you are not burdened to proove you have a right, it the job of law enforment to prove you dont have it

This isn’t about private citizen rights vs the state. It’s private vs private rights. Private property owners do not have the same obligations to defend your civil rights as the state.

Remember that Hawaii is a castle doctrine state. People have a right to defend their home or place of work against intruders with lethal force. If someone can shoot armed intruders, you better believe it is in your best interest to check before entering a property.

Its the same reason you cant ban all gay people from the McDonalds you run. You either keep not reading this or keep ignoring it in your replies.

A private company can ban people for swearing or preaching or whatever type of speech even though you have a first amendment right. Race, age, sex, sexuality, and religion are procted classes specifically by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Gun carriers are NOT a protected class.

This is not about walking into a place armed without consent.

Correct. I think that in absence of consent it is absurd to default to remaining armed.

I can’t walk into an empty house whenever I want because there is no one to ask for consent. I can’t ride off with a bike left on the street because there is no owner around. I can’t leave a restaurant after eating because I can’t immediately find someone to give me a check. The default cannot be that your rights supersede others unless they are actively defending them. This is not about walking into a place armed without consent.

Assuming someone legally exercising a right they possess in a place they’re allowed to be is actually there to commit crimes is asanine.

That’s just it, you can only assume that person has the right to own the gun. For all you know they are on probation for gun crimes and shouldn’t have it. It’s on the gun owner to prove they aren’t a threat.

Moreover, how do you imagine someone to get consent from the McDonalds franchise owner before going inside?

Call ahead. Or just don’t carry the gun if you don’t know. Permission should not be assumed by default on private property.

The level of burden is similar to having to get consent from the owners of parking lots with no signs before even driving your car into one

The existence of a parking lot is a sign. It’s more like parking on someones lawn and then being surprised they are mad at you.

I Frankenstein (2014). Aaron Eckhart as the monster who gets pulled into a centuries long war between demons and gargoyles. It tries to capitalize on the success of the Underworld franchise and goes nuts with CGI effects. It’s objectively bad but it’s also FUN. If you shut off your brain and don’t overanalyze, its a blast.

It flips the burden of responsibility. You have a second amendment right to carry a gun but with that right comes the responsibility of ensuring you do not violate others rights with it. If someone walks onto a property armed without consent, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that they have malicious intent. It is the responsibility of the gun owner to ensure others know they aren’t a threat.

IIRC this happened in Illinois as well. A female gorilla who had babies in the past picked up the boy, took him to the door to the enclosure, and patiently waited to hand him over to the zookeepers.

I think pansexual should be for people who would fuck an alien who has no corollary on the human gender spectrum.

I’m in Chicago. Plentiful pedestrian options. We have 100 degree days and -20 days. There are by far fewer pedestrians when it is cold than when it is warm. It’s not even comparable.

So you maintain that there are the same amount of pedestrians when it is 80F as when it is -20F? Does that mat make sense to anyone?

It’s not like there are many pedestrians in Minnesota in November. Places where it is warm year round would correspondingly have foot traffic year round.

In the last 13 years there have been 2 years where the Republicans weren’t blocking all Democratic legislation and that was at the peak of COVID where passing the American Rescue Plan and other associated pandemic recovery acts took priority. Before that the only other time there was a free path to pass something was when the ACA passed.

Because you need more than half the votes. If none of the Republicans and even 10% of Democrats vote against a bill, it will fail. The ACA is a long way from universal healthcare but even that compromise had Republicans try hundreds of times to repeal it.

Dems have tried many times, but it is always blocked.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_for_All_Act

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/1655

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/3069

Those unpopular things usually have bipartisan support

110% agree. The tough part is that simple appealing lies are so much easier to sell people than messy complex truths.

Someone will give those voices a platform. At least you can guarantee that isn’t the only voice people hear.

Speaking as broadly as possible 90% of Democrats say the government has a responsibility to make sure everyone has healthcare. When you phrase it as “Medicare for all” the support drops to 78%, when you say government run healthcare instead of private healthcare the support is 71%, and when you phrase it as “single payer” it drops to 52%. When you only ever have a slim majority, how a plan is implemented drastically affects the number of votes.

The difference is that each media stream had to show both sides, so you couldn’t have people watching one channel living in a bubble of fiction.

Some people say the world is flat or that Elvis was a space alien, so go for it.

Many places also use the US military as a deterrent in lieu of having their own defense. Poland just requested a large US base to deter Russian invasion. South Korea would certainly be in trouble if we left.

Long?