On 12/24/2012 3:49 PM, Oren wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 22:15:12 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

The dumbass came to when I was about to drag what I thought
was a dead body out to my van for disposal and I made him crawl
down the hall, out the front door and into the middle of the street
then I went back inside and shut the door.

The Immaculate Concussion?

I used to do sidewalk miracles, myself.


I imagine that the gremlin's compatriot who had been waiting outside the
back of the building had found his pal all busted up at the front
of the building then notified all his friends about the monster in the
building on the corner. Dey goes in dat bildin an dey ain't nevah du
same wen dey comes out da uther end. ^_^

TDD

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 18:05:43 -0500, z wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 14:37:28 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 23:38:42 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote:

I'm beginning to think he's a highly placed official in the War on
Drugs.

What ever happened to the War on Poverty?

We were on the verge of winning it until Congress intervened. See a
link?

Sure do. The War on Christmas.

On 12/24/2012 2:55 PM, Oren wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 20:38:00 -0500, wrote:

Can't you register your hands as deadly weapons? And buy insurance on
them?


Most lawyers would advise that a legal holder of a gun would be in
less trouble for shooting someone than a guy who beat someone to
death.

Yep. One shot kill shows no premeditation to murder.(IMO)

If I shoot him once and he came back alive, I'd shoot again. Much
easier than a fist fight -- even sitting on the couch.


Beating the SOB to death is much quieter than shooting him. If someone
hears screams and investigates, you can always have a monster movie
ready to play on your TV. You may be able to do the same thing with a
war movie or cowboy movie but a gunshot is much louder than a fist
crunching flesh and bone. The adage "Shoot to kill" is the same to me
as "Stomp him till he quits twitching" which is what I did to that
burglar after he threw a brick at my face. Stomping to death doesn't
leave a big puddle of blood and splatter like gunshot wounds. ^_^

TDD

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 17:42:26 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 13:31:25 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 20:38:20 -0600, Doug
wrote:

In worst case scenario, better to replace a dead
guard than a dead teacher.

Go screw yourself, Doug. Where did you get the power to decide who
lives and dies?

I don't. It's called their job, idiot.

Listen dummy. No one ever died on my shift, but criminals. Only the
outside doctor pronounced death.

You have not answered the few questions I posed to you. Acting like an
idiot.

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 17:43:41 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 17:08:24 -0500, z wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 10:43:48 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 00:02:22 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
m...
On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 01:24:20 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

Doug wrote in
news:at6fd81p7bjm34afm92siidneahpg2nrig@4ax. com:

I think teachers should just teach. I think armed guards
(professionals) will be better at protecting the students. I'm not
saying that armed teachers can't protect students but I see potential
problems with this idea.

And you *don't* see *actual* problems with the status quo?

Why does anyone think that laws declaring schools to be "gun free zones"
will magically
prevent criminals from bringing guns into schools? If someone is willing
to violate the law
prohibiting murder, why doesn anyone think he would *obey* a law that
prohibits him from
bringing a gun into a school?

Please note my careful choice of verbs in the preceding paragraph. Laws
*prohibit* bad
behavior. They do NOT *prevent* it.


That's why I think armed guards should be used vs. status quo.

Too bad your arguments for that (in other post) don't hold much water


We'll see.

We'll see what, exactly? That post made less sense than most of your
others.

Yeah okay...

Then we're all in agreement; you're an idiot. I could tell you "I
told you so", but I won't.

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 17:44:28 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 17:09:04 -0500, z wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 10:57:58 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 23:37:10 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
m...



I think teachers should just teach. I think armed guards
(professionals) will be better at protecting the students. I'm not
saying that armed teachers can't protect students but I see potential
problems with this idea.

Go ahead and list them


If you can't figure out what they are, I give up.


You've never stated them. Go ahead. We all waiting.

I honestly thought it was intuitive.

You haven't honestly had a thought in your life.


Whatever....

Then we're all in agreement; you're an idiot. That's a good way to
end the discussion, though it would have been better if you'd learned
*something*.

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 17:48:47 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 13:02:11 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 20:16:50 -0600, Doug
wrote:

Then you have NO CLUE as to the intent of the 2nd Amendment
The 2nd Amendment is ALL ABOUT citizens having the same arms as the police
and military


I disagree. I just researched the 2nd Amendment and no where does it
come close to saying this. It does NOT say you have the right to bear
ANY arms. You have the right to bear ARMS.

You *certainly* didn't research it very deeply (did you even read it).
It's all over the founder's writings. You can start he

http://www.minnesotamajority.org/Our...2/Default.aspx



I read your link. My research is still valid.

Hey Doug! What does the LAW say?!

It just tickles me that your research only lasted one day.


Yeah it's because I can read and learn fast.

What does the LAW say?

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 17:46:31 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 17:11:14 -0500, z wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 11:02:17 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 17:26:17 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
m...
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 14:14:28 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
news:f26ed8th1h306r0mk8pp4hdl68h6hjeofq@4ax. com...
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 05:55:19 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:


Do you realize that we did ban "assault weapons" and high
capacity magazines for a decade, starting in 1994. Study after
study done by various organizations, including the CDC, which
clearly has no pro-gun agenda, concluded it made no difference
in crime rates, murder rates, etc.


Oh by the way, that's not what the CDC said. If you go to their
website...http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm
they say ....
"Evidence was INSUFFICIENT to determine the effectiveness of any of
these laws for the following reasons." They explain this as
depending on which study you go by, some say it went higher and other
studies say it went lower.


DOH !
1) The CDC has a history of being pro gun-control
2) The CC has had it's knuckles rapped by Congress because they got caught
at it
3) They studied more than 30 years of studies, and all they could come up
with is that ?

HELLO ?

How long do you want to study something before you go..
Hmmm
No evidence to support this theory after 30 years of studies
Maybe it's time to come up with a different theory
This is not "global warming" with a planet that operates by millenia
This is simple social issues that operate a MUCH, MUCH SHORTER scale
Try 5-10 years to have meaninfull data

Therefore, since it's inconclusive, I'd say to do it because taking no
action is NOT the solution.

Fine
But since it's INCONCLUSIVE after 30 years, then intelligent people are
NOT
going to go back and do the same old, same old that has proven
inconclusive
after all this time
SMART people are going to try something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.

How about trying to do what the Israeli did to protect their schools after
the palestinian terrorists decided to target their schools
They have nearly 40 years of NO MORE attacks on schools, while we with our
"Gun Free Zones" have 30+ years of school attacks being repeated over and
over...

HELLO ??




I have no problem with trying DIFFERENT so we may agree on that point
but I bet we'll disagree after that.

Then we can only hope that you do continue your "research" on not only the
2nd Amendment, but other subjects as well, so that you can come back and
argue more out of knowledge than ignorance.


I think you guys are really scared of research.

Good God, you're funny. You clearly have done none, yet claim
everyone else, including SCotUS is wrong. Your ignorance is simply
unbelievable.


Study the CDC site.

Why don't *you* summarize it, if you can even read.

Maybe you'll learn something for a change.

Do you *really* think the CDC is the expert on the Constitution? Well,
you're sure dumb enough.

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 17:48:47 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 13:02:11 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 20:16:50 -0600, Doug
wrote:

Then you have NO CLUE as to the intent of the 2nd Amendment
The 2nd Amendment is ALL ABOUT citizens having the same arms as the police
and military


I disagree. I just researched the 2nd Amendment and no where does it
come close to saying this. It does NOT say you have the right to bear
ANY arms. You have the right to bear ARMS.

You *certainly* didn't research it very deeply (did you even read it).
It's all over the founder's writings. You can start he

http://www.minnesotamajority.org/Our...2/Default.aspx



I read your link. My research is still valid.

Hey Doug! What does the LAW say?!

It just tickles me that your research only lasted one day.


Yeah it's because I can read and learn fast.

....and understand nothing.

In article ,
Oren wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 23:38:42 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote:

I'm beginning to think he's a highly placed official in the War on
Drugs.

What ever happened to the War on Poverty?

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

On 12-24-2012 12:02, Doug wrote:
I think you guys are really scared of research.

Well, then show some and we'll run away screaming
leaving you to have the last word.


--
Wes Groleau

Daily Hoax: http://www.snopes2.com/cgi-bin/random/random.asp

On 12-24-2012 18:29, The Daring Dufas wrote:
My specialty was hyperactive kids whom I could reach, understand and
communicate with for the simple reason that I was the same way at their
age. This was long before little boys were pumped full of drugs because
they behaved like little boys. The P.L.L.C.F. who infest the government
run educational system are so lazy as to want an easy way to cope with
little savages which is what little boys actually are. The easy way out
is to drug them out of their minds to suppress their true nature. WTF
do those people think is going to happen when all that wild energy is
pent up for at least 12 years? The idiot educators suppress it with
drugs instead of teaching the child to cope with it and find an outlet

It's true folks are too quick to use drugs, not only for psuch issues
but for other physiological conditions.

On the other hand, there are those few who DO need them and the
extremists on the other side who stereotype all drugs as the same.

My nephew for example, did need Ritalin. But not permanently.
It gave him enough control that he was able to learned how to handle his
condition without it. Same for my son.

Me on the other hand--the shrink said I was a classic case and
prescribed it. Seemed to have no effect so I dropped it. Figured if I
was able to hold two jobs for ten years each without it, I probably
don't need it.

Then when they started suggesting it for my other son, I said, "Don't
tell me a kid with a GPA of 4.0 needs meds to function in your school."

--
Wes Groleau

Daily Hoax: http://www.snopes2.com/cgi-bin/random/random.asp

I'm one person who questions the notion that anyone who takes a gun and kills a whole bunch of people, is, by definition, mentally ill.

The guy that shot up the movie theatre in Aurora, Colorado was a PhD student for crying out loud. He certainly had enough gray stuff between his ears, and he knew the difference between right and wrong.

Doing something horrible does not automatically mean that person is crazy. Perfectly level headed people can decide to throw their life away if they feel their life is so screwed up that it's not salvagable. It's a stupid decision, it's desperation, but it's not mental illness.

So, if the NRA wants the US Government to put together a list of mentally ill people, what about everyone who thinks their life has been wasted and that they're a failure. We need to make a list of those people to make sure they never get their hands on a gun, too.

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 16:52:57 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 17:48:47 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 13:02:11 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 20:16:50 -0600, Doug
wrote:

Then you have NO CLUE as to the intent of the 2nd Amendment
The 2nd Amendment is ALL ABOUT citizens having the same arms as the police
and military


I disagree. I just researched the 2nd Amendment and no where does it
come close to saying this. It does NOT say you have the right to bear
ANY arms. You have the right to bear ARMS.

You *certainly* didn't research it very deeply (did you even read it).
It's all over the founder's writings. You can start he

http://www.minnesotamajority.org/Our...2/Default.aspx



I read your link. My research is still valid.

Hey Doug! What does the LAW say?!

It just tickles me that your research only lasted one day.


Yeah it's because I can read and learn fast.

What does the LAW say?

What he means is that he found one site that he thinks agrees with his
previous position. End of "research".

nestork wrote in :

I'm one person who questions the notion that anyone who takes a gun and
kills a whole bunch of people, is, by definition, mentally ill.

The guy that shot up the movie theatre in Aurora, Colorado was a PhD
student for crying out loud. He certainly had enough gray stuff between
his ears, and he knew the difference between right and wrong.

High intelligence and mental illness are not mutually exclusive -- just because the guy's
smart, doesn't mean he isn't crazy too.

Doing something horrible does not automatically mean that person is
crazy.

Yes, it does. Sane people don't commit mass murder.

Perfectly level headed people can decide to throw their life
away if they feel their life is so screwed up that it's not salvagable.

Throwing your *own* life away in suicide *may* be a sane, rational decision (though some
may disagree). Taking multiple strangers is NOT sane or rational.

It's a stupid decision, it's desperation, but it's not mental illness.

Suicide isn't, no. Mass murder is.

On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 05:00:44 +0000, nestork
wrote:


I'm one person who questions the notion that anyone who takes a gun and
kills a whole bunch of people, is, by definition, mentally ill.

The guy that shot up the movie theatre in Aurora, Colorado was a PhD
student for crying out loud. He certainly had enough gray stuff between
his ears, and he knew the difference between right and wrong.

Doing something horrible does not automatically mean that person is
crazy. Perfectly level headed people can decide to throw their life
away if they feel their life is so screwed up that it's not salvagable.
It's a stupid decision, it's desperation, but it's not mental illness.

Killing large groups of people then is normal? I have to disagree.
Taking your own life may be desperation, but taking a bunch of people
with you is some sort of abnormality.

Being very intelligent is not a guarantee of saneness either. If you
look back in history, many of the smartest people in the world were
out of our accepted definition of "normal" Take a given odd behavior
with a poor person and he is crazy but a wealthy person is eccentric.
Taking care of mental illness is one of the points brought up with the
recent shootings. Problem is, how do you diagnose and know who is
going to do such a thing? It is not so simple as looking for people
with a blue dot on their nose.

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 21:22:09 -0500, Wes Groleau
wrote:

On 12-24-2012 12:02, Doug wrote:
I think you guys are really scared of research.

Well, then show some and we'll run away screaming
leaving you to have the last word.


Ok, see the CDC web site.

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 19:52:30 -0500, z wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 17:44:28 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 17:09:04 -0500, z wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 10:57:58 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 23:37:10 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
om...



I think teachers should just teach. I think armed guards
(professionals) will be better at protecting the students. I'm not
saying that armed teachers can't protect students but I see potential
problems with this idea.

Go ahead and list them


If you can't figure out what they are, I give up.


You've never stated them. Go ahead. We all waiting.

I honestly thought it was intuitive.

You haven't honestly had a thought in your life.


Whatever....

Then we're all in agreement; you're an idiot. That's a good way to
end the discussion, though it would have been better if you'd learned
*something*.

I did. I could say more but outa respect for some today, I won't.

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 18:46:00 -0500, z wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 17:42:26 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 13:31:25 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 20:38:20 -0600, Doug
wrote:

In worst case scenario, better to replace a dead
guard than a dead teacher.

Go screw yourself, Doug. Where did you get the power to decide who
lives and dies?

I don't. It's called their job, idiot.

Oh, wait a minute! You think it's the teacher's job to protect their
charges, yet you refuse to give them the tools to do "their job"? You
*want* more murdered! It all makes sense, now. What a moron.


You're funny to say the least.

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 16:41:49 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 17:42:26 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 13:31:25 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 20:38:20 -0600, Doug
wrote:

In worst case scenario, better to replace a dead
guard than a dead teacher.

Go screw yourself, Doug. Where did you get the power to decide who
lives and dies?

I don't. It's called their job, idiot.

Listen dummy. No one ever died on my shift, but criminals. Only the
outside doctor pronounced death.

You have not answered the few questions I posed to you. Acting like an
idiot.


I answered but you don't want to accept it. What a surprise now.

On 12/24/2012 11:00 PM, nestork wrote:

I'm one person who questions the notion that anyone who takes a gun and
kills a whole bunch of people, is, by definition, mentally ill.

The guy that shot up the movie theatre in Aurora, Colorado was a PhD
student for crying out loud. He certainly had enough gray stuff between
his ears, and he knew the difference between right and wrong.

Doing something horrible does not automatically mean that person is
crazy. Perfectly level headed people can decide to throw their life
away if they feel their life is so screwed up that it's not salvagable.
It's a stupid decision, it's desperation, but it's not mental illness.

So, if the NRA wants the US Government to put together a list of
mentally ill people, what about everyone who thinks their life has been
wasted and that they're a failure. We need to make a list of those
people to make sure they never get their hands on a gun, too.


When I tutored kids with learning problems, the hyperactive kids were
not stupid, in fact they were bored out of their minds and really hungry
for knowledge. This was more than 40 years ago before little boys were
drugged for behaving like little boys. Imagine a generation
of children who's developing minds and bodies are fundamentally altered
by the drugs that have been forced on them by foolish educators. What on
earth did they think the consequences of pushing these drugs would
be? What did they think would happen when the essence and impulsiveness
of childhood is suppressed so a developing mind can not be trained to
cope with life and to learn self control. I'm going to hazard a guess
that the young men and teens who committed the mass murders were drugged
as schoolchildren. I wonder if anyone is looking into it and if the
mainstream media will even report it because it might shoot down (pun
intended) one of the sacred cows of the Leftist who infest the
government school educational system? O_o

TDD

In article ,
Doug Miller wrote:



Doing something horrible does not automatically mean that person is
crazy.

Yes, it does. Sane people don't commit mass murder.
Nonsense. People commit murder who are perfectly sane. Is someone
who kills one person sane but two is insane? Three? What is the cutoff?


Perfectly level headed people can decide to throw their life
away if they feel their life is so screwed up that it's not salvagable.

Throwing your *own* life away in suicide *may* be a sane, rational decision
(though some
may disagree). Taking multiple strangers is NOT sane or rational.
Of course it is. People want to be remembered after death and this
is certainly one way to do it. Might be the only (rational) way some
people can see their way clear. That and avenging old wrongs, is more or
less rational.


It's a stupid decision, it's desperation, but it's not mental illness.

Suicide isn't, no. Mass murder is.
Not remotely always.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

In article ,
Ed Pawlowski wrote:


Killing large groups of people then is normal? I have to disagree.
Taking your own life may be desperation, but taking a bunch of people
with you is some sort of abnormality.
But not always mental illness, at least as currently understood. What
happens is that most people can't fathom the why in their own context so
it MUST be an illness. Could be any number of things such as upbringing,
life experiences (many tend have been bullied and are striking back at
not only the bullies but those they see as those who failed to protect
them... certainly a rational outlook if not response)
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

Oren wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 23:52:28 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:

What problems? Teachers are citizens, too.

... and have a right to carry

NOT when their employers, the school boards make a rule that they
can NOT carry.

Simple. The state can pass a preemption law, NOT grandfather any
local, city or county to have gun laws. Only the state legislature can
make the laws.

That will get around the school boards. There!

Pretty close. There has been a 2nd level controversy on that issue: it's
called "preemption." Some cities curtail guns citing it as it's right to do
so, gun regulations are not the exclusive jurisdiction of the states. Gun
rights folks have been successful in a number of states in instituting a law
wherein only the state government can regulate guns.

For example, the gun ban that was in place at the University of Colorado was
struck down by the courts under the doctrine of state preemption. A person
with a concealed carry permit may now carry a concealed firearm at the
school.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/ed...anted=all&_r=0

In my state, legislators finally got fed up with cities banning guns in
libraries and what-not that they passed a law PROHIBITING any governmental
agency from regulating guns on any property the agency owns or controls.
This includes libraries, parks, recycling centers, city hall, police
stations, airports, etc.

People shouldn't kill other people in bunches so if they do so THEY
must be mentally ill. It makes it much easier for us to then absolve
them and ourselves of blame.
I see most people erect a Somebody Else's Problem Field around the
issue of mental health in this context.
An SEP is something we can't see, or don't see, or our brain doesn't
let us see, because we think that it's somebody else's problem.... The
brain just edits it out, it's like a blind spot. If you look at it
directly you won't see it unless you know precisely what it is. Your
only hope is to catch it by surprise out of the corner of your eye.
The technology involved in making something properly invisible is so
mind-bogglingly complex that 999,999,999 times out of a billion it's
simpler just to take the thing away and do without it....... The
"Somebody Else's Problem field" is much simpler, more effective, and
"can be run for over a hundred years on a single torch battery."
This is because it relies on people's natural predisposition not to see
anything they don't want to, weren't expecting, or can't explain.
--- Douglas Adams
--
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 news:
:

In article ,
Doug Miller wrote:



Doing something horrible does not automatically mean that person is
crazy.

Yes, it does. Sane people don't commit mass murder.
Nonsense. People commit murder who are perfectly sane.

Yes, but people who commit mass murder are not.
Is someone
who kills one person sane but two is insane? Three? What is the cutoff?


Perfectly level headed people can decide to throw their life
away if they feel their life is so screwed up that it's not salvagable.

Throwing your *own* life away in suicide *may* be a sane, rational decision
(though some
may disagree). Taking multiple strangers is NOT sane or rational.
Of course it is. People want to be remembered after death and this
is certainly one way to do it.

One way to do it, yes. Rational, no.

Might be the only (rational) way some
people can see their way clear.

That's *not* rational.

That and avenging old wrongs, is more or
less rational.

So in what fashion is the mass murder of strangers "avenging old wrongs"? In what fashion
is the mass murder of strangers "rational"?


It's a stupid decision, it's desperation, but it's not mental illness.

Suicide isn't, no. Mass murder is.
Not remotely always.

Ummm, yes. Always.

In article ,
Doug Miller wrote:
rfectly sane.

Yes, but people who commit mass murder are not.
Accroding to YOUR view of life. Hardly something to inflict on entire
populations.

Of course it is. People want to be remembered after death and this
is certainly one way to do it.

One way to do it, yes. Rational, no.
Again, according to you. This is very much goal directed behavior,
just because it doesn't fit within your psychological context (or mine,
for that matter) doesn't automatically make it mental illness.


Might be the only (rational) way some
people can see their way clear.

That's *not* rational.
Again to YOUR mind. The insistence on always calling everything you
don't seem to understand mental illness seems to be losing it
rationality to me.


That and avenging old wrongs, is more or
less rational.

So in what fashion is the mass murder of strangers "avenging old wrongs"? In
what fashion
is the mass murder of strangers "rational"?

What is it irrational.. other than you don't understand it?



It's a stupid decision, it's desperation, but it's not mental illness.

Suicide isn't, no. Mass murder is.
Not remotely always.

Ummm, yes. Always.
See above about rationality.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 19:54:06 -0500, z wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 17:48:47 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 13:02:11 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 20:16:50 -0600, Doug
wrote:

Then you have NO CLUE as to the intent of the 2nd Amendment
The 2nd Amendment is ALL ABOUT citizens having the same arms as the police
and military


I disagree. I just researched the 2nd Amendment and no where does it
come close to saying this. It does NOT say you have the right to bear
ANY arms. You have the right to bear ARMS.

You *certainly* didn't research it very deeply (did you even read it).
It's all over the founder's writings. You can start he

http://www.minnesotamajority.org/Our...2/Default.aspx



I read your link. My research is still valid.

Hey Doug! What does the LAW say?!

It just tickles me that your research only lasted one day.


Yeah it's because I can read and learn fast.

...and understand nothing.

according to you .... that's funny.

Kurt Ullman wrote in news:0J-
:

In article ,
Doug Miller wrote:
rfectly sane.

Yes, but people who commit mass murder are not.
Accroding to YOUR view of life. Hardly something to inflict on entire
populations.

Of course it is. People want to be remembered after death and this
is certainly one way to do it.

One way to do it, yes. Rational, no.
Again, according to you. This is very much goal directed behavior,
just because it doesn't fit within your psychological context (or mine,
for that matter) doesn't automatically make it mental illness.


Might be the only (rational) way some
people can see their way clear.

That's *not* rational.
Again to YOUR mind. The insistence on always calling everything you
don't seem to understand mental illness seems to be losing it
rationality to me.

If you think it *is* rational... well, you perhaps should seek help.

On Dec 25, 1:25*pm, The Daring Dufas the-daring-du...@stinky-
finger.net wrote:
On 12/24/2012 11:00 PM, nestork wrote:











I'm one person who questions the notion that anyone who takes a gun and
kills a whole bunch of people, is, by definition, mentally ill.

The guy that shot up the movie theatre in Aurora, Colorado was a PhD
student for crying out loud. *He certainly had enough gray stuff between
his ears, and he knew the difference between right and wrong.

Doing something horrible does not automatically mean that person is
crazy. *Perfectly level headed people can decide to throw their life
away if they feel their life is so screwed up that it's not salvagable.
It's a stupid decision, it's desperation, but it's not mental illness.

So, if the NRA wants the US Government to put together a list of
mentally ill people, what about everyone who thinks their life has been
wasted and that they're a failure. *We need to make a list of those
people to make sure they never get their hands on a gun, too.

When I tutored kids with learning problems, the hyperactive kids were
not stupid, in fact they were bored out of their minds and really hungry
for knowledge. This was more than 40 years ago before little boys were
drugged for behaving like little boys. Imagine a generation
of children who's developing minds and bodies are fundamentally altered
by the drugs that have been forced on them by foolish educators. What on
earth did they think the consequences of pushing these drugs would
be? What did they think would happen when the essence and impulsiveness
of childhood is suppressed so a developing mind can not be trained to
cope with life and to learn self control. I'm going to hazard a guess
that the young men and teens who committed the mass murders were drugged
as schoolchildren. I wonder if anyone is looking into it and if the
mainstream media will even report it because it might shoot down (pun
intended) one of the sacred cows of the Leftist who infest the
government school educational system? O_o

TDD

A lot of these problems are caused by the survival of premature babies
who would never have survived in the past.
A large minority grow up mentally abnormal.
It can be argued that nature knows what it's doing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premature_baby#Prognosis

On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 07:35:28 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Oren wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 23:52:28 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:

What problems? Teachers are citizens, too.

... and have a right to carry

NOT when their employers, the school boards make a rule that they
can NOT carry.

Simple. The state can pass a preemption law, NOT grandfather any
local, city or county to have gun laws. Only the state legislature can
make the laws.

That will get around the school boards. There!

Pretty close. There has been a 2nd level controversy on that issue: it's
called "preemption." Some cities curtail guns citing it as it's right to do
so, gun regulations are not the exclusive jurisdiction of the states. Gun
rights folks have been successful in a number of states in instituting a law
wherein only the state government can regulate guns.

For example, the gun ban that was in place at the University of Colorado was
struck down by the courts under the doctrine of state preemption. A person
with a concealed carry permit may now carry a concealed firearm at the
school.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/ed...anted=all&_r=0

In my state, legislators finally got fed up with cities banning guns in
libraries and what-not that they passed a law PROHIBITING any governmental
agency from regulating guns on any property the agency owns or controls.
This includes libraries, parks, recycling centers, city hall, police
stations, airports, etc.


I think we mean the same thing about preemption.

Nevada:

"NRS 244.364 Limited authority to regulate firearms; restrictions
concerning registration of certain firearms in county whose population
is 700,000 or more.

1. Except as otherwise provided by specific statute, the
Legislature reserves for itself such rights and powers as are
necessary to regulate the transfer, sale, purchase, possession,
ownership, transportation, registration and licensing of firearms and
ammunition in Nevada, and no county may infringe upon those rights and
powers. As used in this subsection, “firearm” means any weapon from
which a projectile is discharged by means of an explosive, spring,
gas, air or other force.

2. A board of county commissioners may proscribe by ordinance or
regulation the unsafe discharge of firearms.

3. If a board of county commissioners in a county whose
population is 700,000 or more has required by ordinance or regulation
adopted before June 13, 1989, the registration of a firearm capable of
being concealed, the board of county commissioners shall amend such an
ordinance or regulation to requi

(a) A period of at least 60 days of residency in the county
before registration of such a firearm is required.

(b) A period of at least 72 hours for the registration of a
pistol by a resident of the county upon transfer of title to the
pistol to the resident by purchase, gift or any other transfer.

4. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 1, as used in this
section:

(a) “Firearm” means any device designed to be used as a weapon
from which a projectile may be expelled through the barrel by the
force of any explosion or other form of combustion.

(b) “Firearm capable of being concealed” includes all firearms
having a barrel less than 12 inches in length.

(c) “Pistol” means a firearm capable of being concealed that is
intended to be aimed and fired with one hand.

(Added to NRS by 1989, 652; A 2007, 1289; 2011, 1109)

Laws on the books before 1989 still stand but are now going through
some challenges. Those laws were passed when the Mafia came to Las
Vegas years before. (handgun registration). Only two counties here
require registration of hand guns (Las Vegas & Reno).

Challenges:

- guns in city parks and or county parks

- North Las Vegas prohibiting concealed carry, which is against the
law

On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 07:20:50 -0600, Doug
wrote:

I answered but you don't want to accept it. What a surprise now.

What you have repeated over and over is _that doing something is
better than doing nothing_.

Again:

- Which laws would you change?

- What is wrong with currents laws?

- Did your wife agree when Clinton provided armed patrols in schools
and then disagree when the NRA suggested the same exact thing? Saying
the NRA was "unreasonable".

On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 07:19:29 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 18:46:00 -0500, z wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 17:42:26 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 13:31:25 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 20:38:20 -0600, Doug
wrote:

In worst case scenario, better to replace a dead
guard than a dead teacher.

Go screw yourself, Doug. Where did you get the power to decide who
lives and dies?

I don't. It's called their job, idiot.

Oh, wait a minute! You think it's the teacher's job to protect their
charges, yet you refuse to give them the tools to do "their job"? You
*want* more murdered! It all makes sense, now. What a moron.


You're funny to say the least.

Unfortunately, you're just a sad, sick, puppy.

On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 07:18:18 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 19:52:30 -0500, z wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 17:44:28 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 17:09:04 -0500, z wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 10:57:58 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 23:37:10 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
news:at6fd81p7bjm34afm92siidneahpg2nrig@4ax. com...



I think teachers should just teach. I think armed guards
(professionals) will be better at protecting the students. I'm not
saying that armed teachers can't protect students but I see potential
problems with this idea.

Go ahead and list them


If you can't figure out what they are, I give up.


You've never stated them. Go ahead. We all waiting.

I honestly thought it was intuitive.

You haven't honestly had a thought in your life.


Whatever....

Then we're all in agreement; you're an idiot. That's a good way to
end the discussion, though it would have been better if you'd learned
*something*.

I did. I could say more but outa respect for some today, I won't.

What a sniveling little worm.

On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 08:07:52 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 19:54:06 -0500, z wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 17:48:47 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 13:02:11 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 20:16:50 -0600, Doug
wrote:

Then you have NO CLUE as to the intent of the 2nd Amendment
The 2nd Amendment is ALL ABOUT citizens having the same arms as the police
and military


I disagree. I just researched the 2nd Amendment and no where does it
come close to saying this. It does NOT say you have the right to bear
ANY arms. You have the right to bear ARMS.

You *certainly* didn't research it very deeply (did you even read it).
It's all over the founder's writings. You can start he

http://www.minnesotamajority.org/Our...2/Default.aspx



I read your link. My research is still valid.

Hey Doug! What does the LAW say?!

It just tickles me that your research only lasted one day.


Yeah it's because I can read and learn fast.

...and understand nothing.

according to you .... that's funny.

Only to a sniveling little liar.

"Oren" wrote in message

What does the LAW say?

The law certainly doesn't say, as many seem to believe, that gun possession
can have no regulation attached to it. It allows for reasonable
restrictions on the use and possession of firearms. Several important cases
have yet to reach the Supreme Court and with CJ Roberts' recent swing vote
approving the Affordable Care Act, it's not certain how those cases will be
decided. Roberts seems sensitive to what legal scholars write about him and
they were quite unkind in the wake of Citizen's United.

What disturbs me when reading the actual Heller decision, and not some left
or right wing site's review of it, are the glissandos around some serious
points of law. The "well-regulated militia" clause of the 2nd Amendment all
but disappeared in Heller. I predict it will reappear if and when the
makeup of the court changes. There's nothing resembling a "well-regulated
militia" when Aunt Shirley picks up a 9mm pistol at the local gun shop and
gets a permit to carry it. There are many other parts of the plurality
decision that give me pause.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

The Second Amendment's drafting history, while of dubious interpretive
worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally
referred to an individual right to bear arms.

It worries me when a SCOTUS decision says that the creation history of the
amendment is not of much worth and then they seem to go ahead and rely on
it. Originalists commit the error of extracting information without
maintaining its relevance to the time it was written. While the internment
of the Japanese during WWII strikes some people as horrible now, back then
it was perfectly logical and acceptable behavior. The more recent SCOTUS
gun case was:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonal...ity_of_Chicago

In a discussion on the day of the ruling Wayne LaPierre of the NRA and
Paul Helmke of the Brady Center both agreed that the Court's ruling
protected specifically against bans on handguns for self-protection in the
home. But as to the general question of gun laws not covered in McDonald; a
large number of lawsuits are needed in order to determine whether any other
existing gun regulations might also be unconstitutional. Wayne LaPierre
expressed caution that the NRA has "a lot of work ahead" attempting to
overturn other gun control regulations not covered by McDonald, and Paul
Helmke said that he expected that the NRA is "going to lose most of those
lawsuits".

The Miller case, below, which many believe Heller incorrectly relied on, is
fascinating for a number of reasons. It concerns the National Firearms Act,
passed largely in response to the infamous "St. Valentine's Day Massacre"
(I've always said that Federal laws are usually a response to bad actions by
some person or corporate entity - whether they actually accomplish their
goal is another story.)

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/fed.../174/case.html

Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common
use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting
the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

The writings in the Miller case raise an important question: What did the
Framers mean when they wrote "a well-regulated militia"? The US had no
standing army at the time of the Constitutional Convention. The only
military force it could muster (times have certainly changed!) were
able-bodied citizens armed with their OWN weapons. Scalia and his
conservative brethren brushed aside the clause "a well-regulated militia"
that the "right to keep and bear arms" is considered subordinate to, almost
completely dismissing the state of affairs that existed when the Bill of
Rights was drafted. A strict reading interpretation of "militia" (all
able-bodied men) means women can't own guns. (-:

Personally, I think Scalia never recovered from being passed over for Chief
Justice.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,171694,00.html

No, he didn't really *want* the honor of a lasting judicial legacy of being
the highest judge in the land. Sure, Nino.

Now he seems determined to pull the country as far right as he thought the
Warren court pulled the country far left. I just see it as part of the
great pendulum of social change. This last mass shooting seems to be
different from the rest. Will it stay in the headlines long enough to
change things? That remains to be seen.

The NRA certainly didn't do well with its "no questions" press conference
which showed a remarkable lack of media smarts. There's nothing journos
hate more than being called to a press conference which was really a press
release which they could have stayed home to watch on the net. He made a
lot of media enemies that day and reminded me of another pair of guys that
did the same. Richard Nixon and Spiro "nattering nabobs of negativism"
Agnew. To return the favor many news orgs published pictures of LaPierre
looking more than slightly insane. Conservative papers, BTW.

All it will take, I think, is for the rate of mass murders to stay the same
or increase for people to start clamoring for legislation to reverse the
changes that the NRA has championed in the various statehouses across the
country. If a bunch of dead gangsters inspired the 1934 NFA, 20 dead first
graders has to have some effect.

--
Bobby G.

On Dec 25, 12:00*am, nestork wrote:
I'm one person who questions the notion that anyone who takes a gun and
kills a whole bunch of people, is, by definition, mentally ill.

The guy that shot up the movie theatre in Aurora, Colorado was a PhD
student for crying out loud. *He certainly had enough gray stuff between
his ears, and he knew the difference between right and wrong.

Doing something horrible does not automatically mean that person is
crazy. *Perfectly level headed people can decide to throw their life
away if they feel their life is so screwed up that it's not salvagable.
It's a stupid decision, it's desperation, but it's not mental illness.

I would not call someone who decides to commit a massacre
"level headed". And there is a distinction between being crazy to
the point that you don't know right from wrong and just
having a mental illness. The Aurora guy was seeing a psychiatrist,
so he must have had some mental problems. Perhaps in time
we'll find out what exactly they were.




So, if the NRA wants the US Government to put together a list of
mentally ill people, what about everyone who thinks their life has been
wasted and that they're a failure. *We need to make a list of those
people to make sure they never get their hands on a gun, too.

--
nestork

The problem with that would seem to be that I haven't seen
evidence that these latest folks who committed these acts
felt their lives have been wasted and that they are a failure.

On Dec 25, 11:15*am, Doug Miller
wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote in news:0J-
:





In article ,
*Doug Miller wrote:
rfectly sane.

Yes, but people who commit mass murder are not.
* Accroding to YOUR view of life. Hardly something to inflict on entire
populations.

* * Of course it is. People want to be remembered after death and this
is certainly one way to do it.

One way to do it, yes. Rational, no.
* * *Again, according to you. This is very much goal directed behavior,
just because it doesn't fit within your psychological context (or mine,
for that matter) doesn't automatically make it mental illness.

Might be the only (rational) way some
people can see their way clear.

That's *not* rational.
Again to YOUR mind. The insistence on always calling everything you
don't seem to understand mental illness seems to be losing it
rationality *to me.

If you think it *is* rational... well, you perhaps should seek help.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Following your argument, then insanity would be an immediate and
airtight defense in any trial for a mass murderer. They, by
definition,
would be insane and could not be found guilty. Clearly that is not
the way the legal system works because the world doesn't use
your definition. And I'm sure if you look at the long'
list of defendants that have faced trial for mass murder, you will
find plenty that were judged sane and then tried and found guilty.

On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 16:13:22 -0500, "Robert Green"
wrote:

"Oren" wrote in message

What does the LAW say?

The law certainly doesn't say, as many seem to believe, that gun possession
can have no regulation attached to it. It allows for reasonable
restrictions on the use and possession of firearms.

Who suggested that?

journalist editorial report removed

So you know my questions to Doug was about his one day researching the
2nd Amendment, in being complete, he would know what the law says.

He did cite the CDC for his only conclusions, right?

" wrote in news:068519b7-d365-4a93-
:


Following your argument, then insanity would be an immediate and
airtight defense in any trial for a mass murderer.

Yes, and it probably should be, too -- at least in jurisdictions such as Indiana, in which "not
guilty by reason of insanity" hasn't been an option since about 1975 (Google "Tony Kiritsis"
to find out why; the law here was modified in the wake of that case). Now, if the accused's
sanity is questionable, an Indiana jury can return a verdict of "guilty but insane", and the
person is sent to a mental hospital for the same length of time he would spend in prison if he
were sane; if he is later found to be sane, he spends the remainder of the time in prison.

They, by definition,
would be insane and could not be found guilty. Clearly that is not
the way the legal system works because the world doesn't use
your definition.

It works that way in some (but IMHO not nearly enough) parts of the world; see above re
Indiana.

And I'm sure if you look at the long'
list of defendants that have faced trial for mass murder, you will
find plenty that were judged sane and then tried and found guilty.

And plenty that were judged insane, too.

But all that is beside the point. You're missing the subtext here, trader. There's a hidden
agenda behind the declaration that mass murder is a "rational" act: if it's rational, then
*anyone* is a potential mass murderer. In this scenario, then, since potential mass
murderers cannot be trusted with firearms, and all of us are potential mass murderers, then
confiscating firearms is justifiable.