 |
I don't have to... its been written into the constitution since the very begininning.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuttyd
Nobody really had a problem understanding it until recently... which means tha average intelligence of people has been dropping, because the language in them have never changed.
Firstly,I see that you and smoothy are still promoting the continuum fallacy.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Secondly. Yes, and times have changed. You have to adapt to the changes because you cannot bend the arrow of time back the other way.
Hollywood played an important part in the evolution of your ethos.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
You expected a different outcome?
And when exactly was this beginning?Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
In other words, you have no idea what I am talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuttyd
When it was written and ratified... that was very obvious.
You are Australian... I wouldn't expect you to understand it as we do. Its not something you live with every day that is the foundation of your laws and your life where you are. And it doesn't apply to you. Unless at some point you emmigrated.
No it's not obvious. The tradition dates back to the English Bill of Rights. Such a law is at the discretion of a parliament. It is for this exact reason we understand it differently.Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
THe constitution isn't a "tradition" and neither is the Bill of Rights. Traditions aren't legally binding. Its not a bill of Suggestions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuttyd
And We aren't England... We fought a war to get away from them because we didn't like their way of doing things.
Its also not subject to the whims of Congress or the President...it requires a 75% ratification of the states to change.......and it could be done WITHOUT the input or concent of congress.
Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
I didn't say it was a tradition per se. I am saying it has is basis in common law.
The main reason for the war was: No Taxation without Representation.
That's what the History books say... but it went way beyond that reason alone. That was just the proverbial straw that broke the camels back.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuttyd
That's probably true. There are a number of reasons, but the one I stated is an important one.Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
Yes it was an important one... wars are rarely found over a single issue... and that issue is usually one more than the people could tollerate after stewing over other issues long enough. Its just easier to pick one out and focus on that, and why its done so often by so many.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuttyd
Then you have to identify what changed and address the problem there .Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuttyd
I guess that would be a very good starting point.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Then mental health system has changed. There is no arguing that.
The definition of mentally ill has changed as well as how its treated, and who pays for it. Its well documented that many were mildly mental cases lumped in and put with the more mentally challenged and treated/mistreated the same way, and not just with meds, but other physical means that can only be classified as torture.
The challenges of modern treatment leaves many to fall through the cracks of notice, and only crosses a line after they have killed someone. So my question is how a person that had an extensive history of mental issues and treatment buy a gun in the first place? That had to be one lousy background check if he went through it 3 times, in 3 different cities, in a tightly regulated state, don't you think?
I don't disagree there Tal... what exactly was going on in those hundreds if not thousands of therapy sessions... and was the therapist in the wrong legally if there was cause to notify the authorities.
My guess is the Therapists were paid by daddy to keep it all quiet (big money can buy that sort of thing)... and I bet the Feds have no record of his mental issues.
Street dealers don't do background checks. Gangs don't do background checks. There are so may ways to get around having a check done I couldn't even begin to explain it.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Without violating HIPAA, I'll try to explain my experience as best as possible. I worked the ER the other night. Had a gentleman who was in custody for waving a gun at his wife and then the cops. Funny thing was that he wasn't mentally ill. Just diabetic. You ask, "how does diabetes come into play?" Well, when blood sugar isn't controlled properly there are mental status changes. This man was neither psychotic, nor was he mentally ill when he purchased the firearm. There was no history of violence.
So, now are you going to add a physical health problem like diabetes to the list of people who cannot qualify for gun ownership?
The "history" of mental illness must be documented for it to come up on a background check if a person purchased a firearm in the legal manner. Most people with mental illness know that they will not be able to pass the check, thus they go to outside sources to purchase their weapon.
This fellow did not J, he had history and he legally bought a gun. That should have been a red flag to dig deeper, and the fact his parents sent alarms that should have triggered at least more than a knock on the door.
Given his history, he should never have been allowed to buy a gun, plain and simple, but we know crazy evil, people and criminals find a way and being undiagnosed doesn't help us as a society at all. The background checks failed miserably in this case.
We haven't determined anyone who knew about his mental illness had ever contacted the authorities as they were required to (Therapists ARE in many cases).
There is no requirement to report someone you think has a mental illness, but he does have a paper trail that should have been looked deeper into as it developed. Hell, AGAIN, if his parents had reported him and that fell on deaf ears, what would an outsider saying he was crazy do?
Crazy is no crime, nor is evil, until it crosses a line, from intention to actions. The very notion a 22 year old can buy weapons and ammo who neither hunts or lives in a rural area is unacceptable and I don't care what the constitution says about rights. You let the NRA, and gun nuts subvert common sense, despite the mounting body count.
Um... if a mental health professional encounters someone who poses a potiential threat to others... yes they are required to report it.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Stop trying to dump the blame on every one else that had no part in this. HIS parent, HIS therapists... and the people he knew (I doubt he had many real friends based on his video rant) all knew he was mentally ill. In fact 30 people were emailed his manifesto including his therapist 15 minutes before he started shooting people. His therapist called his parents... not the police... in fact none of those 30 people called the police.
Maybe the voting age should be raised to 40 as well.....if he's old enough to serve in the Military and vote....he's old enough to own a gun. and people in the urban areas have just as much reason to own weapons as rural people....What with the average Obama voter that infests inner city regions....most of whom have no use for the law and believe they have the right to take things other people worked to earn. Many of whom despite felony convictions own weapons illegally, but can't be stopped and searched at 3am or almost anytime walking around suspiciously....because they would have been "Profiled"
Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
This article may help answer your question as well as others that may choose to read it.
Anger, violent thoughts: Are you too sick to own a gun? - U.S. News
Thanks CD, an interesting dilemma for sure and something jumped but at me as a valid point I think to consider,
That in itself is a huge inadequacy in my view, given the prohibition some have against a doctor asking if there is a gun in the house before he gives out certain meds,to certain people. Trying to see if this 22 year old was under a doctors care, and prescribed meds. I think its unrealistic to expect some people to know they are too sick to own a gun, and need help in that regard, but reporting everybody crazy is no real solution, neither is just selling more guns, so the debate continues.Quote:
currently only 7 states account for 98 percent of the names prohibited for reasons of mental illness in the NICS database, according to Mayors Against Illegal Guns.
He, by self report, refused to take prescribed meds. Will check again for a quote. ***ADDED*** A person close to the family reported this.
yeah and he took that 'killer ' supplement creatine .
we talk a lot about banning substances but why can substances like creatine and steroids be allowed to be manufactured and marketted. We have had numerous reports of people who take these things going into uncontrollable rage. it appears to be two different attitudes in the world; one that says let stupid people do whatever they want to and face the consequences while all us responsible people look on askance, and the other that says some people are not responsible and in the interests of public safety certain activities should be prohibited. I actually think we are locking up the wrong people, we should start by locking up the politicians and the lobbiests who work to subvert.
I personally think lacing Heroin with cyanide before it gets into the country would solve a lot of problems... we could do the same with Meth and Cocaine...
Word gets out they are playing Russian roullett, and abuse would drop significantly... as well as the users.
Not a solution they already know they are playing russian roulette what do you think OD's do, I think we have to decide the war on drugs is lost, let them flood the country with drugs the price will drop. Anyway it is a solution for the unemployed, gives them something to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
The reality is your society, which showed so much promise, has failed. You explored the excesses of liberty and what did you find there, degradation? death? and now you can't find the path back. You would have been better to have paid the tea tax, within a few decades you would have had self determination anyway, slavery would have been abolished and you wouldn't have suffered that disasterous civil war and all those civil rights problems
We would not have been better off under British oppression...
Today's problem are the liberals who want to give all the wrong people rights they shouldn't have... and take away the rights of people that should have them and that earned them.
Perhaps if we take away THIER rights they might come to appreciate them much more.
You would have come away with a different point of view, that oppression you speak of would have faded if a proper dialogue would have developed. My own nation grew under what you suggest was british oppression and while we have no love of the pomms for various reasons, we did come away with a vivrant nation. Far as I can see it didn't do Canada any harm either. Thing is Britain spawned some of the greatest nations on Earth, even if one of them is a wayward, headstrong child, there are positives.Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
It's all right, you stay in deniel, it's one of those United States of America
THey apparently aren't teaching what the brits really did here that lead to this in the schools.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
They may have learned their lesson after we kicked their butts... and the rest of you ended up better off as a result... knowing if they didn't lighten up you all would be next in line.
Look The Brits, ie; military, did bad things back in those days in many places including on their own island, you were not alone, but attitude is everything. You wanted representation in their parliament, a reasonable enough request, but they were not known for dealing with "bloody colonials" in this manner. You had your own local assemblies, it wasn't as though you were devoid of government and representation. I know you didn't want to pay for fighting foreign wars, who does? We are still paying for fighting yours but I digress. An isolated skirmish turned into a war and here we are, some two hundred years later trying to get our minds around what was really going on and whether it could have been different.
Your efforts at disengagement in the world are commendable if a little niaive. If we learned anything from Britain it is leave gracefully because the locals are revolting
You are forgetting a really big thing about them actually PROHIBITING manufacturing... also their attempts to disarm us, Both meant to keep us totally subservient and dependent on them... Two things not comonly taught about Pre-revolutionary war history that were huge factors.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Besides we EARNED the right to have some attitude... everyone would be speaking German, Japanese or CHinese today if it wasn't for us... and the Trillions we have spent... many cases on people who really aren't grateful for the help, but whoes hands were out for the money just the same.
At that point in History...the Brits got everything they had coming.....we don't regret it.....not even the liberals here regret it.
yeh I know they prohibited a lot of things and were probably rightly concerned that their colonies were getting too big to manage. As far as speaking German is concerned I think the Russians had a lot to say about that, a point easily forgotten, and the Japanese, yes you certainly fought hard there and the Chinese, we haven't fought that one yet. But you have an unfortunate habit of supporting dictators and ultimately having to overthrow them. You didn't learn the lessons of Empire
It is short sighted and VERY naiive . We tried disengagement in the past ;and the world insisted that we get involved . That is the lesson of the 20th century .Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Sometimes you have to do some heavy lifting, you were very reluctant participants, and then you turned right around and like Quixote you tilted at every windmill in town and tried to slay a few giants in the process, now you have awoken the dragon we will see
we are seeing what the world is like with the dragon on the prowl and America thinking it can retreat with no consequences.
You can't play St. George to the Chinese Dragon, and you can't play in their backyard without an invitation, I think that is the message. If you want to dominate them do it by trade and reestablish those exported industries away from Asia. Haven't you got enough backwater countries in your own region, or do they speak spanish
Aiyaz Husain, a historian at the State Department has a new book out about the decline of the British empire post WWII and the rise of the US global hegemon.
The geographic assumptions in this globalism came to shape postwar American grand strategy. As James Lay, the executive secretary of the National Security Council wrote in 1952 in the pages of World Affairs, the administration had realized early on that “policies developed for the security of the United States have far-reaching impact throughout the world. Likewise, events throughout the world affect our national security. Policies, therefore, can no longer be decided solely within geographical limitations.”
On the other hand ,the Brits saw their decline and tried to hold on to regional footholds.
If I was an ally of the US ,I would worry about Obama repeating the British model .His pivot to Asia is a deflection for his retreat from the Ummah . He of course makes an occasional show of strength to mask the retreat . But what President has boasted of "ending two wars " instead of "winning " those wars ?
My question is the obvious one ...nature abhores a vaccume . What nation will fill it when the US retreats to fortress America? Have fun living in Pax Sinica .
There is no retreat or weakness in lessening military presence for diplomatic and business forces. Only you hawks take guns and domination as a sign of strength, instead of building through cooperation. No wonder you love Putin as a strong leader, and not a bully, or Cheney who had 5 deferments like his bud Romney.
I mean if you haven't won a war after 10 years of spilling blood and treasure, as in Iraq, what the hell are you talking about?
Iraq was won . You're guy lost the post-war .
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:33 AM. |