<p>Deaths from overdoses of prescription drugs now exceed those from illegal drugs. The number of pills in a prescription amount for numerous drugs are lethal if taken all at once. Why don’t we ban selling more than one dose at a time to be consumed at the point of sale?</p>
<p>Guns, ammunition magazines, cars, pills. We don’t assume mis-use to keep them from those who don’t misuse them.</p>
<p>@07DAD look at post #445</p>
<p>There’s relevant news coming in about this case on a daily basis but it doesn’t get here. I guess this is the gun control thread except for the title.</p>
<p>Very good point ‘bceagle’.</p>
<p>Back on the primary topic - </p>
<p>It’s pretty bizarre news about the notebook detailing his plans that Holmes sent to a psych prof about a week before the event. Apparently it got hung up in the mail room. If it had been delivered promptly into the hands of the prof (assuming he was available) this shooting might have been averted. I’m not pointing any fingers at anyone including the mail room, prof, or police - just saying that this is an aspect of this one that seems different than some other shootings.</p>
<p>It also seems that no one thought to clear the Uni mail room until this prof found another package he thought might be suspicious which caused the police to search through the mail room and find this notebook package.</p>
<p>07Dad–I get your point, however many prescription pills are considered controlled substances and are not so easy to get legally. Physicians do restrict how many pills they are willing to prescribe if a patient presents some risk, ie. some suicidal ideation, history of addiction, etc.</p>
<p>The University denies that the notebook got there until this Monday --after the shooting. Fox has the exclusive on the timing and it is unwilling to identify its confidential sourse</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“Who are the Militia? They consist now of the whole people, except for a few public officers.” – George Mason</p>
<p>Also, the meaning of “well-regulated” had a siginificantly different meaning then, amounting more to “well-trained” than the modern definition of “having lots of [legal] regulations”. This is of course without touching the fact that the phrasing is set up as an ablative absolute. (which is touched upon in Heller)</p>
<p>
Correct, I am arguing against a ban. Those arguing for it need to come up with logical, legal reason to ban it. Since it is related to a fundamental constitutional right, they would probably have to show that not only is it a compelling government interest, but it is also narrowly tailored to that interest (presumably reducing the number of violent crime victims). Since there are millions of these magazines out there, and only a few are used in crime every year, I doubt they could make the argument that these are exceptionally dangerous or that a ban could make any real difference to public safety.</p>
<p>Essentially, I am saying if you want to make something illegal, you need to show a darn good reason. Legally speaking, “A criminal used one in a crime once” isn’t likely to do that. Then again, people are quite prone to buy into any emotional argument they are biased to agree with.</p>
<p>"Registration has always been thrown about among gun owners as the horrible fear that the government would know where to go to squash a rebellion and we wouldn’t want to trust our government to know who was or wasn’t a gun owner, so we operate blind in matters of crime. "</p>
<p>Doe anyone believe that individuals owning guns, of any kind, would be able to mount a rebellion against the US gov’t - which has at it’s disposal the largest military (and MIC) in the world? </p>
<p>IMO, I interpret the well regulated militia to mean the right of the individual states to form them - and which is now fulfilled by each states National Guard.</p>
<p>" Because the only way to effectively “fight back” against the US government would be a nuclear weapon, the 2nd Amendment no longer provides a right to bear “lesser arms?”</p>
<p>Again, context. The framers of the 2nd Amendment did believe in the individual right to own and bear arms, but only in the context of what is necessary to maintain a free state. The idea was that the militia could be called out, people would grab their guns, and the militia would fight against enroachments upon liberty *by their own government<a href=“in%20the%20case%20they%20were%20thinking%20and%20writing%20about,%20what%20they%20had%20experienced%20with%20the%20British%20colonial%20government.”>/I</a> </p>
<p>Could people grab their personal nukes to join the local militia to fight against the federal government? Good question. (I don’t know the answer.) Would people have the right to “bear” nuclear weapons independent of the context of the militia, but in order to fight off infringements of liberty by the government? Another good question, and again I don’t know the answer.</p>
<p>But what is absolutely clear from the context, the 2nd Amendment does NOT provide the right to own and bear arms for personal self-defense, or for hunting. The framers knew that argument, and specifically rejected it. (But activist judges will do what they do.)</p>
<p>I imagine it could be argued that the Second Amendment protects the right to bear ineffective arms against governmental encroachment. In which case, wouldn’t you agree it’s obsolete?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is like reading alternate history fiction.</p>
<p>Depends. I recall the various attempts by members of the German military to off Hitler. I do not recall that high tech or massive weapons were used and at least one attempt with a hand carried bomb could have been successful. </p>
<p>The 4 US Presidents killed while in office were shot by a pistol (Lincoln), revolver(s) (Garfield and McKinley) and a non-semi automatic rifle (Kennedy).</p>
<p>I recall that Andrew Jackson, while President, disobeyed the ruling of the US Supreme Court in favor of the Georgia Indians and used troops to force the Trail of Tears. Since the military followed his order as Commander in Chief, it could be argued that a weapon not capable of winning a war with the US military could have stopped that illegal governmental encroachment.</p>
<p>The following is an article that discusses US Grant’s decision (while commanding the US Army) to disobey President’s Andrew Johnson’s instructions for a “soft” Reconstruction and follow Congress’ directives for a punitive Reconstruction. I guess it could be argued that if Grant had followed Johnson’s orders an assassignation of Johnson would have been effective to stop an illegal government.</p>
<p>[American</a> coup d’etat: Military thinkers discuss the unthinkable, By A.J. Bacevich , Charles J., Jr. Dunlap , Richard H. Kohn , and Edward N. Luttwak (Harper’s Magazine)](<a href=“http://harpers.org/archive/2006/04/0080995]American”>Page not found | Harper's Magazine)</p>
<p>It’s hard for me to imagine that a pistol to be used for assassination makes much sense in the context (the only context that the framers provided) of a well-regulated militia, but I will also agree that this is a bit of parsing. (As I said, “it could be argued.”)</p>
<p>Anyhow, if pistols are protected for that purpose, certainly personal suitcase nukes are.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Source?
The state constitutions of Pennsylvania and Vermont specifically included self-defense in their version of the second amentment. There are arguments that the framers held self-defense to be a foundation of natural law and would have considered it obviously part of the right to keep and bear arms that one of the purposes be for self-defense.</p>
<p>
When’s the last time highway drag racing killed 12 people and injured 70 in one incident? And what makes you think I’d oppose the banning of such vehicles, if they are really killing people all the time? I also note that in most states, at least, owners of vehicles are required to have liability insurance–what I’ve suggested for gun owners.</p>
<p>Again, what is the specific reason people should be able to buy 99-shot magazines, and how can it be distinguished from whether they should be allowed to buy rocket-propelled grenades? If you think the Constitution protects an individual’s right to own a rocket-propelled grenade, please say so.</p>
<p>They’re investigating a possible copycat plot in MD… not much info available now, but here’s what I found…</p>
<p>[SOURCES:</a> Suspect arrested in Maryland mass shooting plot, possible Aurora copycat](<a href=“http://www.wxyz.com/dpp/news/sources-suspect-arrested-in-maryland-mass-shooting-plot-possible-aurora-copycat]SOURCES:”>http://www.wxyz.com/dpp/news/sources-suspect-arrested-in-maryland-mass-shooting-plot-possible-aurora-copycat)</p>
<p>I wonder what the thought process is for these people when they warn people ahead of time like that. I can understand the logic behind the info package that Cho Sung Hui sent, for example-- he obviously wanted attention and wanted everybody to know who he was and why he did what he did, but he timed it so that nobody would see that until after he’d had the chance to do it. Why do it before? A cry for help? I wish we knew more about how the brains of these people work…</p>
<p>This is a common MO in TV crime shows.</p>
<p>Send something to the police describing what they are going to do - the police just have to figure out where and then it is a race against time.</p>
<p>I don’t understand it either.</p>
<p>In other news, an officer from the dept of corrections around here was suspended with pay, because movie theater security called the police when, while standing in line for batman tickets, he said, “If I don’t get good seats, I am going to shank someone.”</p>
<p>While on the one hand I raised an eyebrow at that, I feel sorry about the amount of fear there must be to create that level of jumpiness. I probably wouldn’t want to be a 16 year old working a box office right now.</p>
<p>We went to see the movie Thursday night. I confess I glanced back at the door a couple of times. But I was determined to go.</p>
<p>
…and comic books too.</p>
<p>The Joker and Riddler leave clues for Batman to solve.</p>
<p>Apparently Holmes was being treated by a psychiatrist - the one he sent the notebook to -
<a href=“http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/27/lawyers-for-colorado-massacre-suspect-want-source-notebook-leak/[/url]”>http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/27/lawyers-for-colorado-massacre-suspect-want-source-notebook-leak/</a></p>