Although I think aspartame is dangerous, too, it started being used in 1979 or '80. However, The "rash" of these shootings didn't start until much later. So no, it doesn't line up. Same with Sucralose. Didn't really appear until after 2001, so it misses a decade in the other direction.

Similarly, people that have done these crimes are not really old enough to have saturated themselves with nicotine, and I haven't seen any suggestion that these murderers were in the throes of nicotine withdrawal.

However, even if there is no "chemical" link, the more important fact remains: We've had both guns and deranged people for a long, long time without this stuff happening. So, what we REALLY need to do is to find out what the REAL causes of this dramatic uptick in these types of incidents are; but I submit that easy access to guns is not it. And please, anyone, don't embarrass yourself be positing the argument that "If all the guns were outlawed..." prohibition simply doesn't work like that.

Record "keeping" and Record Disclosure are entirely two different things, especially when it comes to the government.

Or would you prefer that I be able to peruse your Federal and State Income Tax Returns, for example?

Forget the lists of "gun owners", I want a list of the people being prescribed SSRIs.

You want to find a link between "mass shootings" and something, you need look no farther than (not so) Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors.

Seriously. Do some research. It's not gun owners we need to fear. It's irresponsible drug companies and lazy-ass doctors, who too often prescribe SSRIs without proper patient follow-up, or worse yet, who increase the SSRI dosage when a patient complains of "feeling worse" after taking them.

Columbine, Aurora, and Sandy Hook (as well as many, many others) all have SSRI involvement.

Prozac (the first SSRI) was approved in 1988. Check out the history of mass murders (esp. "school shooting"-type incidents) in the years before and after SSRIs became commonplace.

We've had a 2nd Amendment for 200+ years. We've had SSRIs for about 20. Look at history and you can clearly see a "knee" in these types of incidents that coincides nicely with SSRI introduction.

But nearly every voice in "the media" is dancing to the drumbeat of a very dangerous tune.

But don't take my word for it; do your own research. I'll wait...

Speak for yourself.

While I agree with you that this was reprehensible, these were presumably State records, and thus would not be covered under the (Federal) FOIA.

Now, if someone schooled in the State's "Public Records" statutes can find a corollary to 5 USC 552(b)(7) in their State Statues, then by all means, sicc the ACLU on them!

Wrong. That would be the purpose of a Standing Army.

The real purpose of the 2nd Amendment, along with the 1st Amendment, is to protect the citizenry from Government. Remember? It was an Amendment to the original Constitution, which was decidedly more "Federalistic" than the document that was eventually signed into law. If you know your history, the first ten Amendments, a/k/a "The Bill of RIGHTS", were insisted upon by those Colonies (proto-States) that thought the Constitution as originally written ceded too much power to the Government.

So to say that the 2nd Amendment was intended to empower Government, rather than limit it, is naivety at its worst.

True, at least up until the Dick Act was repealed in 1901, due to the fact that it was apparently never enforced.

Shame, actually. Would have likely prevented, or at least minimized the loss of life from, all this "school shooting" bullshit.

Exactly. It is an "intrinsic", versus "extrinsic", Right.

Plus, always remember: The Government has no Rights. Only Powers. Persons have Rights and Powers.

It's not "Unregulated" it's "Unorganized". And yes, at the time, the term meant "Any (caucasian) male between the ages of 18 and 45."

See, e.g., Perpich v. DOD, 496 U.S. 334 (1990).

That's the ORGANIZED (not "Regulated") Militia. The other citizens (originally as defined as the caucasian males between 18 and 45) is referred to as the UNORGANIZED Militia. There was even a relatively recent (1990) SCOTUS case regarding this, when the Governor of Minnesota at the time, Rudy Perpich, bitched about his State's National Guard members being summarily called up for active Military Duty by the Federal Government during the Falklands' War without his permission, and without a national emergency, etc. Read the case; it has a long explanation of the history of the term "Militia", and the definition of the "Organized" versus "Unorganized" Militiae.

Of course not. I experienced the effects of same.

And, perhaps it is you that needs to go back to school.

Tip: They may not have taught this at the "school" you attended,, but there is often an abundance of acid in the stomach, where the Glucose (Gatorade) and the ethanol mixture ends up after ingesting same...

Obviously, your initial statement that alcohol and glucose do not combine was completely, utterly incorrect. Exactly how that makes you drunk faster may have more to do with the way Gatorade affects the absorbption of water than the formation of Glycosides, but It. Does Work. I have never gotten so profoundly intoxicated so fast before or since. Since I am not a chemist or a medical doctor, I freely admit I may be entirely wrong about the mechanism involved; but I am here to tell you that I am not wrong about the (admittedly subjective) results of the "experiment".

Try it if you don't believe me. But please be careful...

I didn't READ it, I EXPERIENCED it.

Exactly that.

When the iPad came out, I was like "I've only been wanting this for the last THIRTY years." And the success of the iPad (and other tablets of that ilk) clearly shows I wasn't alone in my dream.

That's because you've never use an Apple trackpad. They've gotten the "accidental touches" problem pretty much fixed.

If you will watch the Keynote where Jobs introduced the iPad, he made it crystal-clear that Apple, at least, plainly thought their tablet had no reason to exist if it didn't fill a unique set of use-cases. The people who see a user as having to have EITHER a Tablet OR a Laptop are the real fools.

I dearly love my iPad (I am typing this post on it right now), but I would NEVER confuse it, or consider it, a replacement for my other computers. It is, however, a VERY handy ADJUNCT to them. Anything else is just laughably delusional.

And please don't respond with "That's because you have an iPad." Bullshit. Just because you CAN use Eclipse on an Android tablet (for example), doesn't make it a good idea. That's what "real" computers are for, not "computing appliances". I am an embedded dev., and so am well aware that there is a tiny computer inside of my iPad. However, there is also a tiny computer inside of about ten things in my immediate eyesight, too, such as my microwave oven; but I wouldn't waste my time trying to get Libre Office working on them, either. Why? Because it simply wouldn't end up being an effective tool for the job, regardless of how successful I was at pecking out my Libre Write document out in raw ASCII, using my microwave's numerical keypad. Conversely, even though I can play DVDs on several of my computers, the standalone DVD is the only thing with which anyone else besides me in the house could use do so.

Right tool for the job and all that...