quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
I think you need remedial english, you sure don't understand it.  For as little as you know about actual facts, you sure are telling everybody what they mean.
Individual protection for every american would be typical of the teabaggers fiscal irresponsible, unrealistic, unconstitutional, borrow and spend, bigger government ideology that they are trying to legislate.  That is the answer, and it answers the question.
And it ain't happening, them inept teabaggers down there in the house ain't done shit, can't do shit, and wont do shit except borrow and spend, and we have ample evidence in real life, in camera, and in situ, to demonstrate that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

That would be a teabagger...........yadda yadda yadda fill in the blank.

The government provides for the common defense as a founding principle.

Why in the world would one want individual defense?
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
That would be a teabagger...........yadda yadda yadda fill in the blank.
The government provides for the common defense as a founding principle.
Why in the world would one want individual defense?
So that Zimmerman could have blacks shot who are wearing hoodies that scare him?
So that Louis Farakhan could keep a perimeter of 1 mile of white people from him?
What earthly purpose would it provide?, and what the fuck would it look like in reality?, it is fuckin stupid.   

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

And they have the remedy, read the constitution,.........to provide for the common defense.   if they had said individual defense, we would have a different kettle of fish, but as it stands they did not envision a hatfields and mccoys nor a Zimmerman and Farakhan america.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
And they have the remedy, read the constitution,.........to provide for the common defense.   if they had said individual defense, we would have a different kettle of fish, but as it stands they did not envision a hatfields and mccoys nor a Zimmerman and Farakhan america.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

In a time when Cities, States and even the Federal Government are cutting personnel in Law Enforcement, it is indeed a valid question.

I live in a part of the county where the fastest response time for the Sheriff's department is 20 minutes. Last year, due to lack of funding, the Sheriff's office cut 25 deputies.

It is already being discussed to cut another 25.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
Now some Brain Dead Female senator wants to ban weapons, including pistols, because of the rare incident committed usually by people with a history of mental instability, and she is not proposing raising funds for the treatment of those individuals.

Her ban is going to cost tax payers to enforce it, cost gun owners to keep the guns grandfathered, and this is conceived as fair and equal treatment under the law.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
Rates right up there with the city and town ordinances limiting places a person can smoke in public.

And I thought Bush was bad with the patriot acts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

In a time when Cities, States and even the Federal Government are cutting personnel in Law Enforcement, it is indeed a valid question.

I live in a part of the county where the fastest response time for the Sheriff's department is 20 minutes. Last year, due to lack of funding, the Sheriff's office cut 25 deputies.

It is already being discussed to cut another 25.

My understanding of a 'deputy' was the person second-in-charge and able to take the reigns when the main man was not available??
In most cases a deputy would be on a higher salary than those in the normal ranks because of the responsibility.

So why oh why do they have soo many 'deputys'??
You only need 1 main man and 1 deputy.
The rest can be normal ranked officers.

And the saving in the wages bill would help to pay for more officers on the street.
If there are more than the odd few deputy's it certainly does need streamlining.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
Now some Brain Dead Female senator wants to ban weapons, including pistols, because of the rare incident committed usually by people with a history of mental instability, and she is not proposing raising funds for the treatment of those individuals.

Her ban is going to cost tax payers to enforce it, cost gun owners to keep the guns grandfathered, and this is conceived as fair and equal treatment under the law.

Why would it cost any more to enforce one particular law than any other?
And it's because these 'incidents' are not so rare that many are screaming for more gun control.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
Rates right up there with the city and town ordinances limiting places a person can smoke in public.

And I thought Bush was bad with the patriot acts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
And they have the remedy, read the constitution,.........to provide for the common defense.   if they had said individual defense, we would have a different kettle of fish, but as it stands they did not envision a hatfields and mccoys nor a Zimmerman and Farakhan america.

So, the US Military stands in defense of each home? Whew. Next time I have scary looking Jehovah's Witnesses on my doorstep, I'll call up to the local Air Nat. Guard for a quick fly over and warning strafe. Got it. I'm sure they can scramble in time to bomb the living fuck out of any thieves trying to break in. I mean, I'm only less than 15 minute drive to their airstrip...

What is the difference, in your under-hood binary-ness, between security via the "common defence" and and individual security?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
And they have the remedy, read the constitution,.........to provide for the common defense.   if they had said individual defense, we would have a different kettle of fish, but as it stands they did not envision a hatfields and mccoys nor a Zimmerman and Farakhan america.

So, the US Military stands in defense of each home? Whew. Next time I have scary looking Jehovah's Witnesses on my doorstep, I'll call up to the local Air Nat. Guard for a quick fly over and warning strafe. Got it. I'm sure they can scramble in time to bomb the living fuck out of any thieves trying to break in. I mean, I'm only less than 15 minute drive to their airstrip...
What is the difference, in your under-hood binary-ness, between security via the "common defence" and and individual security?

The Oath taken when I went into service was "To Defend the Constitutation against all enemies foreign and domestic". I am not a fan of the Jehovah's Witnesses myself, but they are protected under the 1st Amendment which manypro gun ads claim is protected by the second. So let me see which side your statement puts you?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
And they have the remedy, read the constitution,.........to provide for the common defense.   if they had said individual defense, we would have a different kettle of fish, but as it stands they did not envision a hatfields and mccoys nor a Zimmerman and Farakhan america.

So, the US Military stands in defense of each home? Whew. Next time I have scary looking Jehovah's Witnesses on my doorstep, I'll call up to the local Air Nat. Guard for a quick fly over and warning strafe. Got it. I'm sure they can scramble in time to bomb the living fuck out of any thieves trying to break in. I mean, I'm only less than 15 minute drive to their airstrip...
What is the difference, in your under-hood binary-ness, between security via the "common defence" and and individual security?

The Oath taken when I went into service was "To Defend the Constitutation against all enemies foreign and domestic". I am not a fan of the Jehovah's Witnesses myself, but they are protected under the 1st Amendment which manypro gun ads claim is protected by the second. So let me see which side your statement puts you?

I'll be protected by the Stand Your Ground law. Normal JW's are fine, but it's the scary looking ones that make me fear for my life. And, since I did specify the JW's would be "scary looking," it wouldn't be because they are JW's, nor would it be any run-of-the-mill JW's.

And, in case you didn't catch the whole tone of my response to MN, I'd be on the sarcastic side.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

Again this sterotyping mentally ill as dangerous killers....I guess this is the new scapegoat for pro gun owners.....

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/12/17/1346201/are-people-with-mental-illnesses-more-prone-to-violence/?mobile=nc

http://www.care2.com/causes/actually-mentally-ill-people-are-more-likely-to-be-victims-of-violence.html

Saddly on the day the Senate Judiciary Committe rejected Feinstein, this happens......

http://news.yahoo.com/teen-performer-inaugural-events-fatally-shot-135859960.html

quote:

Myth: Greater attention and response to the telltale warning signs will allow us to identify would-be mass killers before they act.
Reality: While there are some common features in the profile of a mass murderer (depression, resentment, social isolation, tendency to blame others for their misfortunes, fascination with violence, and interest in weaponry), those characteristics are all fairly prevalent in the general population. Any attempt to predict would produce many false positives. Actually, the telltale warning signs come into clear focus only after the deadly deed.

Myth: Widening the availability of mental-health services and reducing the stigma associated with mental illness will allow unstable individuals to get the treatment they need.
Reality: With their tendency to externalize blame and see themselves as victims of mistreatment, mass murderers perceive the problem to be in others, not themselves. They would generally resist attempts to encourage them to seek help. And, besides, our constant references to mass murderers as “wackos” or “sickos” don’t do much to destigmatize the mentally ill.

Myth: Increasing security in schools and other places will deter mass murder.
Reality: Most security measures will serve only as a minor inconvenience for those who are dead set on mass murder. If anything, excessive security and a fortress-like environment serve as a constant reminder of danger and vulnerability.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

You are correct, most mass shooters are not "mentally ill" as one would diagnose them, but there are some warning signs in the majority of mass shooters that may give them away.