|
|
Originally Posted by bahurd
(Post 1443872)
It was a rhetorical reference but I'm glad you could use it...
Who gets to determine who's "mentaly ill"? You? Me? The government? Up to the mid to late '60s it was common for states to have mental institutions. Society, and our government, deemed it not to be the problem of the state and left it to the families to take care of. Any idea what happened to Medicaid spending after that? Many family counselers today will tell the patient not to submit reimbursement to the insurance companies [even though it's covered] because it's too easy to be marked as having a "mental health issue" which can cause all sorts of problems for the patient. According to this, shooter was prescribed Diazepam. https://www.reviewjournal.com/local/...-drug-in-june/ "Records from the Nevada Prescription Monitoring Program obtained Tuesday show Paddock was prescribed 50 10-milligram diazepam tablets by Henderson physician Dr. Steven Winkler on June 21." Diazepam: ...Higher doses cause impaired memory, judgment and coordination; irritability; paranoia; and thoughts of suicide. Some people can become agitated or aggressive... |
And yes I know it other uses then just anxiety, Body/ skeletal relaxant ect....
He was prescribed 10mg. A normal beginning dose is 2-2.5mg. He might have not taken any up to planning phase of his attack and started taking even more than prescribed. I'll bet he had a lot of anxiety planning/prepping for this. A possible side effect of higher doses? And again "Higher doses cause impaired memory, judgment and coordination; irritability; paranoia; and thoughts of suicide. Some people can become agitated or aggressive.*" |
Originally Posted by mitymazda
(Post 1443881)
I would venture to said those who are prescribed psychotropic drugs for various disorders as a good place to start.
According to this, shooter was prescribed Diazepam. Diazepam is a benzodiazepine (ben-zoe-dye-AZE-eh-peens). It affects chemicals in the brain that may be unbalanced in people with anxiety. Diazepam is used to treat anxiety disorders, alcohol withdrawal symptoms, or muscle spasms. Diazepam is sometimes used with other medications to treat seizures. |
Good BBC documentary on how to build a leftist utopia of disarmed equals and then murder 25% of your entire population:
|
more words:
Off The Wall Mike – I live in Las Vegas, and I’ve seen you here often. Once, in the lobby at Mandalay Bay. We’re all shattered here, obviously. A comforting word from you would go a long way… Molly Carr Hi Molly I’m not surprised you saw me at the Mandalay. I cleaned their shark tank back in 2006, and I've stayed there at least thirty times since. Maybe that’s why my initial thoughts about this latest tragedy were so random and strange. Even before I imagined myself in the thick of the chaos, (as I always do,) and even before I thanked God that I wasn’t, (as I don’t do enough,) I found myself wondering if I had used the same elevator as the killer. Isn’t that odd? As people were being murdered in the most cowardly way imaginable, by a creature I can barely think of as human, I lay in my bed at home, stunned and horrified - wondering if I had stood in the same box and pushed the same buttons as the man now destroying countless lives and families. Since I’ve ridden all the elevators at Mandalay, I determined that the answer was yes. I then wondered if the killer and I had shared the same barstool in the lobby? Had we swam in the same pool, or chatted up the same bellman, or played a hand of blackjack at the same table? Had we slept in the same bed? It’s not a stretch. I’ve stayed on the 32nd floor of Mandalay before. I remember looking down at the sprawling, empty space 300 feet below my window – the same sprawling space that was recently filled with thousands of people having a good time, right up until they weren’t, courtesy of a monster. Yesterday, I was struck by how unknowingly we rub elbows with evil. How we share the highways and bi-ways with hollowed-out men and craven women whose capacity for wickedness knows no bounds. It would be convenient if such people all looked the same, but alas, they don’t. They look just like us. And so we dine with them in restaurants, unknowingly. We walk by them in shopping malls, sit next to them in theaters, and maybe even hold the door for them as they smile and nod in thanks. I’m sorry, Molly. I know these are not comforting words. The world is as uncertain as the people in it, and we share this rock with some very uncertain folks. But we also share it with living proof that hope will never die. Take comfort in men who threw themselves over other people’s children. They are no less real than the killer, and they are still with us. Take comfort in the woman who loaded wounded strangers into her car and drove them out of harm’s way. Take comfort in the hundreds of first responders who risk their lives every day, and the hundreds of anonymous citizens who stood in line to give their blood. Take comfort in the fact all good people are shattered, and that you are not alone. There are no words, Molly, at least in my vocabulary, to bring you the comfort you seek. But there are people among us who restore my faith in the species, even as others seek to rob me of it. I can introduce you to those people. That’s what I’ve tried to do with my little slice of cyber space, and that’s what I can do today. The same thing I do every Tuesday. This is Momma Ginger. Momma and her fellow Soup Ladies spend their lives waiting for disaster and tragedy to strike. When the unthinkable happens, they drive to the scene with a trailer filled with homemade soup, and feed the first-responders. It sounds like a small thing. It isn’t. When it comes to kindness, there are no small things. And when it comes to keeping hope alive, our first responders are the best example there is. This is the woman who takes care of them. In fact, she's on her way to your city right now. Take comfort in her. |
And while we're on the subject of genocide...
Atrocities Against Native Americans But by then, we weren't building a leftist uptopia were we? https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.mia...0628591a14.jpg I digress... |
Originally Posted by bahurd
(Post 1443884)
So in your world, anyone suffering from anxiety, possibly a recovering alcoholic or may have a back problem might be a serial killer and should surrender any guns while on any medications [because who can certify all possible side effects]?
|
Originally Posted by bahurd
(Post 1443889)
And while we're on the subject of genocide...
Atrocities Against Native Americans But by then, we weren't building a leftist uptopia were we? https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.mia...0628591a14.jpg I digress... |
Originally Posted by mitymazda
(Post 1443891)
And pol pot, the USSR, mao and others did that to their own people. Not people outside their own culture.
Trust me, I'm not a fan of Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin. We, as Americans have a tendency to forget history except where we don't.
Originally Posted by mitymazda
(Post 1443890)
that person should make a choice as to what they should do with their firearms- and bare FULL responsibility for their actions.
|
Never said it was justified. And as far as the recent events over the weekend I'll wait for the rest of the story to come to light. As it stands now aside from full confiscation of firearms existing laws would not have done a god damn thing. Are you in favor of full confiscation of all firearms in the country?
|
Originally Posted by mitymazda
(Post 1443907)
Never said it was justified. And as far as the recent events over the weekend I'll wait for the rest of the story to come to light. As it stands now aside from full confiscation of firearms existing laws would not have done a god damn thing. Are you in favor of full confiscation of all firearms in the country?
I don't have anymore answers then the rest. |
You owning guns has no baring on the validity of your opinion. Absolute fallacy of thought and one that's commonly used.
Seems your trying awfully hard to build a platform for virtue signaling. If you really have a shit about those people you may have considered spending your lunch hour Monday down at the red cross giving blood like me. Instead of blaming guns and trying to advocate more regulation that would have done nothing to stop the evil. *** one person's right not to pay for health insurance*** ***is your burden when it comes time they need it and vote for you to pay for it.*** |
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 1443786)
I like to learn from history. History has proven disarming citizens leads to oppressive regimes. Look at Turkey, China, Russia, Cambodia, Uganda. The homicide rate in your precious penal colony jumped 300% after you were disarmed... The places in the US with the highest gun crimes also happen to be the places with the strictest gun laws.
Turkey, china, russia, cambodia, etc. France, germany, italy, sweden, norway, finland, belgium, uk, spain, portugal, australia, japan. There is good examples of both. Still though, I don't get the opposition towards registering and applying for a firearm. Do you think the state will come after everybody one by one? Even Trump, not for lack of trying, can't get away with any random shit due to congress stepping in. The trend towards dictatorship would be a slow one in the states imho. Also, 2'nd amendment. Wouldnt a "well regulated militia" indicate some kind of registration with the state as such? In the mass shootings in recent years, do we have any civilians with handguns making a difference? yes yes, I understand that the argument "thats why it didn't become a mass shooting" can have some weight to it. but columbine, vegas, from what I gather, no heroes stepped up and the police eventually, eh, handled it. Also, on the subject of cops. the american police in general seems to shoot a lot of people, this is understandable since they expect just about anyone reaching for their wallet to produce a firearm. or rpg, or WMD. I dont know really, but they do seem fairly nervous. I could be related to the extent of gun ownership. As far as the feasibility of collecting 300 million guns, well, it would take some time. It would cost. It would be hard. But as all other hard labor problems (not counting infected multifactorial/ideological issues here), you start from one end and work your way towards the other. |
read about what DC was doing with their gun registration --- spoiler alert: a judge deemed it illegal.
if you want to know why police shoot a lot of people, look at their training, then watch this: 7:30 look at the LA riots. when police decided not to help the Koreans who we being attack by the blacks, they banded together and solved the problem. the state cant help you. |
|
Originally Posted by Sentic
(Post 1444024)
Also, 2'nd amendment. Wouldnt a "well regulated militia" indicate some kind of registration with the state as such?
My viewpoint: At the time the 2nd amendment was created, the US relied upon citizen-soldiers (who were expected to provide their own weapons) to comprise the bulk of the national defense force. "The Militia" and "The People" were the same thing. At the onset of the US Revolutionary War, Colonial America had no standing army whatsoever, and Militiamen (often called Minutemen) were the only fighting force available to resist the British Army. They were successful mostly because: A: The British vastly under-supplied their military forces on the American continent, in an era when a request for reinforcement and resupply took months rather than hours to be answered, and B: The French and Spanish, both of whom kind of hated the UK at the time, jumped in and saved our asses with their awesome Navies. And yes, members of said militia were registered and trained. The closest that we in the US have to this today would be something like the Army National Guard; a reserve force of men & woman who have jobs outside of the military but volunteer for periodic training (typically one weekend per month and two weeks per year) in order to maintain a state of baseline competency in case they need to be called up to active service in a time of crisis. In practical terms, this mostly consists of disaster relief and occasional riot-control, not actual combat against a foreign aggressor. Now that the US has a professional military consisting of full-time enlisted soldiers / marines / seamen / airmen / etc., The Militia and The People are no longer interchangeable terms, and so the Second Amendment is no longer crucial to providing for national defense. The only argument in which this interpretation makes sense is a hypothetical scenario in which the US Military acts against the civilian population (presumably under orders from a corrupt leadership), and for reasons too obvious to mention, the thought of Bubba and his friends successfully repelling so much as a single Marine fireteam (much less a squad or a platoon) is laughable. I used to be really into paintball before I screwed up my back. One of the fields I played at often was at Camp Pendleton in California, which is a Marine Corps base. Very cool place- they had extremely large playfields, some of which simulated a city-raid sort of scenario (lots of buildings to hide in / breech, and so on.) It was usually all-civilian on the weekends, but every now and then a group of Marines would join the fun. The experience of "fighting" against the Marines in this context was sufficient to dispel in me the notion that a loosely-organized civilian resistance force in said aforementioned hypothetical scenario would achieve any end other than to make the Marines complain a little bit about wasting their ammunition. |
words:
Madison's first proposal was made on June 8, 1789, to the House of Representatives. It embodied nineteen substantive items and appeared to track the suggestions made by the various state conventions. Madison's first proposal was not in the form of a separate Bill of Rights. Instead, he proposed amendment by interlineation, placement of the individual amendments in the text of the Constitution. One of the proposed amendments was "that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, a well-armed and well-regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no conscientious objector shall be compelled to render military service in person."210 Madison's proposal called for this right and the right to freedom of the press, religion, and speech, to be inserted in Article 1, Section 9, between clauses 3 and 4. Article 1, Section 9 concerns limitations on Congress's power over citizens, namely, no suspension of habeas corpus, no ex post facto laws, and no bills of attainder. Madison's suggested placement of this amendment demonstrates that he understood the right to bear arms to be an individual right. Had Madison viewed the right as the states' right, the more logical placement of the right would have been in Article 1, Section 8, clause 16, which reserves to the states the power to appoint the officers of the militia and provides authority to train the same. In addition, Madison's notes regarding the introduction of his proposals contain an outline which suggests he should read the amendments and explain that they first relate to private rights. He then instructed himself to explain the deficiencies of the English Declaration of Rights. Among the deficiencies was that the declaration was a mere act of Parliament and that guarantees were not sufficiently broad, namely, no freedom of press or conscience and the restriction of arms to Protestants. ... The Senate streamlined the package by combining some amendments and simplifying others. On the right to bear arms, the Senate omitted the words "composed of the body of the people" and deleted the provision exempting (pg.1038) conscientious objectors from service. The Senate rejected language that would have added the words, "for the common defense" as part of the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear arms (for the common defense) shall not be infringed. "Ultimately twelve articles were sent to the states for ratification. The first two failed, but the other ten were ratified.218 The language of the Second Amendment, as adopted, read: A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.219 |
:)
|
Facebook Post |
^ An example of what I meant by "those who are strongly opposed to firearms regulation."
One thing I learned in law school is that it's not merely possible but required to be able to interpret pretty much any statement to mean pretty much anything. This is where common sense (eg: "A reasonable person...") both comes into play and is simultaneously an absurd concept. Edit: written in response to post #9637. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:18 AM. |
|
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands