darn tootin you would consider it .. have been supporting the vax mandate for months you have been ... defending beloved Tyrants such as Biden and Trudeau .. and the status quo in general - in denial of the age old creedos of history .. you know .. power corrupts .. more power corrupts more .. that kind of thing .. same as dear Mother .. so no worries .. common ailment this one .. all good in the hood. but this >>>>> "You don't have a right to a Job" is monstrous depravity - twisted deflection and denial .. and a few other words.... So .. Your position .. the one you wish to defend .. is that because you do not have a right to a Job - The Gov't can force you to vaccinate .. in order to keep that job ... ?! That about sum up your Hill mate .. got your flag staked
Nope, Guns are a constitutional right Abortion is not a constitutional right For someone who claims to teach American history you sure don't know much about rights vs laws. I can recommend a good book to get you up to speed/ Yet another deflection to run from your own post. This is what you stated So show me in Oklahoma where women are denied abortions. Guaranteed you won't If it walks, quacks, and flies like a duck, its always a duck. I can copy and paste as well. You have no clue what an HCPC is or does. You have never been to one or had any discussions with anyone who works at one. Give up the lie. It ain't workin for ya Since your a liberal, and posted this Its your admission, not mine. Best of luck with your Exodus 20:16 claim while you persecute women you've never even met or spoken with. Your hypocrisy is laughable at best You mean like calling you out because you admitted you don't know the difference between government control and constitutional rights? Sorry I embarrassed you. Maybe you should bone up on one of the History books.
Why you still fallacizing with the same assumed premise . and your science ability has been found wanting .. unable to figure out the basics .. that a single human cell .. is not a baby .. and why you talking "Pro Abortion" You the one wants to kill all them zygotes over 200 going to die .. with every birth .. and you don't want to help . .. your not just pro abortion .. but pro active abortion .. no care for the slaughter of these unborn babies in the womb
Not an assumed premise you have posted nothing to refute the science I have posted your specious statements about 200 zygotes notwithstanding.
Only in the context of those two being better than Trump. A completely absurd claim. I've advocated school and medical vouchers, for instance. All this because I don't support the criminal Republicans nominated twice. We have employment-at-will in the U.S. You may think this is a "monstrous depravity," but it is the law. Employers have the right to terminate as long as their reason isn't illegal (like discrimination). No shot, no job. I would have required public employees holding jobs impacting people who can't make other choices, from cops to ambulance attendants to clerk's at the DMV to teachers, to get vaccinated. At this point, the vaccines are largely ineffective at reducing transmission, so I can see no justification for requiring them. I haven't in any way needed a job since my mid-20s. Anyway, that has nothing to do with why I would require public employees to test or get vaccinated. You sure have some unusual ideas.
The second says nothing about carrying firearms outside your home. It follows government is not then specifically prohibited from restricting citizens carrying firearms on, say, public property, or more generally outside your home except in a proscribed manner. These are mostly legislated gains, not court decisions... Gun rights supporters should be ready to justify maintaining their right to carry. It's not a given. Anyone who thinks a single book settles this issue has no clue. You can't be serious. Oklahoma effectively banned abortion in nearly all cases in recent legislation. You're a religious activist trying to redefine "conservative." You promote dishonest politics and a wide range of people will continue calling you out, and reject many of your positions. An absurd misrepresentation of my knowledge and position.
Sorry Condor, you offer pure sophistry. You try to make a mountain out of a mole hill. You offer procedural rights, all those enumerated in the document. At the same time you completely ignore the simple language of one sentence. So it goes, attempting to defend an indefensible position. I'm surprised. Do you have a right to walk down the beach? It's not mentioned in the document, so I guess not. Do you have a right to be an atheist? I guess not, for in your simple world, it ain't mentioned in the document. The men of 1787 understood the Rights of Man far better than you do, but then Thomas Paine had just written his book at that time. Goodness how things have changed. It seems quite true that we have the tyrannical government we deserve, with citizens like yourself advocating against the Ninth. Yes Condor, liberty dies to thunderous applause.
Abortion isn't a right. Its a voluntary medical procedure. And if the 9th covered abortions the SCOTUS would have addressed it during the Roe decision then and now. So either every SCOTUS justice since the beginning of time is wrong, or its just you. Think I'll go with occams razor on this one
For a woman carrying an unwanted fetus, abortion is a human right. I do understand that like my dear sister, religious zealots see it differently.
Annnnnd nobody claimed it did. Another LangleyMan Deflection Next Annnd nobody claimed a single book settles anything Another LangleyMan Deflection Next Another fake claim by you and your lefty world which is why you won't post the actual law you claim exist. Which is why I asked you to prove your own post which you have run from now for 3 post So allow me to help you with some English language. If something is banned, that means you can't have it. Like banning people from coming into a store without a mask. That means NOBODY can come into the store without a mask Oklahoma has not banned abortions and they are not trying to ban abortions and women can contract to get an abortion. Which means you always go to your normal exaggerations because you can't dispute something. Oklahoma restricts abortions to 6 weeks. That isn't banning anything. Either learn simple English or stop with your exaggerations Nobody but you has ever accused me of being a religious activist except you. But based on your reputation to falsify information, your claim doesn't mean anything which is why you have one of the lowest likes received vs post in the history of PF. The huge majority of PF posters don't buy into any of your claims. Your number speak for themselves.[/QUOTE]
Because it begins with a context, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." it has been interpreted as giving government the option of limiting the times and places of where one can bear arms. These changes have come about as the result of legislation, not of court decisions: Because of the nature of Americans attitude about their relationship to government, I think we would have a lot less tension in society if we stood down on the "war on drugs," abortion and taking folks' firearms. Some restrictions can be expected in each of the above three areas, but they should be limited. It should cross folks' minds we won't do away with drugs, abortion or firearms no matter what we do. The other thing I'd do is take a long look at our society to make sure folks can earn (emphasis is on "earn") enough to put food on the table, a roof over their heads, education for their children and retraining for themselves, and decent medical care. If we don't do something about this, average folks will eventually reject our version of the capitalist system: Fill-time workers have had virtually no increase in their incomes for the past four decades, the entire working life of people nearing or at retirement today. Part-time workers and those with outdated skills have actually lost buying power.
No, it says keep and bear arms, it isn't qualified. I believe there can be places where it is prohibited like at sport events, night clubs or schools but it does not hinge on belonging to a militia. Private businesses can post their establishments and prohibit guns on their premises, but municipalities can't declare public places like streets gun free. Unless, of course, they happen to be Marshal Dillon and he gives them back when you leave town.
Why you are talking about school vouchers, Republican and your lack of needing a job .. I have no idea. You then explain how you would have forced vaccination on various groups of people by threatening their job/livelihood-- after claiming you were not in favor of forced vaccination .. Who is the one with unusual ideas mate
Where you going to quote me claiming anything about carrying firearms outside your home? Or just try and fake it with another useless post as usual?
So do it before theres a heart beat or be an adult and use protection instead of being an idiot and having unprotected sex using abortion as your birth control. Is there something about common sense lost on these people?
It has never been interpreted by any SCOTUS as limiting the times and places where you can bear arms. 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. What is it about lefties who can't figure out what, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED means.
If we go back to 1791 when it was passed, the Second Amendment no doubt anticipated nearly every man might turn out for the militia. One might hold that the men were allowed to keep and bear arms to protect their homes and community from despotic governments. Government could privatize almost everything and effectively ban guns from all but private premises. They already ban types of guns—automatic weapons, for example, produced after the automatic weapons ban. Both pro-lifers and gun-grabbers make no secret of their unwillingness to compromise. Marshal Dillion told more than a few dirtbags to get out of Dodge. He never kept their guns.
You accused me of being opposed to change and having a secure job. I didn't need the job and I mention I favored school and medical vouchers. I said vaccinate or test. I explained that public employees not of your choosing are your only option if you're pulled over, have to get a driver's license, etc.
So, friends of the accused on trial for murdering your family bring automatic weapons to the courtroom and point them at jury members. That's okay with you? We already ban most automatic weapons.
So this is how idiotic that statement is. The 2nd amendment has been around over 200 years. When was the last time friends of the accused brought automatic weapons to the courtroom and pointed them at the jury? It appears you can't dispute post with actual facts so you have to make up wild scenarios that don't exist. Get a grip. Your crazy theatrics only prove your inability to dispute the point. And when did you ever conceive the notion that the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed meant taking automatic weapons to a court room to intimidate a jury? You live in a fantasy world.
