The damage done by the occasional nutcake with a gun ain't nothin'
compared to the daily deaths and injuries caused by cell phone
distracted drivers.

http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafet...ing/index.html

On 12/15/2012 10:57 AM, Harvey Specter wrote:

The damage done by the occasional nutcake with a gun ain't nothin'
compared to the daily deaths and injuries caused by cell phone
distracted drivers.

http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafet...ing/index.html

Taking your reasoning to it's logical conclusion, you also believe that
we should abolish our entire system of laws, courts, prisons, etc.
because all the criminals "ain't nothin'" compared to majority of
citizens who are law abiding. Sorry, a wrong behavior doesn't justify
(much less relate) to a bad policy that addresses a different behavior.

"Peter" wrote in message
...
On 12/15/2012 10:57 AM, Harvey Specter wrote:

The damage done by the occasional nutcake with a gun ain't nothin'
compared to the daily deaths and injuries caused by cell phone
distracted drivers.

http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafet...ing/index.html

Taking your reasoning to it's logical conclusion, you also believe that we
should abolish our entire system of laws, courts, prisons, etc. because
all the criminals "ain't nothin'" compared to majority of citizens who are
law abiding. Sorry, a wrong behavior doesn't justify (much less relate)
to a bad policy that addresses a different behavior.


So the question is.
According to you how do you address the "wrong behavior" of the CT shooter ?
Do you find a way to catch such people before they act out ?
Or do you try to take away guns from everyone else ??

On 12/15/2012 11:09 AM, Peter wrote:
On 12/15/2012 10:57 AM, Harvey Specter wrote:

The damage done by the occasional nutcake with a gun ain't nothin'
compared to the daily deaths and injuries caused by cell phone
distracted drivers.

http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafet...ing/index.html

Taking your reasoning to it's logical conclusion, you also believe that
we should abolish our entire system of laws, courts, prisons, etc.

I never suggested that. You have poor logic.

because all the criminals "ain't nothin'" compared to majority of
citizens who are law abiding. Sorry, a wrong behavior doesn't justify
(much less relate) to a bad policy that addresses a different behavior.

It doesn't matter if you're the dead victim of an inattentive driver
using a cell phone or a whackjob with a gun, you're still dead.

In fact, we all are many times more likely to be killed by a cell phone
texter than we are by a nutcake with a gun.

Hang up and drive!

"Harvey Specter" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 12/15/2012 11:09 AM, Peter wrote:
On 12/15/2012 10:57 AM, Harvey Specter wrote:

The damage done by the occasional nutcake with a gun ain't nothin'
compared to the daily deaths and injuries caused by cell phone
distracted drivers.

http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafet...ing/index.html

Taking your reasoning to it's logical conclusion, you also believe that
we should abolish our entire system of laws, courts, prisons, etc.

I never suggested that. You have poor logic.


Nah !
It's just a dishonest tactic of setting up a ridiculous strawman, used by
hoplophobes to cover the fact that they can't admit they lost the argument


because all the criminals "ain't nothin'" compared to majority of
citizens who are law abiding. Sorry, a wrong behavior doesn't justify
(much less relate) to a bad policy that addresses a different behavior.

It doesn't matter if you're the dead victim of an inattentive driver using
a cell phone or a whackjob with a gun, you're still dead.

In fact, we all are many times more likely to be killed by a cell phone
texter than we are by a nutcake with a gun.

Hang up and drive!

On 12/15/2012 11:27 AM, Attila Iskander wrote:

"Peter" wrote in message
...
On 12/15/2012 10:57 AM, Harvey Specter wrote:

The damage done by the occasional nutcake with a gun ain't
nothin' compared to the daily deaths and injuries caused by cell
phone distracted drivers.

http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafet...ing/index.html



Taking your reasoning to it's logical conclusion, you also believe
that we should abolish our entire system of laws, courts, prisons,
etc. because all the criminals "ain't nothin'" compared to
majority of citizens who are law abiding. Sorry, a wrong behavior
doesn't justify (much less relate) to a bad policy that addresses a
different behavior.


So the question is. According to you how do you address the "wrong
behavior" of the CT shooter ? Do you find a way to catch such people
before they act out ? Or do you try to take away guns from everyone
else ??


I expected to get flamed for my comment and will certainly attract more
flames for what follows. Just remember, all you who claim to believe in
our Constitution, that before you get vicious, accept that I'm simply
exercising my 1st Amendment right of free speech in what follows and I
have as much right to express my opinion as you do. My comments below
are not personal, mean, hateful, etc. Your disagreement with my
position will be more convincing if it is reasoned and dispassionate.

I personally believe that the Supreme Court misinterpreted the 2nd
Amendment (plenty of precedent for even this distinguished group of
humans to err) when they interpreted it to allow personal ownership when
the text of the Amendment describes "militia" in the context of arms.
Personally, I favor a policy that would disallow almost all personal
ownership of all firearms except under strict registration and
background checks for those in the most rural areas where dangerous
wildlife can routinely threaten local residents. ALL sales of firearms
should be accompanied by sufficient waiting periods to enable meaningful
background checks and registration. Let qualifying hunters and sport
shooters purchase and own firearms but be required to keep them secured
at their local police, sheriff, national guard bases, licensed target
shooting schools and galleries, hunting clubs etc. and check them in and
out for planned use.

As far as the argument that guns are needed in the home for personal
protection, all the crime statistics agree that firearms in the home are
brandished and fired more frequently in shooting accidents and in
moments of anger against family/friends than are used to successfully
thwart a criminal home invasion. It would take years to fully control
all the firearms currently "out there", but the savings in lost lives
will be worth the effort. Our current laws preclude ownership of
machine guns, bazookas, and nuclear weapons and seem to be doing a
pretty good job of minimizing their unauthorized availability, even by
the majority of the "bad guys". I realize that my vision is not
politically achievable at present, but I believe it is a worthwhile
objective. We're devolving into a social setting not far removed from
present day Afghanistan, Mali, and several other places in the world
where unregulated or insufficiently regulated firearms have become
ubiquitous.

Are you a US citizen? Do you live in the US?

What you are describing is a politician's power grab dream. If those regs
were implemented, we'd lose most of our freedoms in the USA, and crime would
skyrocket as criminals grew bolder. Criminals and politicians.

As for the stats on guns in the home, you have been reading the ones
manipulated by gun banneres. That stat of "42 times". I read in a magazine
years ago, the data for shootings included up to age 20, or some where
around there. Hardly what people think of "child shot in the home". And they
included gang shootings. For defense, they only considered assailant
killings. Neglecting the wounded, or no shots fired, or fired and missed.
The data is highly manipulated.

The rest of your writing is equally showing bias.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Peter" wrote in message
...

I expected to get flamed for my comment and will certainly attract more
flames for what follows. Just remember, all you who claim to believe in
our Constitution, that before you get vicious, accept that I'm simply
exercising my 1st Amendment right of free speech in what follows and I
have as much right to express my opinion as you do. My comments below
are not personal, mean, hateful, etc. Your disagreement with my
position will be more convincing if it is reasoned and dispassionate.

I personally believe that the Supreme Court misinterpreted the 2nd
Amendment (plenty of precedent for even this distinguished group of
humans to err) when they interpreted it to allow personal ownership when
the text of the Amendment describes "militia" in the context of arms.
Personally, I favor a policy that would disallow almost all personal
ownership of all firearms except under strict registration and
background checks for those in the most rural areas where dangerous
wildlife can routinely threaten local residents. ALL sales of firearms
should be accompanied by sufficient waiting periods to enable meaningful
background checks and registration. Let qualifying hunters and sport
shooters purchase and own firearms but be required to keep them secured
at their local police, sheriff, national guard bases, licensed target
shooting schools and galleries, hunting clubs etc. and check them in and
out for planned use.

As far as the argument that guns are needed in the home for personal
protection, all the crime statistics agree that firearms in the home are
brandished and fired more frequently in shooting accidents and in
moments of anger against family/friends than are used to successfully
thwart a criminal home invasion. It would take years to fully control
all the firearms currently "out there", but the savings in lost lives
will be worth the effort. Our current laws preclude ownership of
machine guns, bazookas, and nuclear weapons and seem to be doing a
pretty good job of minimizing their unauthorized availability, even by
the majority of the "bad guys". I realize that my vision is not
politically achievable at present, but I believe it is a worthwhile
objective. We're devolving into a social setting not far removed from
present day Afghanistan, Mali, and several other places in the world
where unregulated or insufficiently regulated firearms have become
ubiquitous.

"Harvey Specter" wrote in message
eb.com...

The damage done by the occasional nutcake with a gun ain't nothin'
compared to the daily deaths and injuries caused by cell phone distracted
drivers.

http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafet...ing/index.html

I actually like the distracted drivers, it's certainly an easy way to make
financial headway in this day.

I saw a driver crossing the white line on a 4 lane undivided highway. I
could see he was looking at his phone, either texting, checking email or
the sorts.

Decided to get along side him and ride, as I suspected he would do, he did.
He crossed over the line, sideswiping my vehicle, I steered into a field,
unbuckled me seatbelt, and rolled out onto the ground. This was almost 2
years ago. Today, I am $300K further ahead than I was then, and that's
after attorney fees.

Bought me a 1998 Mazda B400, and am cruising the highways looking for
another texting fool. Figure one more time, I will retire from this
business.

Just an aside: If you decide to do this, it's a good idea to pick on the
more expensive vehicles. That way, you know your chances are very good,
they have liability insurance.

"Peter" wrote in message
...
On 12/15/2012 1:40 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
Are you a US citizen? Do you live in the US?

Yes and yes; with a 30 year career in our armed forces.

What you are describing is a politician's power grab dream.

I feel you need to better study how our federal government is regulated
and organized if you truly believe that the only thing keeping politicians
from imposing dictatorial rule is their fear of firearms in the homes of
their constituents.

If those regs were implemented,

laws, not regs, and I acknowledged that no such law would be allowed to
stand in the current Supreme Court. However, at one time, slavery, denial
of the vote to women, prohibition of alcohol, and a separate but equal
education were all ruled by the Supreme Court of their time to be
Constitutional. Hopefully we evolve and grow more nuanced, sophisticated,
and civilized as time progresses.


The implementation of laws occurs through regulations
And the devil is in the details

And the US Suprement Court has recently issued TWO Clear judgements on the
2nd Amendment (Heller and MacDonald)
I would suggest that you go read those two BEFORE you continue to spout
your ignorant and biased cant.

A recent Federal Appeals Court judgement has also appeared that will most
likely end up under Supremen Court review


we'd lose most of our freedoms in the USA,

why and how? Your single shot derringer or even armory of semi-automatic
weapons is all that stands between our politicians and our citizen's loss
of freedom? How do you cope with that responsibility?

What responsibility are you babbling about .
And yes, history shows that disarming the population is ALWAYS the first
step to tyranny
And the disaming does NOT occur ususally in one big step
It's usually by small increments that are individually justifed and
therefore ignored
Look at the history of England in the last 120 years
The last step there was the consfiscation of handguns, justified by a school
shooting
What do you think the next step is going to be.
And by the way, this is the unintended consequence of that last step in
England.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html
How do gun-controllers like YOU "cope with that responsibility" ?
(The answer is that most go into complete denial about it.)







As for the stats on guns in the home, you have been reading the ones
manipulated by gun banneres.

That must be the New England Journal of Medicine, the Journal of Trauma,
the General Accounting Office, the U.S. Department of Justice, the CDC,
and National Safety Council just to name a few. If their charters,
mission statements, or other top level guidance includes an agenda to ban
guns, it would be news to them and news to me.

And yet quite a few of them have had their knuckles rapped SPECIFICALLY
BECAUSE they have posted biased material in favor of gun control.
If you are relying on "medical" research by Hemmenway. social research by
Kellerman, historical research by BellesIles, material sponsored directly or
indirectly by the Joyce Foundation, just to name a few, then you have in
effect been swallowing gun-control Kool-Aid.




The rest of your writing is equally showing bias.

I admitted my bias up front. I'm biased in favor of very strict gun
control. Are you implying that your reply is not biased in favor of the
status quo with respect to gun ownership and control?


I'm so sorry that you think that Journal of medicine and Journal of trauma
are somehow the best source of material with regards to gun control
But how is it that you claim to have read material from the CDC and yet seem
to be ignorant on their study about gun-control (NOT) reducing crime ?

Peter wrote in :


I personally believe that the Supreme Court misinterpreted the 2nd
Amendment (plenty of precedent for even this distinguished group of
humans to err) when they interpreted it to allow personal ownership when
the text of the Amendment describes "militia" in the context of arms.

That is because you don't understand either the nature or the purpose of the militia.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
-- George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution

Personally, I favor a policy that would disallow almost all personal
ownership of all firearms except under strict registration and
background checks for those in the most rural areas where dangerous
wildlife can routinely threaten local residents.

So you believe that people who live in *urban* areas where dangerous *criminals* can
routinely threaten local residents should be denied the same means of self-defense. Why?

"PV" edrnouser@ spam telus.net wrote in message
...
Stormin Mormon wrote:
Are you a US citizen? Do you live in the US?

What you are describing is a politician's power grab dream. If those
regs were implemented, we'd lose most of our freedoms in the USA, and
crime would skyrocket as criminals grew bolder. Criminals and
politicians.

snip

If you really believe your "freedoms" come from the end of gun then you
are a problem, not a solution.


Strawman noted

But I will point out that the US was in effect achieved first and foremost
"at the end of a gun" with armed resistance to the British.
(Didn't they teach you that in school ?)
The founders also STRONGLY believed that the ONLY way to retain those
freedoms, was to be able to defend them "at the end of a gun" if and when
necessary to do so.
And the US has been involved in saving other people "at the end of a gun"
during most of it's existence,
Sometimes rightly, sometimes not.
Sometimes successfully, sometimes not.
But always with the intent to help others

So would you like to ask that question again ?
Or do you need to go back and study history ?
Start with the revolt in Athens, Tennessee

"Andy" wrote in message
...

"Harvey Specter" wrote in message
eb.com...

The damage done by the occasional nutcake with a gun ain't nothin'
compared to the daily deaths and injuries caused by cell phone distracted
drivers.

http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafet...ing/index.html

I actually like the distracted drivers, it's certainly an easy way to make
financial headway in this day.

I saw a driver crossing the white line on a 4 lane undivided highway. I
could see he was looking at his phone, either texting, checking email or
the sorts.

Decided to get along side him and ride, as I suspected he would do, he
did. He crossed over the line, sideswiping my vehicle, I steered into a
field, unbuckled me seatbelt, and rolled out onto the ground. This was
almost 2 years ago. Today, I am $300K further ahead than I was then, and
that's after attorney fees.

Bought me a 1998 Mazda B400, and am cruising the highways looking for
another texting fool. Figure one more time, I will retire from this
business.

Just an aside: If you decide to do this, it's a good idea to pick on the
more expensive vehicles. That way, you know your chances are very good,
they have liability insurance.



LOL
If It's not true, it was funny
If it's true, then I'm glad you got out of it alive and richer.

I'm actually thinking of putting a dashcam in my car with cameras front and
back, if nothing else, I might be able to sell some of the crazy stuff I see
on the roads nearly daily.

Harvey Specter wrote:
On 12/15/2012 11:09 AM, Peter wrote:
On 12/15/2012 10:57 AM, Harvey Specter wrote:

The damage done by the occasional nutcake with a gun ain't nothin'
compared to the daily deaths and injuries caused by cell phone
distracted drivers.

http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafet...ing/index.html

Taking your reasoning to it's logical conclusion, you also believe that
we should abolish our entire system of laws, courts, prisons, etc.

I never suggested that. You have poor logic.

because all the criminals "ain't nothin'" compared to majority of
citizens who are law abiding. Sorry, a wrong behavior doesn't justify
(much less relate) to a bad policy that addresses a different behavior.

It doesn't matter if you're the dead victim of an inattentive driver
using a cell phone or a whackjob with a gun, you're still dead.

In fact, we all are many times more likely to be killed by a cell phone
texter than we are by a nutcake with a gun.

Hang up and drive!

Hi,
We have a law here banning cell phone use while driving. If caught using
it, the fine is $250.00 and if caught second time on the fine increases.
Still there are people yakking on the phone while driving.
Go figure! As a matter of fact I got almost rear ended yesterday morning
by a guy driving a PU truck on freeway in rush hour.
The driver was using one hand driving, yakking on the cell phone.

"Tony Hwang" wrote in message
...


Harvey Specter wrote:
On 12/15/2012 11:09 AM, Peter wrote:
On 12/15/2012 10:57 AM, Harvey Specter wrote:

The damage done by the occasional nutcake with a gun ain't nothin'
compared to the daily deaths and injuries caused by cell phone
distracted drivers.

http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafet...ing/index.html

Taking your reasoning to it's logical conclusion, you also believe that
we should abolish our entire system of laws, courts, prisons, etc.

I never suggested that. You have poor logic.

because all the criminals "ain't nothin'" compared to majority of
citizens who are law abiding. Sorry, a wrong behavior doesn't justify
(much less relate) to a bad policy that addresses a different behavior.

It doesn't matter if you're the dead victim of an inattentive driver
using a cell phone or a whackjob with a gun, you're still dead.

In fact, we all are many times more likely to be killed by a cell phone
texter than we are by a nutcake with a gun.

Hang up and drive!

Hi,
We have a law here banning cell phone use while driving. If caught using
it, the fine is $250.00 and if caught second time on the fine increases.
Still there are people yakking on the phone while driving.
Go figure! As a matter of fact I got almost rear ended yesterday morning
by a guy driving a PU truck on freeway in rush hour.
The driver was using one hand driving, yakking on the cell phone.

I brake for small animals. Too bad I wasn't in front of that PU truck.

On 12-15-2012 17:04, Attila Iskander wrote:
"Andy" wrote in message
I actually like the distracted drivers, it's certainly an easy way to
make financial headway in this day.

I saw a driver crossing the white line on a 4 lane undivided highway.
I could see he was looking at his phone, either texting, checking
email or the sorts.

Decided to get along side him and ride, as I suspected he would do, he
did. He crossed over the line, sideswiping my vehicle, I steered into
a field, unbuckled me seatbelt, and rolled out onto the ground. This
was almost 2 years ago. Today, I am $300K further ahead than I was
then, and that's after attorney fees.

Bought me a 1998 Mazda B400, and am cruising the highways looking for
another texting fool. Figure one more time, I will retire from this
business.

Just an aside: If you decide to do this, it's a good idea to pick on
the more expensive vehicles. That way, you know your chances are very
good, they have liability insurance.

LOL
If It's not true, it was funny
If it's true, then I'm glad you got out of it alive and richer.

If it's true, he'll soon be prosecuted for fraud.

Some __(censored)__ is almost certain to see to it that the confession
gets back to the other insurance company.

--
Wes Groleau

Nobody believes a theoretical analysis €” except the guy who did it.
Everybody believes an experimental analysis €” except the guy who did it.
€” Unknown

"Wes Groleau" wrote in message
...
On 12-15-2012 17:04, Attila Iskander wrote:
"Andy" wrote in message
I actually like the distracted drivers, it's certainly an easy way to
make financial headway in this day.

I saw a driver crossing the white line on a 4 lane undivided highway.
I could see he was looking at his phone, either texting, checking
email or the sorts.

Decided to get along side him and ride, as I suspected he would do, he
did. He crossed over the line, sideswiping my vehicle, I steered into
a field, unbuckled me seatbelt, and rolled out onto the ground. This
was almost 2 years ago. Today, I am $300K further ahead than I was
then, and that's after attorney fees.

Bought me a 1998 Mazda B400, and am cruising the highways looking for
another texting fool. Figure one more time, I will retire from this
business.

Just an aside: If you decide to do this, it's a good idea to pick on
the more expensive vehicles. That way, you know your chances are very
good, they have liability insurance.

LOL
If It's not true, it was funny
If it's true, then I'm glad you got out of it alive and richer.

If it's true, he'll soon be prosecuted for fraud.

Some __(censored)__ is almost certain to see to it that the confession
gets back to the other insurance company.

Fraud? How so? The idiot sideswiped me, it went to court. I was awarded a
bit over $300k plus expenses. There was no appeal. They were cited for
failure to maintain present lane, causing an accident.

More people need to hit the idiots in the pocket. Let them pay through the
nose for insurance.

In article , "Andy"
wrote:

"Harvey Specter" wrote in message
eb.com...

The damage done by the occasional nutcake with a gun ain't nothin'
compared to the daily deaths and injuries caused by cell phone distracted
drivers.

http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafet...ing/index.html

I actually like the distracted drivers, it's certainly an easy way to make
financial headway in this day.

I saw a driver crossing the white line on a 4 lane undivided highway. I
could see he was looking at his phone, either texting, checking email or
the sorts.

Decided to get along side him and ride, as I suspected he would do, he did.
He crossed over the line, sideswiping my vehicle, I steered into a field,
unbuckled me seatbelt, and rolled out onto the ground. This was almost 2
years ago. Today, I am $300K further ahead than I was then, and that's
after attorney fees.

Bought me a 1998 Mazda B400, and am cruising the highways looking for
another texting fool. Figure one more time, I will retire from this
business.

Just an aside: If you decide to do this, it's a good idea to pick on the
more expensive vehicles. That way, you know your chances are very good,
they have liability insurance.

So you're posting your confession and the details of your insurance
fraud on a public, world-wide forum? I guess it's true that a criminal's
mouth is his worst enemy.

Peter wrote:
On 12/15/2012 11:27 AM, Attila Iskander wrote:

"Peter" wrote in message
...
On 12/15/2012 10:57 AM, Harvey Specter wrote:

The damage done by the occasional nutcake with a gun ain't
nothin' compared to the daily deaths and injuries caused by cell
phone distracted drivers.

http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafet...ing/index.html



Taking your reasoning to it's logical conclusion, you also believe
that we should abolish our entire system of laws, courts, prisons,
etc. because all the criminals "ain't nothin'" compared to
majority of citizens who are law abiding. Sorry, a wrong behavior
doesn't justify (much less relate) to a bad policy that addresses a
different behavior.


So the question is. According to you how do you address the "wrong
behavior" of the CT shooter ? Do you find a way to catch such people
before they act out ? Or do you try to take away guns from everyone
else ??


I expected to get flamed for my comment and will certainly attract more
flames for what follows. Just remember, all you who claim to believe in
our Constitution, that before you get vicious, accept that I'm simply
exercising my 1st Amendment right of free speech in what follows and I
have as much right to express my opinion as you do. My comments below
are not personal, mean, hateful, etc. Your disagreement with my
position will be more convincing if it is reasoned and dispassionate.

I personally believe that the Supreme Court misinterpreted the 2nd
Amendment (plenty of precedent for even this distinguished group of
humans to err) when they interpreted it to allow personal ownership when
the text of the Amendment describes "militia" in the context of arms.
Personally, I favor a policy that would disallow almost all personal
ownership of all firearms except under strict registration and
background checks for those in the most rural areas where dangerous
wildlife can routinely threaten local residents. ALL sales of firearms
should be accompanied by sufficient waiting periods to enable meaningful
background checks and registration. Let qualifying hunters and sport
shooters purchase and own firearms but be required to keep them secured
at their local police, sheriff, national guard bases, licensed target
shooting schools and galleries, hunting clubs etc. and check them in and
out for planned use.

As far as the argument that guns are needed in the home for personal
protection, all the crime statistics agree that firearms in the home are
brandished and fired more frequently in shooting accidents and in
moments of anger against family/friends than are used to successfully
thwart a criminal home invasion. It would take years to fully control
all the firearms currently "out there", but the savings in lost lives
will be worth the effort. Our current laws preclude ownership of
machine guns, bazookas, and nuclear weapons and seem to be doing a
pretty good job of minimizing their unauthorized availability, even by
the majority of the "bad guys". I realize that my vision is not
politically achievable at present, but I believe it is a worthwhile
objective. We're devolving into a social setting not far removed from
present day Afghanistan, Mali, and several other places in the world
where unregulated or insufficiently regulated firearms have become
ubiquitous.
Hi,
Bravo! One sane forward thinking American. I wonder what the parents of
the victims would say about this opinion. Something ought to be done to
improve the current situation regarding fire arms. Sooner the better.

Various attributions

So the question is. According to you how do you address the "wrong
behavior" of the CT shooter ? Do you find a way to catch such people
before they act out ? Or do you try to take away guns from everyone
else ??

I doubt either would have much success. Nothing is working so far. We
should have taken away guns about 250 years ago if that was going to
be workable.





ALL sales of firearms
should be accompanied by sufficient waiting periods to enable meaningful
background checks and registration.

In this case, the crime occurred in a state with some of the strongest
gun laws.

Let qualifying hunters and sport
shooters purchase and own firearms but be required to keep them secured
at their local police, sheriff, national guard bases, licensed target
shooting schools and galleries, hunting clubs etc. and check them in and
out for planned use.

Sorry, too late by a couple of hundred years. The people that will
comply with such a law are the ones that do not have to do such a
thing. I agree that if the mother did not have the guns at home, this
may never have happened, but that is just speculation. if someone is
hell bent on destruction, other methods may have been used.



As far as the argument that guns are needed in the home for personal
protection, all the crime statistics agree that firearms in the home are
brandished and fired more frequently in shooting accidents and in
moments of anger against family/friends than are used to successfully
thwart a criminal home invasion.

Never checked, but this is probably correct.



It would take years to fully control
all the firearms currently "out there", but the savings in lost lives
will be worth the effort.

Hard to prove. It will take a couple of lifetimes to get most guns
off the street and will never be 100% effective.

Our current laws preclude ownership of
machine guns, bazookas, and nuclear weapons and seem to be doing a
pretty good job of minimizing their unauthorized availability, even by
the majority of the "bad guys".

How much do you think law have to do with it? If the laws did not
exist, would you have a bazooka? A nuke? Aircraft carrier? I think
the result is mostly due to the impracticality of owning some of those
weapons. I am not opposed, however, to having some restrictions on
clip size and automatic firings. Now some gun enthusiast may enjoy
firing a weapon like that at the range, hunting or home defense does
not need 90 round clips and the ability to shoot 100 rounds a minute.


I realize that my vision is not
politically achievable at present, but I believe it is a worthwhile
objective. We're devolving into a social setting not far removed from
present day Afghanistan, Mali, and several other places in the world
where unregulated or insufficiently regulated firearms have become
ubiquitous.

You seem to be correct about this. Shooting used to be rare, large
scale shooting used to be non existent. Many theories exist as to
why, but unless it can be pinpointed, it is not possible to correct
it. Is it the fact that the media covers it so much that copy cats
pop up? Do violent video games have an influence?


Hi,
Bravo! One sane forward thinking American. I wonder what the parents of
the victims would say about this opinion. Something ought to be done to
improve the current situation regarding fire arms. Sooner the better.

Sure, but what? We have plenty of gun laws on the books. They don't
seem to help all that much. Politicians seek opportunities like this
to get there name out there but what the propose and pass for laws is
of little value. They are just opportunist seeking reelection and job
security.

It would be nice if there was something as a simple mental health
screening too but that does not exist. Probably never will. Is there
a gene that all mass killers have in common? This is really more of
a mental health problem as to how it starts, the guns are just a means
to an end. If we take away guns, will this person build a bomb
instead?

On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 11:09:12 -0500, Peter wrote:

On 12/15/2012 10:57 AM, Harvey Specter wrote:

The damage done by the occasional nutcake with a gun ain't nothin'
compared to the daily deaths and injuries caused by cell phone
distracted drivers.


Banning cellphones would not affect me in any way. As far as I'm
concerned, they are just another annoyance in our lives. Hell, I used
to be able to leave the house to get away from the phone, now that damn
things follows me, (or did follow me until I turned it off). Once I
shut it off, my peace of mind returned. Since then, I only have a
prepaid cellphone that I keep in the car in case of emergencies. It
only gets turned on 2 or 3 times a month for a half hour or so. I'll
stick with my old landline and answering machine. There is no phone call
important enough that it cant wait till I playback my machine messages.
And if they banned cellphones, my old CB radio might get used again for
emergencies, and that was much more user friendly because I never had to
buy a costly card to use it.

On Dec 15, 1:29*pm, Peter wrote:
On 12/15/2012 11:27 AM, *Attila Iskander wrote:

"Peter" wrote in message
...
On 12/15/2012 10:57 AM, Harvey Specter wrote:

The damage done by the occasional nutcake with a gun ain't
nothin' compared to the daily deaths and injuries caused by cell
phone distracted drivers.

http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafet...ing/index.html

Taking your reasoning to it's logical conclusion, you also believe

that we should abolish our entire system of laws, courts, prisons,
*etc. because all the criminals "ain't nothin'" compared to
majority of citizens who are law abiding. *Sorry, a wrong behavior
doesn't justify (much less relate) to a bad policy that addresses a
different behavior.

So the question is. According to you how do you address the "wrong
behavior" of the CT shooter ? Do you find a way to catch such people
before they act out ? Or do you try to take away guns from everyone
else ??

I expected to get flamed for my comment and will certainly attract more
flames for what follows. *Just remember, all you who claim to believe in
our Constitution, that before you get vicious, accept that I'm simply
exercising my 1st Amendment right of free speech in what follows and I
have as much right to express my opinion as you do. *My comments below
are not personal, mean, hateful, etc. *Your disagreement with my
position will be more convincing if it is reasoned and dispassionate.

I personally believe that the Supreme Court misinterpreted the 2nd
Amendment (plenty of precedent for even this distinguished group of
humans to err) when they interpreted it to allow personal ownership when
the text of the Amendment describes "militia" in the context of arms.

The constitution doesn't give the "militia" the right to bear
arms. It gives the "citizens" the right. If they wanted to restrict
arms to the militia, it would have been very easy to just say
so. The Supreme Court agrees.




Personally, I favor a policy that would disallow almost all personal
ownership of all firearms except under strict registration and
background checks for those in the most rural areas where dangerous
wildlife can routinely threaten local residents. *ALL sales of firearms
should be accompanied by sufficient waiting periods to enable meaningful
background checks and registration. *Let qualifying hunters and sport
shooters purchase and own firearms but be required to keep them secured
at their local police, sheriff, national guard bases, licensed target
shooting schools and galleries, hunting clubs etc. and check them in and
out for planned use.

As far as the argument that guns are needed in the home for personal
protection, all the crime statistics agree that firearms in the home are
brandished and fired more frequently in shooting accidents and in
moments of anger against family/friends than are used to successfully
thwart a criminal home invasion.

To thwart a home invasion, perhaps. But guns are used legally,
by ordinary citizens hundreds of thousands of times a year to
prevent a variety of crimes.





*It would take years to fully control
all the firearms currently "out there", but the savings in lost lives
will be worth the effort.

Yes, just like it's taken 50 years to control illegal drugs.
How's that and all the death associated with it going?


*Our current laws preclude ownership of
machine guns, bazookas, and nuclear weapons and seem to be doing a
pretty good job of minimizing their unauthorized availability, even by
the majority of the "bad guys". *I realize that my vision is not
politically achievable at present, but I believe it is a worthwhile
objective. *We're devolving into a social setting not far removed from
present day Afghanistan, Mali, and several other places in the world
where unregulated or insufficiently regulated firearms have become
ubiquitous.

OK, I got it now. The problems in Afghanistan are due to guns.
Go figure.

On Dec 16, 8:42 am, "
wrote:

I'd like to add
The 2nd Amendment was written because of the atrocities committed
by the British government against the "colonials"....

And I will paraphrase '' ... because the government MUST maintain
an armed enforcement mechanism regulated by the government,
the citizens MUST have the right to hold weapons to stand against
any tyranny or atrocities performed by that government "

..... the Founders were well aware of the possibility that their
new government might well become something like that the
Britisyh had become, and didn't want it to happen...."

If you disagree with this post, you can go **** yourself !!!

Robert

"Tony Hwang" wrote in message
...


Peter wrote:
On 12/15/2012 11:27 AM, Attila Iskander wrote:

"Peter" wrote in message
...
On 12/15/2012 10:57 AM, Harvey Specter wrote:

The damage done by the occasional nutcake with a gun ain't
nothin' compared to the daily deaths and injuries caused by cell
phone distracted drivers.

http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafet...ing/index.html



Taking your reasoning to it's logical conclusion, you also believe
that we should abolish our entire system of laws, courts, prisons,
etc. because all the criminals "ain't nothin'" compared to
majority of citizens who are law abiding. Sorry, a wrong behavior
doesn't justify (much less relate) to a bad policy that addresses a
different behavior.


So the question is. According to you how do you address the "wrong
behavior" of the CT shooter ? Do you find a way to catch such people
before they act out ? Or do you try to take away guns from everyone
else ??


I expected to get flamed for my comment and will certainly attract more
flames for what follows. Just remember, all you who claim to believe in
our Constitution, that before you get vicious, accept that I'm simply
exercising my 1st Amendment right of free speech in what follows and I
have as much right to express my opinion as you do. My comments below
are not personal, mean, hateful, etc. Your disagreement with my
position will be more convincing if it is reasoned and dispassionate.

I personally believe that the Supreme Court misinterpreted the 2nd
Amendment (plenty of precedent for even this distinguished group of
humans to err) when they interpreted it to allow personal ownership when
the text of the Amendment describes "militia" in the context of arms.
Personally, I favor a policy that would disallow almost all personal
ownership of all firearms except under strict registration and
background checks for those in the most rural areas where dangerous
wildlife can routinely threaten local residents. ALL sales of firearms
should be accompanied by sufficient waiting periods to enable meaningful
background checks and registration. Let qualifying hunters and sport
shooters purchase and own firearms but be required to keep them secured
at their local police, sheriff, national guard bases, licensed target
shooting schools and galleries, hunting clubs etc. and check them in and
out for planned use.

As far as the argument that guns are needed in the home for personal
protection, all the crime statistics agree that firearms in the home are
brandished and fired more frequently in shooting accidents and in
moments of anger against family/friends than are used to successfully
thwart a criminal home invasion. It would take years to fully control
all the firearms currently "out there", but the savings in lost lives
will be worth the effort. Our current laws preclude ownership of
machine guns, bazookas, and nuclear weapons and seem to be doing a
pretty good job of minimizing their unauthorized availability, even by
the majority of the "bad guys". I realize that my vision is not
politically achievable at present, but I believe it is a worthwhile
objective. We're devolving into a social setting not far removed from
present day Afghanistan, Mali, and several other places in the world
where unregulated or insufficiently regulated firearms have become
ubiquitous.
Hi,
Bravo! One sane forward thinking American. I wonder what the parents of
the victims would say about this opinion. Something ought to be done to
improve the current situation regarding fire arms. Sooner the better.


Too bad that all his "forward thinking" is based on false and biased studies
that have been debunked

And to answer your question as to what should be done
Take into consideration that school shooting came into fashion and became a
regular event RIGHT AFTER the Feds made schools into "Gun Free Zones"

So the proper solution is NOT to continue the trend and make schools into
jails, but to REVERSE the trend and do what the Israeli did in the face of
terrorists targeting their schools

They armed teachers, administrators, staff, parents and even older students
to protect the little ones.
In effect they turned their "Gun Free Zones" into "Armed Zones"
And guess what
The terrorist decided to go for easier, softer targets elsewhere..

Now I'm sure that's going to be a tough pill to swallow for the idiots who
work from the premise that guns are evil and cause evil things to happen
But maybe you need to look at the EVIDENCE instead of your bigotry for
answers.

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...
Various attributions

So the question is. According to you how do you address the "wrong
behavior" of the CT shooter ? Do you find a way to catch such people
before they act out ? Or do you try to take away guns from everyone
else ??

I doubt either would have much success. Nothing is working so far. We
should have taken away guns about 250 years ago if that was going to
be workable.



Funny how the gun (control) nuts ignore the ONE solution that has proven to
work






ALL sales of firearms
should be accompanied by sufficient waiting periods to enable
meaningful
background checks and registration.

In this case, the crime occurred in a state with some of the strongest
gun laws.



Well let's have more laws like the ones that didn't work till now
According to gun (control) nuts way of thinking sooner than later more laws
should work..


Let qualifying hunters and sport
shooters purchase and own firearms but be required to keep them secured
at their local police, sheriff, national guard bases, licensed target
shooting schools and galleries, hunting clubs etc. and check them in
and
out for planned use.

Sorry, too late by a couple of hundred years. The people that will
comply with such a law are the ones that do not have to do such a
thing. I agree that if the mother did not have the guns at home, this
may never have happened, but that is just speculation. if someone is
hell bent on destruction, other methods may have been used.



As far as the argument that guns are needed in the home for personal
protection, all the crime statistics agree that firearms in the home
are
brandished and fired more frequently in shooting accidents and in
moments of anger against family/friends than are used to successfully
thwart a criminal home invasion.

Never checked, but this is probably correct.


Actually FALSE
And the study that floated this nonsense (Kellerman) has been totally
bebunked, not only for it's bias, but it's completely flawed methodology
The same study showed that a deadbolt is even more apt to get you killed
than a gun in your home.
But the superficial ignorati still keep bringing up this nonsense.





It would take years to fully control
all the firearms currently "out there", but the savings in lost lives
will be worth the effort.

Hard to prove. It will take a couple of lifetimes to get most guns
off the street and will never be 100% effective.


Actually the opposite is much easier to prove
1) No country has EVER sucessfully implemented gun control
EVEN the most draconian and controlling dictatorships have failed to
limit black market guns
2) There are 2,500,000 DGUs annually.
Disarming the law-abiding will create AT LEAST 2,500,000 NEW victims
of crime annually
And you can be sure that there would be a bunch of homicides among
those 2,500,000 new crime victims


Our current laws preclude ownership of
machine guns, bazookas, and nuclear weapons and seem to be doing a
pretty good job of minimizing their unauthorized availability, even by
the majority of the "bad guys".

How much do you think law have to do with it? If the laws did not
exist, would you have a bazooka? A nuke? Aircraft carrier? I think
the result is mostly due to the impracticality of owning some of those
weapons. I am not opposed, however, to having some restrictions on
clip size and automatic firings. Now some gun enthusiast may enjoy
firing a weapon like that at the range, hunting or home defense does
not need 90 round clips and the ability to shoot 100 rounds a minute.


Machine guns, cannon, AND Bazookas can be owned legally under the 1934 NFA
All you have to do is go through the process and pay your $200 tax to
qualify to own one.
But since the 2nd Amendment is about personal arms, nuclear devices and
other WMDs are out.
There is no reason that someone can NOT own an Aircraft carrier.

As to your claim of what home defense may neeed or not need, you are in NO
POSITION to arbitrarily declare what is needed or not.
If your home is being assaulted by a violent gang of 10 or more people, and
such things have occurred in the past, large magazines (not clips) could
make the difference of your survival.




I realize that my vision is not
politically achievable at present, but I believe it is a worthwhile
objective. We're devolving into a social setting not far removed from
present day Afghanistan, Mali, and several other places in the world
where unregulated or insufficiently regulated firearms have become
ubiquitous.

You seem to be correct about this. Shooting used to be rare, large
scale shooting used to be non existent. Many theories exist as to
why, but unless it can be pinpointed, it is not possible to correct
it. Is it the fact that the media covers it so much that copy cats
pop up? Do violent video games have an influence?


They really got fashionabe in the 70s with the media exposure that came
with such events.
To many of these shooters, the media coverage isone of the prime motivators
School shooting ramped up after the Feds declared schools to be Gun Free
Zones
We can clearly that that being Gun Free Zones CLEARLY DOES NOT WORK
And yet, gun (control) nuts now want to make schools even MORE "Gun Free
Zones"




Hi,
Bravo! One sane forward thinking American. I wonder what the parents of
the victims would say about this opinion. Something ought to be done to
improve the current situation regarding fire arms. Sooner the better.

Sure, but what? We have plenty of gun laws on the books. They don't
seem to help all that much. Politicians seek opportunities like this
to get there name out there but what the propose and pass for laws is
of little value. They are just opportunist seeking reelection and job
security.

It would be nice if there was something as a simple mental health
screening too but that does not exist. Probably never will. Is there
a gene that all mass killers have in common? This is really more of
a mental health problem as to how it starts, the guns are just a means
to an end. If we take away guns, will this person build a bomb
instead?



When gun (Control) nuts say that "something needs to be done", they really
mean "more gun control needs to be done"
They get really horrified and upset when you propose to them the ONE
solution that has proven effective
An that's simply because they really don't want a solution
They want a (more) gun control solution.

"Robert" wrote in message
...
On Dec 16, 8:42 am, "
wrote:

I'd like to add
The 2nd Amendment was written because of the atrocities committed
by the British government against the "colonials"....

And I will paraphrase '' ... because the government MUST maintain
an armed enforcement mechanism regulated by the government,
the citizens MUST have the right to hold weapons to stand against
any tyranny or atrocities performed by that government "

.... the Founders were well aware of the possibility that their
new government might well become something like that the
Britisyh had become, and didn't want it to happen...."


Waco and Ruby Ridge are 2 recent "atrocities by the government" that come to
mind.




If you disagree with this post, you can go **** yourself !!!

Robert

Rights are endowed by our Creator. The Bill of Rights doesn't grant any
rights. It prohibits the governemnt from doing various things.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

wrote in message
...

I personally believe that the Supreme Court misinterpreted the 2nd
Amendment (plenty of precedent for even this distinguished group of
humans to err) when they interpreted it to allow personal ownership when
the text of the Amendment describes "militia" in the context of arms.

The constitution doesn't give the "militia" the right to bear
arms. It gives the "citizens" the right. If they wanted to restrict
arms to the militia, it would have been very easy to just say
so. The Supreme Court agrees.

Which doesn't apply to Alaska, Switzerland, and some of the heavily armed
places of peace.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

wrote in message
...
objective. We're devolving into a social setting not far removed from
present day Afghanistan, Mali, and several other places in the world
where unregulated or insufficiently regulated firearms have become
ubiquitous.

OK, I got it now. The problems in Afghanistan are due to guns.
Go figure.

On Dec 15, 10:29*am, Peter wrote:
On 12/15/2012 11:27 AM, *Attila Iskander wrote:

"Peter" wrote in message
...
On 12/15/2012 10:57 AM, Harvey Specter wrote:

The damage done by the occasional nutcake with a gun ain't
nothin' compared to the daily deaths and injuries caused by cell
phone distracted drivers.

http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafet...ing/index.html

Taking your reasoning to it's logical conclusion, you also believe

that we should abolish our entire system of laws, courts, prisons,
*etc. because all the criminals "ain't nothin'" compared to
majority of citizens who are law abiding. *Sorry, a wrong behavior
doesn't justify (much less relate) to a bad policy that addresses a
different behavior.

So the question is. According to you how do you address the "wrong
behavior" of the CT shooter ? Do you find a way to catch such people
before they act out ? Or do you try to take away guns from everyone
else ??

I expected to get flamed for my comment and will certainly attract more
flames for what follows. *Just remember, all you who claim to believe in
our Constitution, that before you get vicious, accept that I'm simply
exercising my 1st Amendment right of free speech in what follows and I
have as much right to express my opinion as you do. *My comments below
are not personal, mean, hateful, etc. *Your disagreement with my
position will be more convincing if it is reasoned and dispassionate.

I personally believe that the Supreme Court misinterpreted the 2nd
Amendment (plenty of precedent for even this distinguished group of
humans to err) when they interpreted it to allow personal ownership when
the text of the Amendment describes "militia" in the context of arms.
Personally, I favor a policy that would disallow almost all personal
ownership of all firearms except under strict registration and
background checks for those in the most rural areas where dangerous
wildlife can routinely threaten local residents. *ALL sales of firearms
should be accompanied by sufficient waiting periods to enable meaningful
background checks and registration. *Let qualifying hunters and sport
shooters purchase and own firearms but be required to keep them secured
at their local police, sheriff, national guard bases, licensed target
shooting schools and galleries, hunting clubs etc. and check them in and
out for planned use.

As far as the argument that guns are needed in the home for personal
protection, all the crime statistics agree that firearms in the home are
brandished and fired more frequently in shooting accidents and in
moments of anger against family/friends than are used to successfully
thwart a criminal home invasion. *It would take years to fully control
all the firearms currently "out there", but the savings in lost lives
will be worth the effort. *Our current laws preclude ownership of
machine guns, bazookas, and nuclear weapons and seem to be doing a
pretty good job of minimizing their unauthorized availability, even by
the majority of the "bad guys". *I realize that my vision is not
politically achievable at present, but I believe it is a worthwhile
objective. *We're devolving into a social setting not far removed from
present day Afghanistan, Mali, and several other places in the world
where unregulated or insufficiently regulated firearms have become
ubiquitous.

Peter-

You totally have the right to free speech.... which (for you & all
others) I will happily, enthusiastically & forcefully defend.

That right, however, does not include freedom from criticism of your
speech.
Speech that is clearly the outcome of stupid, illogical & unclear
thinking should be exposed as such.... it's called "discourse"

But by all means continue..... but expect to critisized for poorly
thought out ideas.

fyi at the time of the writing of the constitution, the "militia"
was all able bodied men 18 to ???.

Thought experiement....
substitute "books for "arms" and "legislature" for "militia"

would not your reading of the "modified" 2nd mean that only the
legislature would have their right to books protected?


The 2nd is all about the "distributed" vs "centralized" deadly force.

And to those who don't think an armed population can defeat, bleed
greatly or hold at bay a modern army just examine the lessons of Iraq
& Afganistan...

cheers
Bob

In article
,
DD_BobK wrote:

You totally have the right to free speech.... which (for you & all
others) I will happily, enthusiastically & forcefully defend.

Nice to hear that said around here once in a while. Too many a.h.r.
participants have apparently forgotten that the freedom to disagree is a
founding principle of our country. Those who wave the flag the loudest
are often the ones hypocritically preaching the most rabid anti-American
ideas, with their vitriolic condemnation of those who feel differently
than they do about a given issue.

And, I don't need to state my beliefs eloquently, nor prove the strength
of my education and experience on which those beliefs are founded, to
expect my beliefs to be respected for what they are - my beliefs.
Doesn't matter if it's a discussion of abortion, guns, or Chevy vs.
Ford.

"DD_BobK" wrote in message
...
#
#
# Peter-
#
# You totally have the right to free speech.... which (for you & all
# others) I will happily, enthusiastically & forcefully defend.
#
# That right, however, does not include freedom from criticism of your
# speech.
# Speech that is clearly the outcome of stupid, illogical & unclear
# thinking should be exposed as such.... it's called "discourse"
#
# But by all means continue..... but expect to critisized for poorly
t# ought out ideas.
#
# fyi at the time of the writing of the constitution, the "militia"
# was all able bodied men 18 to ???.
#
# Thought experiement....
# substitute "books for "arms" and "legislature" for "militia"
#
# would not your reading of the "modified" 2nd mean that only the
# legislature would have their right to books protected?
#
# The 2nd is all about the "distributed" vs "centralized" deadly force.
#
# And to those who don't think an armed population can defeat, bleed
# greatly or hold at bay a modern army just examine the lessons of Iraq
# & Afganistan...
#


Unfortunately, people like peter may have gone to college, but they never
learned anything of real use.
Nor did they learn any REAL history and the lessons that it gives
So it's no surprise that they have NO CLUE about the background of the 2nd
Amendment, and why it's still perfectly applicable today.

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message

This is really more of a mental health problem as to how it starts,

That is definitely true. If only mental health care was as easy to get as
guns are. Even with better access to mental health care, this sort of thing
is ALWAYS going to happen. Especially when the media devotes endless hours
of coverage, soul-searching, what-ifs and interviews with teary eyed people.
Mass murderers are often quite well-aware of the weapons, tactics and
outcomes of those that have preceded them.
Of course mental health would make an even less impact on this
problem than taking away assault guns. There is nothing in the mental
health tool kit that can predict with any kind of accuracy (specificity
and sensitivity in the parlance of the medical researchers) which
individual will become violent. That is needed before we ask the mental
health community to intervene.
Sure, I can do a pretty nice profile of the demographics and
behaviors of person likely to become a spree shooter. But even going all
Criminal Minds, you will note that the best they can do is narrow it
down to a very large group of people.
Heck, the next study that shows any kind of specificity and
sensitivity in identifying a person ON the psych wards with 24/7 contact
will be the first.
The profiles or tests or whatever you want to call them are doubly
blessed in that they have high levels of false negatives (where people
who are deemed OK go on to kill people) and false positives (where
people with the traits never kill anyone).
Now, whether MH should be easier to get is a good thing to talk
about. However, I would note that MH is very bureaucratic and run under
rules from the Feds outlined in JFK's Community Mental Health Act. Most
of the money, especially for the chronically mentally ill) come from
MCaid and/or MCare. AT least in the mid-90s when I was involved with
this part, it was markedly easier to get paid for in-patient mental
health services from the Evil Insurance Companies than it was Indiana
MCaid which only paid for three days.

On the other hand. Buying guns is largely something the individual
does on his own.. and thus can be much more efficiently.

the guns are just a means to an end.

The "arms" dicussed by the second amendment enthusiasts are nothing like the
modern weapons mass killers have used. Two AR-15's with 100 round magazines
can deliver the firepower that only a platoon of soldiers could back in the
1700's.
But neither does the wording point to specific weapons. It says
firearms, not "those firearms we know about and are currently using." In
other areas, the framers made very specific lists of things, in others
they left it vaguer.

People seem to forget that when the Second Amendment was written, no one
could possibly use a gun to commit mass-murder. The reloading times/process
of the "arms" mentioned in the Bill of Rights pretty much guaranteed that
you would be rushed and disarmed before you could get a second shot out.
Again pretty much beside the point. If they wanted to limit the
definition of firearms, they would have.


People also seem to forget that "gun rights" were not a part of the original
Constitution, but an "add on" to the main document. There are means
available to US citizens to wipe that amendment out of existence.
Prohibition was an amendment that came and went pretty quickly. The Heller
decision could be reversed just as quickly as it arrived. Chief Justice
Robert's professed love for stare decisis at his hearings didn't quite
follow him to the bench.
And until they do.. I would also like to point that the press,
speech and religious parts also were not part of the original
constitution. So, is it okay to willy nilly toss these aside. Heck under
your Second Amendment vision, only those newspapers printed on hand
presses would be covered.


When he saw the (alleged) shotgun and heard the threat, Dunn reached into
his glove compartment, unholstered his Taurus 9mm gun and fired two rounds
into the back seat, and then two more, his lawyer said. As the car with the
teens left, he feared they would try to shoot back, so he fired four more
shots.

Shot to death while trying to flee. Somehow, I think Dunn's "done himself
in" because he's gonna have a hard time explaining how those last four shots
at a fleeing car were self-defense.
Which seems to indicate the the law is working. If they don't follow
the law, they get prosecuted.


--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
m...
In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message

This is really more of a mental health problem as to how it starts,

That is definitely true. If only mental health care was as easy to get
as
guns are. Even with better access to mental health care, this sort of
thing
is ALWAYS going to happen. Especially when the media devotes endless
hours
of coverage, soul-searching, what-ifs and interviews with teary eyed
people.
Mass murderers are often quite well-aware of the weapons, tactics and
outcomes of those that have preceded them.

Of course mental health would make an even less impact on this
problem than taking away assault guns.


What's an "assault gun" ?


There is nothing in the mental
health tool kit that can predict with any kind of accuracy (specificity
and sensitivity in the parlance of the medical researchers) which
individual will become violent. That is needed before we ask the mental
health community to intervene.

That's right
Don't address the real problem.
Instead putz around with some placebo that doesn' even address the symptoms

Sure, I can do a pretty nice profile of the demographics and
behaviors of person likely to become a spree shooter. But even going all
Criminal Minds, you will note that the best they can do is narrow it
down to a very large group of people.

The US Secret Service tried and failed
Good luck doing better than they did using the premise of a TV show.



snip redudancy


On the other hand. Buying guns is largely something the individual
does on his own.. and thus can be much more efficiently.


yawn
same old same old
go after something that is COMPLETELY unrelated
What is it with gun-controllers and the notion that meaningless placebos
with actually even affect symptoms




the guns are just a means to an end.

The "arms" dicussed by the second amendment enthusiasts are nothing like
the
modern weapons mass killers have used. Two AR-15's with 100 round
magazines
can deliver the firepower that only a platoon of soldiers could back in
the
1700's.
But neither does the wording point to specific weapons. It says
firearms, not "those firearms we know about and are currently using." In
other areas, the framers made very specific lists of things, in others
they left it vaguer.


Try again
The 2nd Amendment doesn't even say "firearms"
It just says Arms
And they did so because they knew that in time even arms would progress


People seem to forget that when the Second Amendment was written, no one
could possibly use a gun to commit mass-murder. The reloading
times/process
of the "arms" mentioned in the Bill of Rights pretty much guaranteed that
you would be rushed and disarmed before you could get a second shot out.

Again pretty much beside the point. If they wanted to limit the
definition of firearms, they would have.


People also seem to forget that "gun rights" were not a part of the
original
Constitution, but an "add on" to the main document. There are means
available to US citizens to wipe that amendment out of existence.
Prohibition was an amendment that came and went pretty quickly. The
Heller
decision could be reversed just as quickly as it arrived. Chief Justice
Robert's professed love for stare decisis at his hearings didn't quite
follow him to the bench.

And until they do.. I would also like to point that the press,
speech and religious parts also were not part of the original
constitution. So, is it okay to willy nilly toss these aside. Heck under
your Second Amendment vision, only those newspapers printed on hand
presses would be covered.


When he saw the (alleged) shotgun and heard the threat, Dunn reached
into
his glove compartment, unholstered his Taurus 9mm gun and fired two
rounds
into the back seat, and then two more, his lawyer said. As the car with
the
teens left, he feared they would try to shoot back, so he fired four more
shots.

Shot to death while trying to flee. Somehow, I think Dunn's "done
himself
in" because he's gonna have a hard time explaining how those last four
shots
at a fleeing car were self-defense.
Which seems to indicate the the law is working. If they don't follow
the law, they get prosecuted.


Funny how the gun-controllers push for limitation of one protected right,
while ignoring that such restrictions would also limit other rights

On Dec 20, 9:24*am, "Robert Green" wrote:
HUGE SNIP


People also seem to forget that "gun rights" were not a part of the
original
Constitution, but an "add on" to the main document.
--
Bobby G.


Bobby G.... don't be disingenuous....

The first 10 amendments (aka Bill of Rights) were all added at the
same time & very soon compared to

..... give some honest thought & weight to the order of "rights" in The
Bill of Rights.
There's a reason for the name.

There is a process for amendments & repeals..... by all means, give
the process work a try.

reason the first 10 amendments were added?
to preserve the rights of the individual & limit the power of
government

A re-visiting of history might be in order.
I suggest "Founding Brothers" & "John Adams" & The Federalist Papers



cheers
Bob

On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 00:59:25 -0800 (PST), DD_BobK
wrote:

On Dec 20, 9:24*am, "Robert Green" wrote:
HUGE SNIP


People also seem to forget that "gun rights" were not a part of the
original
Constitution, but an "add on" to the main document.

They were, as were all rights, part of the original Constitution
because the power to restrict them was not specifically given, by the
Constitution, to the federal government. If a power (in this case,
the right to take your gun) is not specifically granted to the federal
government, it doesn't have that power. The Constitution gives the
*government* powers, not the people.

--
Bobby G.


Bobby G.... don't be disingenuous....

The first 10 amendments (aka Bill of Rights) were all added at the
same time & very soon compared to

.... give some honest thought & weight to the order of "rights" in The
Bill of Rights.
There's a reason for the name.

There is a process for amendments & repeals..... by all means, give
the process work a try.

reason the first 10 amendments were added?
to preserve the rights of the individual & limit the power of
government

A re-visiting of history might be in order.
I suggest "Founding Brothers" & "John Adams" & The Federalist Papers

The Bill of Rights was added because it was feared by many that people
would misunderstand the Constitution. Others believed that the
meaning was clear and that the BoR was superfluous. Obviously, by the
writings of the lefties here, those who believed every right had to be
written and underlined, were right; people can't read.