|
|
| Re: The Donald vs Ramos (1309667) | |
 |
|
| Home > OTChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 6 of 7 |
||
|
| (1310306) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by mtk52983 on Fri Aug 28 12:31:58 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by bingbong on Fri Aug 28 12:27:29 2015. Which is why we need to elect more representatives who support the second amendment |
|
|
| (1310307) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by terRAPIN station on Fri Aug 28 12:48:15 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by ChicagoMotorman on Fri Aug 28 09:51:22 2015. No, not necessarily. What would make you think that? |
|
|
| (1310309) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Fri Aug 28 12:49:37 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by mtk52983 on Fri Aug 28 12:31:58 2015. What is that supposed to mean? You advocating murder? |
|
|
| (1310310) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by terRAPIN station on Fri Aug 28 12:50:05 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by R2ChinaTown on Fri Aug 28 10:27:09 2015. Because there could be not enough women who can do the same work. |
|
|
| (1310316) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by mtk52983 on Fri Aug 28 12:59:04 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by bingbong on Fri Aug 28 12:49:37 2015. Nope. I am advocating the United States Constitution and further restrictions on gun ownership such as what you have proposed here violate the Second Amendment |
|
|
| (1310318) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Fri Aug 28 13:17:17 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by mtk52983 on Fri Aug 28 12:59:04 2015. Not a single one does. The second anendment also mandates gun regulation. One may be allowed to have a gun but the government, and for that matter as a health risk isdue the public at large, has the right to know who does. They also have the right to comtrol who gets a gun, such as excluding those with mental health issues, add to that those with close contact of same. (Ask youself...would Sandy Hook have happened had there not been guns in that home? And so many?) As a public health issue, bans on carrying a gun outside of one's property are also legal.So no, we have more than enough guns to kill every man woman and child in this country as it is. |
|
|
| (1310319) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by mtk52983 on Fri Aug 28 14:10:59 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by bingbong on Fri Aug 28 13:17:17 2015. You have proposed that all guns in private homes be unloaded and locked. That violates the Second Amendment. Public carry laws also do because they infringe the right to transport guns.The Second Amendment states: "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." Two definitions of "regulate" are: "to adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation" and "to put in good order." To ensure the accuracy of operation of the militia people have an unfettered right to keep and bear arms so that they are trained in their use and capable of using them if the need for the militia presented itself. Limitations on the right to carry therefore violate the plain meaning of the second amendment. Moreover so do artificial maximums on how many arms a person may own in their own home or requirements that the arms be unloaded and locked in private homes. |
|
|
| (1310321) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Fri Aug 28 14:22:22 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by mtk52983 on Fri Aug 28 14:10:59 2015. That's a safety measure. Simple common sense. not to mention truly looking out for one's family. If a loaded unlocked gun is in the home the chances of accidental shooting multiples.Guns can be transported legally through secured transportation networks. Point to point is fine, with documentation as to to and from points, in a secured vehicle. Hunters have licenses to carry from vehicles to woods where they set up. The public health risk here is the armed idiot in Starbucks. I prefer peace with my coffee. There is no, nor was there ever intended to be an unfettered right to have a gun. It was always intended to be regulated. In fact, among the first laws created in this new nation, gun control figured significantly. Training was required, as well as registration. Anyone could look up the record and see who owned exactly what. Nowadays, any asshole with enough money can get one and kill people recklessly. Time for that to end. The rights of those who wish to live free from guns has long been overdue. |
|
|
| (1310326) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Aug 28 14:38:08 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by chicagomotorman on Thu Aug 27 22:24:01 2015. You're really pushing to make yourself look very liberal, you know that? |
|
|
| (1310327) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Fri Aug 28 14:42:34 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by bingbong on Fri Aug 28 13:17:17 2015. Hmmmm.... SCOTUS ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects a responsible, law-abiding citizen’s right to possess an operable handgun in the home for self-defense. Two years later in in McDonald v. City of Chicago, SCOTUS ruled that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments in addition to the federal government.If you research the words "self-regulated militia" you'll discover that at the time those words were used by the Founders, it meant that militia forces should be skilled with arms of contemporary military utility and relevant military tactics. In every other instance where the term “regulate” is used, or regulations are referred to, the Constitution specifies who is to do the regulating and what is being “regulated.” However, in the Second Amendment, the Framers chose only to use the term “well regulated” to describe a militia and chose not to define who or what would regulate it. It did not mean the usage of arms should be regulated by the federal government. |
|
|
| (1310328) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by R2ChinaTown on Fri Aug 28 14:45:33 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by bingbong on Fri Aug 28 10:53:25 2015. That's your explanation? |
|
|
| (1310330) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Aug 28 14:51:53 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by Dave on Fri Aug 28 14:42:34 2015. I think that it's best to have the definition of "militia" as put forth by one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence:A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, and render regular troops in a great measure unnecessary.Per Richard Henry Lee, one of the "forgotten" Founding Fathers. |
|
|
| (1310332) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Fri Aug 28 15:04:30 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by Dave on Fri Aug 28 14:42:34 2015. Who does the regulation isn't the issue. The Fed is fine with me, so many states do nothing or are flat out dangerous about their gun laws that the Fed might as well handle this. At least we'd get some serious anti-trafficking laws so VA guns don't end up killing NYers. At least we can have significant background checks as a first defense against guns in the hands of the wrong people. That would be a good start, a common sense baseline. |
|
|
| (1310333) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Fri Aug 28 15:05:36 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by R2ChinaTown on Fri Aug 28 14:45:33 2015. Who is avaiable and willing to do the work you mean? That's economics 101, job market! Lulz! |
|
|
| (1310334) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Fri Aug 28 15:06:18 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by mtk52983 on Fri Aug 28 12:31:58 2015. ???What laws have any elected representatives passed that contradict the second amendment other than the gun laws in DC and Chicago, and very possibly NYC? |
|
|
| (1310335) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by mtk52983 on Fri Aug 28 15:07:13 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by bingbong on Fri Aug 28 14:22:22 2015. You can live free from guns by choosing not to have a gun in your house. Instead you seek to infringe on the constitutional rights of others. I would never personally own a gun, but that does not mean I can dictate that on others. |
|
|
| (1310337) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Aug 28 15:15:33 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by mtk52983 on Fri Aug 28 15:07:13 2015. Why not? |
|
|
| (1310338) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by ChicagoMotorman on Fri Aug 28 15:19:22 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by bingbong on Fri Aug 28 10:47:39 2015. You mean the right to kill an unborn baby? |
|
|
| (1310339) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by ChicagoMotorman on Fri Aug 28 15:20:07 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by bingbong on Fri Aug 28 12:49:37 2015. No, you are. |
|
|
| (1310340) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Fri Aug 28 15:20:30 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by mtk52983 on Fri Aug 28 15:07:13 2015. Wrong. The stray bullet from the idiot next door is as lethal as any other. You seem to think people know what to do with a gun. Lulz. They do not. They just get one because some hateradio paranoiac told them to. |
|
|
| (1310350) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by #4 Sea Beach Fred on Fri Aug 28 15:31:20 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by TerrapIN StatiON on Fri Aug 28 00:45:50 2015. It's the way he says it that rankles many people. Besides, Terrapin, you and I both know that an attempt to deport 11 million people when some of those children are American citizens and those who aren't were brought in by their parents and had no say about it, is a totally impossible task. To me anyway, he could have said those adults here illegally can stay but cannot become American citizens since they broke the law but their children at adulthood can become US citizens since this is the country they know and most likely have learned to love. |
|
|
| (1310353) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Aug 28 15:33:36 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by #4 Sea Beach Fred on Fri Aug 28 15:31:20 2015. They don't love the country any more than hardcore leftists do. Except as a new "Alta California" probably. |
|
|
| (1310358) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by R2ChinaTown on Fri Aug 28 15:41:35 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by bingbong on Fri Aug 28 15:05:36 2015. So now you are claiming that because there are not enough people to do a job an employer can justify paying some of them less? Are you sure that you want to stick with that argument? That's not economics 101. It's idiocy 102. Did you even take high school economics? Supply and demand? You continue to embarrass yourself. |
|
|
| (1310359) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Fri Aug 28 15:43:21 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by R2ChinaTown on Fri Aug 28 15:41:35 2015. Lulz. Nary a clue as to what I'm talking about. |
|
|
| (1310360) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Aug 28 15:45:36 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by bingbong on Fri Aug 28 15:43:21 2015. Because like the bullshit “wage gap,” it’s just your fantasy. |
|
|
| (1310361) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by R2ChinaTown on Fri Aug 28 15:47:29 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by bingbong on Fri Aug 28 10:47:39 2015. You still have not shown that women are at a measurable economic disadvantage. Prove it or STHU |
|
|
| (1310362) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by R2ChinaTown on Fri Aug 28 15:49:55 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by bingbong on Fri Aug 28 15:43:21 2015. Neither do you. You parrotted what terrapin said without any economic understanding. Prove your case that women are systematically paid less for the same work in the same setting. |
|
|
| (1310366) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by ChicagoMotorman on Fri Aug 28 16:18:32 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by bingbong on Fri Aug 28 15:43:21 2015. Klutz |
|
|
| (1310367) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by ChicagoMotorman on Fri Aug 28 16:19:16 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by bingbong on Fri Aug 28 10:29:58 2015. Klutz. |
|
|
| (1310368) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by ChicagoMotorman on Fri Aug 28 16:19:27 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by bingbong on Fri Aug 28 10:32:00 2015. Klutz. |
|
|
| (1310369) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by ChicagoMotorman on Fri Aug 28 16:19:37 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by bingbong on Fri Aug 28 10:36:54 2015. Klutz. |
|
|
| (1310370) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by ChicagoMotorman on Fri Aug 28 16:19:49 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by bingbong on Fri Aug 28 10:47:39 2015. Klutz. |
|
|
| (1310371) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by ChicagoMotorman on Fri Aug 28 16:20:03 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by bingbong on Fri Aug 28 11:57:24 2015. Klutz. |
|
|
| (1310373) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by ChicagoMotorman on Fri Aug 28 16:20:24 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by bingbong on Fri Aug 28 10:50:03 2015. Klutz. |
|
|
| (1310374) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by ChicagoMotorman on Fri Aug 28 16:20:33 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by bingbong on Fri Aug 28 10:51:16 2015. Klutz. |
|
|
| (1310375) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by ChicagoMotorman on Fri Aug 28 16:20:42 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by bingbong on Fri Aug 28 10:53:25 2015. Klutz. |
|
|
| (1310379) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by ChicagoMotorman on Fri Aug 28 16:21:32 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by bingbong on Fri Aug 28 12:27:29 2015. Klutz. |
|
|
| (1310381) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by ChicagoMotorman on Fri Aug 28 16:24:18 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by bingbong on Fri Aug 28 12:49:37 2015. Klutz. |
|
|
| (1310382) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by ChicagoMotorman on Fri Aug 28 16:24:35 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by bingbong on Fri Aug 28 13:17:17 2015. Klutz. |
|
|
| (1310383) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by ChicagoMotorman on Fri Aug 28 16:25:00 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by bingbong on Fri Aug 28 14:22:22 2015. Klutz. |
|
|
| (1310385) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by ChicagoMotorman on Fri Aug 28 16:25:36 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by bingbong on Fri Aug 28 15:04:30 2015. Klutz. |
|
|
| (1310386) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by ChicagoMotorman on Fri Aug 28 16:25:55 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by bingbong on Fri Aug 28 15:05:36 2015. Klutz. |
|
|
| (1310388) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by ChicagoMotorman on Fri Aug 28 16:26:31 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by bingbong on Fri Aug 28 15:20:30 2015. Klutz. |
|
|
| (1310393) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Fri Aug 28 16:38:50 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Aug 28 15:45:36 2015. The wage gap is plenty real. Stop kidding yourself. |
|
|
| (1310397) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Aug 28 16:42:49 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by bingbong on Fri Aug 28 16:38:50 2015. How about a reputable source? |
|
|
| (1310400) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Fri Aug 28 16:51:09 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Aug 28 16:42:49 2015. There's nothing wrong with that source. Information is timely as well. |
|
|
| (1310405) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Fri Aug 28 17:16:26 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by ChicagoMotorman on Fri Aug 28 16:25:36 2015. Enough already. |
|
|
| (1310406) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Fri Aug 28 17:20:29 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by bingbong on Fri Aug 28 16:51:09 2015. LOL!Since the early nineties, AAUW has devolved into a special interest group that stops at nothing to defend its “women are victims” narrative. But to you the WSJ is hate-filled. You are too predictable and funny! |
|
|
| (1310408) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Fri Aug 28 17:25:15 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by Dave on Fri Aug 28 17:20:29 2015. The WSJ IS hate filled. Every article demonstrates bias.The AAUW has the numbers. They have no bias. Facts are against you here. |
|
|
| (1310409) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Fri Aug 28 17:26:34 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by bingbong on Fri Aug 28 16:51:09 2015. Even three years ago, after controlling for several relevant factors, AAUW they found that the wage gap between male and female graduates narrowed to only 6.6 cents.In 2009 the U.S. Department of Labor examined more than 50 peer-reviewed papers and concluded that the then 23-cent wage gap "may be almost entirely the result of individual choices being made by both male and female workers." What the 2009 study showed was that when the proper controls are in place, the unexplained (adjusted) wage gap is somewhere between 4.8 and 7 cents. The AAUW study is consistent with these findings. |
|
|
|
Page 6 of 7 |
||