Next Terrorist Attack

[tallcal101]

I must offer my most heartfelt apology that I don't sit around playing with my BIG gun,stroking it and caring for it and fondling it and exploring all the wonders and joy my big gun brings me.Listen fools,YOUNG PEOPLE DIED IN COLD BLOOD IN THEIR CLASS ROOM BECAUSE CRAZY PEOPLE CAN BUY GUNS.Do you really think the parents of the dead student give a rats a** about the make and model of the small areonal this brain damaged young person(with a history of problems)killed with?
It's so sickningly typical of the gun fanatics to skirt the issue of death and brain tissue splatterd around our schools and universities to justify their hobby.It's nothing more then that. The second ammendment was never intended to fulfill the gap created in the 21 st century by man boys who never matured in a healthy fashon and pay homage to some distorted notion of p****s fixation in poweful cylindrical weapons. I consider the sickest of the sickest of all of us are those that worship at the alter of "our right" to revel in this temple of ignorant behavior.Have it man boys.

 

[LDB]

Cal, give me a list of all the mass shootings at police stations and then I'll consider the possibility you have some point to offer. Until then there is no point for you to offer. It's your liberal leftist restrictions that are responsible for the deaths of those students. Perhaps that knowledge and it's guilt are why your posts are so emotional and frenzied rather than rational discussion points. Over and this time out.

 

[Turtle]

2 - The right to vote for a president is not 'granted' to us. We have no right to vote - it is a state's right to govern, not the federal government's.

Well, the Constitution doesn't grant us the right to vote for the president, but it does, specifically, grant us the right to vote for the members of the House of Representatives. The president and the senators are chosen by the states, in any manner in which they choose. The states determine voting times, places and procedures, but Congress can, at any time, change by law any of these except the places where Senators are chosen.

The 15th, 19th and 26th Amendment specifically address the right to vote.

3 - The Constitution does not grant us any rights, it does not say that we are granted rights or indicate that there are rights granted - just the opposite. The constitution is there to limit the federal government on what the federal can and can't do, not us. It says that the federal government can do this stuff and nothing else, 10th amendment is clear on this issue.

Two separate issues here. One, yeah, the Constitution makes is very clear that the federal government can do only certain things, plus anything we allow it to do.

The other issue is, the Constitution most definitely grants us rights. The first ten Amendments are known as the Bill of Rights, in fact.

 

[Turtle]

Listen fools,YOUNG PEOPLE DIED IN COLD BLOOD IN THEIR CLASS ROOM BECAUSE CRAZY PEOPLE CAN BUY GUNS.

No, young people died in cold blood in their classroom because a brain damaged young person with a history of mental and other problems was allowed to wander around unsupervised. There is no skirting the issue. Removing guns treats the symptom, not the cause. And the cause goes far, far deeper than the availability of guns, automatic or otherwise. The easy way, the quick and dirty way, to look at it is to blame the guns. Remove all guns and instantly the world is a happy place. Utopia isn't that easy. Sorry.

 

[greg334]

Listen fools,YOUNG PEOPLE DIED IN COLD BLOOD IN THEIR CLASS ROOM BECAUSE CRAZY PEOPLE CAN BUY GUNS.

OK Tallcal, I am not a fool - I know exactly what is going on with the last few shootings and other incidents that hit the news.

IT HAS NOT A D*MN THING TO DO WITH ACCESS TO A GUN.

IT HAS TO DO WITH THE IDIOTS WHO PRESCRIBE MEDICATION AND THE MEDICATION THAT THEY ARE ON.

Is that loud enough for you.

I worked at a company, Pharmaceutical company, in the development part of the company where so I have a really different point of view on drug products. I won't bore you with the facts but let's say this company had 3 of the leading anti-depressants on the market and was going to buy another one when I left. I was privy to a lot of info that you don't ever see and the one thing that I have stood firm is the fact that anti-depressants are mind altering drugs. What really gets me is that idiot parents listen to an uniformed doctor who bought into the sales rep BS on how effective the drugs are. These drugs have not been tested on adolescent and from all research that has ever been done (and the fact that the Supreme Court also used the same research) the mind does not fully develop until the age of 20. Remember that we are all different and when one has reached full development, another maybe short of full development by 30%.

One of the biggest issues that was brought up to the FDA and ignored was the fact that there needs to be a warning that tells doctors do not prescribe medications that overlap. Meaning that if you take the blue pill for 3 months and it does nothing, then the doc says try the red pill, you need to wait for 4 to 6 weeks before everything gets out of your system. The FDA rejected this and the comments made in a closed door session by the way.

So think about this TallCal, you got a guy on three Anti-depressants, three that counter act each other because they do different things to the same areas of the brain. He is being fed all these chemicals and he snaps.

Who's fault is it?

Why restrict one thing to prevent a crime when the cause of it needs to be restricted or eliminated?

If you want to weed out the root cause of these problems, it may very well come down to the the why's, how's and who's of prescribing medicine. Remember we, in this country fast track New Drug Applications where no other place in the world does. We have a lot of really lax and out of date laws governing drug studies and that the drug companies still do not have to disclose all the data or allow disclosure of data from studies done by third parties. So you think about the cause, you think about other ways to solve the problem because when you come down to it, the fact is if someone wants to kill someone else, they will find a way to do it and we will end up with a very restrictive society just out of fear of something happening.

 

[greg334]

Well, the Constitution doesn't grant us the right to vote for the president, but it does, specifically, grant us the right to vote for the members of the House of Representatives.

Yep my point.

The president and the senators are chosen by the states, in any manner in which they choose. The states determine voting times, places and procedures, but Congress can, at any time, change by law any of these except the places where Senators are chosen.

Nope, senators are not chosen by the states, that went out in the yearly part of the 20th century with the 17th amendment and stripped the states of their representation.

17th - The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

All the congress can do is redistrict areas and change the level of people required in each district according to the census. They can't abridged the state's rights on voting times, places or procedures, the constitution does that.

The 15th, 19th and 26th Amendment specifically address the right to vote.

Well sort of and not sort of, there is no implied meaning that we can vote in a presidential election or have the right to and all these amendment did was to address specific problems and base solely on the fact that it was only these problems that needed to be addressed.

15th - The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

19th - The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

26th - The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

Two separate issues here. One, yeah, the Constitution makes is very clear that the federal government can do only certain things, plus anything we allow it to do.

The other issue is, the Constitution most definitely grants us rights. The first ten Amendments are known as the Bill of Rights, in fact.

Right on the first part to a point, we the people have to be involved with the process to allow the triggers of these limitations to to actually happen. without our involvement, we end up with what we have today.

Second part, I beg to differ with you.

The point of the constitution is not to grant rights, it has nothing in it about granting anything to us, it is clear that the rights are there for us period and not to be taken or inhibited. Th idea that we are not granted anything from the government goes back to Jefferson and his position that God gives us the rights not King or country. This all sort of goes back to Mason, the English bill of rights and even to the Magna Carta, among a lot of others that Jefferson and others derived their ideas from.

Also the bill of rights was omitted from the original draft of the constitution because many thought it would be unnecessary to put into the document what was perceived as a given, read about it in no. 98 of the federalist papers. Madison prevailed with his point and they got added in.

There has been a lot of discussion about the constitution being a living document but it is not, it is a very static document. The thing is that once we think that we are granted rights, then we can lose those rights.

 

[Pilgrim]

This trend started with decisions made by the Kennedy administration to quit locking up individuals that were deemed to be mentally unstable - this confinement violated their civil rights. The rights of the general public didn't matter, so now we see bums living under bridges,using the city streets as a toilet, pushing around their junk in stolen grocery carts and talking to themselves. We're supposed to feel compassion for them because they're "victims" so we now call them "homeless". If we felt true compassion to them and true responsibility to our society we would confine them to a place where trained professionals could take care of them.

Why that preamble? Because these are also the types of people, young and older, that are shooting up our classrooms. The nutty kid at Va. Tech had a long history of mental problems and state officials new about it, but their hands were tied because of privacy laws. Supposedly, even his parents couldn't find out about health issues discovered at school because of these privacy laws - for that matter they can't even find out his grades even if they're paying his tuition. Bottom line is, these people that are deemed to possibly be a threat to society need to be evaluated and confined to treatment if necessary. Take away their guns? Fine, if somebody can wave a magic wand and make all guns everywhere disappear. Then they'll invent another weapon - bombs are relatively easy to make and the recipie can be easily found on the internet. Why go on, ad nauseum about the possibilities when mental health issues and the way we deal with them is the core of the problem?

Re the 2d amendment - the reality of it is simple. It's clear in its meaning, and it's not going away, for good reason. Given the liberal mindset of so many judges, criminals are more likely to be put out on the street than in jail. Every day you can read an article in most any paper about home invasions where the inhabitants were beaten, raped and robbed. The chances of this happening at my house are far less than those of a household that depends on locked doors and 911 emergency to save them from the bad guys.