RE: Psychos Can Now Have Guns!

RE: Psychos Can Now Have Guns! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

joether -> RE: Psychos Can Now Have Guns! (12/21/2014 5:26:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr I KNEW that would be your response! Wouldn't W.I.C. fall under the right of "life"? Actually it falls under the heading 'a bill voted into law by Congress'. quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr Wouldn't Obummercare fall under the "right" to health care (promote the general welfare) that so many lefties bitched about, when we finally found out what was in the bill? I don't recognize 'Obummercare'? Could you provide the H.R. number and year? The Affordable Care Act, passed in 2010 was a bill that was voted into law by Congress. quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr Wouldn't the right to live indoors and in a neighborhood where as much as possible was being done to stomp out crime (H.U.D.) constitute "the pursuit of happiness"? The "United States Department of Housing and Urban Development" is an executive branch cabinet created in 1965. 1965-2014. That would imply all those 'conservative' Republican Presidents were 'ok' with it too.... The 'HUD' doesn't handle law enforcement of crimes; that would be the Justice Department..... quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr Building on my last point, isn't Fanny/Freddy/Sallie Mae part of that right to live indoors? Your last 'point' was 'uninformed bullshit'. Your 'ok' with US Citizens living outside without shelter, basic necessities (clothing, food, medicine), and protections? Perhaps we should....seriously....examine your loyalty as a US Citizen..... quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr I did just a touch of research. No, you did NO RESEARCH! The whole 'HUD' thing shows that.... quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr We also fund the NAACP with federal grants. Ditto, the SPLC. We used to fund ACORN. Perhaps you can show this 'research' of the NAACP from a non-conservative oriented site. I find many of those conservative-sites are loose with facts, short on evidence, and questionable methods of research. Along with the SPLC, and ACORN. Thank you in advance.... quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr Like it or not, we fund lots of "rights" and lots of special interest groups. $3.1 Trillion funds lots of "rights"; to bad we have too many people in this nation (like you) who remain uneducated on the reality. That you are not a dictator will come as a strong surprise to you, but the rest of us already know that! That there is this concept called 'compromising' done on the bill (a word not in your vocabulary) to reach that total. And that it funds everything from toilet paper to nuclear powered aircraft carriers. And those 'evil, evil, evil' special interest groups like the NRA, right? Gosh, why do we have special interest groups? Have you ever tried to answer that one on your own? 'No' is the answer. Well, a special interest group is one that has a specific viewpoint on one or more issues within the US Government. Comprised of....US CITIZENS....whom work towards one or more agendas that benefits other Americans whom cant focus their time, energies, or resources to handling that issue on a daily basis. Now, your welcome to be pissy towards one or more, and that's your right under the 1st; however, they have just as much right to voice their opinion under the 1st. Are special interest groups evil? Better question: Are the actions of any of these special interest groups helping to make the nation a better country? One that takes care of its citizens in a host of different ways (from utilities, to medicines, to nation defense)? That anyone person could view one, some, most, or even all special interest groups with disdain, they have a purpose within the nation. Your free to create your own special interest group at any time, and convince people (legit or not) to follow your cause. Unlike you, I have disagreements with special interest groups, but realize they have a 1st amendment right the same as myself.

DaddySatyr -> RE: Psychos Can Now Have Guns! (12/21/2014 5:38:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: joether 'Society Security' is a welfare program. This "Society Security" welfare program of which you speak exists only in your imagination, joether. Social Security is a mandatory pay-to-play retirement program. K. Also, while it is a "welfare" program in that it takes care of people, one doesn't file social security paperwork at the welfare office (although the two departments may share office space in the same building). Michael

joether -> RE: Psychos Can Now Have Guns! (12/21/2014 5:42:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: joether 'Society Security' is a welfare program. This "Society Security" welfare program of which you speak exists only in your imagination, joether. Social Security is a mandatory pay-to-play retirement program. No it is not. Its a federal program designed to keep the least financial of US Citizens whom have reached retirement age, from being put on the street because they cant pay bills due to lack of work from a well established (and medically observed process) called 'aging'. HOWEVER, our form of government limits us to applying this concept (like the ACA) to all Americans. Even those whom have a few million squirreled away in a variety of accounts, systems, and locations. The dollars your putting in, are not the same dollars your getting out, years later. Its like your federal income taxes, except the money 'coming back' is not directly to you depending on your situation. Its not 'mandatory' to pay into Social Security. There is nothing on the books that says "YOU HAVE TO PAY" (go ahead, look it up in the original bill, or the many revisions since). There is however, a penalty for not paying the correct amount of Social Security. As long as you don't get catch, you don't have to pay! That is whats called 'US Law 101'. I'm not the one who thought this stuff up, nor the one who wrote the laws of this land this way. I'd prefer we just make it mandatory, but we can't do that, without screwing up many other parts of our country (not to mention the US Constitution...). And I'm not going to even go into that, because its a whole other 'can of worms'. I would recommend paying the billed amount owed. Save yourself alot of 'pain and suffering'.

joether -> RE: Psychos Can Now Have Guns! (12/21/2014 5:45:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: joether 'Society Security' is a welfare program. This "Society Security" welfare program of which you speak exists only in your imagination, joether. Social Security is a mandatory pay-to-play retirement program. Also, while it is a "welfare" program in that it takes care of people, one doesn't file social security paperwork at the welfare office (although the two departments may share office space in the same building). And we don't file criminal complaints (that send people to prison) with the FBI branch office local to us, but instead to the local justice department (which can be in the same building). Can we get back to the original topic now?

eulero83 -> RE: Psychos Can Now Have Guns! (12/21/2014 6:08:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 I side with the gun nuts on this, this man went through a screening process in order to be proven fit for gun ownership. Which process is that? Explain it to me in detail..... I don't know what proof were produced in court and I honestly don't care, but I suppose this man is no more a psycho, I'm just not the kind of person that consider people with problems broken and to be trown in the trash. Said that I'd be more concerned about all the psychos undetected by the system.

ThirdWheelWanted -> RE: Psychos Can Now Have Guns! (12/21/2014 6:57:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted Bet if all the Welfare offices were suddenly defunded, and there was no place to file that paperwork, we'd hear a very different story. You really don't understand what your babbling about. Since 'Society Security' is a welfare program. I would imagine there be....PLENTY....of senior citizens....EXTREMELY PISSED....at which ever group of idiots thought your idea was intelligent..... ....and remove them from office. Same with other welfare type programs. That you are gleeful to add more pain and suffering to people already going through much in the way of pain and suffering. Not just financially either. The majority of individuals on some kind of assistance, is not 'a welfare queen', 'deadbeat dad' or 'crook'. Most are individuals that for numerous reasons, find themselves in dire straits. These people vote too. In retaliation, these people will figure out what you don't want cut out of the budge, and remove it. An when you bitch about it; they'll point out that you fired the first salvo. And did it without consideration or thought. Funny, I don't recall saying any such thing, but keep on ranting. Might want to wipe the foam off your keyboard first though.

ThirdWheelWanted -> RE: Psychos Can Now Have Guns! (12/21/2014 7:01:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 I side with the gun nuts on this, this man went through a screening process in order to be proven fit for gun ownership. Which process is that? Explain it to me in detail..... I don't know what proof were produced in court and I honestly don't care, but I suppose this man is no more a psycho, I'm just not the kind of person that consider people with problems broken and to be trown in the trash. Said that I'd be more concerned about all the psychos undetected by the system. No, no, the mentally ill must be protected, they can't be allowed to become disenfranchised, they must be treated with respect and dignity, and their rights guarded. Unless the right happens to involve guns, then fuck 'em. Right Joether?

Lucylastic -> RE: Psychos Can Now Have Guns! (12/21/2014 7:08:30 AM)
The mentally ill AREN'T Protected. They ARE ALREADY VERY disenfranchised, THey are treated like SHIT by joe public, And they end up in jail instead of mental health facilities, when they become unstable and their rights are trampled on daily. where is your post reality?

ThirdWheelWanted -> RE: Psychos Can Now Have Guns! (12/21/2014 7:12:58 AM)
And we have a bunch of posters here who seem to think it's ok to further fuck with someone who was mentally ill for a short time almost 30 years, but it's ok because it's about GUNS. It's hysterical watching the very people who would normally be championing this man's rights, instead trampling on them because they don't like the right he's choosing to try to win back.

BamaD -> RE: Psychos Can Now Have Guns! (12/21/2014 10:32:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted And we have a bunch of posters here who seem to think it's ok to further fuck with someone who was mentally ill for a short time almost 30 years, but it's ok because it's about GUNS. It's hysterical watching the very people who would normally be championing this man's rights, instead trampling on them because they don't like the right he's choosing to try to win back. Some have even argued that it is a violation of their privacy rights to put current mental health information in the background checks but now say that it isn't a violation of any right to use a cured condition to stop a gun purchase. I wouldn't be surprised if he had argued that they violated his privacy rights by including it in the first place that some of them would be on his side.

BamaD -> RE: Psychos Can Now Have Guns! (12/21/2014 10:35:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: joether 'Society Security' is a welfare program. This "Society Security" welfare program of which you speak exists only in your imagination, joether. Social Security is a mandatory pay-to-play retirement program. Also, while it is a "welfare" program in that it takes care of people, one doesn't file social security paperwork at the welfare office (although the two departments may share office space in the same building). And we don't file criminal complaints (that send people to prison) with the FBI branch office local to us, but instead to the local justice department (which can be in the same building). Can we get back to the original topic now? And if there is no local justice department? That is what is needed to make your analogy at all accurate Ok back to the topic, why did you distort the ruling, lack of comprehension or malice.

Aylee -> RE: Psychos Can Now Have Guns! (12/21/2014 1:04:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: joether 'Society Security' is a welfare program. This "Society Security" welfare program of which you speak exists only in your imagination, joether. Social Security is a mandatory pay-to-play retirement program. Also, while it is a "welfare" program in that it takes care of people, one doesn't file social security paperwork at the welfare office (although the two departments may share office space in the same building). And we don't file criminal complaints (that send people to prison) with the FBI branch office local to us, but instead to the local justice department (which can be in the same building). Can we get back to the original topic now? And if there is no local justice department? That is what is needed to make your analogy at all accurate Ok back to the topic, why did you distort the ruling, lack of comprehension or malice. Oh come on now, wasn't your favorite comment from joether the reference to WIC being, "Actually it falls under the heading 'a bill voted into law by Congress'" Since this whole case is about a "bill voted into law by Congress," in 1992?

BamaD -> RE: Psychos Can Now Have Guns! (12/21/2014 1:25:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: joether 'Society Security' is a welfare program. This "Society Security" welfare program of which you speak exists only in your imagination, joether. Social Security is a mandatory pay-to-play retirement program. Also, while it is a "welfare" program in that it takes care of people, one doesn't file social security paperwork at the welfare office (although the two departments may share office space in the same building). And we don't file criminal complaints (that send people to prison) with the FBI branch office local to us, but instead to the local justice department (which can be in the same building). Can we get back to the original topic now? And if there is no local justice department? That is what is needed to make your analogy at all accurate Ok back to the topic, why did you distort the ruling, lack of comprehension or malice. Oh come on now, wasn't your favorite comment from joether the reference to WIC being, "Actually it falls under the heading 'a bill voted into law by Congress'" Since this whole case is about a "bill voted into law by Congress," in 1992? Actually my favorite quote from him is when he admitted that the people who wrote the second considered it a individual right but that his superior wisdom said we should move beyond that.

eulero83 -> RE: Psychos Can Now Have Guns! (12/21/2014 2:23:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 I side with the gun nuts on this, this man went through a screening process in order to be proven fit for gun ownership. Which process is that? Explain it to me in detail..... I don't know what proof were produced in court and I honestly don't care, but I suppose this man is no more a psycho, I'm just not the kind of person that consider people with problems broken and to be trown in the trash. Said that I'd be more concerned about all the psychos undetected by the system. No, no, the mentally ill must be protected, they can't be allowed to become disenfranchised, they must be treated with respect and dignity, and their rights guarded. Unless the right happens to involve guns, then fuck 'em. Right Joether? Can I point out that if he was still mentally ill he'd not got the gun back?

joether -> RE: Psychos Can Now Have Guns! (12/21/2014 2:47:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 I side with the gun nuts on this, this man went through a screening process in order to be proven fit for gun ownership. Which process is that? Explain it to me in detail..... I don't know what proof were produced in court and I honestly don't care, but I suppose this man is no more a psycho, I'm just not the kind of person that consider people with problems broken and to be trown in the trash. Said that I'd be more concerned about all the psychos undetected by the system. People throw the word 'psycho' around without REALLY understanding the definition of the word in medical terms. I never called this guy a psycho directly. His mental/emotional level/state is unknown to myself. Nor would I give a long distance diagnosis without meeting the individual at length on a few sessions. The title of the threat is the logical step process that this court case allows. That I feel mentally and emotionally unstable individuals should be barred from firearms, seems almost common sense; but there are those whom religious defend concepts without stopping and considering the ramifications. Should we simply throw our hands up and not do anything towards keeping the mentally/emotionally unstable (that we are aware of) from obtaining firearms, because we are not aware of those whom suffer without knowing they could get treatment?

BamaD -> RE: Psychos Can Now Have Guns! (12/21/2014 2:49:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 quote: ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 I side with the gun nuts on this, this man went through a screening process in order to be proven fit for gun ownership. Which process is that? Explain it to me in detail..... I don't know what proof were produced in court and I honestly don't care, but I suppose this man is no more a psycho, I'm just not the kind of person that consider people with problems broken and to be trown in the trash. Said that I'd be more concerned about all the psychos undetected by the system. No, no, the mentally ill must be protected, they can't be allowed to become disenfranchised, they must be treated with respect and dignity, and their rights guarded. Unless the right happens to involve guns, then fuck 'em. Right Joether? Can I point out that if he was still mentally ill he'd not got the gun back? Yes but that would be rational.

joether -> RE: Psychos Can Now Have Guns! (12/21/2014 2:50:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted Bet if all the Welfare offices were suddenly defunded, and there was no place to file that paperwork, we'd hear a very different story. You really don't understand what your babbling about. Since 'Society Security' is a welfare program. I would imagine there be....PLENTY....of senior citizens....EXTREMELY PISSED....at which ever group of idiots thought your idea was intelligent..... ....and remove them from office. Same with other welfare type programs. That you are gleeful to add more pain and suffering to people already going through much in the way of pain and suffering. Not just financially either. The majority of individuals on some kind of assistance, is not 'a welfare queen', 'deadbeat dad' or 'crook'. Most are individuals that for numerous reasons, find themselves in dire straits. These people vote too. In retaliation, these people will figure out what you don't want cut out of the budge, and remove it. An when you bitch about it; they'll point out that you fired the first salvo. And did it without consideration or thought. Funny, I don't recall saying any such thing, but keep on ranting. Might want to wipe the foam off your keyboard first though. You really dont recall stating the following: Bet if all the Welfare offices were suddenly defunded, and there was no place to file that paperwork, we'd hear a very different story. Your the one that posted it. Perhaps you should get back to reality before attacking someone else....

BamaD -> RE: Psychos Can Now Have Guns! (12/21/2014 3:01:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 I side with the gun nuts on this, this man went through a screening process in order to be proven fit for gun ownership. Which process is that? Explain it to me in detail..... I don't know what proof were produced in court and I honestly don't care, but I suppose this man is no more a psycho, I'm just not the kind of person that consider people with problems broken and to be trown in the trash. Said that I'd be more concerned about all the psychos undetected by the system. People throw the word 'psycho' around without REALLY understanding the definition of the word in medical terms. I never called this guy a psycho directly. His mental/emotional level/state is unknown to myself. Nor would I give a long distance diagnosis without meeting the individual at length on a few sessions. The title of the threat is the logical step process that this court case allows. That I feel mentally and emotionally unstable individuals should be barred from firearms, seems almost common sense; but there are those whom religious defend concepts without stopping and considering the ramifications. Should we simply throw our hands up and not do anything towards keeping the mentally/emotionally unstable (that we are aware of) from obtaining firearms, because we are not aware of those whom suffer without knowing they could get treatment? You have never said how you would do this. It sounds good but how do you implement it. It smacks of guilty until proven innocent. It sounds like you are now going for making everyone who wants to buy a firearm to undergo evaluation, who is going to pay for that? It would add several hundred dollars to the price of a firearm, are they repaid when they "prove" they are sane? Do you send them to shrinks predisposed to disqualify everyone so they "never make a mistake". Perhaps one who thinks that wanting a firearm is proof of instability. We currently have a system that tries to keep guns out of the hands of the dangerously unstable. But it also allows the opportunity to demonstrate that the disqualifying factor is no longer valid, like the people who show a false positive for a felony conviction. This case WAS NOT about allowing unstable people to have firearms but to allow them to demonstrate that the disqualifying factor was no longer valid. You grossly distorted that in the op. You also implied that allowing him to disprove the disqualifying factor somehow opened the floodgates for unstable people to own firearms.

joether -> RE: Psychos Can Now Have Guns! (12/21/2014 3:08:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 quote: ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 I side with the gun nuts on this, this man went through a screening process in order to be proven fit for gun ownership. Which process is that? Explain it to me in detail..... I don't know what proof were produced in court and I honestly don't care, but I suppose this man is no more a psycho, I'm just not the kind of person that consider people with problems broken and to be trown in the trash. Said that I'd be more concerned about all the psychos undetected by the system. No, no, the mentally ill must be protected, they can't be allowed to become disenfranchised, they must be treated with respect and dignity, and their rights guarded. Unless the right happens to involve guns, then fuck 'em. Right Joether? Can I point out that if he was still mentally ill he'd not got the gun back? How do we determine mental/emotional illness with 100% certainty again? Oh that's right.....we dont....because there is no technology or convenient process of determining if someone is in full control of their minds. While we have numerous people of more skill and education that can help determine things; even they will point out its hard to prediction someone suddenly breaking lose due to a triggering moment or event. Would you like that person's mental/emotional stability breaking down without knowing the triggering effect/event to be armed, and suddenly consider you hostile? So the man has a firearm and due to some triggering event, goes ballistic. Anyone that signed off on him being 'ok', will be placed under a microscope of scrutiny. Grant the man is 73 years old, and there are considerations for how long he might live for. What is the chance this man lands himself in trouble with the law due to the firearm before he passes on? Would those same professionals sign off and place their careers/livelihoods at risk on a 33 year old in good physical health? Nope.....

BamaD -> RE: Psychos Can Now Have Guns! (12/21/2014 3:11:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 quote: ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 I side with the gun nuts on this, this man went through a screening process in order to be proven fit for gun ownership. Which process is that? Explain it to me in detail..... I don't know what proof were produced in court and I honestly don't care, but I suppose this man is no more a psycho, I'm just not the kind of person that consider people with problems broken and to be trown in the trash. Said that I'd be more concerned about all the psychos undetected by the system. No, no, the mentally ill must be protected, they can't be allowed to become disenfranchised, they must be treated with respect and dignity, and their rights guarded. Unless the right happens to involve guns, then fuck 'em. Right Joether? Can I point out that if he was still mentally ill he'd not got the gun back? How do we determine mental/emotional illness with 100% certainty again? Oh that's right.....we dont....because there is no technology or convenient process of determining if someone is in full control of their minds. While we have numerous people of more skill and education that can help determine things; even they will point out its hard to prediction someone suddenly breaking lose due to a triggering moment or event. Would you like that person's mental/emotional stability breaking down without knowing the triggering effect/event to be armed, and suddenly consider you hostile? So the man has a firearm and due to some triggering event, goes ballistic. Anyone that signed off on him being 'ok', will be placed under a microscope of scrutiny. Grant the man is 73 years old, and there are considerations for how long he might live for. What is the chance this man lands himself in trouble with the law due to the firearm before he passes on? Would those same professionals sign off and place their careers/livelihoods at risk on a 33 year old in good physical health? Nope..... So you want everyone who wants a firearm to be evaluated by a shrink who knows that if the person ever does anything wrong with the firearm his career is over. That means that you want a backdoor to banning private ownership.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875