Posted on 09/15/2024 7:16:54 PM PDT by RandFan
Insanity certainly was.
We had to take the keys from a relative who had dementia bad enough that she was a hazard to be behind the wheel.
It’s a hard thing to do, but for their protection, and the protection of others, it HAD to be done.
She had been in an accident prior to that and only got worse since then. Fortunately, the accident was one where she only hit a structure, no people were involved, but it was a busy weekend and we were shocked that nobody had gotten hurt, but knew what a close call it was.
I believe a right usually obliges the government not only to not violate the people’s legal right itself, but to affirm the right and oppose anyone else who is interfering with the exercise of the right.
Unless it is specifically worded to limit its scope, for instance “Congress shall make no law…”.
Think of how vacuous a right of the people is when the government doesn’t defend it, in word and deeds, for instance the right to ownership of property.
Sometimes you do what has to be done, and no jury would convict you, but you are on slippery ground.
So in his mind, there was a voice coming from the TV, which he heard, telling him stuff?
I just ask, because having done cognitive neurosci in college, I know they claim that is a symptom people get, but it seems like that is a lot of cognitive horsepower to run a second dialog, creating understandable thoughts from scratch as if a second personality, to put them into words, transfer it to auditory processing centers without doing it through sound waves hitting the ear (which means not only are they running two people on the hardware for one, they also just happen to have some neurological bridge linking the two, to transfer the signals, which mimics doing so normally through sound and hearing), and do it all so smoothly the person thinks they are really hearing it. It takes a lot of cognitive horsepower to run one dialog as a normal person giving a speech to a room, and we did not evolve to be wasteful, and just have all this excess neurological capacity laying around, unused in most people.
I would almost think it more plausible he did go mentally flaky and was then ID’d by domestic surveillance as somebody nobody would believe, and somebody like SAIC came in to use him as a guinea pig to test out some microwave, Voice of God tech, to see how it would work, and if they could get him to kill the neighbor. Supposedly they can do that with microwaves, utilizing something called the Frey effect.
Oddly enough there is a massive wing of the UFO abductee community which has broken off, and says now there are no aliens kidnapping people, that it is SAIC using humans as guinea pigs for various experiments they are running, and that when you lay out a map of alien abductions, they all happen around SAIC research centers. They maintain the company is pumping hallucinogens into abductee houses, and then taking them while flashing bright lights in windows and wearing alien costumes or something. I would say LOL, but today I could see it happening with the people in power now.
May I ask what year was this?
head up your A as usual,
“He agreed.
Has EVERY thing to do with the Second Amendment
‘Overly excited’ about the Bill of Rights,
unlike you
yeah Pence o’ Schiff
The FBI cited the two involuntary psychiatric holds her own father, Jeff Loomer, had placed her under in the last half decade.
She’s 31 now, so she was an adult - how does her father get to place her under involuntary psychiatric holds?
Something fishy about this story
I think it is worthwhile to be supicious of the government making carveouts of rights that could be abused. Communists have labeled their political enemies as mentally ill and used to justify imprisoning them.
That said, Loomer is a mental case. She is textbook histrionic personality disorder. I wouldn’t trust her with a letter opener unsupervised, much less a firearm. She has been holding things together decently well recently, but she’s bound to spiral out of control again because she will always make choices that will cause her to spiral out of control.
> I believe a right usually obliges the government not only to not violate the people’s legal right itself, but to affirm the right and oppose anyone else who is interfering with the exercise of the right. <
That sounds reasonable, but it’s actually not so. Here is an example.
Let’s say that I work for Ford. I’m an at-will employee (no contract). And I don’t like Kamala Harris.
I’m very good at my job. But I also say bad things about Harris while at the office. And I use vulgar terms. No government agency can penalize me for saying those bad things about Harris. I have the right of free speech under the 1A.
But Ford most certainly can tell me to stop, or even fire me. And the Constitution does not protect me, as the 1A does not apply to Ford. And nor should it. Ford does not have to put up with my office politicking, or my vulgar language.
I guess it’s a good thing for YOU to decide,
idjit
LOL, why don’t you explain how you think I took away has 2nd amendment rights, perhaps you can guide him to the Supreme Court to overcome my ruling, or at least tell him he has the right to ask for something back that his friend takes from him and then brings up again later.
Good point.
Not a pertinent hypothetical.
1. You have an employment agreement where you agree to certain limitations.
2. The first amendment says “Congress may not” it does not say “The right to xxx shall not be infringed”.
You just couldn’t admit there are two “reasonable” points of view and keep lecturing and throwing out hypotheticals. I could do that too, but bad cases (or hypotheticals) make for bad law. If it is a natural, God given, right, a government like ours as founded is obliged to defend it. Otherwise you could call it the Bill of Loopholes.
Here’s a non-hypothetical: My employer claimed to want to have a fun employee site fall fair where identity groups of employees would form committees, which would get funding for food and drink, and were encouraged to proclaim and celebrate their culture. Probably there were 95% white employees of 10,000 at the site. Here I am thinking that we can have Oktoberfest or Saint Patricks Day or Texas cultural history, but I found out there were a half dozen minority committees and only one “white’ one, and it was understood that the role of the ‘white’ one was to grovel and apologize to the minorities like in the Chinese cultural revolution, not to celebrate anything about their European and American culture. So the company encouraged speech ( after hours, in the parking lot ) as long as it was suitable to their political bent. Shouldn’t the government say if you want to encourage “my identity” speech, after hours, you should tolerate diversity of expression? What if people were demoted or fired for not expressing the requisite white guilt and shame?
I no longer call myself conservative.
Too many loopholes.
I am a strict constitutionalist.
The constitution is not a liberal document.
The constitution is not a conservative document.
The constitution is designed to piss everyone off.
That is what keeps us on our toes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.