Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

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?

---

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,

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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

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 roullette, 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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

We would not have been better off under British oppression...
.

---

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.

It's all right, you stay in deniel, it's one of those United States of America

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

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.

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

.

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

---

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 .

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 .