n8nrgmi

so do you just ignore the database search that i quoted? where is your systematic approach? what you quoted just shows there were some gun rights prior to the united states forming, and you just assume it's tied to the phrase 'bear arms'. 

every amendment has a clear history to it, outside the text. the founders stated what they wanted in the text and why, the purpose. why would it be just implied that they meant to protect self defense and hunting? why wasn't that part explicitly mentioned any where? all their focus was on the need for a militia. 

the article you cited and the words you wrote are convoluted and hard to follow. id turn it on you to show if you have good evidence, a clear statement that shows 'bear arms' means just 'hold a gun' or something like that.

The phrase “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms” shows up in a draft of a proposed Virginia constitution in 1776. Subsequent drafts included the bracketed qualifier that “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands or tenements].” Although this sentence did not find its way into the final version of the Virginia state constitution, it is documented in The Papers of Thomas Jefferson.

i mean evidence outside the text of the amendment 

also that article you mentioned only shows that sometimes 'bear' was used to mean carry only if it was specified someone in the context.

ive cited the research that shows 'bear arms' almost always meant use for the militia.

also, when the amendment was written they almost wrote the people have the right to bear arms unless their conscience tells them not to, a concientious objector clause.... which means they were using the phrase to mean militia. 

i'll wait, i guess forever, for you to explain why there's no evidence that the founders cared at all about self defense or hunting when they wrote the second amendment. 

where is the evidence the fathers wanted to protect rights to self defense and hunting? 
where is all the evidence that the fathers were generally against gun restrictions?

so if you think there are viable options for changing climate change, why do you continue to talk about how some advocates 'dont walk the walk' and how other countries are just going to pollute anyway, or pretend like there's no need to do anything? why dont you embrace the climate consensus, and need for change, and just vary on how you want to do it? 

you didn't answer why we shouldn't do anything to do our part? because this isn't an all or nothing pursuit. 

you did mention that many liberal candidates are going to far, and that's understandable. so dont let that position of theirs sway you. but it doesn't answer why we shouldn't do anything. 

also i dont think expensive = paris climate accord. necessarily. i mean the costs will add up, but that's over a long period. we should be transistioning to alternative fuel anyway, so this is just a good excuse to do it sooner. (per the fact we need to transition eventually, i dont trust the free market to make the transition, because the rich people who are affected won't buy alternative until it hurts their deep pockets not to, while the poor will be stuck with expensive gasoline and energy sources while they wait for a transition to occur)

also you just said we were meeting the accord's goals already, so how can that be expensive? down the road things might change, but the long time period makes it doable. 

i dont support massive or expensive campaigns to limit climate change. stuff like the green new deal. the paris climate accord sounded pretty reasonable. 

why do you think this is an all or nothing pursuit? why can't we do our part to limit a more extreme climate problem, even if other countries dont pull enough weight? plus that's not to mention with the paris climate accord, many were in agreement that we should. how much sense does pulling out of that make when we have plenty of viable options at our disposal and when so many were on board? 

it might not be climate doom, but dont you think droughts, massive hurricanes, collapsed ecosystems, and flooded cities are things we should try to limit? 

the question in the last post goes to you too, cause i think you've promoted nuclear. 

given you like the idea of using nuclear energy, wouldn't it make more sense to push for that and embrace the need to limit climate change? instead you complain about people who don't walk the walk and act like there's no point trying to do anything. 

have you ever noticed it's only partisan conservatives who are vocal about doing nothing about climate change? you would think if their arguments had merit, there would be more independent types and more counter culture scientists who second those stances. 

there needs to be a few easy questions to separate the stupid people from the really stupid people. 

did you take the ACT or SAT? what were your scores? have you ever taken an official IQ test? there are tables out there that convert all those types of scores because they correlate and such. 

the questions get harder when you get more into the test. a big aspect of the test is also time, seeing how fast you are able to do the problems. someone posted the iq link at another forum i frequent, and the scores seem to vary a lot, with smarter people getting higher scores and such. 

the article has research, stats, and good arguments. you have none of those things. case closed. 

just stimulating discussion/debate

it sounds completely credible. the article describes the way people stop believing in santa, and draws parallels to religion. the article has lots of statistics. it looks like you're just against the article because it's not friendly to religion, not because it's untrue. are you too dense to realize that? at least, you've given no convincing or substantive arguments to think otherwise. 

do you have any reason to think the stuff in the article doesn't happen to most or all people when they stop believing? even if one of the religions out there is true, the brain still acts the same way as described in the article when someone stops believing the truth. even if christianity is true, for instance, moreover, there are thousands of others that are false, and the descriptions in that article are much stronger, like how people stop believing in the same way as they do with santa. 

test your IQ here, and compare to others....

no it's like this: 'move, bitch. get out the way, get out the way, bitch, get out the way'. 

it takes only ten or fifteen minutes. you dont have to pay at the end, just check your email for results. it looks like a decent website. 

i got 132. what did you get? 

do you have any reason to think what is written is misleading or untrue? sounds like you are criticizing only because it's possible to criticize, not because you have a cogent argument. 

i'm more about having a minimum that isn't low, not so much one that is higher. paying people beans would be bad for employment and the economy. 

but even if a minimum decreased the amount of jobs, it would still be worth it. by far most employers can afford to pay seven dollars an hour, the current wage. so what is the net effect? even if some jobs are lost, it's not that many, and ultimately we get what we wanted to begin with, people at the bottom being paid better, improving their lives. 

do you consider yourself racist? a white supremecist? 

what you are describing is the effects of increasing everyone's wages, basically. or, how do you differentiate the difference in effects of increasing the minimum wage, and increasing everyone's wage? 

people won't care until they see a real impact on their lives. that's how society often does things.... they wait until it's boiling over before doing anything. 

you also ignore that demand economics drive our economy and choose to only focus on one side of the equation. if you have the bottom making beans, then people close to the bottom also make beans plus one, such that they won't spend money on an array of goods and services, driving the economy. 

i just responded similar to how you did. without substance, and then setting aside anyone who disagrees with you. 

i stated, if you increase everyone's wages, then inflation will be an equal opportunity offender, and the poorest will be back to where they started. if you only increase the wage of the bottom, inflation still occurs, but it isn't happening in totality, such that the bottom still has a higher proportion than they started with.

after i made this argument, you didn't get into any of this nitty gritty, and just decided to repeat your original claim, that increasing the minimum increases inflation and puts the bottom back to where they started. just ignoring the logic that refutes your argument. 

you dont understand how inflation works, or economics 

if joe makes a dollar an hour, he can't go to movies, or buy shoes or lots of other things that stimulate the economy. business would slow. if he makes seven, he can afford some shoes, or maybe he'll splurge and buy deli meat where they slice it for you. without his demographic presence at a minimum wage, business in general wouldn't be as profitable. 

so you think having millions making a dollar an hour is economically superior to stimulation than if they made seven? are you one of those supply side freaks? 

the wage protects not just those making the minimum but anyone who makes in range to it, so it is millions would be be affected. 

i may be wrong about picking twelve but at the very least it should be five or seven ish as it is now. the point is that there should be a minimum that matches the sweet spot of optimum economic stimulation. 

not all employers only pay the minimum. but many do. look at every decade where there's a different minimum wage, and you will find many paying only what they have to. 

you commit a logical fallacy. you say businesses have to pay the wage so the economy suffers. what actually happens, is if you don't have a minimum, yes the rich might be richer, but having people paid only two dollars instead of seven will hurt the economy. we live in a demand economy. things are stimulated mostly by consumer spending. there may be some jobs that are cut by having a minimum wage, but overall more jobs are stimulated to be created. of course, i'm not saying the wage should be fifteen dollars or high. there is a breaking point where there is more harm than good. 

my main point is that there should be a minimum. but if i were to pick a wage, i'd go for twelve dollars. that's because the wage in 1974 was two dollars, and if it kept up with inflation, it'd be twelve today. those were the beginnings of some great economic times, and i'd say if it was good for back then, it's good now. also when someone makes mid twenty some thousand a year, they are closer the middle class, the class which stimulates the economy the most. 

...

...

saying inflation will just make a new minimum wage the same as it started out as, is a stupid argument. that would only happen if you increased everyone's wages. if you only increased the bottom, there would be some inflation, but overall the people earning minimum would still have a larger proportion. 

having a minimum wage stimulates the economy more than if we didn't have one. employers only pay the least the have to, and if large majorities are paying two dollars an hour, jobs will suffer, and the economy. that's not to mention that people have a right to a bare minimum wage. 

you believe in God right? why?

do you follow any religions? why?

why do you think christianity is untrue? 

do you believe in the afterlife? why?

do you believe in miracles? why? 

with red flag laws, the accused people get due process. all due process is is a court having a hearing on the matter to ensure the situation is just and legal. 

so if someone is probably going to kill other people, you don't think the government should do anything to stop it? 

why do scientists always say we need to grow our productivity of food production if we dont need more food? 

plus it is basic logic. if the world can feed ten billion and we have ten billion, there's no room for restaurants or fat people or people in general to waste food or overindulge. we'd have to ration. 

do you contend that most third world countries are socialist? my impression is they are too poor to redistribute anything. they are mostly free market. 

we make enough food to feed ten billion people, and we have like seven billion currently. within thirty years, we should have a full ten billion people where levels are expected to level off. so, the thing is, we'd have to ration our food to get it to everyone, assuming we could get it to everyone. everyone who knows anything about this topic knows we need a game changer in food production, but farmland isn't increasing in productivity enough. the game changer is to tap the oceans. 

true, political instability is a bigger problem than food production. unlike parrot says, it's not so much capitalism that needs promoted, cause i would guess most thirty world countries are free market. the real solution is for them to stablize their institutions, like police and the rule of law. but not everywhere can produce their own food, even if we got them stable. there needs to be cheaper sources of protein and nutrition, and the only way to do that is ocean farming. 

ocean farming. we have vast swaths of unused ocean. sea weed, fish, mussel etc. i read that an area the size of the state of oregon could feed the world, so we have basically unlimited potential. plus sea weed captures a lot more carbon than trees do. 

ocean farming. we have vast swaths of unused ocean. sea weed, fish, mussel etc. i read that an area the size of the state of oregon could feed the world, so we have basically unlimited potential. plus sea weed captures a lot more carbon than trees do.