Yup, first amendment vs second amendment.
It is funny to see those gun owners who run to the amendment, get outed by the one right above it.
Really gun owners.... really?
Forget the lists of "gun owners", I want a list of the people being prescribed SSRIs.
You want to find a link between "mass shootings" and something, you need look no farther..
Caution you may find that this is a fragile indicator. Lots of people have been helped AND the science is improving. The knee in your curve also has a temporal relationship to anti tobacco regulations and compliance to these regulations.
Tobacco was the sedative or the masses. We had generations that lived happy addicted lives. In many of the poster child nations held up as having low mass murder rates, it still is.
I would assert that nicotine is under proscribed and prescribed.
We do need improvements on the drugs for healthy brains and aspertain ain't it.
No matter how sweet it is. Also put sugar and artificial sweeteners in your graph.
I bet they line up too.
Although I think aspartame is dangerous, too, it started being used in 1979 or '80. However, The "rash" of these shootings didn't start until much later. So no, it doesn't line up. Same with Sucralose. Didn't really appear until after 2001, so it misses a decade in the other direction.
Similarly, people that have done these crimes are not really old enough to have saturated themselves with nicotine, and I haven't seen any suggestion that these murderers were in the throes of nicotine withdrawal.
However, even if there is no "chemical" link, the more important fact remains: We've had both guns and deranged people for a long, long time without this stuff happening. So, what we REALLY need to do is to find out what the REAL causes of this dramatic uptick in these types of incidents are; but I submit that easy access to guns is not it. And please, anyone, don't embarrass yourself be positing the argument that "If all the guns were outlawed..." prohibition simply doesn't work like that.
Yup, first amendment vs second amendment.
It is funny to see those gun owners who run to the amendment, get outed by the one right above it.
Really gun owners.... really?
Forget the lists of "gun owners", I want a list of the people being prescribed SSRIs.
You want to find a link between "mass shootings" and something, you need look no farther than (not so) Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors.
Seriously. Do some research. It's not gun owners we need to fear. It's irresponsible drug companies and lazy-ass doctors, who too often prescribe SSRIs without proper patient follow-up, or worse yet, who increase the SSRI dosage when a patient complains of "feeling worse" after taking them.
Columbine, Aurora, and Sandy Hook (as well as many, many others) all have SSRI involvement.
Prozac (the first SSRI) was approved in 1988. Check out the history of mass murders (esp. "school shooting"-type incidents) in the years before and after SSRIs became commonplace.
We've had a 2nd Amendment for 200+ years. We've had SSRIs for about 20. Look at history and you can clearly see a "knee" in these types of incidents that coincides nicely with SSRI introduction.
But nearly every voice in "the media" is dancing to the drumbeat of a very dangerous tune.
But don't take my word for it; do your own research. I'll wait...
The 2nd is irrelevant. Gun nuts show no interest whatsoever in defending the Constitution. They will happily let it be shredded as long as the can keep their guns.
The "well regulated militia" part is an introductory subordinate clause, as such it is completely unnecessary, and we needn't worry about its interpretation. The right is stated in an independent clause that stands by itself.
It seems to me that this data falls under one of the exemptions to FOIA: "Personnel, medical and similar files, disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(6)" and/or "Records compiled for law enforcement purposes, 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(7)." Perhaps someone in the office that provided the information needs to review the procedure.
While I agree with you that this was reprehensible, these were presumably State records, and thus would not be covered under the (Federal) FOIA.
Now, if someone schooled in the State's "Public Records" statutes can find a corollary to 5 USC 552(b)(7) in their State Statues, then by all means, sicc the ACLU on them!
The real purpose of the 2nd amendment is to have government use you as tools to defend its powers against foreign invaders.
Wrong. That would be the purpose of a Standing Army.
The real purpose of the 2nd Amendment, along with the 1st Amendment, is to protect the citizenry from Government. Remember? It was an Amendment to the original Constitution, which was decidedly more "Federalistic" than the document that was eventually signed into law. If you know your history, the first ten Amendments, a/k/a "The Bill of RIGHTS", were insisted upon by those Colonies (proto-States) that thought the Constitution as originally written ceded too much power to the Government.
So to say that the 2nd Amendment was intended to empower Government, rather than limit it, is naivety at its worst.
Although to be fair, in many parts of the early union men of militia age (17-45) were required by law to purchase, maintain and demonstrate proficiency with military firearms.
True, at least up until the Dick Act was repealed in 1901, due to the fact that it was apparently never enforced.
Shame, actually. Would have likely prevented, or at least minimized the loss of life from, all this "school shooting" bullshit.
More to the point, the right to keep and bear arms isn't contingent on militia membership at all, and it never was. The second amendment doesn't even presume to grant the right. It acknowledges it as pre-existing, it cites one reason why it's important to preserve it, and specifically prohibits the federal government from infringing it.
-jcr
Exactly. It is an "intrinsic", versus "extrinsic", Right.
Plus, always remember: The Government has no Rights. Only Powers. Persons have Rights and Powers.
It also might be interpreted that there is no constitutional right to arms for those who are not in a militia. Afaict most gun owners are not in any kind of militia even an unregulated one.
It's not "Unregulated" it's "Unorganized". And yes, at the time, the term meant "Any (caucasian) male between the ages of 18 and 45."
I think a citation is needed to corroborate the claim vis-à-vis regulated = trained.
In the mean time, the (current) No 1 definition of a "militia" is:
a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
I wonder how appealing gun ownership would be if the owners had to turn out once a month to drill.
And I'd wager that most gun owners aren't enrolled for military service either; and no, registering for the Selective Service (the draft) doesn't count.
That's the ORGANIZED (not "Regulated") Militia. The other citizens (originally as defined as the caucasian males between 18 and 45) is referred to as the UNORGANIZED Militia. There was even a relatively recent (1990) SCOTUS case regarding this, when the Governor of Minnesota at the time, Rudy Perpich, bitched about his State's National Guard members being summarily called up for active Military Duty by the Federal Government during the Falklands' War without his permission, and without a national emergency, etc. Read the case; it has a long explanation of the history of the term "Militia", and the definition of the "Organized" versus "Unorganized" Militiae.
Tip: They may not have taught this at the "school" you attended,, but there is often an abundance of acid in the stomach, where the Glucose (Gatorade) and the ethanol mixture ends up after ingesting same...
Obviously, your initial statement that alcohol and glucose do not combine was completely, utterly incorrect. Exactly how that makes you drunk faster may have more to do with the way Gatorade affects the absorbption of water than the formation of Glycosides, but It. Does Work. I have never gotten so profoundly intoxicated so fast before or since. Since I am not a chemist or a medical doctor, I freely admit I may be entirely wrong about the mechanism involved; but I am here to tell you that I am not wrong about the (admittedly subjective) results of the "experiment".
Try it if you don't believe me. But please be careful...
The Glucose in the Gatorade and the alcohol bond together, and (I think) they pass straight into the bloodstream.
Alcohol passes straight into the bloodstream in the duodenum - and no, it doesn't bond with glucose. Why would that make you drunk faster, anyway? It would just be one more thing to break down.
I'm still not convinced tablets are here to stay. They seem to be fancy toys and status symbols right now (really there's an iPad market, not a tablet market) and little in the way of actual use. I could well see them dying off and people continuing to use laptops and smartphones.
Tablets are here to stay. People have wanted this form factor as long as there have been computers, and then some. That's why we make both books of paper and tablets of paper. Tablets aren't going away, laptops are. They're turning into tablets. You can already buy a tablet PC.
Exactly that.
When the iPad came out, I was like "I've only been wanting this for the last THIRTY years." And the success of the iPad (and other tablets of that ilk) clearly shows I wasn't alone in my dream.
Well, if it's a toy, it has to be just about my favorite toy. I'd rather have a tablet than a laptop myself - for "real" mouse/typing work I want a desktop with a keyboard that isn't little mushed things that I have to reach over a fat "sand bar" to get at while broadcasting false mouse events as my hands pass over the touchpad.
I hate touchpads/trackpads with a passion. It's why for me only laptops with trackpoints ("nipple") will do. And exactly for the reason you cite: it's hard to type while trying to hover the thumbs over the trackpad. If you do touch it, the cursor will jump somewhere random, and your text will continue to be typed there:( Fuck that.
That's because you've never use an Apple trackpad. They've gotten the "accidental touches" problem pretty much fixed.
Those would be what tablets would replace. The argument seems to be that you don't need a laptop, a tablet will do fine, so you get one instead of your laptop. Another argument could be that a laptop isn't portable enough but a tablet is, so you can take it with you and thus don't need a smart phone, just a regular one.
If you will watch the Keynote where Jobs introduced the iPad, he made it crystal-clear that Apple, at least, plainly thought their tablet had no reason to exist if it didn't fill a unique set of use-cases. The people who see a user as having to have EITHER a Tablet OR a Laptop are the real fools.
I dearly love my iPad (I am typing this post on it right now), but I would NEVER confuse it, or consider it, a replacement for my other computers. It is, however, a VERY handy ADJUNCT to them. Anything else is just laughably delusional.
And please don't respond with "That's because you have an iPad." Bullshit. Just because you CAN use Eclipse on an Android tablet (for example), doesn't make it a good idea. That's what "real" computers are for, not "computing appliances". I am an embedded dev., and so am well aware that there is a tiny computer inside of my iPad. However, there is also a tiny computer inside of about ten things in my immediate eyesight, too, such as my microwave oven; but I wouldn't waste my time trying to get Libre Office working on them, either. Why? Because it simply wouldn't end up being an effective tool for the job, regardless of how successful I was at pecking out my Libre Write document out in raw ASCII, using my microwave's numerical keypad. Conversely, even though I can play DVDs on several of my computers, the standalone DVD is the only thing with which anyone else besides me in the house could use do so.
try cutting out everything in the "bread and grain" section of the food pyramid. Stop eating bread, rice, potatoes (except sweet potatoes), all baked goods, pasta, anything in that part of the bs food pyramid.
BS is right!
When I was first diagnosed with Type II Diabetes, I did some research into insulin resistance and the glycemic index, and drew up a "modified" Food Pyramid. It was basically upside-down from the "USDA-Approved" one.
When I took it into my Dr., he said "You should Patent this." Probably an overstatement, but just goes to show how the USDA is NOT YOUR FRIEND when it comes to nutritional suggestions.
Orowheat Healthfull 10 Grain Bread.
(per slice)
Total carbs...16g
Dietary fiber...4g
Net carbs...12g
Its probably the lowest in net carbs you will find out there. Done and done.
Not even close. I can buy low-carb bread in the normal grocery store that tastes/feels pretty good and has half of that "net carbs" per slice.
Then there are low-carb tortillas. Several brands and flavors, and most have 3-5 grams of "net carbs" per tortilla.
Seriously, try a very-low-carb diet. Easy. Really easy. No hunger. It's infinitely easier than the other way. I've done your way before, and I blew back up. This way works because I don't have a problem with eating like this for the rest of my life.
Maybe you don't; but I sure do. I would love to know how to avoid the crashing boredom that I experience on carb-restricted diets. The urge to "cheat" becomes overwhelming. Also, it becomes a real PITA to "grab a quick burger", or to "go to lunch" with your co-workers. Believe me, I have tried to find ways around it, like using low-carb Tortillas in place of bread for fast-food (tearing apart the sandwich and rebuilding it on the tortilla), etc. And low-carb does work for me. I just can't stand to eat like this forever, and that's what it will take.
Slashdot Mirror
Governments DO have the rights that we vote to give them
Governments have no "Rights". Only "Powers". There is a BIG difference.
People have rights. People delegate *powers* to the state. The state does not have rights. Con Law 101, or maybe Con Law 1.
How in blazes did your ignorance get modded +5 informative? Oh.... I guess the mods need to take Con Law 1, too.
Precisely!
It has the right to tax you, so therefore it does have rights. Consequently, the whole premise for you argument falls apart.
Bzzzt!! WRONG!
The government has the POWER to tax; not the "Right".
Persons have Rights and Powers. Government only has Powers.
And yes, there is a difference.
Yup, first amendment vs second amendment. It is funny to see those gun owners who run to the amendment, get outed by the one right above it. Really gun owners.... really?
Forget the lists of "gun owners", I want a list of the people being prescribed SSRIs. You want to find a link between "mass shootings" and something, you need look no farther..
Caution you may find that this is a fragile indicator. Lots of people have been helped AND the science is improving. The knee in your curve also has a temporal relationship to anti tobacco regulations and compliance to these regulations.
Tobacco was the sedative or the masses. We had generations that lived happy addicted lives. In many of the poster child nations held up as having low mass murder rates, it still is.
I would assert that nicotine is under proscribed and prescribed.
We do need improvements on the drugs for healthy brains and aspertain ain't it. No matter how sweet it is. Also put sugar and artificial sweeteners in your graph. I bet they line up too.
Although I think aspartame is dangerous, too, it started being used in 1979 or '80. However, The "rash" of these shootings didn't start until much later. So no, it doesn't line up. Same with Sucralose. Didn't really appear until after 2001, so it misses a decade in the other direction.
Similarly, people that have done these crimes are not really old enough to have saturated themselves with nicotine, and I haven't seen any suggestion that these murderers were in the throes of nicotine withdrawal.
However, even if there is no "chemical" link, the more important fact remains: We've had both guns and deranged people for a long, long time without this stuff happening. So, what we REALLY need to do is to find out what the REAL causes of this dramatic uptick in these types of incidents are; but I submit that easy access to guns is not it. And please, anyone, don't embarrass yourself be positing the argument that "If all the guns were outlawed..." prohibition simply doesn't work like that.
It's in the second amendement, right? You can't have a WELL REGULATED militia without record keeping.
Record "keeping" and Record Disclosure are entirely two different things, especially when it comes to the government.
Or would you prefer that I be able to peruse your Federal and State Income Tax Returns, for example?
Yup, first amendment vs second amendment. It is funny to see those gun owners who run to the amendment, get outed by the one right above it. Really gun owners.... really?
Forget the lists of "gun owners", I want a list of the people being prescribed SSRIs.
You want to find a link between "mass shootings" and something, you need look no farther than (not so) Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors.
Seriously. Do some research. It's not gun owners we need to fear. It's irresponsible drug companies and lazy-ass doctors, who too often prescribe SSRIs without proper patient follow-up, or worse yet, who increase the SSRI dosage when a patient complains of "feeling worse" after taking them.
Columbine, Aurora, and Sandy Hook (as well as many, many others) all have SSRI involvement.
Prozac (the first SSRI) was approved in 1988. Check out the history of mass murders (esp. "school shooting"-type incidents) in the years before and after SSRIs became commonplace.
We've had a 2nd Amendment for 200+ years. We've had SSRIs for about 20. Look at history and you can clearly see a "knee" in these types of incidents that coincides nicely with SSRI introduction.
But nearly every voice in "the media" is dancing to the drumbeat of a very dangerous tune.
But don't take my word for it; do your own research. I'll wait...
The 2nd is irrelevant. Gun nuts show no interest whatsoever in defending the Constitution. They will happily let it be shredded as long as the can keep their guns.
Speak for yourself.
The "well regulated militia" part is an introductory subordinate clause, as such it is completely unnecessary, and we needn't worry about its interpretation. The right is stated in an independent clause that stands by itself.
It seems to me that this data falls under one of the exemptions to FOIA: "Personnel, medical and similar files, disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(6)" and/or "Records compiled for law enforcement purposes, 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(7)." Perhaps someone in the office that provided the information needs to review the procedure.
While I agree with you that this was reprehensible, these were presumably State records, and thus would not be covered under the (Federal) FOIA.
Now, if someone schooled in the State's "Public Records" statutes can find a corollary to 5 USC 552(b)(7) in their State Statues, then by all means, sicc the ACLU on them!
The real purpose of the 2nd amendment is to have government use you as tools to defend its powers against foreign invaders.
Wrong. That would be the purpose of a Standing Army.
The real purpose of the 2nd Amendment, along with the 1st Amendment, is to protect the citizenry from Government. Remember? It was an Amendment to the original Constitution, which was decidedly more "Federalistic" than the document that was eventually signed into law. If you know your history, the first ten Amendments, a/k/a "The Bill of RIGHTS", were insisted upon by those Colonies (proto-States) that thought the Constitution as originally written ceded too much power to the Government.
So to say that the 2nd Amendment was intended to empower Government, rather than limit it, is naivety at its worst.
Although to be fair, in many parts of the early union men of militia age (17-45) were required by law to purchase, maintain and demonstrate proficiency with military firearms.
True, at least up until the Dick Act was repealed in 1901, due to the fact that it was apparently never enforced.
Shame, actually. Would have likely prevented, or at least minimized the loss of life from, all this "school shooting" bullshit.
More to the point, the right to keep and bear arms isn't contingent on militia membership at all, and it never was. The second amendment doesn't even presume to grant the right. It acknowledges it as pre-existing, it cites one reason why it's important to preserve it, and specifically prohibits the federal government from infringing it.
-jcr
Exactly. It is an "intrinsic", versus "extrinsic", Right.
Plus, always remember: The Government has no Rights. Only Powers. Persons have Rights and Powers.
It also might be interpreted that there is no constitutional right to arms for those who are not in a militia. Afaict most gun owners are not in any kind of militia even an unregulated one.
It's not "Unregulated" it's "Unorganized". And yes, at the time, the term meant "Any (caucasian) male between the ages of 18 and 45."
See, e.g., Perpich v. DOD, 496 U.S. 334 (1990).
I think a citation is needed to corroborate the claim vis-à-vis regulated = trained.
In the mean time, the (current) No 1 definition of a "militia" is:
a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
I wonder how appealing gun ownership would be if the owners had to turn out once a month to drill.
And I'd wager that most gun owners aren't enrolled for military service either; and no, registering for the Selective Service (the draft) doesn't count.
That's the ORGANIZED (not "Regulated") Militia. The other citizens (originally as defined as the caucasian males between 18 and 45) is referred to as the UNORGANIZED Militia. There was even a relatively recent (1990) SCOTUS case regarding this, when the Governor of Minnesota at the time, Rudy Perpich, bitched about his State's National Guard members being summarily called up for active Military Duty by the Federal Government during the Falklands' War without his permission, and without a national emergency, etc. Read the case; it has a long explanation of the history of the term "Militia", and the definition of the "Organized" versus "Unorganized" Militiae.
> I didn't READ it, I EXPERIENCED it.
Oh, you experienced alcohol and glucose bonding together? Tell me more. Or just go back to school.
Of course not. I experienced the effects of same.
And, perhaps it is you that needs to go back to school.
Tip: They may not have taught this at the "school" you attended,, but there is often an abundance of acid in the stomach, where the Glucose (Gatorade) and the ethanol mixture ends up after ingesting same...
Obviously, your initial statement that alcohol and glucose do not combine was completely, utterly incorrect. Exactly how that makes you drunk faster may have more to do with the way Gatorade affects the absorbption of water than the formation of Glycosides, but It. Does Work. I have never gotten so profoundly intoxicated so fast before or since. Since I am not a chemist or a medical doctor, I freely admit I may be entirely wrong about the mechanism involved; but I am here to tell you that I am not wrong about the (admittedly subjective) results of the "experiment".
Try it if you don't believe me. But please be careful...
Alcohol passes straight into the bloodstream in the duodenum - and no, it doesn't bond with glucose. Why would that make you drunk faster, anyway? It would just be one more thing to break down.
Don't believe everything you read.
I didn't READ it, I EXPERIENCED it.
I'm still not convinced tablets are here to stay. They seem to be fancy toys and status symbols right now (really there's an iPad market, not a tablet market) and little in the way of actual use. I could well see them dying off and people continuing to use laptops and smartphones.
Tablets are here to stay. People have wanted this form factor as long as there have been computers, and then some. That's why we make both books of paper and tablets of paper. Tablets aren't going away, laptops are. They're turning into tablets. You can already buy a tablet PC.
Exactly that.
When the iPad came out, I was like "I've only been wanting this for the last THIRTY years." And the success of the iPad (and other tablets of that ilk) clearly shows I wasn't alone in my dream.
Well, if it's a toy, it has to be just about my favorite toy. I'd rather have a tablet than a laptop myself - for "real" mouse/typing work I want a desktop with a keyboard that isn't little mushed things that I have to reach over a fat "sand bar" to get at while broadcasting false mouse events as my hands pass over the touchpad.
I hate touchpads/trackpads with a passion. It's why for me only laptops with trackpoints ("nipple") will do. And exactly for the reason you cite: it's hard to type while trying to hover the thumbs over the trackpad. If you do touch it, the cursor will jump somewhere random, and your text will continue to be typed there :( Fuck that.
That's because you've never use an Apple trackpad. They've gotten the "accidental touches" problem pretty much fixed.
Those would be what tablets would replace. The argument seems to be that you don't need a laptop, a tablet will do fine, so you get one instead of your laptop. Another argument could be that a laptop isn't portable enough but a tablet is, so you can take it with you and thus don't need a smart phone, just a regular one.
If you will watch the Keynote where Jobs introduced the iPad, he made it crystal-clear that Apple, at least, plainly thought their tablet had no reason to exist if it didn't fill a unique set of use-cases. The people who see a user as having to have EITHER a Tablet OR a Laptop are the real fools.
I dearly love my iPad (I am typing this post on it right now), but I would NEVER confuse it, or consider it, a replacement for my other computers. It is, however, a VERY handy ADJUNCT to them. Anything else is just laughably delusional.
And please don't respond with "That's because you have an iPad." Bullshit. Just because you CAN use Eclipse on an Android tablet (for example), doesn't make it a good idea. That's what "real" computers are for, not "computing appliances". I am an embedded dev., and so am well aware that there is a tiny computer inside of my iPad. However, there is also a tiny computer inside of about ten things in my immediate eyesight, too, such as my microwave oven; but I wouldn't waste my time trying to get Libre Office working on them, either. Why? Because it simply wouldn't end up being an effective tool for the job, regardless of how successful I was at pecking out my Libre Write document out in raw ASCII, using my microwave's numerical keypad. Conversely, even though I can play DVDs on several of my computers, the standalone DVD is the only thing with which anyone else besides me in the house could use do so.
Right tool for the job and all that...
Effects.. or affects? I suppose both add up to the same meaning in this case :D
Actually, it might be "Potato vodka effects definitely affect my tolerance to stupid people."
The Likely Vector for this in humans is via pus in Milk
Thanks. I will never drink another glass of milk again.
Don't worry, it's not a new mystery bacteria. They just believe they've found a new problem it may cause.
Amikacin takes care of it.
Really? I read that Enterobacter is hard to kill with Antibiotics.
Therefore, respectfully, "Citation, please."
And a little-known fact: fat people have higher metabolisms than skinny people, all else remaining equal.
Citation please.
And of course, all else, such as insulin resistance, is not typically equal.
So now what?
try cutting out everything in the "bread and grain" section of the food pyramid. Stop eating bread, rice, potatoes (except sweet potatoes), all baked goods, pasta, anything in that part of the bs food pyramid.
BS is right!
When I was first diagnosed with Type II Diabetes, I did some research into insulin resistance and the glycemic index, and drew up a "modified" Food Pyramid. It was basically upside-down from the "USDA-Approved" one.
When I took it into my Dr., he said "You should Patent this." Probably an overstatement, but just goes to show how the USDA is NOT YOUR FRIEND when it comes to nutritional suggestions.
Orowheat Healthfull 10 Grain Bread. (per slice) Total carbs...16g Dietary fiber...4g Net carbs...12g Its probably the lowest in net carbs you will find out there. Done and done.
Not even close. I can buy low-carb bread in the normal grocery store that tastes/feels pretty good and has half of that "net carbs" per slice.
Then there are low-carb tortillas. Several brands and flavors, and most have 3-5 grams of "net carbs" per tortilla.
Seriously, try a very-low-carb diet. Easy. Really easy. No hunger. It's infinitely easier than the other way. I've done your way before, and I blew back up. This way works because I don't have a problem with eating like this for the rest of my life.
Maybe you don't; but I sure do. I would love to know how to avoid the crashing boredom that I experience on carb-restricted diets. The urge to "cheat" becomes overwhelming. Also, it becomes a real PITA to "grab a quick burger", or to "go to lunch" with your co-workers. Believe me, I have tried to find ways around it, like using low-carb Tortillas in place of bread for fast-food (tearing apart the sandwich and rebuilding it on the tortilla), etc. And low-carb does work for me. I just can't stand to eat like this forever, and that's what it will take.
Got any ideas?