Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.
TheEgyptian
| Reward Points: | 5 |
| Efficiency:
Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive). Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high. | 100% |
| Arguments: | 5 |
| Debates: | 0 |
As long as the employers/businesses are allowed to have a say one whether employees can bring weapons or not, I have no problem with this.
This country's second amendment (because it's the second most important :3) entitles individual citizens to the right to bear arms. States can have regulations based on criminal records and mental illness, but a law forbidding a business from allowing employees to bring weapons (or suggesting that they would be liable for any accident that occurs) is unconstitutional.
As long as the employers/businesses are allowed to have a say one whether employees can bring weapons or not, I have no problem with this.
This country's second amendment (because it's the second most important :3) entitles individual citizens to the right to bear arms. States can have regulations based on criminal records and mental illness, but a law forbidding a business from allowing employees to bring weapons (or suggesting that they would be liable for any accident that occurs) is unconstitutional.
As long as the employers/businesses are allowed to have a say one whether employees can bring weapons or not, I have no problem with this.
This country's second amendment (because it's the second most important :3) entitles individual citizens to the right to bear arms. States can have regulations based on criminal records and mental illness, but a law forbidding a business from allowing employees to bring weapons (or suggesting that they would be liable for any accident that occurs) is unconstitutional.
As long as the employers/businesses are allowed to have a say one whether employees can bring weapons or not, I have no problem with this.
This country's second amendment (because it's the second most important :3) entitles individual citizens to the right to bear arms. States can have regulations based on criminal records and mental illness, but a law forbidding a business from allowing employees to bring weapons (or suggesting that they would be liable for any accident that occurs) is unconstitutional.
As long as the employers/businesses are allowed to have a say one whether employees can bring weapons or not, I have no problem with this.
This country's second amendment (because it's the second most important :3) entitles individual citizens to the right to bear arms. States can have regulations based on criminal records and mental illness, but a law forbidding a business from allowing employees to bring weapons (or suggesting that they would be liable for any accident that occurs) is unconstitutional.
As long as the employers/businesses are allowed to have a say one whether employees can bring weapons or not, I have no problem with this.
This country's second amendment (because it's the second most important :3) entitles individual citizens to the right to bear arms. States can have regulations based on criminal records and mental illness, but a law forbidding a business from allowing employees to bring weapons (or suggesting that they would be liable for any accident that occurs) is unconstitutional.
As long as the employers/businesses are allowed to have a say one whether employees can bring weapons or not, I have no problem with this.
This country's second amendment (because it's the second most important :3) entitles individual citizens to the right to bear arms. States can have regulations based on criminal records and mental illness, but a law forbidding a business from allowing employees to bring weapons (or suggesting that they would be liable for any accident that occurs) is unconstitutional.
As long as the employers/businesses are allowed to have a say one whether employees can bring weapons or not, I have no problem with this.
This country's second amendment (because it's the second most important :3) entitles individual citizens to the right to bear arms. States can have regulations based on criminal records and mental illness, but a law forbidding a business from allowing employees to bring weapons (or suggesting that they would be liable for any accident that occurs) is unconstitutional.
As long as the employers/businesses are allowed to have a say one whether employees can bring weapons or not, I have no problem with this.
This country's second amendment (because it's the second most important :3) entitles individual citizens to the right to bear arms. States can have regulations based on criminal records and mental illness, but a law forbidding a business from allowing employees to bring weapons (or suggesting that they would be liable for any accident that occurs) is unconstitutional.
As long as the employers/businesses are allowed to have a say one whether employees can bring weapons or not, I have no problem with this.
This country's second amendment (because it's the second most important :3) entitles individual citizens to the right to bear arms. States can have regulations based on criminal records and mental illness, but a law forbidding a business from allowing employees to bring weapons (or suggesting that they would be liable for any accident that occurs) is unconstitutional.
As long as the employers/businesses are allowed to have a say one whether employees can bring weapons or not, I have no problem with this.
This country's second amendment (because it's the second most important :3) entitles individual citizens to the right to bear arms. States can have regulations based on criminal records and mental illness, but a law forbidding a business from allowing employees to bring weapons (or suggesting that they would be liable for any accident that occurs) is unconstitutional.
As long as the employers/businesses are allowed to have a say one whether employees can bring weapons or not, I have no problem with this.
This country's second amendment (because it's the second most important :3) entitles individual citizens to the right to bear arms. States can have regulations based on criminal records and mental illness, but a law forbidding a business from allowing employees to bring weapons (or suggesting that they would be liable for any accident that occurs) is unconstitutional.
As long as the employers/businesses are allowed to have a say one whether employees can bring weapons or not, I have no problem with this.
This country's second amendment (because it's the second most important :3) entitles individual citizens to the right to bear arms. States can have regulations based on criminal records and mental illness, but a law forbidding a business from allowing employees to bring weapons (or suggesting that they would be liable for any accident that occurs) is unconstitutional.
As long as the employers/businesses are allowed to have a say one whether employees can bring weapons or not, I have no problem with this.
This country's second amendment (because it's the second most important :3) entitles individual citizens to the right to bear arms. States can have regulations based on criminal records and mental illness, but a law forbidding a business from allowing employees to bring weapons (or suggesting that they would be liable for any accident that occurs) is unconstitutional.
As long as the employers/businesses are allowed to have a say one whether employees can bring weapons or not, I have no problem with this.
This country's second amendment (because it's the second most important :3) entitles individual citizens to the right to bear arms. States can have regulations based on criminal records and mental illness, but a law forbidding a business from allowing employees to bring weapons (or suggesting that they would be liable for any accident that occurs) is unconstitutional.
As long as the employers/businesses are allowed to have a say one whether employees can bring weapons or not, I have no problem with this.
This country's second amendment (because it's the second most important :3) entitles individual citizens to the right to bear arms. States can have regulations based on criminal records and mental illness, but a law forbidding a business from allowing employees to bring weapons (or suggesting that they would be liable for any accident that occurs) is unconstitutional.
As long as the employers/businesses are allowed to have a say one whether employees can bring weapons or not, I have no problem with this.
This country's second amendment (because it's the second most important :3) entitles individual citizens to the right to bear arms. States can have regulations based on criminal records and mental illness, but a law forbidding a business from allowing employees to bring weapons (or suggesting that they would be liable for any accident that occurs) is unconstitutional.
As long as the employers/businesses are allowed to have a say one whether employees can bring weapons or not, I have no problem with this.
This country's second amendment (because it's the second most important :3) entitles individual citizens to the right to bear arms. States can have regulations based on criminal records and mental illness, but a law forbidding a business from allowing employees to bring weapons (or suggesting that they would be liable for any accident that occurs) is unconstitutional.
As long as the employers/businesses are allowed to have a say one whether employees can bring weapons or not, I have no problem with this.
This country's second amendment (because it's the second most important :3) entitles individual citizens to the right to bear arms. States can have regulations based on criminal records and mental illness, but a law forbidding a business from allowing employees to bring weapons (or suggesting that they would be liable for any accident that occurs) is unconstitutional.
As long as the employers/businesses are allowed to have a say one whether employees can bring weapons or not, I have no problem with this.
This country's second amendment (because it's the second most important :3) entitles individual citizens to the right to bear arms. States can have regulations based on criminal records and mental illness, but a law forbidding a business from allowing employees to bring weapons (or suggesting that they would be liable for any accident that occurs) is unconstitutional.
As long as the employers/businesses are allowed to have a say one whether employees can bring weapons or not, I have no problem with this.
This country's second amendment (because it's the second most important :3) entitles individual citizens to the right to bear arms. States can have regulations based on criminal records and mental illness, but a law forbidding a business from allowing employees to bring weapons (or suggesting that they would be liable for any accident that occurs) is unconstitutional.
As long as the employers/businesses are allowed to have a say one whether employees can bring weapons or not, I have no problem with this.
This country's second amendment (because it's the second most important :3) entitles individual citizens to the right to bear arms. States can have regulations based on criminal records and mental illness, but a law forbidding a business from allowing employees to bring weapons (or suggesting that they would be liable for any accident that occurs) is unconstitutional.
As long as the employers/businesses are allowed to have a say one whether employees can bring weapons or not, I have no problem with this.
This country's second amendment (because it's the second most important :3) entitles individual citizens to the right to bear arms. States can have regulations based on criminal records and mental illness, but a law forbidding a business from allowing employees to bring weapons (or suggesting that they would be liable for any accident that occurs) is unconstitutional.
As long as the employers/businesses are allowed to have a say one whether employees can bring weapons or not, I have no problem with this.
This country's second amendment (because it's the second most important :3) entitles individual citizens to the right to bear arms. States can have regulations based on criminal records and mental illness, but a law forbidding a business from allowing employees to bring weapons (or suggesting that they would be liable for any accident that occurs) is unconstitutional.
As long as the employers/businesses are allowed to have a say one whether employees can bring weapons or not, I have no problem with this.
This country's second amendment (because it's the second most important :3) entitles individual citizens to the right to bear arms. States can have regulations based on criminal records and mental illness, but a law forbidding a business from allowing employees to bring weapons (or suggesting that they would be liable for any accident that occurs) is unconstitutional.
As long as the employers/businesses are allowed to have a say one whether employees can bring weapons or not, I have no problem with this.
This country's second amendment (because it's the second most important :3) entitles individual citizens to the right to bear arms. States can have regulations based on criminal records and mental illness, but a law forbidding a business from allowing employees to bring weapons (or suggesting that they would be liable for any accident that occurs) is unconstitutional.
As long as the employers/businesses are allowed to have a say one whether employees can bring weapons or not, I have no problem with this.
This country's second amendment (because it's the second most important :3) entitles individual citizens to the right to bear arms. States can have regulations based on criminal records and mental illness, but a law forbidding a business from allowing employees to bring weapons (or suggesting that they would be liable for any accident that occurs) is unconstitutional.
As long as the employers/businesses are allowed to have a say one whether employees can bring weapons or not, I have no problem with this.
This country's second amendment (because it's the second most important :3) entitles individual citizens to the right to bear arms. States can have regulations based on criminal records and mental illness, but a law forbidding a business from allowing employees to bring weapons (or suggesting that they would be liable for any accident that occurs) is unconstitutional.
As long as the employers/businesses are allowed to have a say one whether employees can bring weapons or not, I have no problem with this.
This country's second amendment (because it's the second most important :3) entitles individual citizens to the right to bear arms. States can have regulations based on criminal records and mental illness, but a law forbidding a business from allowing employees to bring weapons (or suggesting that they would be liable for any accident that occurs) is unconstitutional.
As long as the employers/businesses are allowed to have a say one whether employees can bring weapons or not, I have no problem with this.
This country's second amendment (because it's the second most important :3) entitles individual citizens to the right to bear arms. States can have regulations based on criminal records and mental illness, but a law forbidding a business from allowing employees to bring weapons (or suggesting that they would be liable for any accident that occurs) is unconstitutional.
As long as the employers/businesses are allowed to have a say one whether employees can bring weapons or not, I have no problem with this.
This country's second amendment (because it's the second most important :3) entitles individual citizens to the right to bear arms. States can have regulations based on criminal records and mental illness, but a law forbidding a business from allowing employees to bring weapons (or suggesting that they would be liable for any accident that occurs) is unconstitutional.
As long as the employers/businesses are allowed to have a say one whether employees can bring weapons or not, I have no problem with this.
This country's second amendment (because it's the second most important :3) entitles individual citizens to the right to bear arms. States can have regulations based on criminal records and mental illness, but a law forbidding a business from allowing employees to bring weapons (or suggesting that they would be liable for any accident that occurs) is unconstitutional.
As long as the employers/businesses are allowed to have a say one whether employees can bring weapons or not, I have no problem with this.
This country's second amendment (because it's the second most important :3) entitles individual citizens to the right to bear arms. States can have regulations based on criminal records and mental illness, but a law forbidding a business from allowing employees to bring weapons (or suggesting that they would be liable for any accident that occurs) is unconstitutional.
As long as the employers/businesses are allowed to have a say one whether employees can bring weapons or not, I have no problem with this.
This country's second amendment (because it's the second most important :3) entitles individual citizens to the right to bear arms. States can have regulations based on criminal records and mental illness, but a law forbidding a business from allowing employees to bring weapons (or suggesting that they would be liable for any accident that occurs) is unconstitutional.
As long as the employers/businesses are allowed to have a say one whether employees can bring weapons or not, I have no problem with this.
This country's second amendment (because it's the second most important :3) entitles individual citizens to the right to bear arms. States can have regulations based on criminal records and mental illness, but a law forbidding a business from allowing employees to bring weapons (or suggesting that they would be liable for any accident that occurs) is unconstitutional.
As long as the employers/businesses are allowed to have a say one whether employees can bring weapons or not, I have no problem with this.
This country's second amendment (because it's the second most important :3) entitles individual citizens to the right to bear arms. States can have regulations based on criminal records and mental illness, but a law forbidding a business from allowing employees to bring weapons (or suggesting that they would be liable for any accident that occurs) is unconstitutional.
As long as the employers/businesses are allowed to have a say one whether employees can bring weapons or not, I have no problem with this.
This country's second amendment (because it's the second most important :3) entitles individual citizens to the right to bear arms. States can have regulations based on criminal records and mental illness, but a law forbidding a business from allowing employees to bring weapons (or suggesting that they would be liable for any accident that occurs) is unconstitutional.
As long as the employers/businesses are allowed to have a say one whether employees can bring weapons or not, I have no problem with this.
This country's second amendment (because it's the second most important :3) entitles individual citizens to the right to bear arms. States can have regulations based on criminal records and mental illness, but a law forbidding a business from allowing employees to bring weapons (or suggesting that they would be liable for any accident that occurs) is unconstitutional.
As long as the employers/businesses are allowed to have a say one whether employees can bring weapons or not, I have no problem with this.
This country's second amendment (because it's the second most important :3) entitles individual citizens to the right to bear arms. States can have regulations based on criminal records and mental illness, but a law forbidding a business from allowing employees to bring weapons (or suggesting that they would be liable for any accident that occurs) is unconstitutional.
As long as the employers/businesses are allowed to have a say one whether employees can bring weapons or not, I have no problem with this.
This country's second amendment (because it's the second most important :3) entitles individual citizens to the right to bear arms. States can have regulations based on criminal records and mental illness, but a law forbidding a business from allowing employees to bring weapons (or suggesting that they would be liable for any accident that occurs) is unconstitutional.
As long as the employers/businesses are allowed to have a say one whether employees can bring weapons or not, I have no problem with this.
This country's second amendment (because it's the second most important :3) entitles individual citizens to the right to bear arms. States can have regulations based on criminal records and mental illness, but a law forbidding a business from allowing employees to bring weapons (or suggesting that they would be liable for any accident that occurs) is unconstitutional.
As long as the employers/businesses are allowed to have a say one whether employees can bring weapons or not, I have no problem with this.
This country's second amendment (because it's the second most important :3) entitles individual citizens to the right to bear arms. States can have regulations based on criminal records and mental illness, but a law forbidding a business from allowing employees to bring weapons (or suggesting that they would be liable for any accident that occurs) is unconstitutional.
Ok who's the guy who flies around the world at the cover of darkness with sacks of goods that haven't gone through customs and contain unknown products? Who's the guy wo has no officially licenced mode of transport and has no passport or is recorded on the systems of any country? I'll tell you : Santa Claus (not to be mistaken for the excellent British Father Christmas)
Yes, I knwo you're shocked but who else would have an excellent motive? those towers were clearly in the way of his flight plan and he certainly not fly around them as it would have interrupted his increasingly tight schedual.
Ok who's the guy who flies around the world at the cover of darkness with sacks of goods that haven't gone through customs and contain unknown products? Who's the guy wo has no officially licenced mode of transport and has no passport or is recorded on the systems of any country? I'll tell you : Santa Claus (not to be mistaken for the excellent British Father Christmas)
Yes, I knwo you're shocked but who else would have an excellent motive? those towers were clearly in the way of his flight plan and he certainly not fly around them as it would have interrupted his increasingly tight schedual.
Ok who's the guy who flies around the world at the cover of darkness with sacks of goods that haven't gone through customs and contain unknown products? Who's the guy wo has no officially licenced mode of transport and has no passport or is recorded on the systems of any country? I'll tell you : Santa Claus (not to be mistaken for the excellent British Father Christmas)
Yes, I knwo you're shocked but who else would have an excellent motive? those towers were clearly in the way of his flight plan and he certainly not fly around them as it would have interrupted his increasingly tight schedual.
Ok who's the guy who flies around the world at the cover of darkness with sacks of goods that haven't gone through customs and contain unknown products? Who's the guy wo has no officially licenced mode of transport and has no passport or is recorded on the systems of any country? I'll tell you : Santa Claus (not to be mistaken for the excellent British Father Christmas)
Yes, I knwo you're shocked but who else would have an excellent motive? those towers were clearly in the way of his flight plan and he certainly not fly around them as it would have interrupted his increasingly tight schedual.
Ok who's the guy who flies around the world at the cover of darkness with sacks of goods that haven't gone through customs and contain unknown products? Who's the guy wo has no officially licenced mode of transport and has no passport or is recorded on the systems of any country? I'll tell you : Santa Claus (not to be mistaken for the excellent British Father Christmas)
Yes, I knwo you're shocked but who else would have an excellent motive? those towers were clearly in the way of his flight plan and he certainly not fly around them as it would have interrupted his increasingly tight schedual.
Ok who's the guy who flies around the world at the cover of darkness with sacks of goods that haven't gone through customs and contain unknown products? Who's the guy wo has no officially licenced mode of transport and has no passport or is recorded on the systems of any country? I'll tell you : Santa Claus (not to be mistaken for the excellent British Father Christmas)
Yes, I knwo you're shocked but who else would have an excellent motive? those towers were clearly in the way of his flight plan and he certainly not fly around them as it would have interrupted his increasingly tight schedual.
Ok who's the guy who flies around the world at the cover of darkness with sacks of goods that haven't gone through customs and contain unknown products? Who's the guy wo has no officially licenced mode of transport and has no passport or is recorded on the systems of any country? I'll tell you : Santa Claus (not to be mistaken for the excellent British Father Christmas)
Yes, I knwo you're shocked but who else would have an excellent motive? those towers were clearly in the way of his flight plan and he certainly not fly around them as it would have interrupted his increasingly tight schedual.
Ok who's the guy who flies around the world at the cover of darkness with sacks of goods that haven't gone through customs and contain unknown products? Who's the guy wo has no officially licenced mode of transport and has no passport or is recorded on the systems of any country? I'll tell you : Santa Claus (not to be mistaken for the excellent British Father Christmas)
Yes, I knwo you're shocked but who else would have an excellent motive? those towers were clearly in the way of his flight plan and he certainly not fly around them as it would have interrupted his increasingly tight schedual.
I AM A NAZI
adgfasdfg
sdfgs
dfg
sdf
gsdf
g
sg
df
gsdfgsdfgs
df
gsdf
s
gdfgs
f
gsdfg
sdf
gdf
gsd
fg
sdf
gsf
gsd
f
gfd
gs
fdg
sd
gsdf
gs
dfg
sdf
s
g
YOU ARE JEWISH and sw kjasdfhgjkadfh akjdfg adfhgsajkld fskljdfh gajkdsf gljkadf hgkjad flhksgadf
|
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know! |
