Like I said earlier, the next time the cops come over to serve you a warrant shoot back at them with all you got and see what happens.
|
Like I said earlier, the next time the cops come over to serve you a warrant shoot back at them with all you got and see what happens.
Deal with the bullying.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
So you believe the army won't have a problem killing the people they've been fighting for? This ain't Syria.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
I really find it hard to believe you blame Clintons ego on a massacre that could have been avoided by submitting to lawful due process by the religious community I call a whacked out cult.
Resisting arrest is resisting arrest in his case and the fool dragged his people down with him.
Do you really see armed rebellion against the government as a possibility to justify having machime guns in America?Quote:
So you believe the army won't have a problem killing the people they've been fighting for? This ain't Syria.
The military is made up of our sons and daughters, aunts and uncles, mothers and fathers. Would they choose to obey a dictator and thereby deny their families?Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
The colonists were fighting strangers.
You want to use your inability to deal with a native population as an excuse as to why your population should be armed. The lesson in Afghanistan is an armed population is a lawless population and the same is obviously true in your own nation. In any case Afghanistan is a problem of your own making and so is the problem you face at home. In Afghanistan you are dealing with a people who once conquered Iran, they might do it again for you if you made friends with themQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
You keep saying gun ownership is for self defense but you wouldn't need the guns if there weren't so many of them. Populations all over the world live peacefully without an armed populous
He may have been a wacko but he offered to talk let the ATF inspector in to inspect his weapons and the inspector wouldn't even talk to him. Even the sheriff told them to go talk to them. The vast majority of "evidence" was based on hearsay. The siege was totally unnecessary and we got to watch the federal government massacre those people live on CNN.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Do you really not understand our rights?Quote:
Do you really see armed rebellion against the government as a possibility to justify having machime guns in America?
Good for them.I
Good for them. I assure you there is room for reasonable regulation that doesn't go as far as the extreme position that guns should be banned. How about universal registration without exception? Or deal with the real issue... the over prescribing of psychotropic drugs?
Yes well we have all thought you were all on drugs for a long time, so a new thought, any person who is prescribed a certain class of drugs is a not allowed to own or possess weapons. This would mean doctors prescribing these drugs would need to report to the police and the police would need to search and seize. Don't know how that fits with your constitution which is short on such detail since your founding fathers didn't need anything more that the odd pipe.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
As to doctors prescribing drugs you could ban that
Do you really not understand how the laws work? When the government, state, local, or federal tells you they have a warrant, you obey it and negotiate in court. Not hole up in your domicile and negotiate.
There is no need to defend your rights with a gun or subtrefuge, or active ARMED resistance. He had no right to have a stand off with the LAW, or endanger his flock with his defense of his so called rights.
That's absolute paranoid INSANITY.
Hello again, Steve:
I believe they'll view you just like Tim McVey or David Koresh, and put you down HARD..Quote:
So you believe the army won't have a problem killing the people they've been fighting for?
Excon
Not a problem... thesecond also refers to well regulated
Let us examine that for a while, because once again you are nitpicking wordsQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
The word regulate is used in relation to the word militia, in fact, the whole thing is subject to the idea of a militia defending the state. I see nothing in these words that speeks of self defense in the broader context, but only in defense of the nation.Quote:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
So you should put the idea into force, those who keep and bear arms should be inducted into a well regulated militia because the rabble situation you have right now is unconstitutional.
There is no question about intent. Thefounders made it clear that militia was not a state or national function. It is clear from their writings... including James Madison in the Federalist papers.. that the right to bear arms was an individual right.
Bear all the arms you want except illegal ones. That's the point, some of us want some weapons and ammo illegal to the gerneral public as a matter of safety.
Legal argument aside Tom the document says what it says, it doesn't say, subject to various writings and opinions.
TalQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
I assure you the best you will get is new standardized registration requirements ,and perhaps restrictions on magazine sizes ,or restrictions on mail order ammo purchases... perhaps even restrictions on the so called gun show exceptions.
If you get any restristions it will be a move in the right direction, the whole thing has gone from the sublime to the ridiculous because of rank commercialism. You no longer have the need to have files of men blasting away at each other and that is what eighteenth century armies didQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
And which ones would those be?Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
What a good idea . Obama gives himself and his family lifetime armed guard protection . I thinkit is well warranted and former Presidents deserve such protection. Prior to this former Presidents only were granted this well earned privilege for 10 years .
Obama OKs lifetime Secret Service for presidents
On the other hand ; he evidently thinks the rest of us peons don't deserve the right to protect ourselves. During an ABC Nightline interview broadcast on December 26;recorded before the Sandy Hook shooting, Obama said one of the benefits of his reelection was the ability “to have men with guns around at all times,” in order to protect his daughters. There were daughters at Sandy Hook . Why shouldn't they have that benefit ? Obama sends his daughters to Sidwell Friends School in Washington, DC.There are 11 armed guards patrolling that school. Our kids go to schools in 'gun free zones' where no one but people with criminal intent is armed.
Another straw man, you have no real facts in this debate, Tom, you are on the wrong side of history
That would be a step in the right direction.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Whatever is deemed illegal under federal law. We had a ban before, it took 10 years to get it, and it expired 10 years later. Now its on the table again. The real debate for me is do citizens have the right to bear the same arms as the official Army of the US, or the regulated militia we now call the police. Both have extensive and ongoing training and practice, and answerable and accountable to higher authority for their actions.Quote:
Originally Posted by califdadof3
Should not a citizen be as accountable, or groups of citizens who deem themselves a militia? Who are they accountable too? With the free exercise of rights is there no responsibility?
We have already seen where a troubled person can criminally get a legal weapon and kill not only the legal owner, but 26 more kids and adults. If you have troubled people in your family, should you have the right to bear arms?
If assault rifles and the high ammo clips were banned for all, how many people would have been saved? For sure we know the some kids at Newtown would have escaped alive.
And yet we had a number of mass murders in that time ,including Columbine.Quote:
We had a ban before, it took 10 years to get it, and it expired 10 years later.
yes ,and the law abiding citizens already exercise such responsibility .Quote:
With the free exercise of rights is there no responsibility?
The Assault Weapons Ban: Did It Curtail Mass Shootings? — The Century FoundationQuote:
TOM,
And yet we had a number of mass murders in that time ,including Columbine.
Quote:
What is an undeniable truth is that we have seen an incredible uptick of mass shootings since the ban expired on September 14, 2004. To be fair, it also is a small sample size, and 2012 was an exceptionally tragic year, but the fact remains that the number of shootings has gone up over 200 percent since the ban expired.
There are enough law abiding citizens taking short cuts and driving through huge loopholes to make it a problem to be addressed, as you have pointed out gun shows, and I add transporting guns from weak gun law states to stronger ones.Quote:
yes ,and the law abiding citizens already exercise such responsibility
I have said earlier I can go with more regulated militias like police, and less unregulated ones like a band of law abiding citizens with good intentions, and a few skills, and looking to wage ARMED war against the government.
I may be wrong but I believe that's a fringe idea, that makes me very uncomfortable. Some of our law abiding citizens are crazy, and not as responsible as they should be. And citizens/vigilantes have killed people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Are we really looking at a genuine uptick or are we looking into the mirror of what society has become? Today most people no matter who they are seem to be under more stress from outside influences then they have in modern times. Much of it is driven by what we see and hear around us. Violent video games have desensitized an entire group of children to the reality of the world around us. Im not talking about space invaders or other games where they are fantasy based but those that appear as real life. The characters look real and the sounds are real and it crosses a line that we may not return from. I have seen things drastically change over my lifetime as far as true respect for others and with the internet being so prevalent it has caused fundemental changes in attitudes. Before when you did encounter a bully then at least when you went home it ended for the day. Now we have online bullying and stalking. Also we have a much greater and widespread use of drugs that alter the minds and are being given out like M&M's. There seems to be no problems that a pill can't cure. We have laws like HIPPA that prevent doctors from reporting as they might when a threat may be imminent. Where do we start to draw the lines?
Hello again,
You and I know that an assault rifle, mechanically, is identical to an ordinary semi automatic hunting rifle.. But, some drug crazed want to be killer may NOT know that, and he MIGHT be dissuaded from carrying out his plan IF he can't get one...
Look. We're not going to STOP the mayhem from continuing... But, if we can reduce it, even incrementally, then we should.
Since an assault weapons ban is only a ban on LOOKS, gun loving America doesn't lose a thing except cosmetics. I don't think REAL gun lovers care much about that. Do YOU need a flash suppressor on your hunting rifle?
excon
One thing for sure, no matter what we invent some will find ways around it, and that includes the law, and unless you stay ahead of the bad guys, or just the crazy ones, then they will be the ones driving the situation, not you, the law, or common sense.
So why is our society so prone to disasters more than other nations that have the same videos and pills and guns? Oh wait, they don't have the same guns as we do, do they?
Could we be so carried away with our rights and abandoned good old common sense? Maybe math and science are NOT the only subjects we have started to fall behind the rest of the world in. Profits over people, I have said that before. Who profits by the mass shootings and culture of violence in our society?
Just asking.
Not only corporations but the citizens value profit (being perceived as wealthy) over people (relationships with family/friends/neighbours). When they cannot achieve that ultimate materialistic goal then the dysfunctions start to appear. Neglected children, lowered value in human relationships, etc.Quote:
Profits over people, I have said that before.
Columbine mass-killer Eric Harris was taking Luvox ,an antidepressant drug Luvox manufacturer Solvay Pharmaceuticals concedes that during short term controlled clinical trials, 4 percent of youth taking Luvox developed mania, a dangerous and violence prone mental derangement characterized by extreme excitement and delusion.
Patrick Purdy went on a schoolyard shooting rampage in Stockton, Calif. in 1989, which became the catalyst for the original legislative frenzy to ban “semiautomatic assault weapons”. Purdy murdered five children and wounded 30. He was on Amitriptyline, an antidepressant, and Thorazine.
Kip Kinkel, 15, murdered his parents in 1998 and the next day went to his school, Thurston High in Springfield, Ore. and opened fire on his classmates, killing two and wounding 22 others. He was on both Prozac and Ritalin.
In 1988, 31-year-old Laurie Dann went on a shooting rampage in a second-grade classroom in Winnetka, Ill. killing one child and wounding six. She was on Anafranil and Lithium.
In Paducah, Ky. in late 1997, 14-year-old Michael Carneal, son of a prominent attorney, traveled to Heath High School and started shooting students in a prayer meeting taking place in the school's lobby, killing three and leaving another paralyzed. Carneal was on Ritalin.
2005, 16-year-old Jeff Weise, living on Minnesota's Red Lake Indian Reservation, shot and killed nine people and wounded five others before killing himself. Weise was taking Prozac.
47-year-old Joseph T. Wesbecker, just a month after he began taking Prozac in 1989, shot 20 workers at Standard Gravure Corp. in Louisville, Ky. killing nine.
Kurt Danysh, 18, shot his own father to death in 1996, a little more than two weeks after starting on Prozac. Danysh said “I didn't realize I did it until after it was done,” “This might sound weird, but it felt like I had no control of what I was doing, like I was left there just holding a gun.”
John Hinckley, age 25, took four Valium two hours before shooting President Reagan in 1981 Hinckley also seriously wounded press secretary James Brady,and wounded Secret Service agent Timothy McCarthy and policeman Thomas Delahanty
Andrea Yatesdrowned all five of her children in a bathtub.She claimed inner voices commanded her to kill her children.She had been taking the antidepressant Effexor.
2005 Effexor manufacturer Wyeth Pharmaceuticals added “homicidal ideation” to the drug's list of “rare adverse events."
12-year-old Christopher Pittman, shot and killed both his grandparents, and burned down their South Carolina home, where he had lived with them. He said “When I was lying in my bed that night ,I couldn't sleep because my voice in my head kept echoing through my mind telling me to kill them.” Christopher had been angry with his grandfather, who had disciplined him earlier that day for hurting another student during a fight on the school bus. ”I got up, got the gun, and I went upstairs and I pulled the trigger . Through the whole thing, it was like watching your favorite TV show. You know what is going to happen, but you can't do anything to stop it.”Pittman's lawyers argued that he had been a victim of “involuntary intoxication,” since his doctors had him taking the antidepressants Paxil and Zoloft just prior to the murders.
Virginia Tech murderer of 32 people, Cho Seung-Hui, had been taking psychiatric drugs.
New York Slimes reported, “officials said prescription medications related to the treatment of psychological problems had been found among Mr. Cho's effects,” His roommate, Joseph Aust, told the Richmond Times-Dispatch that Cho's routine each morning had included taking prescription drugs.
60-year-old Donald Schnell murdered his wife, daughter and granddaughter in a fit of rage shortly after starting on Paxil. GlaxoSmithKline was ordered to pay $6.4 million to the family .
Eli Lilly fought scores of legal claims against Prozac in this way, settling for cash before the complaint could go to court while stipulating that the settlement remain secret... and then claiming it had never lost a Prozac lawsuit.
So what meds was Lanza on ? We know he was being treated for mental issues ;and we know that he went over the edge when he found out his mom's plans to have him committed .Was he on meds ? Had he quit taking them ?
This issue ,which I believe is at the heart of many of these mass killings has been swept under the rug in our rush to knee jerk and demagogue about gun control.
Were all of these mass murderers taking their meds correctly, at the right times of day and at the correct dosages?
I had a bipolar grandmother and had POA for her bipolar son (my uncle). I've had clients with OCD or who were bipolar or had AHDH et al. They knocked themselves out looking for reasons not to take their meds. Compliant is not something that mentally ill people want to be.
I have not looked into that too closely yet. But ,I know that other factors could include withdrawal ,improper prescription ,and improper dosage levels . When you look at the lit . There is more information on suicidal tendencies .I suspect the Pharmaceutical Companies would be reluctant to admit to homicidal side effects.
Those are written into side effects. Heck, just listen to the pharma TV ads! The cure is worse than the disease.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Dosages have to be closely monitored and adjusted from time to time. That may not be done, depending on a patient's self report. In the days of mental institutions, Nurse Ratched could watch a patient take his meds and make sure he swallowed the pill. No one does that any longer. The mentally ill are their own caretakers. And now they too have rights.
Tom you have put forward a very good case to abrogate the Constitutional right of the medicated to own or possess weapons of any kind. To enforce it so they are denied access you will have to remove the right of family members in the same household to own or possess weapons. You therefore have a great difficulty because now you need a medical register linked to a gun register and regulation to enforce it. You see that this situation wasn't anticipated by your all seeing founders, and so you need another amendment. I wonder if Joe will recommend that as part of his suite of measures. It would be easier to recind the second amendment
Yeah ,they didn't anticipate the wussification of the nation . A nation that handcuffs itself with political correctness which results in the mentally ill being denied care .Quote:
You see that this situation wasn't anticipated by your all seeing founders
I agree regarding the wussification of the nation but it is a wassification to deal with real issues not manufactured ones. The mentally ill represent a small proportion of the population but a high percentage of offenders in various crimes, that you fail to care for them and provide appropriate accommodation, etc, is shamefull but an indication of the me society which you have become. There are real issues you are not dealing with mental illness, drugs, imprisonment, but I notice one thing, the prison population aren't to blame for recent massacres, seriously; you are locking up the wrong people, you need to get the thought police in full operation so you can single out these potential offenders. Their profiles are known, and you can take a leaf out of Hitler's book and eliminate the threat, that way you can keep your guns in safety knowing you are free from potential offendersQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Tom. It is a wuss nation that feels it has to defend itsself from imaginary threats by arming itself to the teeth.
They didn't plan for well-regulated militias to be part of personal pleasure, nor did they understand or even know about mental illnessQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Let's take Adam Lanza and use him as an example. What would have been the best case scenario for him as per his mental illness?
Had his mom succeeded in institutionalizing him then he would've gotten proper monitored care ;and the children of Sandy Hook would be alive.
His mother was a nut who fed his paranoia, she should have been charged as an accessory, and rotted in prison, but unfortunately she too was a victim
Yeah let's regulate thoughts. Good idea.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:16 PM. |