Total posts: 1,048
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
*YAWN*
It was used as an adjective.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
The issue is present day, not colonial days. Does the US Government possess a stockpile of 300 million weapons that would be reserved for a federal (or state) militia? No. Hence the right of the people to keep and bear arms.That is so dumb it boggles the mind. Now you think every man, woman and child in this country could be considered part of a militia that doesn’t even exist.
Strawman fallacy. Nowhere did I say "every man, woman and child in this country could be considered part of a militia..." That statement by YOU, not me, is what is truly "dumb."
Also, you were the one who mentioned something about PA stockpiling weapons. Now when I bring it up to a more present-day value, you call it stupid. #hypocrite.
Why is it so hard for you to understand what the Founding Fathers were doing when they codified militias in the constitution and why they added the Second Amendment when the first Congress met. Why can’t you understand both concepts are now obsolete and moot.
Foreshadowing. Predictions. Foretold. Prophecy. Logical reasoning. Any of these terms mean anything to you?
The Founders were thinking ahead, not just in the present. They knew in order for the country to last and maintain itself, it needed codified laws in place to protect the people from an overreaching government body. Granted they wrote in the language of their era, but their language stands the test of time. Which is why they utilized the term ARMS and not pitch forks, cannons, muskets and swords.
We no longer rely on militias for National Defense or to enforce the law. The fear of standing armies in peace time that the Framers had in the late 1700s has long passed and was likely irrational even back then considering the new type of government they had constructed with the constitution.
And for good reason. The government has worked, well, up at least until recently with the Biden-Harris Administration who is all but opening the front door of our country to illegals, China and Russia.
A right to bear arms, especially military type arms, for militias that no longer exist is obviously not necessary or appropriate. That’s why the 2A needs to be revised, actually repealed and replaced with something that makes sense in the 21st century. But because of idiots like you, it’s very difficult for Congress to even consider an amendment.I am a gun owner and I support private ownership of most types of guns within reason for hunting and self-defense, but what we are doing right now is madness.
An AR-15 is NOT a "military type" armament.
The need for a militia will always exist, ever see the movie Red Dawn? Yeah, it is a movie, but it CAN happen. It is NOT outside the realm of possibility. It is within the realm of probability.
The 2A is perfect as written. Only "idiots like you" want to change it to the advantages of the Government. Maybe you would find living in Cuba or China more to your liking, as you definitely come off as a Communist.
"But what we are doing right now is madness."
Define. Clarify. What "are we doing right now" that you call madness?
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Commonsense can be written as one or two words, depending on the context in which it is being used, genius! *rollingeyes*Ya genius, when you use it as an adjective like commonsense solutions. That’s not what you did. You used it as a noun.Wrong again genius- see definitions below. In your context it was a noun, so always TWO words. “really rolling eyes”You must be a republican, not only do you seem to enjoy being wrong, instead of checking your error you choose to double down.When 'common sense' is used as a noun, it is spelt as two words. As an adjective, it may be one word. Some people choose to use a hyphen, instead — 'common-sense'.Definition of common sense: sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or factsSo far, I've had the common sense not to tweet anything ghastly.— James PoniewozikThe poker players learns that sometimes both science and common sense are wrong. There is such a thing as absolute premonition of cards, a rock bottom surety of what will happen next.— David MametWith tsunamis, it may seem only common sense to Earth scientists to run away from (and not toward) the water when the sea is drawn rapidly down and away from the beach as a tsunami approaches. But that response is counterintuitive for most people.— Thomas C. PiersonMerriam-Webster Dictionary
ThesaurusAntonymsRelated WordsSynonymsLegend:
Switch to new thesaurus
Adj.
1.
commonsense - exhibiting native good judgment; "arrive home at a reasonable hour"; "commonsense scholarship on the foibles of a genius"; "unlearned and commonsensical countryfolk were capable of solving problems that beset the more sophisticated"
From Merriam-Webster...clearly you missed this (no surprise):
Other Words from common sense
commonsense \ ˈkä-mən-ˈsen(t)s \ adjective
commonsensible \ ˈkä-mən-ˈsen(t)-sə-bəl \ adjective
commonsensical \ ˈkä-mən-ˈsen(t)-si-kəl \ adjective
commonsensically \ ˈkä-mən-ˈsen(t)-si-k(ə-)lē \ adverb
[ kom-uhn sens ]SHOW IPA
Definitions of commonsense
- adjectiveexhibiting native good judgment“commonsense scholarship on the foibles of a genius”showing reason or sound judgment
I can keep going on.
From your second Hindu link:
Is ‘common sense’ one word or two?
(Vrinda, Kochi)
It can be spelt as one word or two
(Vrinda, Kochi)
It can be spelt as one word or two
Created:
-->
@Ramshutu
Was transgenderism a thing in 1964?
Were transgenders out there in the workforce forcing their lifestyle choice upon the world in the 60s?
Nope.
Gorsuch defied his (their) responsibility to review legislative history, intent and purpose of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He ignored it and created a new sub definition of sex/gender to include transgenderism, which was not even a "thing" in 1964.
It was and is (and remains so), the responsibility of Congress to enact new laws to cover new issues (that were never a part of the legislative history of past laws) that require the support and backing of law to protect those necessary to be protected by law. It is NOT the Court's role to create new laws.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
It's called commonsense. One simply cannot gather the town's citizens and ask them to join the militia if they have no weapons to fight with.The government doesn't have a mass stockpile of 100, 200 or even 300 million weapons to just give to citizens they call to serve in the militia, now does it!You are the last person who should be exclaiming the virtues of common sense (two words not one as you wrote) since you appear to be lacking in this department.
Commonsense can be written as one or two words, depending on the context in which it is being used, genius! *rollingeyes*
If you knew history, visited a museum or two, gone to some historical sites you would know that the arms for militias were most commonly provided by the government in colonial times. The government absolutely did have stockpiles of arms to give (issue) to citizens who were part of a WELL REGULATED MILITIA.
The issue is present day, not colonial days. Does the US Government possess a stockpile of 300 million weapons that would be reserved for a federal (or state) militia?
No.
Hence the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
Created:
-->
@Ramshutu
BFOQ doesn’t apply just for regular dress or business scenarios in which females needing to wear a dress is not essential to the business - which it isn’t.
Stephens is not a female. He is required by the terms of his employment to appear in the clothing required of men as dictated by the employers dress code.
Created:
-->
@Ramshutu
You have NO legal background. You lack the requisite education and knowledge to correctly read let alone interpret statutory law.There’s so many things I want to say here lol.Let me first ask you how you know this, exactly? For all you know, I could be a practicing lawyer.Even if I wasn’t - you started a thread in a debate website forum asking people to prove you wrong. What exactly were you expecting? Gorsuch to find out and argue with you personally?Speaking of Gorsuch - he is a judge, for many decades who definitely does have the requisite education and knowledge to read and interpret statutory law - he agrees with me - does that mean you’re now willing to defer to what he says?Given that I know your answer - that would appear to mean the level of one’s law education makes no difference to how right they are - and that you’re quote here is just nonsense ad-hominem that has no bearing in anything..
Just because Gorsuch is a Justice doesn't make him right. He is wrong. Period. And I made that clear in the original post. He legislated from the bench (judicial activism) and did what Congress is supposed to do, create new laws that address new issues presented before them. Then the Court may balance those laws with the Constitution.
The manner in which you respond to not only me, but others demonstrate a lack of legal expertise on any and all measurable levels. That's how I know. What I said was not an ad hominem, it is truth. Truth does NOT = an ad hominem.
Created:
-->
@Ramshutu
And as I said above, you do not have the requisite academic, professional or other requisite knowledge and experience to correctly read, interpret and correctly apply statutory law.And?
You are ill-equipped to argue matters of law when you lack the requisite knowledge and experiences to correctly understand it let alone apply it.
You're understanding is 100% wrong.How? I have laid out explicitly how this violates the law:
Because you are not reading and comprehending it correctly.
You have not proven me wrong.Yea I have:
No, you have not.
It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;Are the employment conditions afforded to a woman different from that afforded to a man - if a man may not wear the same clothes? Indisputably yes.Is the employee being fired , on the basis of those conditions that are applied to one sex but not the other? Indisputably yes.If you answer yea to both those questions - which you must - because that’s clear and unambiguous reality - then that behaviour is illegal as per the text of title VII.I await your namecalling
Yes, the employment conditions are different based on gender roles and are allowed by law.
Yes, the employee is being fired for failing to adhere to the dress code of men.
See my reply here: #22
The employer did no wrong. Had this case been decided 5, 10 or even 15 years ago he would have lost. But because the liberal pandering climate of today, Gorsuch created new law that was the sole responsibility of Congress, not the Court. The arguments Stephens made were groundless as noted in the original posting. A posting you failed to read. Obviously.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
Look. A biological man is NOT a biological woman. The social, cultural, business etiquette and employment law operate on the former noted clear distinctions. A biological man simply cannot come to work expecting to be treated equally with that of a biological woman. Period. Fact. Period.Employment law in no way functions on how anyone dresses, provided said dress is appropriate for the work environment. Period, fact, period. Why would it? It's been litigated and the text is really clear. You're making no argument at all, you're stamping your feet and having a baby meltdown about something you don't like or agree with, or something that makes you uncomfortable. What difference does anyone's personal style make in your life?
Oh yes it (dress codes & grooming standards) does!
Courts in the past have ruled in cases stating matter of fact that different grooming (including dress) requirements between men and women were permissible because they did not apply to immutable characteristics or otherwise protected interests, thus they did not fall within/under Title VII.
~ Willingham v Macon Telegraph Publishing Co., 507 F.2d 1084 (5th Cir. 1975)
There is NO disparate treatment/impact upon an employer enforcing their dress code for a biological man and biological woman based on their company dress code. A biological man is expected to abide by the male dress code, as is a biological female being expected to abide by the female dress code.
Stephens is a biological man. He is expected to abide by the male dress code. To do otherwise is a violation of that dress code and the employer is allowed to terminate his employment if the employee refuses to comply.
Hooters has a specific dress code for female waitresses and hiring standards for that position being female only. It is called a BFOQ, bona fide occupational qualification.
I have made an argument and it is crystal clear. Neither you nor obviously Ramshutu has read the original post. That much is clear.
Legal rights are a form of public policy and therefore regulation: they are a limit on personal freedom, not on the power of the state. Many legal rights are valuable and necessary in contemporary society. It is important to recognize the fact that legal rights are, functionally speaking, a form of public policy that controls social relationships.
Others personal lifestyle choices being pushed upon a society that doesn't accept them is why people are against this politically correct coddling crap like this. Sooner or later, it changes the meaning of terms and laws without any scientific and/or legal basis. This case with Stephens is a perfect example. So is the gay marriage SCOTUS case. Both were clear cases of legislating from the bench via judicial activism. When new issues come up that are not covered under current law(s), then it is up to Congress to address it, not the Court. Congress needs to pass a new law covering the new issue bring raised, if it arises to such need to be addressed by law. Not the Court. When that doesn't happen and the Court does it without legal justification, it is bad codified law. Law that affects the entirety of society that simply does not agree with it and the ramifications that it will have upon them. That's why I and others care.
There is absolutely NO sex discrimination involved in the case highlighted in the OP, nor in your fictional example either.In my example? All I said was if a biological man comes to work in business appropriate women's clothes, there's literally nothing anyone can do or say about it without legal ramification. It's just dumb to think otherwise. Not even sure how this is a thing in the times we live in.
Yes, someone can say and do literally whatever they want as the employer who enforces the contract between them and the employee. Legal ramifications are not used unless the employee initiates it. Until then, the employer is within their legal right to enforce the dress code upon biological males expected to wear male clothing consistent with said code.
It is a thing in the times we live in because it is an unacceptable change for society and the evolution of humanity.
Sex stereotypes are a thing and have been for quite some time. The legal terminology used is clear.
Black's Law Dictionary
Man: An adult male.
Female: An adult female.
Sex: The sum of the peculiarities of structure and function that distinguish a male from a female organism
Sex discrimination: Discrimination based on gender, esp. women. The Supreme Court has established an intermediate-scrutiny standard of review for gender-based classifications, which must serve an important governmental interest and be substantially related to the achievement of that objective.
Scientifically speaking, a man can never be a woman. Period, fact, period! So, all this crap about gender identity, transgenderism, claims of a third (or more) genders is all fictional and unsupported by fact-based science. Changes to our society and laws based on fiction is a very dangerous slippery slope.
Created:
-->
@Ramshutu
You may continue to baselessly assert how wrong I am for the next 8492 posts if you wish - you’re feelings do not change the text of Title VII.
And as I said above, you do not have the requisite academic, professional or other requisite knowledge and experience to correctly read, interpret and correctly apply statutory law.
You're understanding is 100% wrong.
You have not proven me wrong.
Created:
-->
@Ramshutu
Recall - my pesky, inconvenient post above:It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;
A biological man being terminated for dressing like a woman has nothing to do with him being a woman (because he is not [a] biological woman), but everything to do with him being a biological man and not conforming to the terms of his employment when hired as a biological man.
You have NO legal background. You lack the requisite education and knowledge to correctly read let alone interpret statutory law.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
It guarantees rights, not grants rights where the BOR are concerned.No LCpl, if that where true, where did the rights come from that the BOR guarantees? There is no real distinction between granting and guaranteeing when it comes to the BOR.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
More than that, in order to form a militia for the very purpose history proved effective, citizens needed to be in possession of their own arms.Been looking for this... Can you please point to me where in the constitution, the federalist papers, or anywhere else the framers discussed this?
It's called commonsense. One simply cannot gather the town's citizens and ask them to join the militia if they have no weapons to fight with.
The government doesn't have a mass stockpile of 100, 200 or even 300 million weapons to just give to citizens they call to serve in the militia, now does it!
Created:
-->
@Ramshutu
And men pretending to be women isn't covered by Title VII isn't covered either.But it is. I explained why above.
But it is NOT! Your explanation is pure liberal fictional BS that has no application in either the real world, or the real legal world.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
Is the transgender woman dressing in a way that would not comply with the employer's dress code for females? If they are dressing appropriately for the gender they want to present, then taking action against them would definitely be discrimination. It's pretty simple. If the transgender woman is coming to work in a bikini, then you have a different legal argument.
Look. A biological man is NOT a biological woman. The social, cultural, business etiquette and employment law operate on the former noted clear distinctions. A biological man simply cannot come to work expecting to be treated equally with that of a biological woman. Period. Fact. Period.
There is absolutely NO sex discrimination involved in the case highlighted in the OP, nor in your fictional example either.
Created:
-->
@Ramshutu
Why do even you care so much? I’ve worked with a transgender woman for a while - she was nice, had a strong work ethic, and her Genitalia or clothing has absolutely no impact on my life. This stands opposed to Simon - who was a backstabbing asshole, and other Kaylen who occasionally microwaved soup for 8 minutes at peak lunch break. They had a material impact on my life - yet no one is suggesting a fish microwaving ban - of objecting to that behaviour.It’s literally being angry at people for absolutely no reason - out of sheer spite - I imagine that sort of pointless hate has to be eating you up inside.
Ever read this: The Abolition of Sex: How the “Transgender” Agenda Harms Women and Girls: Dansky, Kara: 9781637582299: Amazon.com: Books
You should.
Being a man claiming to be a woman is just yet another afront to women by men claiming to be better than women.
Men have NO business claiming to be a woman, like "Lia" Thomas who sucked as a man at swimming just to prevail claiming he is a woman, case in point.
Created:
-->
@Ramshutu
And if you arrive to work dressed as Michael Myers every day...is that Halloween discrimination!?! That's what it amounts to when a guy suddenly comes to work dressed as a woman and demands to be treated as a woman. Would you demand to be treated like a serial killer!?!You probably could call not being allows (sic) a halloween (sic) costume “halloween (sic) discrimination” - but given that it’s not covered by Title VII it would obviously not be illegal.
And men pretending to be women isn't covered by Title VII isn't covered either.
Your entire reasoning is a semantic argument that defies social, psychological, social-psychological, cultural and anthropological expectations of a sane society.My reasoning is that not letting a man do something a woman can do is discriminating based on sex. Because it is.
No, it is not. Hence the "bona fide occupational qualification" allowed by law. Idiot.
“Social, psychological, social-psychological, cultural and Anthropological expectations of a sane societyFeel free to share the portion of Title VII that includes the above as a legal exception to discrimination.
Quoting out of context.
The rest of your retort is illogical nonsense with ZERO legal founding.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Are you that obtuse or are you being that dense on purpose!?!
Cherry-picking Forrest Gump.
Created:
-->
@Ramshutu
@TWS1405Your idiocrasy never ceases to amaze me.I think you mean Idiocy. Idiocrasy means peculiar - like idiosyncratic.
No, I meant what I said. I used it in the same form/reference is ideology. It just hasn't caught on yet. Either way, you understood you were in fact being an idiot.
It's okay because she [is] a biological woman conforming with not only societal, cultural but also the employers dress code.There is NO "sex discrimination" under the law that prohibits an employer from firing a longstanding male employee coming to work dressed as a woman unscientifically claiming to be a biological woman after having already been hired as a biological male employee.If a long-standing male employee is fired for coming to work dressed as a woman - he is being fired because the company is negatively penalizing a man for doing something that is okay for woman. That is sex discrimination.You may be okay with that discrimination; and think that the discrimination is acceptable - but it is still sex discrimination.
And if you arrive to work dressed as Michael Myers every day...is that Halloween discrimination!?! That's what it amounts to when a guy suddenly comes to work dressed as a woman and demands to be treated as a woman. Would you demand to be treated like a serial killer!?!
Your entire reasoning is a semantic argument that defies social, psychological, social-psychological, cultural and anthropological expectations of a sane society.
Under the law, it is not, nor has it ever been sex discrimination until Gorsuch created new law via judicial activism (legal fiat)
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
It doesn't really guarantee rights though. The government doesn't provide venues for speech nor does it produce firearms for people to own.
Oh FFS!
The BOR does guarantee rights. It is in the fucking name: BILL OF RIGHTS
"The Bill of Rights is the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution. It spells out Americans’ rights in relation to their government. It guarantees civil rights and liberties to the individual—like freedom of speech, press, and religion. It sets rules for due process of law and reserves all powers not delegated to the Federal Government to the people or the States. And it specifies that “the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
"Bill of Rights, in the United States, the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution, which were adopted as a single unit on December 15, 1791, and which constitute a collection of mutually reinforcing guarantees of individual rights and of limitations on federal and state governments."
Get a clue Mr. Magoo!
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
It guarantees rights, not grants rights where the BOR are concerned.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
I was a Captain in the Marines and I own several guns
And I bet several subordinate Marines had your name on their ammo too.
Being a Captain doesn't make you right. In fact, it just makes you a glorified ButterBar!
And if you own several guns, then what the hell is it that you are even arguing here!?! Because it is patently clear you do NOT understand/comprehend the original intent (and future longevity) of the 2A.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
-->@TWS1405Um, do you think because you cry ad hominem every time I mock you it some how makes your personal attacks totally different? That’s very strange. Were you enlisted in the Army? I’ve got to believe so.
Somehow is one word, not two.
Not all ad hominems are true ad hominems. Depends on the context juxtaposed to the observation. I never use them unless deservedly so, which makes them via observation and not fallacious. If you're being a prick, an idiot, etc... yeah, a spade is a spade. Can't dance around that observable fact.
And so you have no idea what the definition of a mass shooting is. It absolutely is about the number of people killed. (Not shot) You can Google it.Try the FBI definition or the CDC
All definitions differ. And it is to you who conflated mass killings with mass shootings. Not me.
Attention to detail matters.
Reading comprehension matters.
Created:
-->
@Ramshutu
Your idiocrasy never ceases to amaze me.
A woman goes to work, wears heals, make up and a dress - and it’s okay.
It's okay because she [is] a biological woman conforming with not only societal, cultural standards/expectations, but also the employers dress code which is permissible under the law (i.e., not illegal).
There is NO "sex discrimination" under the law that prohibits an employer from firing a longstanding male employee coming to work dressed as a woman unscientifically claiming to be a biological woman after having already been hired as a biological male employee.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
This is funny, you must really be proud of that education you got in a correspondence course. Two degrees in the legal arena. So we established you are not a lawyer but you like to pretend you are one. Were you like the top paralegal at minor law firm or are you certified in arbitration?
Ad hominem, appeal to mockery, and strawman arguments.
Again, speaks volumes to your impotency to defend your own proffered position(s) on the topic at hand.
Mass shootings are defined differently based on number of shot and killed. Not all need be killed, only shot.Wrong again! What do you think the definition of a mass shooting is and cite a credible source.
It is not what I think it is, but what you "think" it is since you are the one asserting/using it in your asinine rebuttals.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
No, you did not prove me wrong. The stabbings were not mass killings. They were mass stabbings where few victims actually died. That’s the point. You saying we shouldn’t ban assault weapons because then people would just replace the rifles with pointy objects is stupid because pointy objects aren’t nearly as effective at killing as an assault rifle.
LOL!!!!
Yeah, I did.
Mass shootings are defined differently based on number of shot and killed. Not all need be killed, only shot. Same goes for stabbings you dunce.
Hands, fists and feet [still] kill more people EVERY YEAR than rifles of any kind.
End of story.
Created:
-->
@badger
Embarrassing yourself once again, I see. Carry on. You will be ignored going forward; that is, until you address the topic at hand.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
arms
noun plural
- Instruments or weapons of offense or defense.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
You asked:
Well I see you are retired. How did you gain all this expertise in the law and legislation?
And I answered. Academic, professional experience and continued personal research. Your sophomoric retort:
Really, prior experience and personal education. That’s so interesting. What are you trying so hard not to say? You don’t have a law degree but you play a lawyer in your mind? And did you retire at such a young age because you were so financially successful?
I possess two degrees in the legal arena.
I do not need a law degree to best a lawyer. As I have bested high paid lawyers before (in HOA real estate area, car purchases, VA disability benefits). It is all about who can present the better argument. Always.
And yeah, I retired early because I am so smart financially. Your piss poor attempt at this ad hominem of yours is an epic failure. Speaks volumes about your confidence in your own argument here where the 2A is concerned.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
This is what you asked:
Have you ever read about a mass killing with a stabbing object?
I replied in the affirmative with cited case(s).
Proved you wrong.
End of story.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
"Of course, of course. You know what this country needs is to hear the opinions of more retired baby boomers."
Ad hominem.
Not a boomer. Born after that era. And such an insult doesn't insult me. Just speaks volumes about you and your unsubstantiated position.
"Well I see you are retired. How did you gain all this expertise in the law and legislation?"
From prior experience and continued personal education. DUH!!!
You are no rocket scientist, that's for sure.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
What is a militia?
"A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency." - i.e., the citizenry (i.e., the people).
How is a militia to be armed if not being pre-armed of their own accord?
"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms..."
A militia is an accompaniment (Something added for embellishment, completeness, or symmetry; complement.) to the regular armed forces of the state.
No state government employing armed forces is going to also give equal access to the same weapons of those armed forces, especially if they would never be called upon. Therefore, it is "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" should they need be called upon to accompaniment the armed forces to protect the state.
It's not rocket sicence.
Created:
-->
@Ramshutu
**YAWN**
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
"So you get pulled over by a tyrannical police officer and he commences to violate your constitutional rights. You, being the genius that you are, pull out the AR-15 you had hidden in your glove compartment and show him what it means to be a patriot, and you blow him away. Ya, that’s going to happen."
This entire retort shows just how ignorant you are of the topic at hand.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
219 years after the fact???? Pell center holds no weight for me.
Doesn't hold much water, now does it.
Regardless, training is an after-the-fact reality and NOT before-the-fact. As such, one must own weapons of self-defense before joining a militia.
I am a constitutionalist and educated in matters of various aspects of the law, both academically and professionally.
More than familiar with legislative historical intent, purpose and application of the laws application. Are you?
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Ya, that is exactly what it meant when written by the Founders.
What meant what? Quoting in context or at least adding additional info to your retort helps the understanding of the one you are replying to, as well as those reading.
Ok genius, are you suggesting the government outlaw blunt objects? Have you ever read about a mass killing with a stabbing object? How about you and I square off - I’ll use a rifle and you can have a big knife. Who do you think will be killed?
Do not be a dumbass. Outlaw blunt objects. JFC. Grow up.
Are you aware that 95% of all statistics are made up on the spot?
Nope. Just not true. Completely delusional.
I noticed how convenient it has been for you to completely disregard other factual rebuttals I made against your initial assertion on the 2A. Cherry-picking what you "think" you can rebut.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Where in the 2A does it denote the militia was "well trained"?
"the 2A right was for a well trained (regulated) militia man."
That is not what "regulated" means.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
And yet more people die every year by handguns than rifles of any kind, as well as by hands, fists and feet than rifles of any kinds as well.
Hell, more die from blunt and stabbing objects, as well as shotguns than rifles of any kind every year too. So why such the focus on rifles when they are used so little compared to personal, blunt and stabbing objects and shotguns????
Created:
-->
@Ramshutu
Never claimed to be good, great or awesome at debating. Strawman.Did I say you did? For it to be a strawman, I have to misrepresent your position - I didn’t even mention your position
Yeah, you did. It was implicitly implied.
"I have yet to see Oromagi talk about how good he is at debating, research, linking, considering etc -"
You are just being your usual narcissistic sanctimonious denialist self.
Go away. You're just continuing to make a fool of yourself.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
From these words it should be clear that the original intent of the Second Amendment...
No, it is not clear that that was the original intent of the 2A.
You clearly lack the proper education and understanding of the legislative history, intent and purpose of the 2A.
The framers and the new citizens of America just won a war against the Crown in defending its own freedom and independence in establishing America's sovereignty from another foreign power. More than that, given the experiences of those who fought for that freedom, they learned from history that to be powerless against such a monarchy as that which they broke from, they could be subjugated to another again if they did not learn from that history. As such, the 2A was written to protect the citizenry from any potential future encroaching government that would treat them as the monarchy did from which they broke from.
More than that, in order to form a militia for the very purpose history proved effective, citizens needed to be in possession of their own arms. Before and at the time the 2A was drafted, it was already proven effective to establish an [already armed] militia, a state needs armed live bodies to do so. Without those bodies, already armed, they would have no militia. So, self-defense (either from local or rogue Indian raids, criminals, gangs, etc.) was directly and implicitly implied within the language of the amendment: "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms..."
Created:
-->
@Ramshutu
Never claimed to be good, great or awesome at debating. Strawman.
I am good at researching the topic that I initiate and engage in, not those I did not initiate. I use the shotgun effect.
Anyone can link, doesn't take any measure of expertise you clown.
Oh, he has said another is incorrect without proving it. That's for sure.
You need to check your arrogance and sanctimonious narcist banality at the door, Mr. Dunning Kruger.
Created:
BACKGROUND:
"Aimee Stephens was a funeral home employee who had presented herself as male up until 2013. On July 31, 2013, she wrote to her employer, the Harris Funeral Homes group, so that they could be prepared for her decision to undergo gender reassignment surgery, telling them that after a vacation, she planned to return dressed in female attire that otherwise followed the employee handbook. She was fired shortly after the letter was sent, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission helped to represent Stephens in court. The District Court ruled for the funeral homes, stating Title VII did not cover transgender people and that as a religious organization under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the company had a right to dismiss Stephens for non-conformity. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision, concluding Title VII did include protection for transgender people, which Harris Funeral Homes petitioned the Supreme Court to review. About a month before the Supreme Court decision, Stephens died from health complications. Representation of her case continued through her estate.
The case was heard on October 8, 2019, alongside two other cases, Bostock v. Clayton County and Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda which dealt with Title VII protection related to sexual orientation. The Court ruled in a 6–3 decision under Bostock but covering all three cases on June 15, 2020, that Title VII protection extends to gay and transgender people.[2]"
The case was heard on October 8, 2019, alongside two other cases, Bostock v. Clayton County and Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda which dealt with Title VII protection related to sexual orientation. The Court ruled in a 6–3 decision under Bostock but covering all three cases on June 15, 2020, that Title VII protection extends to gay and transgender people.[2]"
PURPOSE OF RESEARCHING LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND INTENT:
"Legislative intent is the term that the courts have given to their analysis of the historical documents originally generated when the statute in question was under consideration in the Legislature—state or Federal. Whenever the interpretation of a legislative enactment becomes an issue in a case, the courts will commonly resort to the Rules of Statutory Construction to determine the proper application of the statutory language to the facts at hand. "
"The Court determines the Legislature’s intention by examining the problem faced by the Legislature when it considered the bill that enacted the language in question, the public policy issues that the problem raised and the drafting solutions that emerged during legislative consideration of the bill."
LEGISLATING FROM THE BENCH:
The Supreme Court was founded in part to balance the executive and legislative branches of government, and it can help prevent the legislative branch from overstepping its legal obligations by measuring the laws they pass against the U.S. Constitution.
"For the Democrats, the courts have long been seen as a bulwark for liberal
causes. But this presumption also appears vulnerable. If the courts weaken legal
protections related to affirmative action, abortion, and civil liberties, the
judiciary’s liberal allies may become alienated as well.
In the context of this increased political pressure and scrutiny, being more
articulate and clear-thinking about the acceptable contours of judicial power
and the judiciary’s role, and the terms under which we can fairly criticize
judges and justices, seems essential. To the extent we value a neutral,
independent, and effective judiciary, further exploration of legislating from the
bench can help us to examine the preconditions and limits of this efficacy."
JUDICIAL ACTIVISM:
"The practice in the judiciary of protecting or expanding individual rights through decisions that depart from established precedent or are independent of or in opposition to supposed constitutional or legislative intent."
TEXTUALIST JURISPRUDENCE:
"Textualism is a formalist theory in which the interpretation of the law is primarily based on the ordinary meaning of the legal text, where no consideration is given to non-textual sources, such as intention of the law when passed, the problem it was intended to remedy, or significant questions regarding the justice or rectitude of the law.[1]"
CASE INFORMATION VIA LEGAL INFORMATION INSTITUTE:
ISSUES:
Does Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibit discrimination against transgender individuals, either as a form of sex discrimination or as impermissible “sex stereotyping” under Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins?
MY ARGUMENT AGAINST THE RULING GIVEN BY GORSUCH:
Justice Gorsuch violated the intent and purpose of legislative history and likewise the rules of statutory construction when he evaluated the case of transgender Aimee Stephens. In effect, he legislated from the bench via judicial activism. He essentially created law where no law existed within the original crafting, intent and purpose of Title VII within the Civil Rights Act of 1964 where gender identity and sex stereotypes are concerned.
The arguments presented by Stephens are patently illogical.
Stephens argued that Title VII "specifically" prohibited transgender discrimination [because] it barred employers from terminating their employees “because of [an] individual’s . . . sex.” Stephens further argued that by terminating someone because they are not conforming with their employer’s view of how that person’s “biological sex” ought to present itself, the employer is using that person’s “sex” as it was determined at birth in order to purposely discriminate against them.
When one looks at the legislative history of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, "specifically" Title VII, there is absolutely no language or debate involving transgender, gender identity and/or sexual orientation rights given the glaring fact that none were even an issue in 1964 where legal protections were concerned. Issues meaning neither was seen as apparent then as they theoretically are present-day where legal protections were necessarily needing addressed by said Act in 1964.
The origins of gender identity did not appear to take a foothold in law until the early 1970s, which had more to do with hermaphroditism and transsexualism than actual transgenderism.
The introduction of the dichotomy between anatomical sex and gender identity, then commonly referred to as the psychopathological condition of gender identity disorder, was not introduced into the APAs Diagnostic Statistical Manual until the Third version in 1980, 16 years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
As such, there is absolutely no measure by which Stephen's argument that Title VII "specifically" prohibits transgender discrimination in employment, or any other area of employment law either. And what one's perception is of what another's sex "ought" to present themselves as is legally irrelevant. To argue such is to also argue how one "ought" to behave when employed, take for example lawfully vs unlawfully; kind or unkind; professionally or unprofessionally. Each measure is a commonsense expectation of behavior, and for a biological man to present himself as a man for nearly two decades as a man, only to one day abruptly claim they are not what they were born as and wish to live their personal fantasy as the opposite sex is a shock to commonsense and the laws governing fraud.
You apply as a man, are hired as a man, work as a man, conduct yourself as a man and then inform your employer you will be coming to work as a woman in appearance and wish to be treated as a biological woman is fraud under the law. An employer is not obligated to facilitate your fraudulent behavior. The Funeral Home had every legal right to terminate employment with Stephens. For Justice Gorsuch to find legal justification for acceptance of transgenderism in Title VII flies in the face of both legislative intent and unquestionably demonstrates judicial activism.
Stephens then argues that should the Court exclude transgender discrimination from Title VII, it would add to the only codified exception to Title VII's protections. This exception being the bona fide occupational qualifications exception that HOOTERS prevailed in regarding being sued by male applicants denied employment as waiters. Hooters maintained it was on the right side of the law in asserting a “bona fide occupational qualification” based on the essence of its business model. Hooters states that the “Hooters Girl” is the foundation of its business. Which is precisely why Hooters is allowed to continue this business model. It is also another reason why we see no male centerfolds in Playboy, but rather that of Playgirl, and no female centerfolds in the latter magazine.
Stephens continues to argue, and with emphasizes, that it mattered not if Congress understood Title VII to encompass transgender discrimination during its 1964 enactment having no bearing on how the Court should determine the statute’s meaning and application present day of that case. This inherently flies in the intent and purpose of the Court to include legislative history in the laws intent and purpose behind its creating and passing in correcting wrongs that have subsequently been made illegal. Ignoring that history of legislative intent and making up terms, intent and meaning of a historical law to fit a present-day issue far removed from the historical law is nothing but judicial activism (i.e., legislating from the bench). And that is EXACTLY what Justice Gorsuch did.
This argument of Stephens is a patent false equivalency fallacy: "Stephens analogizes an employer’s decision to fire employees for their transgender status to the impermissible act of terminating employees because they changed religions." Religion is "specifically" referenced in Title VII, transgenderism is not. Therefore, there is no equal comparison, period.
Sex stereotypes do not come into legal argument in this case either, despite the arguments Stephens made employing it. Stephens was born a man. He applied as a man. He was hired as a man. He worked as a man until such day without warning he informed the Funeral Home he wanted to be employed as a woman when in fact he is/was not a woman. That is an act of fraud, but also a change in employment terms that an employee has no authority to make. Only the employer can change terms of employment conditions, not an employee. Therefore, the funeral home terminating Stephens had nothing to do with a sex stereotype as he was not being discriminated as a biological female employee, but rather that of the obvious: a biological male employee making unrealistic expectations upon his employer to change the terms of his employment with the employer for which he had no legal authority to affect or force upon the employer.
IMO, Justice Gorsuch legislated from the bench via judicial activism and read into Title VII that which was simply not there, nor supported by the legislative history, intent and purpose of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Prove me wrong.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
Definitely not.
Now that I can agree with you on..."definitely not" you are.
A lot of your debate tactics are sophomoric.
One day, with the right debate topic, I will take you on.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
- The Texas GOP did not exclude machine guns from their statement:
- Whereas all gun control is a violation of the Second Amendment and our God given rights
Oh FFS, you are reading way too much into this. There are OTHER statutes on the books that address tried and true weapons of war that are not allowed to be owned by civilians and used for military/law enforcement purposes only. When the GOP speaks of gun control it is strictly about the obvious weapons on the market: pistols, shotguns and rifles. Not "machine guns."
- Are Federal restrictions on machine guns an infringement on the Constitutional right to bear arms?
No.
- Courts Rule States Did Not Follow Their Own Election Laws In 2020 (thefederalist.com)
- This one requires membership
No it doesn't. Fix your firewall or turn off your VPN. I can see the entirety of the article just fine, and I have no membership.
- Last Minute Election Rule Changes Raise Big Questions - The American Conservative
- No specific complaints here.
- Since you trust Robert W. Merry as source here, be sure to trust him when he says two weeks later:
- It’s time for conservatives to dump Trump. He’s a loser and a disgraceful one at that.
- And on Jan 8th
- Trump fanned the flames and incited the ghastly attack, and for that he will be forever tarred with history’s brush of opprobrium. His presidential identity will begin and end with this travesty
Your incessant [ass]umptions that people "trust" a source is asinine and abhorrently ridiculous.
Nowhere did I say "I trust everything Robert W. Merry says," it's just linked citation. Moreover, it is an implicit genetic fallacy for you to bitch about the source without addressing the contextual content of said source.
Trump said protest peacefully. Also, Jan 8th is 2 days after the so-called faux insurrection.
- U.S. Election 2020: Last Minute Rule Changes Responsible For Election Confusion, Chaos and Low Public Confidence in Results | Capitalism Review
- A Supreme Court decision from Oct 26th, 2020 is not evidence of election fraud
- I agree with majority here, that state legislatures, not judges write the election rules.
- That court ordered extension for collecting mail-in ballots was ruled out before the election and so is not an example of election fraud.
- The irony of Gorsuch calling an April court ruling a "last minute rule change just before the election" on the same day that Amy Coney Barrett was sworn into the SCOTUS is only lost on Republicans.
*yawn* on that last point.
- No evidence supports Trump's claim. (RE: Election of 2020)
- We now have testimony under oath from reliable Conservatives swearing that Giuliani was admitting internally that it was all bullshit ( ‘We’ve got lots of theories, we just don’t have the evidence,’”) just weeks after the election.
"...just weeks after the election."
Uh, it is 2022 and there has been plenty evidence released over time that has substantiated or given an air of legitimacy to Trump's claim
Created:
-->
@Ehyeh
Created:
-->
@oromagi
"According to the GOP, Jesus wants us to make sure we are putting machine guns in the hands of those under 21 years of age, especially in the middle of a riot."
"A machine gun is a fully automatic, rifled autoloading firearm designed for sustained direct fire with rifle cartridges. Other automatic firearms such as automatic rifles are typically designed more for firing short bursts rather than continuous firepower, and are not considered true machine guns. As a class of military kinetic projectile weapon, machine guns are designed to be mainly used as infantry support weapons and generally used when attached to a bipod or tripod, a fixed mount or a heavy weapons platform for stability against recoils." Wikipedia
Uh, "machine guns" are illegal for anyone to possess; they are strictly law enforcement and military purposed weapons not for civilian possession or use. So no, neither Jesus or the GOP want to "make sure we are putting machine guns in the hands of those under 21 years of age."
"No evidence supports this claim." (RE: Election of 2020)
Sure there is, and various courts have ruled on as much.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
-->@TWS1405OK, so you're reduced to (sic) "I'm rubber, you're glue" great. (sic)
Nope. I leave such sophomoric banality to those like you.
Why is TWS1405 so (sic) resilient [sic] to fact-based truth regarding his (sic) false claims that he's an (sic) "an excellent researcher/investigator?"
When you take the matter out of context it is false. Within the context of the discussion, it is true.
Your personal hardon for those you dislike and are cited is not my problem, that's your personal problem.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
I will accept and take your constructive criticism of myself as a compliment.
And I agree with your knowledgeable assessment of Oromagi. Obviously.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Contextually "blind beholders" is a contradiction in terms.
That term was taken out of context, as it was meant figuratively and not literally because there is more than one way to "see."
Who would be the most honest judge of physical beauty.The blind or the sighted?
The sciences (e.g., psychology) and what history has taught us about physical beauty.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
Yup, you are not only a sanctimonious snob...
noun
- One who despises, ignores, or is patronizing to those he or she considers inferior.
- One who is convinced of his or her superiority in matters of taste or intellect.
- A convulsive sob.
You also display classic narcissistic personality disorder traits.
Still no regret, remorse or anything else you will falsely ascribe.
Truth does NOT equal snobbery. What I said - in context - about the small segment of black males that cause so much violence in this country is factually accurate.
I do not know where you are finding your definitions, but they are the wrong meanings of the terms used in the context in which they were given.
promotion
noun
- The act of promoting someone to a higher job, grade, or rank, or the fact of being so promoted.
Still did not promote the man with whom you clearly have a hardon for.
Created: