"Aside from Tourette's, brain injuries, strokes, dementia , seizures and many other forms neurological damage can usher the onset of coprolalia as well. It is known to be caused by brain dysfunction, but the details are, as yet, hazy. One hypothesis, described by psychologist Timothy Jay in his book "Why We Curse" (John Benjamins Pub Co. 2000), suggests that it's caused by damage to the amygdala, a region of the brain that normally mitigates anger and aggression. Because cursing is a form of verbal aggression, amygdala damage could result in the inability to control aggression, including verbal aggression, or cursing."
http://www.livescience.com/33384-tourette-syndrome-people-curse-uncontrollably.html

Here's a breakdown that shows my train of thought :



The 2nd amendment limits the authority of 'specifically the government'.

It is not an affirmative right to individuals, it is a denial of rights to the government.
It in theory prevents the government from taking any actions that would infringe on bearing arms.




So, let's look at scope.


If bearing arms is for government regulated militias :

Let's assume that 'well regulated' means 'well government regulated'. (i.e. Merely government regulated in practice.)

- A militia that uses arms as per the government's regulation, would be operating as the government wishes - it would *be* an extension of the government, and the government would not need to seize its arms. The 2nd amendment is moot.

- A militia that doesn't use arms as per the government's regulation, is not government regulated, and has no protection from government arms seizure. The government is free to deny this militia arms at the government's discretion. The 2nd amendment is moot.


In order for the 2nd amendment to not be moot, you would need to protect an entity that the government would *not* wish to be armed.

Since we're still talking militias, that leaves only "non-government-regulated militias" as a protected class of entities.
Hence, this would preclude "government regulated" as a possible definition of "well regulated", in regards to "well regulated militia".

So, we've established that for the 2nd to not be moot, only "non-government-regulated militias" can be in the set of 'well regulated militia'.




So, following on the idea of the 2nd amendment scope being for "well [non-government] regulated militias".

The government can then circumvent 2nd amendment protection by making illegal any 'non-government-regulated militias'. This would eliminate the entire category of arms protected entities. The 2nd amendment is moot.

Hence, for the 2nd amendment to not be moot via this path, that means that "well [non-government] regulated militias" must also be protected under the 2nd amendment.




So, without government regulation, a well regulated militia is subject to the regulation of its members.

As there is no government regulation on militia, there is also no government regulation regarding the quantity of militia members. You are then left with the ability of a single individual to incorporate a militia, and decide on his own regulations.

Which decomposes into de-facto individual rights





This is why the only consequential meaning of the 2nd amendment is one which includes these aspects :
A) Does not define 'well regulated" as "government regulated".
B) Does not restrict the individual.
C) Protects militias.

Any other meaning for the 2nd amendment would result in an emergent status quo that would produce the same circumstances as if there was no 2nd amendment in the first place. This would erase any purpose in having a 2nd amendment.





But sure, maybe the 2nd amendment is moot.
Maybe it was written out of sheer boredom, just to have something inconsequential to do with one's time.
Maybe it was a farce designed to fool people into thinking that it means something, while it is actually pointless and ineffectual - like saying the sky is up.




In any case, I think we can agree that, if the 2nd means anything, it is intended for facilitating the defense of the state against invading armies.

The fallout of that is that if the 2nd particularly protects any given category of arms, it protects specifically those that are meant for use in military combat. Not hunting, not self defense, etc.

A pistol ban would be of little military detriment for open combat, but would be the greatest harm to people's capacity for insurgency (because pistols can be hidden on a person).

A hunting rifle ban would also be of modest military detriment for open combat (can serve DMR role), but probably the least meaningful.

Arms with particular military applicability would be large capacity+select fire (prototypical infantry arms), or accurized of any capacity (dmr/sniper).
Basically, the arms of greatest consequence to the 2nd amendment are precisely the ones most targeted for regulation.

-scheherazade

This qualifies as 'dancing'?

Man I feel old, to me it looks like they are all experiencing a strangely choreographed seizure.

Your video, T.J. Miller Has a Seizure, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 1 Badge!

Yeah, the total "lockup" of the muscles (even after she hit that patch of rocks too), absolutely rigid, is pretty odd. It was almost akin to a grand mal or other types of seizure that cause the same thing. Maybe this was a life-long issue and they happened to see the very end. I'm guessing that quite possibly that outcropping of rocks was the real "killer" (hit in the head or spinal cord injury; we already know it was strong enough to break the jaw, perhaps it did more than just that).

The part that is a bit more odd is that the rigidity "appeared" to still be there when they got to her. I don't know if a seizure, plus something killing you, can lock you up like that. If not, then like others said it wasn't a very normal death, with something she ate as the most probable issue.

Just guessing though...

Are you Egyptian? cause.. you're definitely in denial..

This behavior isn't the norm?
Then why does it take place literally everyday?

Like you and every other police sympathizer likes to point out..

"The incidents that make the news are just a small fraction of what ACTUALLY takes place!"

Precisely.

So considering there are multiple instances of police brutality 24/7/365..

..think about all the police violence that WE NEVER SEE.

Then think about all the "less severe" police misconduct: unlawful stops, unlawful seizure, evidence tempering, falsifying reports, etc.

Even if excessive force & brutality is just a fraction of the pie.. the entire pie is still corrupt.

How do we know this?
Because whistle-blowers are always stigmatized, demoted or fired..

While murders routinely get off with little or no punishment.

Clearly, the romanticized ideal of police "protecting & serving" is a fairytale.
And those idealist police officers are the true minority.

"Police Brutality isn't the norm! America is a post-racial society!"

Psh, gimme a break.

The cast names flashing past nearly gave me a seizure!

Wow, how baked are you @MrFisk?

The point you made was about Public figures and their privacy.

Regardless of how their privacy came to be violated..

(Anthony Weiner mistakenly? linked his pics on is public twitter originially. Hah.)

the result is the same:

People flocking to oogle their naked/scantily-clad bodies in photos that were meant to be private.

Isn't that the issue?


And then the rest of your comment about how..

..even private citizens should expect less privacy because of illegal data collection by the NSA..

(not unlike the illegal seizure by the Fappening hacker effectively)

Yet somehow that's okay because.. they didn't publicly share those photos.. O_o? really?

..wtf dude.. @_@

LMAO. Wow the double-standard is strong with this one.


So you'll defend this - in your own words - victim, of police harassment..

And even openly question & scold the officer as WORTHLESS..

For trying to bring trumped up Trepassing charges against him..

However, in the Arizona Iced Tea scenario..

A scenario which is nearly almost precisely the same..

You'll take the exact OPPOSITE stance..

And defend the clearly UNCONSTITUTIONALLY wrong officer..

And deride the victim for his objection to an illegal detention, search & seizure and arrest?

Please explain yourself, Lantern

Please explain why you'd treat - basically the same situation - in two vastly different ways.

*grabs popcorn*

I once had a seizure and fell down, smashing my head against the corner of a vice in my friends garage.

It looked like I had probably died but I didn't. Do we know this cow died or it just looks like it? Not that I care THAT much. It's a cow. I'm a human, not that much better really, but you know.

Uh huh. Have an excruciatingly painful grand mal seizure a few times, where you lose consciousness(thankfully) from lack of oxygen because you literally cannot draw breath, waking up not knowing who you are for an hour, then tell me you won't change your behavior and bucket list to avoid it (oh, and the death) in the future. Easy to say, harder to do.

Wow- he had a seizure disorder and he skydived anyway. You were right billpayer.

dumb

"(Christopher's) treating specialist wrote a letter specifically saying he was fit for skydiving," the Post quoted O'Neill as saying. "Obviously he wasn't. That was the end of his skydiving career."
Jones said he could not become a pilot because of his condition, but that he thought it had improved enough so that he could skydive.

"I'd been seizure-free for four years," the Post quoted him as saying. "I've always wanted to have the feeling of flight, so I just thought, considering I can't fly a plane due to my condition, I thought I'd give it a go."

Your video, Guy Has Seizure While Skydiving, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 26 Badge!

This was probably his first time. I had my first seizure at age 31 without any prior warning signs. Sometimes all it takes for the first one is the right set of sensory inputs to set the first one off. If he actually did have a known seizure condition then yeah - dumb - even if on medication.

Even though I'm on medication that controls the seizures very effectively, there are certain things I will now never do by choice; skydiving, scuba diving and flying a plane come to mind. There's no way to know if those particular things might push me past the limits my meds are known to control.