Unlucky fecker

[Darius871]

Oh. Yeah my thought on that is that the government made the second amendment so it can't be for destroying the government. The founding fathers obviously had something else in mind. Maybe we'll find out soon, haha.

Let me guess, the Freemasons had advance knowledge of an alien invasion in 2012 and wanted to make sure we'd be prepared with our six-shooters and shotties, right?

[Darius871]

WTF? The UK lets judges tell retards they aren't allowed to bone, and even assign them a nanny to make it stick?

Hey don't dog on the UK too much; even the enlightened U.S. courts have yet to specifically prohibit sterilizing the mentally retarded. It's just the whole Hitler putting a bad taste in elected politicians' mouths thing that makes it such a rarity these days.

[Agent Sox]

Let me guess, the Freemasons had advance knowledge of an alien invasion in 2012 and wanted to make sure we'd be prepared with our six-shooters and shotties, right?

Haha, there are crazier ideas.

[Elok]

Hey don't dog on the UK too much; even the enlightened U.S. courts have yet to specifically prohibit sterilizing the mentally retarded. It's just the whole Hitler putting a bad taste in elected politicians' mouths thing that makes it such a rarity these days.

I thought that the courts couldn't ban something until someone attempts it--ie, someone would have to actually attempt to sterilize Mr. Gump and be dragged to court, a judge can't simply tack on an "oh, by the way, no neutering the short-bus types either" to an unrelated case. Has any such case come up since WWII?

Haha, there are crazier ideas.

Setting the bar rather low, aren't we?

[The Mad Monk]

Sterilization is done here. So is the administration of drugs that prevent maturation.

edit: http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...full/104/2/337

[Darius871]

I thought that the courts couldn't ban something until someone attempts it--ie, someone would have to actually attempt to sterilize Mr. Gump and be dragged to court, a judge can't simply tack on an "oh, by the way, no neutering the short-bus types either" to an unrelated case. Has any such case come up since WWII?

Hence my comment about Nazis and elected politicians - it's simply become too distasteful to have been tried since, which may be the sole reason that Buck v. Bell remains the law of the land. Looking at the plain text of the Constitution and the otherwise unlimited breadth of states' police power to advance the health and welfare of their constituents as they see fit, there would technically be nothing illegal about legislative policies imposing painless procedures in the event of specified criteria in order to enhance the quality of the gene pool, but the last few decades' slew of bull**** about the Due Process Clause somehow having a substantive connotation probably would put the kibosh on foreclosing any human's "right" to procreate, yes.

[Lonestar]

Oh. Yeah my thought on that is that the government made the second amendment so it can't be for destroying the government. The founding fathers obviously had something else in mind. Maybe we'll find out soon, haha.

So what you are saying is that you do not understand the process for amending the Constitution.

[Darius871]

So what you are saying is that you do not understand the process for amending the Constitution.

Are state legislatures not "the government"? Nothing in Article V contemplates referenda.

[Lonestar]

Are state legislatures not "the government"? Nothing in Article V contemplates referenda.

State Legislatures tend to be a bit more provincial then "The Government", and judging from his posts in other threads he is clearly not thinking of the State Legislatures in the 1790s when he refers to "The Government".


*cues X-Files Music*

[Docfeelgood]

You guys

He's new. don't run him off.

[Darius871]

State Legislatures tend to be a bit more provincial then "The Government", and judging from his posts in other threads he is clearly not thinking of the State Legislatures in the 1790s when he refers to "The Government".

To the contrary, I get the sense from his other posts that his worldview is one where notwithstanding a thin veneer of federalism, all levels of government are permeated by some nefarious "elite" sharing secret knowledge, such that state and federal politicians alike would appear mere arms of "The Government."

[Agent Sox]

Hey, you all are talking about me behind my back. I don't really believe that "The Government" controls everything, but I do think the government has a source of power that we're not aware of.

[Darius871]

but I do think the government has a source of power that we're not aware of.

I thought we were all well "aware of" the monopoly on the use of force. Or was there something else?

[Lonestar]

Hey, you all are talking about me behind my back. I don't really believe that "The Government" controls everything, but I do think the government has a source of power that we're not aware of.

Taxation?

The H-bomb?

[Agent Sox]

Haha, I'm just talking about certain technologies that might be available.