4 people stabbed to death in the middle of the day

Hammerdrill said:
Read Gary Taubes "Why we get fat" it's pretty eye opening. People are not fat because they consume too many calories.
Click to expand...

He argues carbs are the problem and that people are storing too much energy (calories) as fat and not spending enough time in ketosis.
 
Indiandad said:
So any SCOTUS decision that had a 5-4 ruling should be debated and presumably re-adjudicated? Sounds good. Bring on Roe v. Wade.
Click to expand...
Roe v Wade has never been known to be controversial and debatable. Just an FYI that was 7-2 SCOTUS ruling.

The point was if it was a 5-4 decision legal a middle ground exist. Many of our yappi scholars have trouble admitting many of these issues aren't black and white
 
isadore said:
The reason there is any degree of safety in the food we eat is because of government. Before the food and drug inspection our food and drug supplier were mass murders.

The government acts frequently now to prevent mergers in restraint of trade and corporate efforts at price fixing insuring competition.

We can see in this world what corporations will do if they are not regulated. Big corporations are quite willing to exploit child labor in their factories in other countries. But in America that is outlawed by the government.

You complain about the FAA but thousands of flights land every day despite because of their efforts. And every day a large part of the American population travels on the interstate highway system. Gosh former military pilots, gosh they were trained by the Big Government.
Click to expand...

FYP
Our military is not a function of Big Government, it's a function OF government. One actually spelled out in the Constitution. When we talk Big Government we specifically reference duties and responsibilities that have been ceded to the government by a sheep-like population or the States that gave up their power needlessly.

More people travel on the city/county/state roads and highways than they do the Interstate system. But the federal highway system IS an example of the federal government's role in promoting "the general welfare" of the citizens by enhancing interstate commerce.

You said they enforced anti-monopoly laws, but they really haven't done that. They have changed some acquisitions and caused some divisions to be sold off, but they haven't really stopped monopolies because Amazon, Google, and Facebook are dominating their respective verticals and continue to grow and expand...… they are the 21st century's Standard Oils yet the government really does nothing to them, but it does want to play with Internet access that is truly open and competitive because they see potential in regulating/taxing it.

You'll have to regale us with tales of the mass murders of our food sources. I looked, no significant mass deaths from food borne illnesses in the US. Sometimes people got sick and sometimes people died, but there's no hard data that actually shows the FDA has saved lives here. They have been able to standardize safe food handling procedures across state lines, but there is actually no hard data that the FDA has actually made food safer. They do notify people when an outbreak occurs, but prevention is tougher to show. Now you want to talk drugs? There's actually not a lot of data showing evil chemists and chemical companies poisoning people trying to cure them either. There were a lot of quack cures and some that did harm, but they weren't murdering people in any appreciable numbers.

Getting drugs and chemicals certified for consumption costs billions of dollars and years of research and testing and at the end, the government doesn't really share any of the burden of responsibility if something is not caught. As an example, the FDA and the manufacturers have pulled 35 drugs from distribution since the 1970s and some of them had been in use (and FDA approved) from as far back as the 1930s. Some of them were approved and pulled before they were even distributed, some were used for 38 years before being pulled. Thousands died or were irreparably harmed. Most drugs and chemical compounds don't make it to the FDA certification program before being pulled - in other words those Big Pharma companies determined there was no value or no market there, so what is the real value being added by the FDA in those cases? The FDA has a role, but it didn't step in to save the population from food and drug companies.
 
SWMCinci said:
FYP
Our military is not a function of Big Government, it's a function OF government. One actually spelled out in the Constitution. When we talk Big Government we specifically reference duties and responsibilities that have been ceded to the government by a sheep-like population or the States that gave up their power needlessly.

More people travel on the city/county/state roads and highways than they do the Interstate system. But the federal highway system IS an example of the federal government's role in promoting "the general welfare" of the citizens by enhancing interstate commerce.

You said they enforced anti-monopoly laws, but they really haven't done that. They have changed some acquisitions and caused some divisions to be sold off, but they haven't really stopped monopolies because Amazon, Google, and Facebook are dominating their respective verticals and continue to grow and expand...… they are the 21st century's Standard Oils yet the government really does nothing to them, but it does want to play with Internet access that is truly open and competitive because they see potential in regulating/taxing it.

You'll have to regale us with tales of the mass murders of our food sources. I looked, no significant mass deaths from food borne illnesses in the US. Sometimes people got sick and sometimes people died, but there's no hard data that actually shows the FDA has saved lives here. They have been able to standardize safe food handling procedures across state lines, but there is actually no hard data that the FDA has actually made food safer. They do notify people when an outbreak occurs, but prevention is tougher to show. Now you want to talk drugs? There's actually not a lot of data showing evil chemists and chemical companies poisoning people trying to cure them either. There were a lot of quack cures and some that did harm, but they weren't murdering people in any appreciable numbers.

Getting drugs and chemicals certified for consumption costs billions of dollars and years of research and testing and at the end, the government doesn't really share any of the burden of responsibility if something is not caught. As an example, the FDA and the manufacturers have pulled 35 drugs from distribution since the 1970s and some of them had been in use (and FDA approved) from as far back as the 1930s. Some of them were approved and pulled before they were even distributed, some were used for 38 years before being pulled. Thousands died or were irreparably harmed. Most drugs and chemical compounds don't make it to the FDA certification program before being pulled - in other words those Big Pharma companies determined there was no value or no market there, so what is the real value being added by the FDA in those cases? The FDA has a role, but it didn't step in to save the population from food and drug companies.
Click to expand...
Of course the size of our large standing military is an example of big government according to your definition. Originally the major source for our national defense from a “well regulated civilian militia” to a permanent large standing military was an enormous abandonment of power to the government by the population.

Despite your fixation on them Amazon, Google and Facebook are not America’s only corporations. And major corporate mergers that threaten competition are in need of government approval. Comcast and Time Warner, A T &T and T-Mobile, NasDaq and NYSE all shot down to keep competition. Walmart fined for corrupt foreign business practices. Oh You know Walmart America’s largest corporation.

I know you miss the old days of unrestricted food and drug sales. “By the end of the 19th century, the rise of analytic chemistry enabled manufacturers to mask food deterioration in ways that were tough to detect. At the same time, homegrown elixirs, tinctures and “medicines” containing opium, cocaine, heroin and other drugs were sold without restriction, warnings or ingredient labels. In 1902, Dr. Harvey W. Wiley, chief chemist in what is now the Department of Agriculture, organized a group of volunteers to test the effects of ingesting some of the most common food preservatives in use at the time, such as borax, copper sulfate, sulfuric acid and formaldehyde. Known as the Poison Squad, this group of men agreed to eat increasing amounts of each chemical while carefully tracking its impact on their bodies.”

Now we have to give the government the power so that Big Pharma stops the opioid epidemic and lower the price of insulin.

You said nothing about factory work for 8 year olds, something corporations did in America before the government intervened and something they still do overseas. That was just the free market in action until government intervened.
 
isadore said:
The reason there is any degree of safety in the food we eat is because of government. Before the food and drug inspection our food and drug supplier were mass murders.
Click to expand...

What a whopper of a lie. It is in the best interest of food and drug companies to actually NOT kill their customers.
The amount of faith you put into the almighty government is frightening.
 
isadore said:
Of course the size of our large standing military is an example of big government according to your definition. Originally the major source for our national defense from a “well regulated civilian militia” to a permanent large standing military was an enormous abandonment of power to the government by the population.

Despite your fixation on them Amazon, Google and Facebook are not America’s only corporations. And major corporate mergers that threaten competition are in need of government approval. Comcast and Time Warner, A T &T and T-Mobile, NasDaq and NYSE all shot down to keep competition. Walmart fined for corrupt foreign business practices. Oh You know Walmart America’s largest corporation.

I know you miss the old days of unrestricted food and drug sales. “By the end of the 19th century, the rise of analytic chemistry enabled manufacturers to mask food deterioration in ways that were tough to detect. At the same time, homegrown elixirs, tinctures and “medicines” containing opium, cocaine, heroin and other drugs were sold without restriction, warnings or ingredient labels. In 1902, Dr. Harvey W. Wiley, chief chemist in what is now the Department of Agriculture, organized a group of volunteers to test the effects of ingesting some of the most common food preservatives in use at the time, such as borax, copper sulfate, sulfuric acid and formaldehyde. Known as the Poison Squad, this group of men agreed to eat increasing amounts of each chemical while carefully tracking its impact on their bodies.”

Now we have to give the government the power so that Big Pharma stops the opioid epidemic and lower the price of insulin.

You said nothing about factory work for 8 year olds, something corporations did in America before the government intervened and something they still do overseas. That was just the free market in action until government intervened.
Click to expand...

You seem to be somewhat uninformed for a Jr. High student. At the conclusion of WWII it was determined by our civilian leaders that future wars would not allow the nation to call up, train, and equip the military for defense of our nation in the event of a general war. In fact with the advent of the long range bomber and intercontinental missiles we couldn't even be safe without outposts in other nations and our foreign territories. Prior to WWII this type of policy was limited to the US Navy, modern warfare made it an integral part of our philosophy. It involved no surrender of individual or states rights.

With regards to mergers, were they? Or were they shot down to prevent competition with various campaign donors and "favorable" corporations? AT&T and T-Mobile would not have decreased competition since they didn't compete - Obamas DOJ was "worried" about net neutrality - which had never been a problem over the 30 year history of the public Internet. Other questions were raised because AT&Ts CEO was a free-market Republican...… buying a Democrat-friendly corporation..... Then you've got the sweetheart GM/Chrysler bankruptcies, presidential interference with a bankruptcy and ignoring precedence of payment to reward the union and punish investors and non-union subsidiaries? Solyndra getting a half-billion to help donors to cash out before the bankruptcy? Crony capitalism is bad.

So no stories of mass poisonings and death by food. Didn't think so. As I said, the FDA has a job to do, it's just not as impactful as you claimed. Prior to 1902 the individual states had responsibility of determining the safety of various chemicals. Patent medicines were tested, and like most things in small doses were somewhat effective. I remember using Mercurochrome and Methiolate to treat cuts into the 1970s, the FDA effectively killed them in the 1990s. We don't treat cuts and open sores with mercury anymore..... So the FDA caught some and allowed some to go through, you've got a nice story but didn't really address your claims now did you?

The FDA approved the opiods, the FDA set the standards for prescribing them, the FDA oversees the effectiveness and the side effect analysis...…. now the government needs to get bigger to correct a problem that the FDA allowed to get bigger...… you see my point? Government can't lower the price of insulin, they aren't responsible for its R&D, its manufacture, the cost of certification, etc. There ARE cheaper insulins out there, we've used insulin to treat diabetes for nearly 100 years. The question is what's approved for use today and when they are superseded by newer medications and newer delivery methods. People want the pens and not the vials and the syringes and the refrigeration...…

With regards to child labor laws - you understand that children were working in the factories because their parents needed/wanted them to. Children made up almost 20% of the non-farm labor force. It wasn't evil corporations that forced them to, it was the poverty they were trying to escape from and prior to the industrial revolution child labor was on the farm or around the house. Most of the nation was in poverty and poverty is a motivator. But the states began enacting laws to limit child labor as early as 1848. Various states did ban child labor in the early 20th century, but others didn't. In the 1920s and 1930s child labor was on the decline because adults were looking for jobs and unions were pushing for adult laborers. The federal government attempted child labor laws in 1916 and it was struck down by SCOTUS. A Constitutional Amendment passed Congress but failed to be ratified by the states in 1924. It wasn't until 1938 that FDR got a law passed that was able to pass Constitutional muster (of course his SCOTUS was hand-picked) to take away what had been a state and local power.
 
Yorktown said:
What a whopper of a lie. It is in the best interest of food and drug companies to actually NOT kill their customers.
The amount of faith you put into the almighty government is frightening.
Click to expand...
The justified fear by the public of the safety of their food and drug supply was the reason for the creation of government inspection and regulation of the food and drug supply. And the rising opioid death rate pushed by Big Pharma shows your statement is a "whopping lie."
National Drug Overdose Deaths Involving Any Opioid, Number Among All Ages, by Gender, 1999-2017
 
isadore said:
The justified fear by the public of the safety of their food and drug supply was the reason for the creation of government inspection and regulation of the food and drug supply. And the rising opioid death rate pushed by Big Pharma shows your statement is a "whopping lie."
National Drug Overdose Deaths Involving Any Opioid, Number Among All Ages, by Gender, 1999-2017
Click to expand...

You do realize Big Pharma had to get FDA approval for opiods. That the FDA is responsible for publishing guidelines for use and setting limits...… They also have responsibility of tracking use and following field outcomes...….. seems like they missed part of their job here. Maybe an oversight investigation into the role of the FDA in the opiod crisis would make sense? Why didn't they protect the public? After all if the testing was done under the supervision and control of the FDA, why wasn't this outcome predictable? Surely if they knew these drugs were highly addictive, they would have questioned the expected uses - so they would have detected massive increases in prescriptions and uses?
 
isadore said:
The justified fear by the public of the safety of their food and drug supply was the reason for the creation of government inspection and regulation of the food and drug supply. And the rising opioid death rate pushed by Big Pharma shows your statement is a "whopping lie."
National Drug Overdose Deaths Involving Any Opioid, Number Among All Ages, by Gender, 1999-2017
Click to expand...

Overdose is just that. Drug companies do not promote taking dosages of opioids that will kill.
Companies that manufacture and sell alcoholic drinks probably kill way more people yearly then opioids.

www.who.int

Harmful use of alcohol kills more than 3 million people each year, most of them men.

More than 3 million people died as a result of harmful use of alcohol in 2016, according a report released by the World Health Organization (WHO) today. This represents 1 in 20 deaths. More than three quarters of these deaths were among men. Overall, the harmful use of alcohol causes more than...
www.who.int www.who.int

What does the benevolent government do about that?
Oh wait they tried... Even got an amendment to the US Constitution outlawing alcohol.
That went so well...

Your delusion that the government protects people is just that a delusion.
 
Last edited:
Crusaders said:
He argues carbs are the problem and that people are storing too much energy (calories) as fat and not spending enough time in ketosis.
Click to expand...
Correct. When you eat carbs, you store it as fat, almost immediately, which is why you are hungry a short time later. When you eat fat, you use it for energy.
 
Yorktown said:
Overdose is just that. Drug companies do not promote taking dosages of opioids that will kill.
Companies that manufacture and sell alcoholic drinks probably kill way more people yearly then opioids.

www.who.int

Harmful use of alcohol kills more than 3 million people each year, most of them men.

More than 3 million people died as a result of harmful use of alcohol in 2016, according a report released by the World Health Organization (WHO) today. This represents 1 in 20 deaths. More than three quarters of these deaths were among men. Overall, the harmful use of alcohol causes more than...
www.who.int www.who.int

What does the benevolent government do about that?
Oh wait they tried... Even got an amendment to the US Constitution outlawing alcohol.
That went so well...

Your delusion that the government protects people is just that a delusion.
Click to expand...
Your delusion is that the people do not need government protection from Corporations-
Purdue the Manufacturer of Oxycontin wanted according to its President hoped natural disasters “will be followed by a blizzard of prescriptions that will bury the competition.” They fought to have warning labels removed from the bottles of their highly addictive drug.

When the developer of Oxycontin Robert Kaiko told Richard Sackler, the Head of Purdue, that he was “very concerned” by the idea of selling OxyContin as an uncontrolled drug. “[O]xycodone containing products are still among the most abused opioids in the US,” Kaiko wrote. “If OxyContin is uncontrolled... it is highly likely that it will eventually be abused.”

Richard responded to Kaiko, asking, “How substantially would it improve your sales?”



https://www.statnews.com/2019/01/15/massachusetts-purdue-lawsuit-new-details/

As OxyContin prescriptions soared, opioid overdose deaths increased six-fold in the US, killing more than 400,000 people between 1999 and 2017. Of those deaths, around 200,000 involved prescription opioids specifically.

In 2007, Purdue and three of its executives pleaded guilty in federal court to misleading doctors, regulators, and patients about the addictiveness of OxyContin. The company has seen a flurry of lawsuits making similar allegations since then.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/01/family-behind-oxycontin-called-addicts-criminals-while-pushing-pills/
 
SWMCinci said:
You do realize Big Pharma had to get FDA approval for opiods. That the FDA is responsible for publishing guidelines for use and setting limits...… They also have responsibility of tracking use and following field outcomes...….. seems like they missed part of their job here. Maybe an oversight investigation into the role of the FDA in the opiod crisis would make sense? Why didn't they protect the public? After all if the testing was done under the supervision and control of the FDA, why wasn't this outcome predictable? Surely if they knew these drugs were highly addictive, they would have questioned the expected uses - so they would have detected massive increases in prescriptions and uses?
Click to expand...
You have a major industry involved in a marketing campaign to spread addiction and death and you look to blame the government. Wow. Big Pharma made an unholy alliance with compliant doctors to push this drug to the point of addiction. The fact that the FDA could see there were practical uses of these drugs to alleviate pains was justified. The drug companies method of pushing the drug was not.
 
isadore said:
The reason there is any degree of safety in the food we eat is because of government. Before the food and drug inspection our food and drug supplier were mass murders.
Click to expand...
Nothing brings back repeat customers like mass murder.
 
SWMCinci said:
You seem to be somewhat uninformed for a Jr. High student. At the conclusion of WWII it was determined by our civilian leaders that future wars would not allow the nation to call up, train, and equip the military for defense of our nation in the event of a general war. In fact with the advent of the long range bomber and intercontinental missiles we couldn't even be safe without outposts in other nations and our foreign territories. Prior to WWII this type of policy was limited to the US Navy, modern warfare made it an integral part of our philosophy. It involved no surrender of individual or states rights.

With regards to mergers, were they? Or were they shot down to prevent competition with various campaign donors and "favorable" corporations? AT&T and T-Mobile would not have decreased competition since they didn't compete - Obamas DOJ was "worried" about net neutrality - which had never been a problem over the 30 year history of the public Internet. Other questions were raised because AT&Ts CEO was a free-market Republican...… buying a Democrat-friendly corporation..... Then you've got the sweetheart GM/Chrysler bankruptcies, presidential interference with a bankruptcy and ignoring precedence of payment to reward the union and punish investors and non-union subsidiaries? Solyndra getting a half-billion to help donors to cash out before the bankruptcy? Crony capitalism is bad.

So no stories of mass poisonings and death by food. Didn't think so. As I said, the FDA has a job to do, it's just not as impactful as you claimed. Prior to 1902 the individual states had responsibility of determining the safety of various chemicals. Patent medicines were tested, and like most things in small doses were somewhat effective. I remember using Mercurochrome and Methiolate to treat cuts into the 1970s, the FDA effectively killed them in the 1990s. We don't treat cuts and open sores with mercury anymore..... So the FDA caught some and allowed some to go through, you've got a nice story but didn't really address your claims now did you?

The FDA approved the opiods, the FDA set the standards for prescribing them, the FDA oversees the effectiveness and the side effect analysis...…. now the government needs to get bigger to correct a problem that the FDA allowed to get bigger...… you see my point? Government can't lower the price of insulin, they aren't responsible for its R&D, its manufacture, the cost of certification, etc. There ARE cheaper insulins out there, we've used insulin to treat diabetes for nearly 100 years. The question is what's approved for use today and when they are superseded by newer medications and newer delivery methods. People want the pens and not the vials and the syringes and the refrigeration...…

With regards to child labor laws - you understand that children were working in the factories because their parents needed/wanted them to. Children made up almost 20% of the non-farm labor force. It wasn't evil corporations that forced them to, it was the poverty they were trying to escape from and prior to the industrial revolution child labor was on the farm or around the house. Most of the nation was in poverty and poverty is a motivator. But the states began enacting laws to limit child labor as early as 1848. Various states did ban child labor in the early 20th century, but others didn't. In the 1920s and 1930s child labor was on the decline because adults were looking for jobs and unions were pushing for adult laborers. The federal government attempted child labor laws in 1916 and it was struck down by SCOTUS. A Constitutional Amendment passed Congress but failed to be ratified by the states in 1924. It wasn't until 1938 that FDR got a law passed that was able to pass Constitutional muster (of course his SCOTUS was hand-picked) to take away what had been a state and local power.
Click to expand...
The beginning of the establishment of a large standing army began long before WWII, with the establishment of the service academies to train a cadre of professional military officers. As to the establishment of the permanent large standing force post WW II not limiting state and individual rights, the Montgomery Amendment to the National Defense Authorization Bill of 1987 and the Warner Amendment to the 2007 Bill limited the powers of elected state governors in consenting to the use of troops outside the state and to having sole command within the state in an emergency. As to individual rights LOL in case you forgot we had a draft beginning in 1940 before we entered WWII and continuing after the War until 1973. Men are still expected to register.

Government intervention saved GM and Chrsyler and American worker jobs, that is a positive. Your knowledge in this might be greater than mine about ATT mobility and T Mobile USA, but it seems like they were competitor. And the merger would have given ATT by far the largest mobile phone provider in the country with nearly a 50% share of the market with a possible negative effect on competition and innovation.

The reasons there was no story of mass poisons were multiple. One was that the effect of the compounds in the food and drugs was long term, they were slowly being killed by dosage rather than rapid epidemic situation, much as for years people did not know the long term effects of smoking, lead paint, or asbestos in the walls. And people were unaware that the substances were in these foods and drugs. We can see the quick reaction after the publication of The Jungle as a magazine through 1905 and the Meat Inspection Act passed in March, 1906. Philip Wiley’s Poison Squad in the Dept of Agriculture reports led to the rapid passage of 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act. And also with those Acts the government had a legal reason to keep statistics on food and drugs contributing to fatalities.

Poverty is a motivator, WOW. Right to send small children into factories and mines. That is the reason they have to go. If you have to send your children into those situations because of poverty, then there is something seriously wrong with the free market economy that existed at the time these little ones were being sent to hell to work 12 hour shifts, 6 days a week in dangerous and unhealthy situations. The Unions which had influence because of government legislation protecting them from blacklisting and other union busting tactics, pushed through laws to get the kids out of the mines. And a Supreme Court packed with liberals that allowed it to go into effect. And New Deal Laws that established minimum wages and Social Security help to eliminate those extremes of poverty.
 
Last edited:
Here is the Dayton shooter....32 secs with police engagement within about 15 secs. Hats off to the Dayton Police.

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="
" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
I really can't wait until all you single-payer boneheads get what you want and then come on here whining about all the things the government will say you CAN'T have that you can get under the current system.
 
Gh0st said:
I really can't wait until all you single-payer boneheads get what you want and then come on here whining about all the things the government will say you CAN'T have that you can get under the current system.
Click to expand...

There's probably 4 people on this board that are pro-single payer. Who are you ranting at here?
 
In new Fox poll, voters favor: -Background checks, 90% to 7%. -Letting police temporarily take guns from at risk people, 81% to 13%. -Banning "assault rifles and semi-automatic weapons" 67% to 27%

The only thing stopping it is money flowing through the corrupt NRA and special interests.
 
Happygoluckky said:
In new Fox poll, voters favor: -Background checks, 90% to 7%. -Letting police temporarily take guns from at risk people, 81% to 13%. -Banning "assault rifles and semi-automatic weapons" 67% to 27%

The only thing stopping it is money flowing through the corrupt NRA and special interests.
Click to expand...

You mean special interests like that pesky Constitution thingy?

What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." do you not understand? Shall not be infringed, is pretty damn clear. The phrase isn't "shall not be infringed unless the polls say the government should infringe", or "shall not be infringed until it becomes inconvenient". The 2nd Amendment protects the people FROM the government deciding that the people should not have Arms because they can't be trusted......

Now, if you want to pass a Constitutional Amendment to do away with or limit the 2nd Amendment, that's your path forward. But that requires 2/3rds of Congress, and a vote of 3/4ths of the States to approve.
 
SWMCinci said:
You mean special interests like that pesky Constitution thingy?

What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." do you not understand? Shall not be infringed, is pretty damn clear. The phrase isn't "shall not be infringed unless the polls say the government should infringe", or "shall not be infringed until it becomes inconvenient". The 2nd Amendment protects the people FROM the government deciding that the people should not have Arms because they can't be trusted......

Now, if you want to pass a Constitutional Amendment to do away with or limit the 2nd Amendment, that's your path forward. But that requires 2/3rds of Congress, and a vote of 3/4ths of the States to approve.
Click to expand...

The repeal of the 2nd Amendment would be a massive step toward good sense in America but is a next to impossible goal in our present day paranoid nation. The Heller decision by the Scalia led Neanderthals on the Supreme Court further undermined our safety. But even they had their limits, realizing that the 2nd Amendment was not unlimited. And specifically saying bans on guns to felons and mentally ill, allowing guns into specific places like schools, setting conditions and qualifications for gun sales, and the carrying of unusual and dangerous weapons were all constitutional.

So far legal decisions have supported background checks, red flag laws, and gun bans on automatic and certain semi-automatic guns.
 
Happygoluckky said:
In new Fox poll, voters favor: -Background checks, 90% to 7%. -Letting police temporarily take guns from at risk people, 81% to 13%. -Banning "assault rifles and semi-automatic weapons" 67% to 27%

The only thing stopping it is money flowing through the corrupt NRA and special interests.
Click to expand...
Thank goodness
 
isadore said:
The repeal of the 2nd Amendment would be a massive step toward good sense in America but is a next to impossible goal in our present day paranoid nation. The Heller decision by the Scalia led Neanderthals on the Supreme Court further undermined our safety. But even they had their limits, realizing that the 2nd Amendment was not unlimited. And specifically saying bans on guns to felons and mentally ill, allowing guns into specific places like schools, setting conditions and qualifications for gun sales, and the carrying of unusual and dangerous weapons were all constitutional.

So far legal decisions have supported background checks, red flag laws, and gun bans on automatic and certain semi-automatic guns.
Click to expand...
When’s your next Antifa meeting?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top