Posted on 02/16/2008 9:22:35 PM PST by jdm
The prescription drugs given them by the legal drug pushers?
The prescription drugs that have proven and the makers have even admitted side effects of suicidal thoughts ( and suicides) and violence = especially soon after someone stops taking them?
This shooter was on depression meds - as were almost every other shooter - That fact is quickly hushed up and the gun-controllers come out in force.
It has been known for years that these antidepressant drugs are dangerous and have these side effects, especially when given to young people...but there's alway a quick hush-up.
The pharmaceutical companies are powerful = and their henchmen in the medical field and in Washington - the FDA (which has a swinging door for lucrative jobs straight from the FDA to the drug companies - watch each others backs.
Our young people have become the drug companies cash cow.
I think the only thing that will stop them is for the victims of these shootings - including the families of the shooters - need to file a class action suit against those who make and push these drugs...
Do a GOOGLE search with these 4 words - psychotropic drugs mass shootings - then ask why is the cry not against drugs instead of 'gun control'?
You've got a good eye!
To quote Dr. Ron Paul:
“The lesser of two evils is still evil.”
You got that right!!!! ...one good eye! LOL!
A non-emancipated minor is a ward of his parents, hence not free.
An arrestee is temporarily not free.
A parolee is not free.
A convicted felon is not free.
One who has been adjudicated mentally incompetent is not free.
The government has the authority to restrict the right to keep and bear arms in those circumstances, and only those circumstances, where it has the more general authority to make somebody be "not free". Accept that, and the need for other "reasonable regulations" disappears.
Concede nothing...
Do you think the Second Amendment was ever intended to apply to slaves? Or to condemned prisoners walking to the gallows? Can such a notion be regarded as anything less than totally absurd?
The Second Amendment cannot, and could never, reasonably be interpreted as applying to all persons. I fail to see why acknowledging that is "conceding" anything.
The question is whether we should continue to allow an interpretation that says it applies to all persons, except when the results would be undesirable, or whether we should insist on a bright-line distinction as to who is and is not protected. I would suggest that linking the RKBA to freedom is by far the best linkage. One who is free has the RKBA. One who is not free does not. To deny the RKBA is to deny freedom. In circumstances when the state may legitimately deny freedom, it may deny the RKBA (if it couldn't deny the RKBA, it would have a hard time denying freedom). Conversely, the state may not legitimately deny the RKBA in any circumstance where it could not legitimately deny freedom.
Whose RKBA do you feel I would be conceding improperly?
So is the third of three evils.
So, where do you stop?
Ron Paul (when he was my representitive in Tx) had neo-nazi problems. He still does.
So that makes him also evil, right?
The second amendment was significantly limited by the Dred Scott decision, which asserted that it applied only to whites.
The 14th Amendment changed that, extending Federal rights to all citizens, and providing guidance on the proper extent of the rights of citizen ship.
I thought the logic of the Dred Scott decision was that if Dred Scott were a free man, he'd be allowed to keep and bear arms. Since it was more acceptable to deem him not-free than to let him keep and bear arms, he was therefore branded 'not free'.
There are plenty of places where one might reasonably dispute the state's authority to deny someone his freedom. I am, however, unaware of any circumstance in which the state would have the authority to deny someone his freedom and yet not have the authority disarm him. Accepting the equivalence between "having the right to keep and bear arms" and "being free" would nit allow the state to disarm anyone it couldn't disarm already, but would force the state to acknowledge that it was denying the freedom of those who were disarmed.
Concede nothing.
PING
It’s going to be an interesting few years. To Obama, it’s “common sense” that nobody but the police and military “need” semi-auto weapons. There is no conflict in his mind between banning semis and the 2nd amd.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.