Jump to content

Bearing Arms

Why You Should Never Trust An Anti-Gunner’s Take On The Second Amendment

Recommended Posts

When it comes to the Second Amendment, you’d think the text would be plain enough. For all the legalese we see in laws today, the Bill of Rights amendments are pretty straight-forward.

If I could go back in time and help influence the writing of it, about the only thing I’d change is the phrase “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,” only because I could tell them that future generations would use that as justification to ignore the rest. I understand the meaning well enough, but others don’t.

And when it comes to the meaning of the Second Amendment, you can never trust an anti-gunner’s take what is and isn’t an assault on the Second Amendment.

For example, this past week, the Chicago Sun-Times ran an opinion piece where I came across a claim from the paper about the Second Amendment. The context is within something called 31 bullets, which are a bunch of bullet point of items they want to see enacted in some way.

That’s when I came across this particular tidbit:

With “31 bullets” we have tried to arm young people, and all our readers, with hard facts and a practical agenda. And we have done so, we want to stress, firmly within the strictures of the Second Amendment, always seeking common ground in the moderate middle.

There is no threat to the rights of a gun owners, that is to say, in calling for the inclusion of a trigger lock whenever a gun is sold, as we do in Bullet 2. It is not an assault on the Second Amendment to call for an age restriction of 21 for anybody who wants to buy a military-style weapon of mass death, such as an AR-15 rifle, as we do in Bullet 21.

Let’s break some of this down a bit.

There is no threat to the rights of a gun owners, that is to say, in calling for the inclusion of a trigger lock whenever a gun is sold, as we do in Bullet 2.

Except that every new gun I’ve ever purchased has already come with a gun lock as it stands. All of those run through the action of the weapon, making it impossible to use until it’s unlocked.

I’m sure the folks in Chicago would agree that such a lock should be just as good as a trigger lock, right?

But the problem, and why this is a threat to the rights of gun owners, is that it such a thing would necessitate an end to private sales of firearms. I’d have to go through an FFL holder so that someone licensed could make sure that a lock was provided on a used firearm. It would also drive up the costs for used firearms, many of which no longer have locking devices. Dealers would have to provide those devices at their expense, which would then be passed on to consumers.

Since used firearms are the primary source of quality guns for low-income individuals, this will negatively impact the poor who often find themselves forced to live in bad neighborhoods.

So yeah, it’s a threat.

Now the next bit:

It is not an assault on the Second Amendment to call for an age restriction of 21 for anybody who wants to buy a military-style weapon of mass death, such as an AR-15 rifle, as we do in Bullet 21.

Of course it’s an assault on the Second Amendment. Only a brain-dead wad of chewing gum could really believe it’s not.

Age restrictions mean lawful and law-abiding adults are barred from purchasing a firearm that is available to anyone else. This is discriminatory, and the inflammatory language betrayed the bias about these guns in the first place.

Look, we’re talking about legal adults. They can vote, sign contracts, enlist in the military, and a whole host of other things. They can do these things because we have decided they’re adults. That’s the age we’ve set in stone as the limit. This is when their rights essentially kick in.

Yet now, we have people trying to say that they don’t really get all their rights upon reaching adulthood. While we limit the drinking age–something that’s a topic for another day and another place–we don’t limit their right to vote, to travel freely, or much of anything else. What they’re calling for is the limiting of a constitutionally protected right simply because of someone’s age.

How is that not an assault on the Second Amendment? Pushing someone’s Second Amendment rights away because of their age is beyond ridiculous.

But at the end of the day, that’s what anti-gunners do. They take the idea of your rights, assault them at every turn, then pretend that no such assault actually occurred. It’s why you can never trust their interpretation of the Second Amendment.

Ever.

The post Why You Should Never Trust An Anti-Gunner’s Take On The Second Amendment appeared first on Bearing Arms.

View the full article

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

My take on the Second Amendment is that even the pro-gun side cannot articulate a cogent argument because, on the whole, pro-gunners do not fully understand the Right.  So, I'd like to participate and give you the constitutional view a little at a time.  I am not hearing other pro-gun speakers say this and not reading it in pro-gun publications.  

 

The Declaration of Independence states:

 

My take on the Second Amendment is that even the pro-gun side cannot articulate a cogent argument because, on the whole, pro-gunners do not fully understand the Right.  So, I'd like to participate and give you the constitutional view a little at a time.  I am not hearing other pro-gun speakers say this and not reading it in pro-gun publications.  

 

The Declaration of Independence states:

 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-"

 

Of this document Thomas Jefferson, the author, wrote:

 

“The Declaration of Independence... [is the] declaratory charter of our rights, and of the rights of man.”

 

Ignorant people and disinformation artists will use the word inalienable when talking about our Rights; however the courts interpret words themselves and they decide what a word means in a legal context.  So, if we get challenged on this point, I will be ready with many court interpretations to show you that the United States Supreme Court has treated the words inalienable and unalienable differently.  Specifically, an inalienable right, by court interpretation can be given up if the people or an individual consents.  It is true that Jefferson, the founders and earliest writers referred to our rights as inalienable, but the word unalienable is what made it into the Declaration of Independence.  When the courts interpreted the words inalienable and unalienable, two different words are interpreted differently (despite what all the dictionaries and "The Grammarist" say.)  So, when you see a pro-gun writer use the word inalienable when describing your Rights, they are ignorant and you should stop them right there and give them this education.  IF you don't you end up accepting the left's version of gun control.

 

" George Mason stated in his draft for the Virginia Declaration of Rights, "all men are born equally free," and hold "certain inherent natural rights, of which they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity."

 

"The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable". Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356.

 

 "The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)

 

Notice that an unalienable Right is  absolute, inherent, natural, etc.  It is also known as a God given Right.  

 

"Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights." Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.

 

You cannot consent to giving up your unalienable Rights.  They are given by your Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be) and are above the law.  Therefore, NO law that infringes (Limits) on the Right is legal / constitutional and would not be enforceable if our Constitution were being upheld.

 

When I post again, I will tie this to the relevance of this topic.  No point in giving you a post you will fall asleep on.  Right?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by The Resister
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dig what your saying but I'm(were) the pro-gun side there needs no argument it's are God givin right nobody can take it away as are many other issues.I like how you actually understand the difference between in-unalienable rights i hope a slew of left & right hear you talk about this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Ripcannon, I appreciate your feedback.  If just one person sits down, examines the facts and answers the really tough questions, they can figure out the strategies relatively easily.  If you pose the information the right way to those on the right, you will be amazed how far left they've swung without knowing it.

 

Generally, on most boards, people are busy telling me what "The Grammarist" or the dictionaries say.  I can go them one better.  Noah Webster was one of the founders.  He also produced this country's first dictionary.  In Noah Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language he defines unalienable as:  Not alienated; that cannot be alienated; that may not be transferred."  Then if you look at the word "inalienable" in Webster's 1828 Dictionary of the English language, the very first word in the definition is unalienable.  

 

In the times of Thomas Jefferson, Noah Webster, Patrick Henry, etc. the two words were synonymous. Today, they are not as they have been defined differently by the courts.  This is an important distinction.   When supposed pro-gunners make the argument that the two words still mean the same thing, they are either ignorant OR they are liars.  These people are more dangerous than your openly liberal gun hating liberals.  At the end of the day, you can either consent to giving up your God given Rights OR you cannot.  A lot of people, supposedly on the side of the pro-gun side, will dismiss what I'm telling you.  That is so they can prey on your emotions and say, well we have to have some kind of control.  You're either going to be pro-constitutionalist or you're going to end up being a liberal.

 

I used to think, and quite erroneously, that the anti-gun side was trying to make an argument about saving lives.  Was I wrong!  Liberal anti-gunners are committed to gun control.  IF they cite you any figures about gun violence, it is mere eye candy.  The liberals don't give a rip about saving lives.  They care about control.  Dismantle the Second Amendment and you can take away the Rights of the people, paving the way for a government / God.  OR, put another way, liberals think government grants rights and the only rights you have are those that come about as a result of majority rule (aka democracy.)  Unfortunately, many on the right have drank the Kool Aid and this conversation is boring to them.

 

For a number of years I used to confront liberals and say, you realize that during periods where the right is in control in the federal legislature, maybe you should seek to save lives without gun control.  They scoff at the idea because reducing gun violence is NOT the issue.  But, after many years, I'm writing off the right wing - ESPECIALLY the mainstream because if you took the whole lot of them and turned their brains into dynamite, you couldn't get enough charge to blow one's nose.  How else do you think we went from the states and the federal courts - all the way up to the United States Supreme Court confirming your God given Right to keep and bear Arms to a "conservative" United States Supreme Court ruling that says:

 

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited."   District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

 

We continue to lose the gun argument for two reasons:

 

1)  We don't have people that understand the way the Constitution is being dismantled incrementally by way of technical decisions and

2)  Most importantly, the pro - gun side refuses to put alternatives on the table that would stall and perhaps thwart any future gun control unless and until the left  addresses ways to reduce gun violence without gun control.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by The Resister
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to thank the OP for this thread.  While only two people thought my responses to be worthy of any mention, that is two people who may never have considered the most technical aspect of gun control.

 

The anti - gunners keep telling us that all they want are "reasonable gun restrictions."  When the right compromises and a new law is signed, the very first response and I mean the very first response of the anti-gunners is that "well at least it's a start.."  The control part will never end.  You can vote at 18 and you can carry a weapon to defend the country at 18, but you cannot own one to defend your own life and the gun haters don't think that is unconstitutional???  

 

This thread is indicative of the underlying problem, however.  It reminds me of the stark contrast between the gun hating Sylvester Stallone and, supposedly, pro-gun actor Bruce Willis  (if you saw Willis in the remake of Death Wish, it sounded like an anti-gun advertisement.)  Stallone, an Obama supporter knows exactly what he'd like to see - CONTROL.  And, while Willis is supposedly pro-gun his response to the issue is:

 

" I don’t know what you do about it,” he said. “I don’t even know how you begin to stop that.”

 

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/action-stars-sly-and-willis-face-off-on-guns-in-real-life

 

I'm always studying the issues and putting forth solutions to what I thought were connected to the real issue - i.e. saving lives.  I cannot get a half dozen people on discussion boards to even discuss it.  And so, the anti - gun position wins by default.  I know what you do about it.  The problem is, it won't fit on a bumper sticker and it's impossible to get even those who support civilian militias to get involved in think tank type of discussions.

 

Things are rarely as they appear.  Thanks again to the OP for at least putting this issue out there.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gun control is never about reducing violent crime, it is about people and population control.  It is a systematic step by step process with the only real goal being eventual complete gun confiscation and subjugation of the citizenry.  It is about taking away the citizens ability to resist tyranny.  Eventually, the only "citizens" will be the elite who completely control everything and everybody else.  The United States is the only world power that recognizes the right of the people to keep and bear arms.  Once this right is nullified, the globalist elite will then have nothing stopping them from their goal of world domination and rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frustrating isn't it resister....it's not complacency it's lack of caring because everybody has this same thought "I can't change it myself"so they give up i think it's people like you and let freedom ring,fixer,hell even Megatron that makes people see they aint doing it by thereselves...so keep it up keep teaching people it's a thankless job but thanks yaw!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Ripcannon said:

Frustrating isn't it resister....it's not complacency it's lack of caring because everybody has this same thought "I can't change it myself"so they give up i think it's people like you and let freedom ring,fixer,hell even Megatron that makes people see they aint doing it by thereselves...so keep it up keep teaching people it's a thankless job but thanks yaw!

 

I appreciate the support.  As I see it, however, the pro-gun side understands the anti-gun side's end game, but they don't have one of their own.  They are defensive fighters.  They allow the anti-gun side to beat them  because the don't have a strategy and they have become accustomed to instant results.

 

Way back in 1948, Truman signed onto the anti-white Genocide Treaty.  In 1949 the U.S. Senate failed to ratify it for him.  Yet the liberals would try to introduce it and it failed.  Finally Nixon got in on the action and pushed it.  It went almost nowhere.  It did get considered by the Foreign Relations Committee in 1971 and again in 1973 and again in 1976 and again in 1978.  The liberals never quit and, in 1986 Reagan signed that Treaty, a nail in the coffin of the Republic.  IF we resurrect our Constitution, it will be because we have that same level of dedication and commitment.

 

But, even in giving you the bare bones of this issue, I'm long winded.  It isn't an easy topic.  It requires attention to detail and it isn't always exciting.  So, while many people may ignore the hard work part of this, I want you to know that I appreciate your efforts to understand it fully.  Real change never happens among the masses.  Think about it.  Jesus changed the world with a dozen men.  It doesn't matter who believes he was the son of God or not.  He changed the world.  There were a mere 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence.  And, if you look at the other side of the political spectrum, Adolf Hitler started out with a few guys sitting around a table and drinking beer.  He took a country about the size of Texas and almost created an evil empire of world wide proportions.  The longest journey requires you to take the first step.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel not only should we fight against more anti gun laws, we should work diligently to remove almost all of them and elect officials that state they will work to remove infringing gun laws.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Let_Freedom_Ring said:

I feel not only should we fight against more anti gun laws, we should work diligently to remove almost all of them and elect officials that state they will work to remove infringing gun laws.

 

While I support what you're saying, I want to introduce laws that will not conflict with our constitutional liberties AND will  reduce gun violence without gun control.  WHEN we do that, there is no credible argument for not repealing some of the more onerous gun laws that we are having to endure.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, The Resister said:

 

While I support what you're saying, I want to introduce laws that will not conflict with our constitutional liberties AND will  reduce gun violence without gun control.  WHEN we do that, there is no credible argument for not repealing some of the more onerous gun laws that we are having to endure.

 

Agreed, as long as it doesn't use the farce of gun control solving violence and doesn't trample any other of our rights.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, The Resister said:

 

But, even in giving you the bare bones of this issue, I'm long winded.  It isn't an easy topic.  It requires attention to detail and it isn't always exciting.  So, while many people may ignore the hard work part of this, I want you to know that I appreciate your efforts to understand it fully.  Real change never happens among the masses.  Think about it.  Jesus changed the world with a dozen men.  It doesn't matter who believes he was the son of God or not.  He changed the world.  There were a mere 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence.  And, if you look at the other side of the political spectrum, Adolf Hitler started out with a few guys sitting around a table and drinking beer.  He took a country about the size of Texas and almost created an evil empire of world wide proportions.  The longest journey requires you to take the first step.

 

heck yeah bro so much research and I'm still learning it take dedication to this subject...it will only be a handful of us to start but the whole deplorable army will follow(haha)...there isn't away to stop these violent shootings completely i agree it would help to get are country off of depending on drugs and proper mental institutes but I think at this point parents need to discipline there kids then in 20 years or so the crazy might be extinct.id like to continue this conversation but I'm about toast right now.have a great night yaw.!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ripcannon said:

heck yeah bro so much research and I'm still learning it take dedication to this subject...it will only be a handful of us to start but the whole deplorable army will follow(haha)...there isn't away to stop these violent shootings completely i agree it would help to get are country off of depending on drugs and proper mental institutes but I think at this point parents need to discipline there kids then in 20 years or so the crazy might be extinct.id like to continue this conversation but I'm about toast right now.have a great night yaw.!

 

Okay, have a good night.  Then you can consider this food for thought.:

 

Nickolas Cruz of the Parkland shooting in Florida was your typical mass shooter.  Though we don't talk about it, mass shooters telegraph their moves months and sometimes years in advance.  Add to that we have a society that runs on drugs - and in the case of most mass shooters, their lives begin on legal drugs.

 

The life of many children begins when they are very young.  The least bit of hyperactivity and we are led to believe the child has some of these non-existent conditions like ADD / ADHD and so Ritalin is prescribed.  Doctors don't think about diet, exercise, sleep, the atmosphere at home (i.e. alcoholic / drug addicted parents, arguments, etc.)  As the child ages, they begin to take drugs whether legal or illegal because they have been conditioned to think that a pill can solve all their woes.  So, they are already drug addicts so some will end up on "legal" opioids, pot, crack cocaine, heroin.  If that doesn't get them they can get "legal" drugs  like SSRIs.  But, I want you to bear in mind, the lion's share of people who end up killing their fellow man follow this path.

 

In school, these people are drawn to violent video games, an obsession with violence, and they tend to socialize with other kids (if at all) that are much like them.  These kids, like Cruz, come from broken homes; visits by the police to their homes is a common occurrence.  IIRC, the cops showed up at Cruz's home on twenty nine occasions.  Cruz, like most of those who commit shootings get into spats with other kids at school and end up being expelled / suspended.  There at least sixteen ways to identify potential shooters.  Cops will tell you they can profile an undocumented foreigner, a potential drug mule, and even racists.  But, we are being led to believe that we cannot identify potential mass shooters before they act?  Absolute B.S.  But, there is a motive:

 

Between bureaucratic government, lazy doctors, Big Pharma THEY are creating the bulk of this nation's drug users.  Adding insult to injury, more of those drug users will end up in juvie hall, jail and later prison.  AND, for every person being treated in a medical / mental facility for their drug problem more than TEN will end up in prison.  We send people to prison for drug abuse problems and we never treat them for the root cause of their problems.  They end up back in the streets where they have been trained in how to be better criminals.  We can follow the pattern of legally prescribed drugs for non-existent and bogus conditions to children to the legal and illegal use of drugs; they may be at least a second generation drug user so they've come from a dysfunctional family. They've been thrown into jail, have a record and were unable to finish high school.  With no money, no education, being bullied in school, a drug habit, criminal record, and zero job skills, IF that individual doesn't physically injure or kill someone, it's a miracle.  Along the way, the drugs called SSRIs will be the common denominator in virtually every mass shooting that isn't inspired by political jihadists.

 

So, we have to reform our culture.  Drugs should be administered only after all other options have been exhausted.  If the doctor thinks a child has some kind of hyperactivity disorder, they should be required to rule out all other causes.  Have paraprofessionals look at the child's situation.  How much sleep does the child get?  How much exercise?  How much time devoted to study?  What is the child's diet?  Is their home life chaotic (drug addicted parents, single family home, promiscuous parent (s), constant upheaval (separation, divorce, parents with non-marital lovers?)   It might be that this kind of lifestyle is the root of the problem and the parents need counseling, drug / alcohol abuse therapy, parenting classes.   The key here is that drugs must be the last course of action, not the first.  We need laws to monitor the prescribing of any and all mind altering drugs to children.

 

Furthermore, instead of administering the blood test, pee test, hair sample, criminal background check, credit check, MVR check, while checking out a person's passport, National ID/ REAL ID Act identification based on their Socialist Surveillance Number... ooops - "Social Security Number,"  car insurance, occupation license, firearm license, access to Facebook accounts, etc. for every transaction they do, we should spend the money on the prevention of violent individuals.

 

I told you there are at least sixteen characteristics that will determine whether or not a child will go on to commit a violent act in their lifetime.  If any child meets EIGHT of those characteristics (you can pick any eight at random) they will commit an act of violence maybe even a mass shooting. ALL MASS SHOOTERS WILL MEET AT LEAST EIGHT OF THE CHARACTERISTICS. So, a record could be kept of every child from the time they enter school until they move, graduate or turn 18.  ONE agency should have access to their criminal record, school record, and records generated by DFACS / DFC / CPS.  Whenever a child accumulates three hits (i.e. suspended from school, an altercation where police were summoned to the home, reports of an obsession with violence) then this agency springs into action.  They alert the parents to make sure they are aware and ask their permission to do a drug test.  That is voluntary for the parents, but if they are uncooperative, the child may be put into protective custody if this agency cannot determine what the root cause of the problem is.  Read my sixth paragraph again to see what they're looking for.  Deal with the situation BEFORE the child becomes a problem.  Of course this is the bare bones on my first idea.  It is no way inclusive, but it does give you a starting point.

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Give me a while I gotta check this out...I've read some of this before I found your right but I wanna research before I comment and make no sense to you your way more educated on this then me.thanks again for the great read and I find it awesome to confirm your theory nd make it a fact(atleast to me)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Ripcannon said:

Give me a while I gotta check this out...I've read some of this before I found your right but I wanna research before I comment and make no sense to you your way more educated on this then me.thanks again for the great read and I find it awesome to confirm your theory nd make it a fact(atleast to me)

 

Here are some preliminary figures for you:

 

"Therapeutic opioid use and abuse coupled with the nonmedical use of other psychotherapeutic drugs has shown an explosive growth in recent years and has been a topic of great concern and controversy. Americans, constituting only 4.6% of the world's population, have been consuming 80% of the global opioid supply, and 99% of the global hydrocodone supply, as well as two-thirds of the world's illegal drugs."

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18443641

 

"4.8 million people covered by private health insurance insurance have filled at least one prescription for ADHD, the report finds."

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/number-young-adults-adhd-drugs-soars-n50856

 

"The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) reported a 41 percent increase in ADHD stimulant prescriptions dispensed in the U.S., from 2007 to 2011. The DEA also determined that in 2006, 4.7 million people made non-medical use of stimulants, whereas 8.2 million reported such use in 2011.

Some patients are trying to manipulate the system to get a prescription, as well. A 2012 study found out that 22 percent of patients diagnosed with ADHD exaggerated their symptoms to doctors."

 

https://www.drugaddictionnow.com/2016/10/24/is-ritalin-a-gateway-drug/

 

 

"In 2013, an estimated 24.6 million Americans aged 12 or older—9.4 percent of the population—had used an illicit drug in the past month. This number is up from 8.3 percent in 2002.

 

Methamphetamine use was higher in 2013, with 595,000 current users, compared with 353,000 users in 2010.

 

Most people use drugs for the first time when they are teenagers. There were just over 2.8 million new users of illicit drugs in 2013, or about 7,800 new users per day."

 

https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/nationwide-trends

 

"According to a 2005 study, teens who abuse prescription drugs are twelve times likelier to use heroin, fifteen times likelier to use Ecstasy and twenty times likelier to use cocaine, compared to teens who do not abuse such drugs."

https://www.drugfreeworld.org/drugfacts/ritalin/leads-to-other-drugs.html

 

"In a study of thirty-one drugs that are disproportionately linked to reports of violence toward others, five of the top ten are antidepressants.  These are Prozac, Paxil, Luvox, Effexor and Pristiq.  Two other drugs that are for treating ADHD are also in the top ten which means these are being given to children who could then become violent.  One could conclude from this study alone that antidepressants cause both suicidal thoughts and violent behavior.  This is a prescription for mass shootings." 

 

http://www.cchrflorida.org/antidepressants-are-a-prescription-for-mass-shootings/

 

That is just some of the research.  The evidence is there to justify cracking down on doctors prescribing pills and getting to the root of the problem.  

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Thank you for creating the thread, Bearing Arms.  Hope somebody will find a use for the info.

 

 

Edited by The Resister
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, GregWrench said:

I had no problem playing this from the beginning. 

 

My computer picks it up at about 16 seconds in.  Thanks for checking on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

Your Privacy Is Important To Us Learn More: Privacy Policy