So, does this analogy apply to your defending of the entire constitution or just the parts of it that apply to what you like?Quote:
Originally Posted by ThNozzleman
Printable View
So, does this analogy apply to your defending of the entire constitution or just the parts of it that apply to what you like?Quote:
Originally Posted by ThNozzleman
In the mid 1960's to early 1970's.. there was a revolution in mental health care.. and not a good one.
The liberals stated that it was unfair to "warehouse" people with mental illness, that they should be "mainstreamed" to beome a productve part of society....
The conservatives thought that the funding mental hospitals was becoming way too expensive....
So.... in the true "spirit" of bipartisanship, the mental hospitals, where those who resided there had their meds, 3 hots and a cot were were closed and the patients were released into society.... creating the homeless problem that now costs us millions of dollars in shelters, ER visits and such... far more than keeping the institutions open.
The closing of these institutions also made it far more difficult to get people help with their issues in the beginning stages as opposed to now, where a complete meltdown results in mass murder shootings, etc. etc. etc.
To reopen many of these mental hospitals will cost a small fortune as they need to be brought up to code in order to reopen.
My FD used to respond to all calls that are referred to as a "Section 12"; aka involuntary committal.
Our local hospital has a psych ward, but treatment options are limited due to the "bean counters".. once the beans are gone, the people a released back onto the street, where the cycle starts all over again. The PD responds with the ambulance now, we get sent if the patient is violent or threatening violence.
I'm open minded enough to grant you your right to have your narrow definition of what constitutes an assault rifle. I'm sure you'll grant me my right to believe the majority of people (most of whom don't own guns) don't care about your belief or definition. They just know they don't want to be on the wrong side of one regardless of whether it is selective fire or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by FyredUp
You too.Quote:
Originally Posted by FyredUp
For your enjoyment.
The Christmas Truce
Okay, if this doesn't make you chuckle, put a tag on your toe.
Excerpt:
Never been in combat. But I totally understand the black humor one might have in those circumstances.Quote:
The proximity of the enemies also allowed men to shout out to their opponents or stick up signs on wooden boards. After a particularly heavy barrage of missiles or bullets, the soldiers might shout out “Missed” or “Left a bit”. (1) This black humour was to be the start of a ‘conversation’ between troops that would hasten the onset of a Christmas truce.
Be safe out there Brother. We may not agree but it doesn't mean I don't wish the best for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by scfire86
Which is, by the 2nd Amendment, still a right that we posses.Quote:
Originally Posted by ThNozzleman
Funny how those that enjoy the 1st amendment without reserve are the first to bastardize the 2nd.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...ermit-holders/
Same here.Quote:
Originally Posted by FyredUp
I think this thread has run its course.
Not a popular one, but look at the ethnic / cultural makeup of those nations with lower violence rates, typically they are a fair bit more homogeneous. In most cases when you mix up different ethnicities / cultures in close proximity you tend to find an increase in violence. The US has one of the most mixed up jumbles of ethnicity / culture in the world, in fact we take pride in it with terms like "the melting pot."Quote:
Originally Posted by scfire86
Sadly people just don't seem to be able to get along with people who are different than them.
So if you want to make comparisons don't look at semi socialist nations where the majority come from the same background. They have taken care of many of the social ills behind mass killings (better care of their poor and mentally ill) and don't have nearly as many people with different thoughts.
They are not free of this kind of thing either, look at the guy in Scandanavia early this year (or was it late last year), dozens of people killed, mostly children in a nation with quite strict gun control compared to the US.
Something is going on beyond gun ownership. Focusing on a narrow group of guns will not solve anything if it doesn't take the social issues into account.
For one thing most politicians don't know enough about guns to make any meaningful guns laws, but mostly as you said yourself, the people being shot at don't care if it is a .22 long rifle, a 5.56mm "assault rifle" or a .30-30 deer rifle. They are mostly concerned that they are being shot at and would dearly like it to stop. Banning all guns is not even an option, and short of a complete ban, no ugly gun law will keep guns away from crazies. So the best thing would be looking to the causes because its not the guns, it is the crazy people who are getting guns. Most gun owners are pretty willing to discuss means to limit crazies from getting guns, they just don't want to have their rights infringed in the name of making it harder for crazies to get guns, particularly when it is already supposed to be difficult for them to do so under existing law.
God Bless the children, the adults, and the families and friends of those that were murdered. Christmas for all involved, is now a nightmare.
I for one, am against any kind of gun control. Whether it be the type of weapon, or how many rounds it holds in the mag. It really doesn't matter. What matters is, is two fold....
1. Mental health facilities have been being shut down from the local level to the State level for the last 10 or more years. Even the private facilities have had to shut down because of no private or public funding's. This is bad, really bad. If they can't be housed and medicated, then they are out there, running in the streets.
2. The media... probably tied to number 1. Everybody wants their 15 minutes of fame. How do you do that?? Get mad at your teacher, parent, sibling, the bully that beats you up, etc. Go on a shooting spree, and shoot the most innocent victims you can. While the media doesn't try to glorify the F*Tard, it does.
How to fix it, is extremely complicated. One way to do it, or a good start, would be to drug test all those on welfare. Have them tested twice a month for drugs, unannounced. You have 24 hours to be at location Z for a drug screening. If you fail, your dropped from welfare. Then take that money and re-institute it to a national mental health care system. If Obama-Care was so perfect, then this wouldn't be an issue.
I don't have an answer or solution to the mass killings of civilians or innocent people. If I did, I'd run for office. But I do know, regulating guns, weapons, what have you, is NOT going to eliminate the problem.
Hope you all had a very, Merry Christmas with your families.
FM1
How anyone could support stricter gun control laws from the same government who willingly allowed countless numbers of ACTUAL assault weapons to fall into the hands of Mexican drug cartels I will never know.
And why do I need "wanna be GI Joe guns" you say? Because I said so. Unless I do something illegal with them that is all the answer you need.
It is funny, in a sad hypocritical way, how some people want to curtail our legal activity, but would go insane and crap a circle around themselves if we tried to take away their legal hobby or possessions.Quote:
Originally Posted by GTRider245
My "hobbies" are not used for mass murder.
Other countries have all the same things you describe in addition to playing violent video games without having their citizens go on mass murder rampages.Quote:
Originally Posted by FIREMECH1
Not relevant to the topic of the mentally ill shooting up a group of 6 y/o's.Quote:
Originally Posted by GTRider245
Not a good reason to own something that is so potentially deadly. I could say that about any number of things I would like to play with.Quote:
Originally Posted by GTRider245
MY HOBBY, practiced by me, does not involve mass murder. Neither does the hobby or sport of shooting done by millions every year. Inanimate objects are incapable of any action on their own. The actions of criminals and the mentally ill are not the norm by any standard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bones42
I would suggest that smoking is a far more dangerous activity carried out by people every day. especially when you add in an average of 49,400 innocent victims fall prey to second hand smoke every year. Even vehicle accidents killed more. Maybe we should ban cigarettes and cars...and since alcohol killed over 10,000 maybe we should ban that too. Frankly, I couldn't care less if they banned all use of tobacco, and I drink so little and so infrequently that I wouldn't miss alcohol either. HELL's YEAH!! BAN THEM BOTH!! Together they kill about 15 times more than guns do!!
Gun deaths 2011 31, 347
Drunk driving deaths in 2010 10, 228
Smoking related deaths per year average 443,000 with 49,400 dying from second hand smoke
Vehicle accidents in 2010 was 32,367
Now the media thinks they are exempt from the law when it comes to finding ways to prove the evils of the gun.
What's the odds they come out with a statement about their 1st amendment rights?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...ntcmp=trending
I've always been of the opinion that statistics for gun violence should be seperated to show how many where by legally-owned firearms and how many were not. But, I'm sure that'd paint a totally different picture.Quote:
Originally Posted by FyredUp
There are significant restrictions to the 1st Amendment. Try running through an airport yelling, "I'VE GOT A BOMB!" and then tell us if nothing happens.Quote:
Originally Posted by SPFDRum
That's not a good analogy unless you are advocating for tighter gun restrictions.
It's a great analogy, as it was a news story being sensationalized for a bias agenda. I stated in my thread: "Now the media thinks they are exempt from the law when it comes to finding ways to prove the evils of the gun. What's the odds they come out with a statement about their 1st amendment rights? "Quote:
Originally Posted by scfire86
That statement is a relevant, focused point all within the context the story. To add , alter, or embellish my statement to fit one's personal agenda is at best, disingenuous.
Sorry Sir Spam-a-lot, but I didn't mention other Nations. If I would have, it would have embarrassed both of us. Especially when it comes treating those with mental illnesses. I could go on, but I would make you look pretty foolish.Quote:
Originally Posted by scfire86
FM1