The Right To Bear Arms

[hadit]

And there it is, the inevitable lament. We get it, you want to get paid for not working.

full employment of capital resources; what a concept.

only fools and horses, should Have to work.

And those who want to eat.

we have laws; why not be legal to our very own, at-will employment laws, for at-will unemployment compensation purposes.

that way, we can improve the efficiency of our economy, at the same time.

Irrelevant to the point that it is better to be producer than a taker. Producers help society, takers do not.

Takers by definition are not those unable to work, but those who choose not to work.

Only in your special pleading; propaganda and rhetoric is no substitute for economics.

it is about full employment of capital resources; and correcting for capitalism's natural rate of inefficiency regarding full employment of (capital) resources in the market for labor.

Capital must circulate under any form of capitalism. Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is that natural rate of inefficiency regarding capital resources and the circulation of capital in our economy.

We could be solving simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States and improving the capital efficiency of those markets, at the same time.

You don't understand what that means and why it doesn't apply.

 

[hadit]

And those who want to eat.

we have laws; why not be legal to our very own, at-will employment laws, for at-will unemployment compensation purposes.

that way, we can improve the efficiency of our economy, at the same time.

Irrelevant to the point that it is better to be producer than a taker. Producers help society, takers do not.

Takers by definition are not those unable to work, but those who choose not to work.

Only in your special pleading; propaganda and rhetoric is no substitute for economics.

it is about full employment of capital resources; and correcting for capitalism's natural rate of inefficiency regarding full employment of (capital) resources in the market for labor.

Capital must circulate under any form of capitalism. Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is that natural rate of inefficiency regarding capital resources and the circulation of capital in our economy.

We could be solving simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States and improving the capital efficiency of those markets, at the same time.

Dude, once again you're reduced to flinging around the same worn out meaningless slogans that you don't even understand. Paying someone to not work is welfare, it's not "full employment of (capital) resources in the market for labor". Face it, you end up here every single time, you can't explain what it is you're trying to say, and you only end up looking foolish. Just stop.

He's saying he should get unemployment benefits for sitting in his Mom's basement growing weed.

Yes, that is the correct motorcycle.

 

[P@triot]

you have to get a job first

why do you think i am advocating for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis; to learn how to build a keep, and put keep building on my resume.

What? How does getting paid by the federal government to quit your job help your résumé?!? Are you not aware that most employers don't look for people who quit their jobs?!?

why do you think i am advocating for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis; to learn how to build a keep, and put keep building on my resume.

it takes money to build a keep, even for fun and practice.

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

 

[Skull Pilot]

what does it mean?

other than the people have the right to keep and bear arms that is

What it doesn't mean.

The right to bear arms is not the right to carry guns around with.
The right can also be infringed. These are the two most common mistakes people make.

The right to keep arms is the right to own guns. The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. The 2A prevents the US federal govt (and now state govts) from preventing you from being able to own arms, this does not mean they can't ban certain weapons, just that you have to be able to get guns, and the they can't prevent you from being in the militia, hence why the made the Dick Act and stuck all males aged 17-45 in the "unorganized militia". Rather convenient.

the right to bear arms has nothing to do with a militia
the militia is secondary to the right to keep and bear arms

Well, you're wrong and I'm going to prove you're wrong.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

This is a document from the debates in the House on the future Second Amendment.

Mr Gerry said: "Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

This was about a clause of the future Second Amendment that read: "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

Then Mr Gerry said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."

Yeah, the same person used "militia duty" and "bear arms" synonymously. Go figure.

Then "Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

So, we have "render military service", "militia duty" and "bear arms" all meaning the same thing.

In fact in different versions of what would become the 2A, "bear arms" and "render military service" would replace each other.


June 8th 1789

"but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

August 17th 1789

"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

August 24th 1789

"but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

August 25th 1789

"but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."

So, it has a lot to do with the militia, actually.

But then, I'm willing to see what evidence you have, though, I do have a lot more to go on than just this, this is just a start...

the debate over the terms is not necessarily the meaning of the amendment. The fact is that those other terms you mention are not in the amendment itself. There is no qualification that bearing arms equals serving in the militia
compelling military service is conscription.

It seems you have the draft and the militia confused

The militia was the people and the people not just the government were empowered to protect the free state by being allowed to keep and bear arms

well regulated, is a "limiting qualifier". all of the militia of the United States is not well regulated, and therefor, unnecessary to the security of a free State, and may be Infringed as a result, by well regulated militia, for the security and domestic tranquility needs of our free States.

what do you think well regulated meant in the 18th century?

 

[Skull Pilot]

J. Neil Schulman: The Unabridged Second Amendment

Yeah. partisan nonsense half of it.

so the dissection of the language and grammar is partisan?

it doesn't matter who asked the questions you know that don't you

it's the answers and explanation of the expert that matter

Your "expert" has only a fallacy of composition.

He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert.

I'll bet you an entire year of your salary that he knows more about the English language than you

even if I lose it won't cost me 10 bucks

 

[Skull Pilot]

you have to get a job first

why do you think i am advocating for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis; to learn how to build a keep, and put keep building on my resume.

being unemployed and collecting welfare is not a resume builder

learning how to build a keep and putting it on my resume, does help, "build" that resume.

yeah go apply for a job and put that as an accomplishment

that resume will hit the circular file before you get out of the interview

i could claim I had to learn it, not from the "ground up, but from the basement up". Some managers may find that initiative, "something to work with".

learn what?

How to jerk off with either hand?

you call that a 3 way right?

 

[danielpalos]

full employment of capital resources; what a concept.

only fools and horses, should Have to work.

And those who want to eat.

we have laws; why not be legal to our very own, at-will employment laws, for at-will unemployment compensation purposes.

that way, we can improve the efficiency of our economy, at the same time.

Irrelevant to the point that it is better to be producer than a taker. Producers help society, takers do not.

Takers by definition are not those unable to work, but those who choose not to work.

Only in your special pleading; propaganda and rhetoric is no substitute for economics.

it is about full employment of capital resources; and correcting for capitalism's natural rate of inefficiency regarding full employment of (capital) resources in the market for labor.

Capital must circulate under any form of capitalism. Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is that natural rate of inefficiency regarding capital resources and the circulation of capital in our economy.

We could be solving simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States and improving the capital efficiency of those markets, at the same time.

Dude, once again you're reduced to flinging around the same worn out meaningless slogans that you don't even understand. Paying someone to not work is welfare, it's not "full employment of (capital) resources in the market for labor". Face it, you end up here every single time, you can't explain what it is you're trying to say, and you only end up looking foolish. Just stop.

Yes, it is a form of full employment of capital resources simply Because, Capital does and must Circulate.

 

[danielpalos]

only fools and horses, should Have to work.

Nobody said you have to work. Feel free not to. But the rest of us are not supporting your pathetic ass.

By the way - PETA would vehemently disagree with you on the horses. They believe your worthless ass should be put to work to care for the horses. Just say'n little buddy...

equal protection of the law can get, "thrown under the buss" in favor of your extra-legal, national socialism?

 

[danielpalos]

full employment of capital resources; what a concept.

only fools and horses, should Have to work.

And those who want to eat.

we have laws; why not be legal to our very own, at-will employment laws, for at-will unemployment compensation purposes.

that way, we can improve the efficiency of our economy, at the same time.

Irrelevant to the point that it is better to be producer than a taker. Producers help society, takers do not.

Takers by definition are not those unable to work, but those who choose not to work.

Only in your special pleading; propaganda and rhetoric is no substitute for economics.

it is about full employment of capital resources; and correcting for capitalism's natural rate of inefficiency regarding full employment of (capital) resources in the market for labor.

Capital must circulate under any form of capitalism. Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is that natural rate of inefficiency regarding capital resources and the circulation of capital in our economy.

We could be solving simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States and improving the capital efficiency of those markets, at the same time.

You don't understand what that means and why it doesn't apply.

Yes, it does. You simply have nothing but repeal instead of any form of better solution at lower cost; typical for the, right wing.

 

[danielpalos]

you have to get a job first

why do you think i am advocating for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis; to learn how to build a keep, and put keep building on my resume.

What? How does getting paid by the federal government to quit your job help your résumé?!? Are you not aware that most employers don't look for people who quit their jobs?!?

why do you think i am advocating for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis; to learn how to build a keep, and put keep building on my resume.

it takes money to build a keep, even for fun and practice.

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

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

 

[danielpalos]

What it doesn't mean.

The right to bear arms is not the right to carry guns around with.
The right can also be infringed. These are the two most common mistakes people make.

The right to keep arms is the right to own guns. The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. The 2A prevents the US federal govt (and now state govts) from preventing you from being able to own arms, this does not mean they can't ban certain weapons, just that you have to be able to get guns, and the they can't prevent you from being in the militia, hence why the made the Dick Act and stuck all males aged 17-45 in the "unorganized militia". Rather convenient.

the right to bear arms has nothing to do with a militia
the militia is secondary to the right to keep and bear arms

Well, you're wrong and I'm going to prove you're wrong.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

This is a document from the debates in the House on the future Second Amendment.

Mr Gerry said: "Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

This was about a clause of the future Second Amendment that read: "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

Then Mr Gerry said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."

Yeah, the same person used "militia duty" and "bear arms" synonymously. Go figure.

Then "Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

So, we have "render military service", "militia duty" and "bear arms" all meaning the same thing.

In fact in different versions of what would become the 2A, "bear arms" and "render military service" would replace each other.


June 8th 1789

"but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

August 17th 1789

"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

August 24th 1789

"but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

August 25th 1789

"but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."

So, it has a lot to do with the militia, actually.

But then, I'm willing to see what evidence you have, though, I do have a lot more to go on than just this, this is just a start...

the debate over the terms is not necessarily the meaning of the amendment. The fact is that those other terms you mention are not in the amendment itself. There is no qualification that bearing arms equals serving in the militia
compelling military service is conscription.

It seems you have the draft and the militia confused

The militia was the people and the people not just the government were empowered to protect the free state by being allowed to keep and bear arms

well regulated, is a "limiting qualifier". all of the militia of the United States is not well regulated, and therefor, unnecessary to the security of a free State, and may be Infringed as a result, by well regulated militia, for the security and domestic tranquility needs of our free States.

what do you think well regulated meant in the 18th century?

Who cares. Only the right wing prefers to appeal to ignorance of the law in favor of their propaganda and rhetoric, from dictionaries instead of encyclopedias.

Wellness of Regulation must be Prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States. It is a power delegated, in Article 1, Section 8.

 

[danielpalos]

J. Neil Schulman: The Unabridged Second Amendment

Yeah. partisan nonsense half of it.

so the dissection of the language and grammar is partisan?

it doesn't matter who asked the questions you know that don't you

it's the answers and explanation of the expert that matter

Your "expert" has only a fallacy of composition.

He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert.

I'll bet you an entire year of your salary that he knows more about the English language than you

even if I lose it won't cost me 10 bucks

Your "expert" has only a fallacy of composition. Our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself. It really is, that simple.

 

[danielpalos]

why do you think i am advocating for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis; to learn how to build a keep, and put keep building on my resume.

being unemployed and collecting welfare is not a resume builder

learning how to build a keep and putting it on my resume, does help, "build" that resume.

yeah go apply for a job and put that as an accomplishment

that resume will hit the circular file before you get out of the interview

i could claim I had to learn it, not from the "ground up, but from the basement up". Some managers may find that initiative, "something to work with".

learn what?

How to jerk off with either hand?

you call that a 3 way right?

no, i call it practicing ambidexterity, to help ward off Alzheimer's.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Failed left-wing policy probably cost him both his job and his home. I know it did that to a LOT of people. Barack Obama sure got extremely wealthy though - didn't he?

why can we afford a war on drugs, and not unemployment compensation, simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States?

And there it is, the inevitable lament. We get it, you want to get paid for not working.

full employment of capital resources; what a concept.

only fools and horses, should Have to work.

And those who want to eat.

we have laws; why not be legal to our very own, at-will employment laws, for at-will unemployment compensation purposes.

that way, we can improve the efficiency of our economy, at the same time.

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

 

[tycho1572]

I thought of this thread after reading this story.....
Armed stranger saves police officer during deadly shootout - CNN.com


There's another vid in the link.

People should always have a right to protect themselves, and others.

 

[P@triot]

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

You have no work ethic. None. At all. You're lazy. And you want society to provide for you (to which a rational person would ask - why don't you provide for society?). And the fact that you think you need a "bonus" to just show up for work is as freaking hilarious as it is tragic.

 

[P@triot]

You simply have nothing but repeal instead of any form of better solution at lower cost; typical for the, right wing.

There is no better "solution" at no better cost than free-market capitalism. It works flawlessly every time. But therein lies the problem for you. The word "work". It's something you don't want to do. But you're too stupid to see the contradiction in your ideology. You're insisting that others provide for you. Well, they don't want to work any more than you do. So why aren't you forced to provide for them? Let's do that instead. You get up and work all day and then you turn over the fruits of that labor to those that don't want to work. Deal?

 

[danielpalos]

why can we afford a war on drugs, and not unemployment compensation, simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States?

And there it is, the inevitable lament. We get it, you want to get paid for not working.

full employment of capital resources; what a concept.

only fools and horses, should Have to work.

And those who want to eat.

we have laws; why not be legal to our very own, at-will employment laws, for at-will unemployment compensation purposes.

that way, we can improve the efficiency of our economy, at the same time.

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

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

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And there it is, the inevitable lament. We get it, you want to get paid for not working.

full employment of capital resources; what a concept.

only fools and horses, should Have to work.

And those who want to eat.

we have laws; why not be legal to our very own, at-will employment laws, for at-will unemployment compensation purposes.

that way, we can improve the efficiency of our economy, at the same time.

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

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

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

 

[tycho1572]

Another illegal committing a serious crime.

Good luck with your arguments, libs.