Free Republic

Oh, I like this one.

Who determines that the drug is effective in making the defendant "normal enough" to stand trial? If he can't stand trial without the drug, it is because he is insane? I bet he didn't have the drug when he commited the fraud and conspiracy, so he must have been insane then, too.

He should take the drug, say he's all better, and then use that history for a temporary insanity defense!

Oh, and aside from the leopards, the rest is not delusional.

And its not just compelled speech. It is a compelled oath. One edited by congress adding language to smoke out them commies in the 50s. This one the 9th circuit got right. Harrisburg should be the 3rd circuit court.

Gee, I wanted to vote No, but for none of those reasons attached. To stimulate the economy, government should cut spending, not increase the deficit. So my answer would have been No, cutting spending along with taxes benefits the economy. But since I didn't have that choice, the closest choice was to vote Yes.

Consider that the dividend income received in a §401k gets converted from non-taxable income into taxable ordinary income under Bush's plan. (This is much like owning a muni in your IRA.) Plans might reallocate investments from dividend paying companies to non payors.

Then consider that munis bonds would need a higher yield to compete with now tax-free yields on stock dividends. Again, plans might reallocate from stocks to higher yielding bonds.

Combined, if §401ks, §403bs, and big pensions like CALPERS respond in their best interests, we could end up with dividend paying stocks held by individuals, and non-dividending stocks held in plans. So after the dislocation of rebalancing portfolios, the dividend income will end up with taxpayers.

A better idea might be to make dividends deductible at the corporate level, but still taxed to the recipient. It doesn't buy votes, but it does put equity and debt at a parity, and should remove the existing bias towards more debt.

This from a Handgun Control Inc postcard... In 1990 handguns killed 22 people in Great Brittan....

That includes both murder and legit killings. Now the number, 73?

Guns are like nukes, when only one has it, it tends to get used.

Here's my take. Looking at original intent, the Founders knew what arms where, and also knew what artillery was. The right guaranteed was to arms, not artillery. So when someone asks if the Second Amendment guarantees them the right to a missle or an attack helicopter, the answer is that the guarantee ends at arms.

As to "shall not be infringed" the word infringe leaves a little wiggle room. Unobstructed might be a good definition. Any waiting period is an obstruction. Unfortunately, a database probably is not.

Finally, as to Miller, it is 100% constitutional. The finding is spot on. The supreme Court in Miller held that even criminals are entitled to possess military-style weapons. The Court then stated that it didn't know if a sawed-off shotgun was a military style weapon. (Since Korea and Vietnam, we now know.) Since Miller wasn't there in court, and no one volunteered, it became a missing fact. The Court stated that is had no notice of the type of weapon being of a character (military) to be protected under the Second Amendment. Had Miller mounted a defense, and showed the military use of a sawed-off shotgun, we'd all be owning M-16s today.

This means that your .380 Astra is probably not protected, but your AR-15 is.

Many district courts have quoted Miller incorrectly, presuming it's holding to be different. Most say that Miller stands for a militia being guaranteed the right to arms. In reality, it states that individuals, even criminals, are guaranteed a right to military-type arms.

I suggest a reading of Miller.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=307&invol=174

"Blaming the NRA for gun control is like blaming the crew of the USS Arizona for the Pearl Harbor attack."

Well, the NRA gave Bob Dole the okay for the Brady Bill in exchange for hunter harrassement legislation. (See GOA Vol 13, No. 1) That sounds like gun control to me!

Have you read "Forbidden Archeology?" http://www.mcremo.com/fa.htm
The authors state that the origins of man has become politicized, and that any evidence, no matter how weak, is accepted if it bolsters the political theory, and any evidence, no matter how strong, is discredited it it violates the theory.

The book then proceeeds to document every claim, and wishes we will keep these extraneous claims in mind as the next outlying piece of evidence is discovered.

Man has domesticated many animals over time, some for food and some for pets. Hamsters are a relatively recent addition to the list of pets mankind keeps. The domestication of an animal changes its status from wild critter to pet. The deer in the living room is no longer wild, so it is not a wild critter, by definition.

With his logic, we never would have domesticated a single animal species. Every pet species started out as a wild critter. The real issue is this Wildlife officer playing species bigot. Cats and dogs are okay, but squirrels and raccoons are not? On his say so? Some breeds of dog are far more dangerous than a deer or a raccoon. I'm not buying it.

Actions have reactions, and perhaps we can get the Republican organization to react. When we vote for the "spoiler" candidate, and he gets only 2% of the vote, but that was the margin of loss for the Republican candidate, that Republican politician lost precisely because he did not represent the constituency. Fear of losing should be his greatest fear. Continuing to make winners out of these guys is a mistake. There will be another election. Republicans will still want to win that one, even if they don't have an incumbent.

The Socialist Party never won any serious elections, but the Democratic Party adopted much of their agenda. The question I have is will the Republican organization adopt principles of liberty and the Constitution to get our votes, or will they continue down their current path of abandoning these concepts to compete for Democratic voters?

This technology ignores reloaders. I get most of my semi-auto brass from the police range. Whose fingerprints will be on that?