Strac6, everyone who has read your posts knows what you represent. The fact that you would deny that lawyers, in general, don’t believe in objective truth and/or principle, says a lot about you. Anyone who has spoken to an honest lawyer will be told exactly that. The default position in your profession is that rights and laws come from Courts and the government, not from God. Anyone who has spent any amount of time in a Courtroom knows that the whole point is to prevail, not to reveal facts and truth. That is why Democrats and the Republican establishment find it so easy to ignore their oath of office. They are by and large attorneys with zero principles, for whom original intent is maybe a remotely interesting concept to be contemplated a some point in the distant future, if at all. These are the kinds of candidates you think to be preferable, because they get all the big money, positive media, and support from your establishment buddies.
All that said, I am curious why you would play down the concept that virtually all of these school shootings seem to have a Pharma link. Many of us in the pro-gun movement see this as a real concern. Saying that the shooter is just nuts (as opposed to over-medicated) plays right into the narrative that we need gun control to protect our youth.
I am not “in general.” (”Colonel” will suffice)
Yes there are attorneys with zero principles. There are also doctors, accountants, pipefitters and pizza makers with zero principles.
There are lawyers that see the Constitution as changing with the times. In some limited ways they are right. For example, the government cannot censor what you (foolishly) write here. That’s covered under the first amendment guaranteeing freedom of speech and freedom of the press because those two freedoms have been extends to the internet too. But since the Constitution does not mention Radio, but guarantees Rush the unfettered right speak his piece, and Hannity the right to tell us what he thinks, without government interference, although there is no “Freedom of Television” mentioned in the Constitution either, you either have a choice to accept that different lawyers do different things, or give up your right to listen and watch whomever you choose.
The courts, lawyers if you will, preserved those First Amendment rights for all of us. And the ones I worked with, were adamant about protecting the Constitution. A quick flash for you: “Heller v. District of Columbia” was not argued before the courts by a bunch of learned plumbers.
AJSCOTUS Scalia and AJSCOTUS Thomas are lawyers, not taxidermists.
If you don’t like lawyers, tough, but don’t generalize, any more than you would want me to generalize about your profession, because there is no way one could generalize about bathroom cleaners any more than one can generalize about lawyers.
Bottom line, if you don’t like lawyers en mass, get your local bartender to draw up your will for you.