[quote]Alpha F wrote:
Jay Pierce,
Thank you for your open minded investigation into this.
I am paying attention.
“Florida school moves away from professor’s claim that Sandy Hook massacre was staged”
[/quote]
Think maybe somebody told them about Kevin Krim’s kids?
Hey, thunderbolt, are you in the militia?
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
Jay Pierce,
Thank you for your open minded investigation into this.
I am paying attention.
“Florida school moves away from professor’s claim that Sandy Hook massacre was staged”
[/quote]
Think maybe somebody told them about Kevin Krim’s kids?[/quote]
I don’t know.
What I do know is that sheer common sense would allow one to question simply on the grounds that there has been no transparency over the reporting of this event and very conflicting information was coming forth on the news.
The greatest barrier in even attempting to investigate the truth is denial ( IMO ): the horror of the knowledge that the government has any part in this ( any part at all ) is too great for the majority of people.
It is safer and comfortable to live within the walls of denial.
This did not escape my notice either:
Does any one know how much and how fast the victims of the Sandy storm in the east coast received in financial aid?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Thanks anyway.[/quote]
You are welcome.
I will attempt to look at it from your perspective and see if I have anything to contribute within the reality you mentioned. ( Absolute surrender of will to the agency of the state ).
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Only one question: do states have some ability to restrict the right of gun ownership in the name of public safety? Yes or no?
[/quote]
No.
If there is no caveat in the Constitution, AND common sense does not count ( your opinion ), then it is unconstitutional for the state to restrict gun ownership.
Felons and mentally incompetent have a right to own a gun.
Their right to use can be limited but their right to own cannot as it has been proved by reality; both historically and in practice, felons and the mentally incompetent have and currently do own guns.
They don’t want to just control your gun, but your ability to survive. It’s all about the chaos they wish to unleash upon America.
After they take away your ability to defend & provide for yourself they’ll claim they can’t afford to hold the murderers, serial killers, the rapists in prison and will release them upon society.
They will rape and kill the compassionate American Civil Liberties Union types that are so against the death penalty and punishing criminals in general. Only then will these people possibly realize they had their chance and they chose to spare the maniacal nutt jobs while they were busy supporting aborting the innocent unborn.
Did I take it too far?
[quote]conservativedog wrote:
They will rape and kill the compassionate American Civil Liberties Union types that are so against the death penalty and punishing criminals in general. Only then will these people possibly realize they had their chance and they chose to spare the maniacal nutt jobs while they were busy supporting aborting the innocent unborn.
Did I take it too far?
[/quote]
This psychiatrist may agree with you:
"These are the psychological drugs of the 21st Century and they are getting our sons and daughters very sick, indeed.
As if to keep up with the unreality of media and technology, in a dizzying paroxysm of self-aggrandizing hype, town sports leagues across the country hand out ribbons and trophies to losing teams, schools inflate grades, energy drinks in giant, colorful cans take over the soft drink market, and psychiatrists hand out Adderall like candy.
All the while, these adolescents, teens and young adults are watching a Congress that canâ??t control its manic, euphoric, narcissistic spending, a president that canâ??t see his way through to applauding genuine and extraordinary achievements in business, a society that blames mass killings on guns, not the psychotic people who wield them, andâ??here no surpriseâ??a stock market that keeps rising and falling like a roller coaster as bubbles inflate and then, inevitably, burst.
Thatâ??s really the unavoidable end, by the way. False pride can never be sustained. The bubble of narcissism is always at risk of bursting. Thatâ??s why young people are higher on drugs than ever, drunker than ever, smoking more, tattooed more, pierced more and having more and more and more sex, earlier and earlier and earlier, raising babies before they can do it well, because it makes them feel special, for a while. Theyâ??re doing anything to distract themselves from the fact that they feel empty inside and unworthy.
Distractions, however, are temporary, and the truth is eternal. Watch for an epidemic of depression and suicidality, not to mention homicidality, as the real self-loathing and hatred of others that lies beneath all this narcissism rises to the surface. I see it happening and, no doubt, many of you do, too."
Chicago Homicide Rate Already Outpacing 2012 Killings In First Week of 2013.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Well, the Constitution - which is what is at issue in this discussion - recognizes my perspective over yours, given that it directly recognizes the government may restrict life, liberty and/or property (in conformance with due process of law). Sovereignty, of course, lies in the people, not the state, but the people endow the state with the power to act with the agency of the people. As part of that endowment, the state has power to restrict life, liberty and property, even in advance of the individual’s violation of his/her own individual “code” of bhavior, or even in defiance of an individual’s own “code” of acceptable behavior.
[/quote]
Well, play on words aside, the above is your opinion.
The Constitution in principle limits the government.
You are, of course welcome to believe what ever you want to believe.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Chicago Homicide Rate Already Outpacing 2012 Killings In First Week of 2013.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Law book in one hand, sword in the other - you scamper hither and yon - always eager to make sure the people don’t get out of hand. Eh?[/quote]
[quote]pushharder wrote:
TB, you’re big on this idea that if a state(s) ever had the “ability” to do anything in the past therefore it must’ve been constitutional. In what cauldron did you cook up that brew?[/quote]
No, not categorically, but “this brew” is a normal part of constitutional understanding, particularly from an Originalism point of view - that is, in the space where states have broad authority to do what they want with their inherent police powers, and they enacted a law, it’s pretty well-presumed that the state was fully authorized to pass the law at the time it did.
I’m careful not to divert this thread into one about gay marriage, but the gay marriage example is the perfect example - states enacted traditional marriage statutes centuries ago. Now, people are claiming that these statutes violate the Equal Protection clause. Now? After centuries of being fine? Of course traditional marriage laws enacted centuries ago didn’t suddenly “become” unconstitutional because of the passage of time.
Same thing would apply to state laws of different stripes.