dmcoco84

Totally agree... as with our Constitution.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/11/why-did-gabrielle-giffords-husband-buy-an-ar-15-rifle/ What, a Massive, Douche Bag.

So... are you saying, that before the First Amendment was ratified, you could lie under oath?

Very Stupid Statement.

OMG... that is such a stupid comment. Shaking Head

That is not an exemption to the 1st Amendment. Publius would laugh at you for saying that.

this is considered idiotic, short term and cheap apparently - and insane Actually... that's not fully true. The rules are set up for; innocent until proven guilty. In the state of Virginia, you can call your wife a "cuntless fuck", which is not obscene per statutory law. But making a threat, is, illegal. But again... innocent until proven guilty. And our Republic was setup for "a moral and virtuous people." - George Washington A threat, in the criminal context, is recognized to be a communication avowing an intent to injure another’s person or property. - Wise v. Com., 49 Va. App. 344, 641 S.E.2d 134. Virginia Courts must consider a communication in its particular context when determining whether a speaker’s words constitute a true threat. - Id. The Court, as a result, must view the totality of the circumstances under which the statement was made. - DiMaio v. Com., 46 Va. App. 755, 621 S.E.2d 696. And... Cuntless Fuck: http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opncavwp/1349082.pdf

This seriously deserves a personal attack. Shaking Head. Sigh...

You like to continue arguing a point, around, the points that I make regarding foundational principles.... of Limited Government. You and many others need to take my post: DEFINED: LIMITED GOVERNMENT... read that, and than fit every issue you have within those principles. Like your arguments above... this is progressive type critical thinking to subvert the structure of the Republic; trying to allow the Federal Government to do things it has no right to be involved in. If you start with Limited Government, nothing you state makes sense.

Fuck your panel. We will never have the type of system that you see in England; and what you want, Quade, is the type of government control and oversight of that in Europe, which is unconstitutional.

Great Post! "The field of psychiatry/psychology does not exist to protect the public welfare." Solid foundational fact. Will be interesting to see how things go down when MDs start leaving the field... and the Federal Government threatening them with incarceration if they try to do so. Its coming... Within this Republic; the government does not exist to compel on direct behavior.

This is pretty pathetic... I can't answer at the moment; slammed busy, but I will asap. However, to answer your "questions", again I will ask... Have you read On Combat and/or On Kill?

Negative. Please do a thorough search and quote where I've ever said anything even remotely like that. No. There is a multi-dimension range of mental illness and I've never said all were violent. I've never even suggested it. However, there is, without a doubt in my mind a slice of mental illness that can be diagnosed as having violent tendencies. There is another slice where they simply do not know the difference between reality and fantasy. There is another slice who get sexually aroused by the sight of small children. There is a collection of slices which includes these and others that are not fit to own a weapon of any sort because of the danger they pose to society. So You can identify them? No. I'd leave that to the professionals. I've said so in the past. As a society, we leave it up to professionals to determine if people are fit for any one of a number of tasks. Why would this be any different? Like I said to Kallend.... repetitive circle of stupidity. You sound so ridiculous, Quade. There are already policies and procedures in place within the (broken) field of psychiatry giving the power of a provider (MD, PHD, LCSW, ect) to report issues. Aurora is a perfect example of a failure of the system, where the provider did report the problem. And the guy who kill his mother, a felon who was in psych facility long term, also does not help your case(s); as it is a failure and clear example of the incompetence of government. You will not win this argument, and nothing you desire will be implemented.

As the author of On Combat and On Killing says, they are not shooters. Stop calling them that... that is moronic. And you posting a google link like this is insulting; to yourself and others. For your critical thinking and debate skills: I give you an F professor.

I'm not going to argument your statements that are logically flawed. And if you put on your Tarantino hat, there are so many ways to kill people in massive quantities without firearms. Yet its even easier to get illegal firearms. You are in denial of the evil that exists in this world, and the only way to combat it. Working in an ER for over 4 years... I've seen a lot of that evil first hand. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/blood_sport_9Hz0Ufq1TZeJjNAVTzZVyH This, is not mental illness... its evil. Since you won't answer "my" previous question: Have you read On Combat and On Killing?

Your arguments concerning "mental illness", continue to be one massive repetitive circle of stupidity. To the point where its not even worth discussing with you. Both you and Quade constantly attempt to use examples that do not help any case you are trying to make... and I have noted that several times. Please do answer this question.

You are so a Communist! Yeah, that's better. Not only were all governments of the past studied... Human Nature, was studied. The Constitution binds the hands of power, with its limits and checks/balances, preventing as much possible, those natural human flaws from destroying liberty; resulting in the need, for Revolution.

Don't forget about the Communist-papers... them mo fo's were all up in Washington's shitzle. I don't even know how to reply to this... I'm surprised you didn't throw in something about the Tea Party. I'm gonna go bang my head against the wall, and then finish watching Rick be a crazy person, freaking out by seeing Lori's ghost.

Huh...? lol...the whole 'revolution' thing? They knew the depths government could sink to. So again... Huh...?

This is not, provocative, nor is it intelligent... This is disingenuous, manipulative, and insulting. Here too: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3445_162-57566014/professor-take-our-country-back-from-the-constitution/ And here... he argues for politics (policy), over principles (labeling it as a test to the adherence of some foundational document written by some old guys who died over 200 years ago and know nothing of our country today). What a joke... And our "right to have the country we want", is called the Amendment Process, ya douche; Totally Meant to be Slow, and Difficult. Calling this man a constitutional scholar is a joke. He and Obama both have great disdain for the US Constitution, they praise their guiding Progressives (Teddy, Wilson and FDR), and wish for a Constitution structured like that of South Africa... which is basically the 2nd Bill of Rights; that FDR proposed (Also to which Cass Sunstein wrote a book about; who also co-wrote a book with the douche bag in which this thread is about). Fuck this guy! This is beyond insulting. The Federalist Papers kill every argument he tries to make (and his guiding direction of disobedience being a reason to subvert the law is moronic); and just as Publius called much of the populace who criticized the Constitution ridiculous (given that many of the things they bitched about were taken word for word from the Articles of Confederation and the New York State Constitution), would be calling this guy a moron, and HE, is exactly a case and point reason why we were given a (Federally) Limited Constitutional Republic. Go back to original sources... read the direct words of the Men of the Convention. Stop listening to "scholars." No... it's not broke. It's non existent. His entire argument of Constitutional Disobedience is nonsensical. "When George Washington and the other framers went to Philadelphia in 1787, they were instructed to suggest amendments to the Articles of Confederation, which would have had to be ratified by the legislatures of all 13 states." No sir, that is a Revolution... And this is one of the stupidest pieces of shit I have ever read. Insulting to both G-d and the Men of the Convention.

Blah blah blah... topics always go way off topic, and always to the same lame places. Thank God for Fracking! Otherwise, the Untied States would be in a depression.

This has nothing to do with the argument that the FEDERAL government should not be picking winners and losers. The FEDERAL government should not be funding electric cars and solar panels. Regulations are different, within their Constitutional limits; but we are not longer a Constitutional Republic as it is.

GRIN

Still not seeing how that makes sense...

Huh...?