• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does it violate my 2nd amendment rights if my employer doesn't buy me a gun?

Does it violate my 2nd amendment rights if my employer doesn't buy me a gun?

  • Total voters
    37
No, because the 2nd A doesn't require that your employer purchase a firearm for you.
 
Goshin said:
View attachment 67169330
Click to expand...

I see it too. Which is why I answered yes.

Go to your employer tomorrow and say that it's your right, and you demand that they give you a gun because otherwise they are taking away your rights. Let us know how that goes. Especially when you point out that it's really just a BS point about Hobby Lobby.
 
Fletch said:
So? What is the fundamental difference between me buying birth control or me paying for a policy that buys it for you?

I think the problem here isn't 'dumb right wing analogies' but power hungry left wing totalitarians that want to use the power of the state to force everyone to bend to their will. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the concept of a free society rather than insulting everyone who objects to your arbitrary use of force.
Click to expand...

Dear god, the strawman never sleeps.
 
DB20 said:
and who do you think pays for that health insurance?

Seriously, think before you speak please.
Click to expand...

The employer pays for part of it. So does the employee. Insurance is part of the compensation for the employee fulfilling the terms of their employment.
 
Kobie said:
The employer pays for part of it. So does the employee. Insurance is part of the compensation for the employee fulfilling the terms of their employment.
Click to expand...

That's what it used to be for the companies that offered it as part of their benefits package - not all did. The PPACA made it mandatory for all employers of a certain size to pay for insurance they didn't offer before (the PPACA changed the standard policy minimums), so it's more of a federal tax that gets immediately redistributed to the employees rather than compensation from the employer.

And as for contraception, the PPACA requires that it be paid 100% by the employer. So the employee pays nothing, in that instance.
 
Believe it or not, there is more to the law than your rights. In this case, there is regulation that benefits the whole nation, and the nonsense idea that someone should be exempt from the law because they own a lot of property and believe in a religion. No one's beliefs should entitle them to special treatment under the law. Only facts should. The facts are that more easily available contraceptives are a boon to society. The facts are that health insurance covers contraceptives. The facts are not that anyone's opinions about other people's sexual activities has a damn thing to do with the laws governing insurance or contraceptives.
 
Paschendale said:
Believe it or not, there is more to the law than your rights. In this case, there is regulation that benefits the whole nation, and the nonsense idea that someone should be exempt from the law because they own a lot of property and believe in a religion. No one's beliefs should entitle them to special treatment under the law. Only facts should. The facts are that more easily available contraceptives are a boon to society. The facts are that health insurance covers contraceptives. The facts are not that anyone's opinions about other people's sexual activities has a damn thing to do with the laws governing insurance or contraceptives.
Click to expand...
Yet, despite that, the SCOTUS has determined that family owned companies (since companies are people, perhaps?) are not required to pay for contraceptives if it violates their beliefs.

I'm interested to see where that takes us, frankly. Perhaps an amendment to the constitution or something? Can the SCOTUS reverse itself?
 
No to the question, but I disagree with the point made. Not every right is fundamentally the same. You have a right to obtain a gun. You have a right to have contraceptives and other basic needs to be provided for, IMO, because they are essential to living.
 
SocialDemocrat said:
No to the question, but I disagree with the point made. Not every right is fundamentally the same. You have a right to obtain a gun. You have a right to have contraceptives and other basic needs to be provided for, IMO, because they are essential to living.
Click to expand...

So your employer or maybe the government owes you that? Where is that in the Constitution? :wow:
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1063497295 said:
So your employer or maybe the government owes you that? Where is that in the Constitution? :wow:
Click to expand...

I wasn't referring to constitutional rights, which is why I inserted IMO. Basic needs should be a constitutional right, as well as the ability to purchase a gun. The supreme court decision was flawed because it did not account for the separation of church and state.
 
Paschendale said:
Believe it or not, there is more to the law than your rights. In this case, there is regulation that benefits the whole nation, and the nonsense idea that someone should be exempt from the law because they own a lot of property and believe in a religion. No one's beliefs should entitle them to special treatment under the law. Only facts should. The facts are that more easily available contraceptives are a boon to society. The facts are that health insurance covers contraceptives. The facts are not that anyone's opinions about other people's sexual activities has a damn thing to do with the laws governing insurance or contraceptives.
Click to expand...

The fact is that the SCOTUS ruled against you because a law cannot conflict with the Constitution itself.
 
SocialDemocrat said:
I wasn't referring to constitutional rights, which is why I inserted IMO. Basic needs should be a constitutional right, as well as the ability to purchase a gun. The supreme court decision was flawed because it did not account for the separation of church and state.
Click to expand...

Amendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

It appears your opinion is flawed.
 
shrubnose said:
Sounds reasonable to me. Why should some women have them and others have to do without?
Click to expand...

Obama missed his chance to get Michelle upgrades for free.
 
jamesrage said:
Watching bits and pieces of various MSNBC shows after the Hobby Lobby ruling the rabid leftists on MSNBC seem to be claiming or implying that a woman's 'right' to contraceptives is being violated because an employer is not being forced to pay for birth control due to religious beliefs of that employer.
Click to expand...

I need to tell MSNBC that...

I am still waiting for my amish employer to buy me ammunition. And no, hunting calibres are not good enough- I am demanding that he buy me 9mm and .40 calibre pistol ammunition.

Next, I"ll define my social desire to get free beer included as a work benefit (Sam Adams does provide this benefit) as some kind of inherent "right". I"ll make my Muslim employer buy me beer. I can't understand why this angers him- he does not need to personally drink any of it, he just needs to buy it for me.

That Hindu employer? Well, beef is good for the body, good for the country and it is whats for dinner in my house. He needs to give me some beef vouchers- pronto... .
 
Last edited:
SocialDemocrat said:
I wasn't referring to constitutional rights, which is why I inserted IMO. Basic needs should be a constitutional right, as well as the ability to purchase a gun. The supreme court decision was flawed because it did not account for the separation of church and state.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, the welfare state...

According to Malsow, basic needs include food, water, shelter, clothing, and sexual reproduction.

I remember when those needs were the responsibility of the family unit, not tax payers of the state, with the exception of sexual reproduction, which was an individual's responsibility.

I can also remember when most people were too proud and independent to expect others to pay their way. Apparently they had reached the stage of self-actualization. Not any more for some it appears.

I wonder what JFK would think about today's democrat voters?

"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."
 
Does your employer provide gun insurance that will pay for a new gun with a copay except certain guns that violate their religious beliefs?
 
Paschendale said:
Believe it or not, there is more to the law than your rights. In this case, there is regulation that benefits the whole nation, and the nonsense idea that someone should be exempt from the law because they own a lot of property and believe in a religion. No one's beliefs should entitle them to special treatment under the law. Only facts should. The facts are that more easily available contraceptives are a boon to society. The facts are that health insurance covers contraceptives. The facts are not that anyone's opinions about other people's sexual activities has a damn thing to do with the laws governing insurance or contraceptives.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...




I totally agree.

I believe that eventually the courts incorrect ruling will be overturned. This will take a while, but it will happen.

Wait and see.
 
americanwoman said:
Does your employer provide gun insurance that will pay for a new gun with a copay except certain guns that violate their religious beliefs?
Click to expand...

Yes, my Amish employer will give me vouchers to buy 30.06, a rifle calibre commonly used for hunting animals. But, that is not good enough for me. I am demanding that he give me vouchers for 9mm and .40 calibre pistol ammunition- that is frequently used on humans.

He wont do it, what should I do? I guess I could buy 9mm ammunition with the wages that he gives me, but that would limit my ability to pursue my social agenda designed to weaken his religion by compelling him to openly violate his religous beliefs... .
 
Cryptic said:
Yes, my Amish employer will give me vouchers to buy 30.06, a rifle calibre commonly used for hunting animals. But, that is not good enough for me. I am demanding that he give me vouchers for 9mm and .40 calibre pistol ammunition- that is frequently used on humans.

He wont do it, what should I do? I guess I could buy 9mm ammunition with the wages that he gives me, but that would limit my ability to pursue my social agenda designed to weaken his religion by compelling him to openly violate his religous beliefs... .
Click to expand...

Considering the Amish don't believe in insurance and think it goes against God's plan, I don't think they would be providing you gun insurance and would probably be exempt just like they are exempt from providing healthcare or social security so it's really not a fair comparison.
 
American said:
The fact is that the SCOTUS ruled against you because a law cannot conflict with the Constitution itself.
Click to expand...

It doesn't conflict. They ruled against me because the conservative bloc is pro-Christian dominance and pro-rich people and pro-big business. They afforded special treatment to people because they are rich and religious at the same time. That's all.

shrubnose said:
I totally agree.

I believe that eventually the courts incorrect ruling will be overturned. This will take a while, but it will happen.

Wait and see.
Click to expand...

The country will eventually get over its love affair with corporations and will not only stop giving them and their owners special rights, they'll do away with the whole package and dump it in the trash bin with other obsolete notions. But how many people will be abused in the meantime?
 
Paschendale said:
It doesn't conflict. They ruled against me because the conservative bloc is pro-Christian dominance and pro-rich people and pro-big business. They afforded special treatment to people because they are rich and religious at the same time. That's all.



The country will eventually get over its love affair with corporations and will not only stop giving them and their owners special rights, they'll do away with the whole package and dump it in the trash bin with other obsolete notions. But how many people will be abused in the meantime?
Click to expand...

The words of a true Marxist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom