fortunate illegals.

They need to return home. The example we set by not paying you is not relevant.

The is employment at the will of either party; can you prove otherwise?

Being illegal to our own laws, is just plain abominable.

The is employment at the will of either party;

Exactly.
And unemployment benefits are not.

Being illegal to our own laws, is just plain abominable.

Your gibberish will not help you get unemployment benefits you don't deserve.

It should be found unlawful to deny and disparage unemployment compensation to Labor, simply for being unemployed in any at-will employment State.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Even radical Antonin Scalia said the 2nd Amendment has limitations.

Everything has limitations. The limitations you leftist dweebs want - also known as "non-existent" - are not them.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

No, it isn't. It is setting a Bad example for less fortunate illegals.

No, it isn't.

Prove it.

It is setting a Bad example for less fortunate illegals.

They need to return home. The example we set by not paying you is not relevant.

The is employment at the will of either party; can you prove otherwise?

Being illegal to our own laws, is just plain abominable.

The is employment at the will of either party;

Exactly.
And unemployment benefits are not.

Being illegal to our own laws, is just plain abominable.

Your gibberish will not help you get unemployment benefits you don't deserve.

It should be found unlawful to deny and disparage unemployment compensation to Labor, simply for being unemployed in any at-will employment State.

Get a job, hippie.

 

[danielpalos]

No, it isn't. It is setting a Bad example for less fortunate illegals.

No, it isn't.

Prove it.

It is setting a Bad example for less fortunate illegals.

They need to return home. The example we set by not paying you is not relevant.

The is employment at the will of either party; can you prove otherwise?

Being illegal to our own laws, is just plain abominable.

The is employment at the will of either party;

Exactly.
And unemployment benefits are not.

Being illegal to our own laws, is just plain abominable.

Your gibberish will not help you get unemployment benefits you don't deserve.

It should be found unlawful to deny and disparage unemployment compensation to Labor, simply for being unemployed in any at-will employment State.

Get a job, hippie.

I prefer, equal protection of the law.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No, it isn't.

Prove it.

It is setting a Bad example for less fortunate illegals.

They need to return home. The example we set by not paying you is not relevant.

The is employment at the will of either party; can you prove otherwise?

Being illegal to our own laws, is just plain abominable.

The is employment at the will of either party;

Exactly.
And unemployment benefits are not.

Being illegal to our own laws, is just plain abominable.

Your gibberish will not help you get unemployment benefits you don't deserve.

It should be found unlawful to deny and disparage unemployment compensation to Labor, simply for being unemployed in any at-will employment State.

Get a job, hippie.

I prefer, equal protection of the law.

Legally, you have no right to unemployment benefits for never working or for quitting.

 

[danielpalos]

The is employment at the will of either party; can you prove otherwise?

Being illegal to our own laws, is just plain abominable.

The is employment at the will of either party;

Exactly.
And unemployment benefits are not.

Being illegal to our own laws, is just plain abominable.

Your gibberish will not help you get unemployment benefits you don't deserve.

It should be found unlawful to deny and disparage unemployment compensation to Labor, simply for being unemployed in any at-will employment State.

Get a job, hippie.

I prefer, equal protection of the law.

Legally, you have no right to unemployment benefits for never working or for quitting.

Says the letter of a federal Doctrine and State, statutory law?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The is employment at the will of either party;

Exactly.
And unemployment benefits are not.

Being illegal to our own laws, is just plain abominable.

Your gibberish will not help you get unemployment benefits you don't deserve.

It should be found unlawful to deny and disparage unemployment compensation to Labor, simply for being unemployed in any at-will employment State.

Get a job, hippie.

I prefer, equal protection of the law.

Legally, you have no right to unemployment benefits for never working or for quitting.

Says the letter of a federal Doctrine and State, statutory law?

Says the regulations of every state re unemployment benefits. Sorry.

If you had an example of a law supporting your claim to benefits, you'd have posted it by now.