27 dead in Newtown school shooting

[dalem]

I'm not sure how I feel about him killing his mother.

On one hand, it's increasingly looking like the one good thing he did do, because it's starting to appear that she was some kind of crazy ##### herself.

On the other, I wish we could hold SOMEONE responsible for this - if not him (the coward), then at least his stupid, irresponsible mother.

Hase the Westboro Baptists made good on their announcement to "thank God for his judgment" yet? I have to admit, a very substantial part of me really, really wants to see someone take out their anger on them, at least. :)

You're weird.

-dale

[DPrime]

You're weird.

-dale

Oh please.

[dalem]

Oh please.

Right, you're the one giving him a pass on matricide and I get the rolleyes.

-dale

[DPrime]

Right, you're the one giving him a pass on matricide and I get the rolleyes.

-dale

That post should obviously be taken in the context of anger and frustration over this tragic incident.

I suspect you're just being a bit douchy at this point... not sure why, exactly - because I disagree with you? Most of us have been pretty civil here - not sure why you're resorting to name calling.

[USSWisconsin]

Let's be honest here. The entire 'medical marijuana' exception is a wedge issue the pro-legalization crowd have seized on because it makes for better sound bytes to try and sway the uninformed. Synthetic THC pills (under the name dronabinol/Marinol) are already available by prescription as a Schedule III drug (ie. for people who have legitimate medical issues that THC can actually be demonstrated to treat).

I have used Marinol and regular marijuana for cancer pain and nausea - the Marinol is not very effective on pain - marijuana is. Marinol is a slow acting oral medicine and cancer nausea prevents it from being absorbed. Marijuana can be vaporized - which takes effect very quickly, doseage is easy to control and absorbtion is not prevented by nausea. .

As far as I know, there is no rapid test for marijuana intoxication like a breathalyzer for alcohol intoxication - and all the tests we do have (hair, urine) will flag if it was used within the last few days. How would you enforce a law against driving while high? This is actually the only real issue I personally have with legalization. (Well, that and the fundamental dishonesty on both sides of the debate.)

Its the level in the body - urine or saliva test work in minutes - 5 ppm is the cut off for current tests, intoxication starts between 150 and 250 ppm. They could easily make tests that were Less sensitive. Police could do roadside saliva tests and the legal level could be set below the intoxication threshold.

My answers in bold

[dalem]

That post should obviously be taken in the context of anger and frustration over this tragic incident.

I suspect you're just being a bit douchy at this point... not sure why, exactly - because I disagree with you? Most of us have been pretty civil here - not sure why you're resorting to name calling.

Maybe instead you should suspect that I think you're a bit weird for posting what you did, for whatever reason you did it.

I'm not above name calling when I think it's appropriate or funny, but even than it's always accompanied by what I think is the truth.

-dale

[Roosveltrepub]

We already have laws against straw man buying. If this was the case what good did that law do?

at a gunshow anyone can buy any legal gun with an id no check no wait so the law has a gaping chasm. Plus lok at the export of guns from VA to NYC laws uninforced are useless and they need resources to enforce laws and this one has been a low proirity beyond the debacle with mexico

[dalem]

at a gunshow anyone can buy any legal gun with an id no check no wait so the law has a gaping chasm.

As usual, you have no FUCKING idea what you're talking about.

-dale

[Roosveltrepub]

Actually new laws could have prevented it.

1. A law to allow parents of dangerous children to get their kids entered on to a no-guns list. Right now until the kid actually commits a crime they are free to buy guns.

2. Laws making the parents/care takers of dangerous children legally liable if actions they took enabled, encouraged, facilitated a violent act- you know taking dangerous kids to multiple gun ranges teaching them how to shoot.

There are some common sense areas where some narrowly targeted tweaking of gun laws makes sense.

liiability insurance with risk analysis by private insurance...Mother with child wth history of troubles cant afford the insurance because of the clear rsk. Ex Military with secured locked gun box np

[dalem]

liiability insurance with risk analysis by private insurance...Mother with child wth history of troubles cant afford the insurance because of the clear rsk. Ex Military with secured locked gun box np

Good idea. Blacks = higher risk of violent crime = no guns. No problem.

Still like your idea?

-dale

[J`ve]

[Versus]

What happened to the shooter's father?

[zraver]

So... if I'm understanding you correctly, you're stating that the use of the word "regulated" in this sense is the obsolete definition, i.e. "properly disciplined".

Okay, gotcha... but two things still come to mind.

1. Should we then be talking about the word "arms" in the obsolete sense?
2. It's still for the purpose of a militia - right?

1. No, the militia has an authorized by law military function and so needs modern arms. In fact in Supreme Court cases, guns that did not (or the court did not admit to) a military function like sawed off shot guns were ruled to be outside the protection of the Second Amendment becuase they had no militia role.

2. Yes

Okay, so according to a law enacted in 1792, everyone (well, everyone who's WHITE, apparently) from the age of 18-45 should be enrolled in the militia... which is obviously not the case.

Actually it is, current federal law below

10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

But since that's just not happening, hey, you're 18-45 and not part of any organized (presumably authorized by the government) paramilitary group? Well, that's okay - you're part of the "unorganized militia" - wtf?

Paramilitary groups not authorized by the municipality or state they reside in (depending on state constitution) are not legal. Just by being a male citizen or intended citizen who is not also a member of a disqualified class makes you a member of the militia.

So Tench Coxe's interpretation - from 1789 - is the be all, end all explanation?

His is just one of many such statements in the Federalist discussions.

This is all very interesting, from a historical point of view. I am glad you brought this up, but really, if ever there was a clear example of how archaic this argument is... ;)

The modern constitutional militia is still a very real (if little known) part of the fabric of America. Often called state guards they continue to serve. Some like the Texas or Alaska State Guards are better known, but even states like New York have them. These are military formations, not law enforcement. Many times they are assigned to support state level national guard ops, and others have civil defense missions.

[Roosveltrepub]

As usual, you have no FUCKING idea what you're talking about.

-dale

seriously, Dale on a thread about dead children do you have to be so hostile Oh, and maybe you should learn the law

Read more here: Gunshow loophole to close? - PoliTex
Those suggestions could include putting an end to the "gun show loophole" that for years has let buyers purchase firearms at gun shows without going through background checks.

https://www.google.com/#hl=en&tbo=d&...w=1140&bih=644 6k results

[omon]

at a gunshow anyone can buy any legal gun with an id no check no wait so the law has a gaping chasm. Plus lok at the export of guns from VA to NYC laws uninforced are useless and they need resources to enforce laws and this one has been a low proirity beyond the debacle with mexico

lol,you were always full of it, now it pours out your ears.

why don't you try to buy a gun at a gun show, than tell us how it went.

seriously, Dale on a thread about dead children do you have to be so hostile Oh, and maybe you should learn the law https://www.google.com/#hl=en&tbo=d&...w=1140&bih=644 6k results

whoever wrote this is as full of it as you are, like i said, go to a gun show, and see how it is for your self.