Does the NRA have a stupid pill problem?

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 921 - 940 of total 1081 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
WBraun

climber
Jan 3, 2013 - 01:57pm PT
Anybody seen any bodies?

Lanza bodies? The mother and son?

Nope nothing, zilch, nada.

Only thing you all have seen is what you've been fed.

The herd is always fed by the farmer .......

splitter

Trad climber
Cali Hodad, surfing the galactic plane ~:~
Jan 3, 2013 - 02:15pm PT
WB - Anyone seen the bodies?

Really Werner, get a grip on things bro (reality)!

I am sure there are PLENTY of individuals that have seen THE bodies (unfortunately). And they probabaly work in a similar capacity as you. If you really wanted to see pictures, or speak to the first responders & various follow-up responders, etc, they would confirm the deaths. Or better yet, speak with their loved ones, I'm sure they have "seen their bodies"!!
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Jan 3, 2013 - 02:17pm PT
WB, why do you keep coming back to the trough? Aren't you full yet? Maybe you need to go walk some of it off?
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Jan 3, 2013 - 02:33pm PT
jstan,

The FDA keeps a very tight reign on antidepressants. The prescribing doctors, of course, still have discretion on their use.

I, for one, am very grateful for the existence of both doctors and antidepressants. As I've posted elsewhere, I suffer from an endogenous depression (i.e. unrelated to outside events or circumstances), and have been on medication since 2005. The only effects of that medication have been to eliminate the depression and to give me extremely entertaining dreams. I rather suspect that I will need medication for the rest of my life, but if that's what it takes to live normally, I'm happy.

Of course, I'm also very fortunate. I've had chats with at least one other poster who was prescribed the same medication I take, with bad results. I've heard enough other stories to convince me that the benefits of antidepressants are oversold. If I'm unhappy because my wife died, I probably don't need an antidepressant; I need time. If, as I was, I'm not only unhappy, but don't seem to give a rip about anything, for no good reason, that's where antidepressants may do some good, but the results appear to be highly idiosyncratic.

My personal take is that both antidepressants and their criticisms are exaggerated. For me, they were a magic bullet (pun intended on this thread) that has completely controlled my disease, but we still have a lot to learn about brain chemistry and how to manage it better.

John
Jingy

climber
Somewhere out there
Jan 3, 2013 - 03:17pm PT
For all the Gun Nuts




Simple examination shows you don't have the upper hand in an emergency
couchmaster

climber
pdx
Jan 3, 2013 - 03:25pm PT
It's about political freedom Jingy.

Not hunting.

Not defense.


This:
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
    Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Hope that helps.
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Jan 3, 2013 - 03:29pm PT
I no longer have the political freedom to tell jokes about bombs in airports or other public places... and my jokes don't have the potential to kill dozens of people in a matter of minutes. Thomas Jefferson never even saw a gun that could fire more than one shot without reloading. While I can appreciate his taste for French whores and such, his views about gun control are completely outdated and irrelevant.

So you can take your political freedom and stuff it!
Ken M

Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
Jan 3, 2013 - 03:30pm PT
That was a GREAT video!
Ksolem

Trad climber
Monrovia, California
Jan 3, 2013 - 03:36pm PT
Not all gun owners want to carry a concealed weapon. I have no interest at all in carrying in urban areas or shopping malls etc. I prefer to be a bit selective about where I go, and the odds of being in a shootout in a public place are near zero despite the publicity such events generate. When I lived in NYC I got mugged a couple times. I am quite certain that my odds of walking away from those incidents would have been greatly reduced had I been carrying.

My brother earned his ccw living in a Boston suburb. He had to work very hard for it, and he had to jump through a lot of hoops. He actually saw it as a challenge and enjoyed the process and succeeding at it. Nevertheless he virtually never carries a weapon. Occasionally his business takes him to funky places sometime he'll carry then but usually not. He is an tactical instructor and practices a lot.

couchmaster

climber
pdx
Jan 3, 2013 - 03:54pm PT
Mewes said:
"I no longer have the political freedom to tell jokes about bombs in airports or other public places..."

You might not be aware that you can't yell FIRE in a crowded theater either, and in fact, political discourse or merely having an irresponsible parent can now get you murdered/executed based on President Obama's desire and without due process these days as well. No judicial review. You might think that's a good thing. I don't.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/24/robert-gibbs-anwar-al-awlaki_n_2012438.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/02/targeted-killing-program-_n_2398805.html



Turkeydick said:
"So you can take your political freedom and stuff it! "
Nope, I won't be stuffing anything. I still want political freedom, even if you don't give a sh#t.

Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Jan 3, 2013 - 04:06pm PT
we,, US, the USA is now acting as the WORLD KEEPER, droning anyone anywhere someone in DC deems belligerent. And you wonder why we have so many dedicated enemies? Do you think anyone any where else in the world thinks that new law applies to them? Or anyone here for that matter?
monolith

climber
albany,ca
Jan 3, 2013 - 04:06pm PT
Americans getting killed in foreign terrorist training camps?

What a shocking loss of political freedom.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Jan 3, 2013 - 04:08pm PT
nearly a million guns have probably entered the circulation in the last few weeks. There are many whom think they need them for one reason or another.
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Jan 3, 2013 - 04:09pm PT
You might not be aware that you can't yell FIRE in a crowded theater either

What about in a theater with only 1 or 2... or 10 people?



Yeah mono, crazy isn't it? I don't mind my right to tell bomb jokes in airports being stripped for the good of society. I do mind idiots pretending Jefferson has some kind of relevant insight into the perceived "right" for everyone to have unfettered access to assault rifles.
dirt claud

Social climber
san diego,ca
Jan 3, 2013 - 05:03pm PT
Credit: dirt claud
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Jan 3, 2013 - 05:24pm PT
Ken M

Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
Jan 3, 2013 - 06:05pm PT
You might not be aware that you can't yell FIRE in a crowded theater either, and in fact, political discourse or merely having an irresponsible parent can now get you murdered/executed based on President Obama's desire and without due process these days as well. No judicial review. You might think that's a good thing. I don't.


Couchmaster, you are too cute by a mile.

You are saying, that when you embark on a program to kill Americans in a terrorist program, if you are also an American, and you flee the country to a country where you can avoid extradition.....

You are home free? You can continue to take part in your activities designed to kill innocent (or even non-innocent, by which I mean military) Americans, and are thereby untouchable?
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Jan 3, 2013 - 06:20pm PT
This section of an excellent NDAA summary seems pertinent on this thread:

Does anyone dispute the "facts" below?

Summary
The 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is the yearly bill to provide funding for the military and defense related items. The 2012 version of this legislation was controversial due to provisions dealing with arrest and detention of terrorists and those affiliated with al-Qaeda.

The legislation affirms that the President has the authority to detain enemy combatants captured on the battlefield under the 2001 authorization for the use of force against the Taliban and al-Qaeda. It then defines those who can be detained as "covered persons" and establishes this group as anyone affiliated with al-Qaeda or the Taliban. The legislation also states that those people can be held until the end of hostilities, until a tribunal with proper authority is established, or until those people are transferred to the proper authority.

Prior to this legislation, a US citizen accused of being allied with al Qaeda or plotting terrorist activity was considered to have committed a crime. Being accused of a crime, these people had civil rights relating to access to a lawyer and the right to remain silent. Floor statements made by Senators indicate that the legislation is intended to change this so that anyone accused of terrorist activity has not committed a crime, but has committed an act of war. In doing this, they do not have the right to remain silent or access a lawyer. In this manner, they can be held indefinitely without the right end this questioning.
This change in classification is accomplished by classifying the US as a battlefield in the war on terror. The legislation uses the phrase "affirms" when discussing the executive power because the power of the President to arrest and detain enemy combatants on a battlefield is already established. In the case of Jose Padilla and in previous cases during WWII, it was shown that the President can indeed arrest and detain US citizens captured on US soil aiding the enemy in a time of war. However, in the Padilla case, the courts held that since the US is not a battlefield in the war on terror, Padilla must be granted habaes corpus rights and tried as a criminal in the civilian courts. Eventually, Padilla was sentenced to 17 years for his actions.

One section of the legislation states that nothing in the bill is intended to change existing laws with respect to the arrest and detention of US citizens. This has led to a belief that the bill states that it does not apply to US citizens. This is not the case. That section states that current law is not changed by the legislation, but current law already holds that the President already has the power to arrest and indefinitely detain unlawful enemy combatants captured on the battlefield. This legislation merely adds the US homeland as a battlefield and affirms the Presidents authority under that law. Therefore the effect of the law on US citizens is changed without changing the law itself.
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Jan 3, 2013 - 07:31pm PT
I'm with Norton on this one. I'm unaware of any authorization for premeditated killing of American citizens on American soil without due process in the Act.

John
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Jan 3, 2013 - 07:37pm PT
Regardless, nothing you can buy at Walmart would ever protect you against a drone strike. The notion of needing guns to defend yourself against a tyrannical government is silly. There is nothing silly about the fact that those guns can kill dozens of people in a matter of minutes and they are regulated less than cars.
Messages 921 - 940 of total 1081 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Trip Report and Articles
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews