Yay, GUNS!

[rigney]

 

How do you deal with the issues that meds create? In the case of my son, he can either take the meds, which slows him way down and prevents him from getting any kind of work (he looks and talks like he's stoned), which makes him a leech on society. He can't take care of himself because of how he is perceived. That, of course, triggers more depression and intensifies the symptoms. And it dooms my wife and I to a lifetime of care for a grown man. So much for spending our lives together in peace, that shit's over.

 

If he doesn't take the meds, he can function, find work and take care of himself. But then the "voice" is stronger, and if anything were to happen, then his refusal to take meds would be "the cause" and blah blah blah.

 

He cannot win. We cannot win. This is a problem for anyone with mental issues that needs medications. The worse the side effects, the more this is a problem.

 

Everyone "cares" about mental issues, but no one will hire anyone with mental issues. They have to hide it, and they are chained to the insurance-employer arrangement (that Americans love so much and refuse to change despite the problems it causes), and live in fear of lapses in coverage.

 

Someone being a danger to themselves and others just doesn't carry any weight, anywhere, anymore. They are not "dealt" with, rather they are bounced around and processed dysfunctionally until they eventually just "go away".

 

I mean come on, my son believed(s) I was going to murder the family and slept with a bow and arrow next to his bed and that was revealed just 2 months ago as a resident in a psychiatric facility...since his release with "stable meds" no one has even called about him. They wait for them to go away and disappear into the woodwork because they are powerless to do anything. They don't know if he's taking his medications, and they don't have the capacity to care. The consequences are fatal. But, nothing.

 

To you, concerns for your sons lack of wellbeing can only be slightly different from that of our national debt and how we plan to solve it, My heart goes out to you, your wife and family. Personally, I would have likely been a basket case long before now. My very best.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't see why. Elaborate.

 

 

Quote by iNow:

Agreed. I would also say that we need to move away from "locking them up," and instead find ways to treat them and help them as they are identified. Punishment does not ameliorate mental issues. Rehabilitation can. Unfortunately, healthcare in our nation has for too long been a privilege of the wealthy and often not available to those most in need.

 

I especially liked your comments about Punishment and Rehabilitation.

 

Face it, the lady was quite wealthy with a 1.5 million dollar home, all of the amenities to go with it, plus her guns and a deranged 20 year old. Tell me, unless you are the one without it; does wealth really matter?

Edited December 28, 2012 by rigney

[StringJunky]

The 2nd amendment doesn't give anyone the unrestricted right to any type of weapon they like. In fact, it uses the phrase "well-regulated". Let's get on that regulation part. If you can go into a gun show and buy an assault riffle with cash with no background check and not even a record of your name, there is absolutely no regulation.

 

This is what I was saying earlier in the thread: The Amendment already sets the stage for some sensible regulations but as yet nobody's taken this part into proper practice that meets the needs of modern-day America...so it seems to me anyway.

[rigney]

Can we actually extrapolate a modern day need for guns as compared to 50 or a 100 years ago?

 

http://setup.rightwingamerica.com/index.php?topic=10863.0

[iNow]

I especially liked your comments about Punishment and Rehabilitation.

 

Face it, the lady was quite wealthy with a 1.5 million dollar home, all of the amenities to go with it, plus her guns and a deranged 20 year old. Tell me, unless you are the one without it; does wealth really matter?

Yes, and rehabilitation remains the more appropriate approach to mental health issues than does punishment. That was my primary point. Focus on treatment instead of punishment for mental health issues. Make it as available as possible to as many people as possible. This is not hard logic with which to agree, regardless of your ideological worldview.

[MonDie]

Can we actually extrapolate a modern day need for guns as compared to 50 or a 100 years ago?

 

http://setup.rightwingamerica.com/index.php?topic=10863.0

 

If that propaganda is correct, citizens will need more than just guns to feel secure, they'll need bombs, fighter jets, nukes, and ebola viruses.

As an alternative, I suggest that we fix the government. After all, the government needs us.

[StringJunky]

Can we actually extrapolate a modern day need for guns as compared to 50 or a 100 years ago?

 

http://setup.rightwingamerica.com/index.php?topic=10863.0

 

 

From your link... pathetic propaganda. What I find sad is your lack of faith in your own system yet you are supposed to be a "true American".. I am presuming you are empathising with the sentiment of the posters

Edited December 29, 2012 by StringJunky

[rigney]

 

 

From your link... pathetic propaganda. What I find sad is your lack of faith in your own system yet you are supposed to be a "true American".. I am presuming you are empathising with the sentiment of the posters

Pathetic propaganda? Are you implying that such a catastrope is beyond happening to this country?

[Moontanman]

Pathetic propaganda? Are you implying that such a catastrope is beyond happening to this country?

 

 

I would suggest that citizens owning guns would not have any effect on such a catastrophe happening or not....

[ydoaPs]

Pathetic propaganda? Are you implying that such a catastrope is beyond happening to this country?

Are you implying that a Bushmaster is any match for an unmanned drone?

 

 

 

I would suggest that citizens owning guns would not have any effect on such a catastrophe happening or not....

Indeed.

[StringJunky]

Pathetic propaganda? Are you implying that such a catastrope is beyond happening to this country?

 

Aside from ydoaps's and Moon's good answers...yes. Your country is well-beyond that happening. I have faith in your country even if you don't.

[Iggy]

 

If that propaganda is correct, citizens will need more than just guns to feel secure, they'll need bombs, fighter jets, nukes, and ebola viruses.

As an alternative, I suggest that we fix the government. After all, the government needs us.

 

You assume that citizens want to feel secure or should feel secure. How much further could the point of that link miss you?

 

I've never met a bombardier, a fighter jock, a trigger happy general with a nuke at his disposal, or an ebola ridden victim, immune to a .45. You make the point yourself... the government needs us. The moment it decides it doesn't we become North Korea, and don't think an armed populous can't forestall that. It absolutely can. Libya proved that point and Syrians die daily to prove it.

 

Tyranny, oppression, and despotism isn't the correct side in this fight. It's awful that one needs to remind others of this.

[rigney]

ydoaPs just lost the game

• 
• Senior Members
• 9,524 posts
• LocationLocal Group

Posted Yesterday, 10:12 PM

rigney, on 28 Dec 2012 - 22:06, said: Pathetic propaganda? Are you implying that such a catastrope is beyond happening to this country?

ydoapS posted: Are you implying that a Bushmaster is any match for an unmanned drone?

Not at all! But the Syrian people are paying a tremendous price at the moment because of a mad mans desire to use his power of supression to murder his own unarmed civilian population.

Edited December 29, 2012 by rigney

[ydoaPs]

 

ydoaPs just lost the game

• 
• Senior Members
• 9,524 posts
• LocationLocal Group

 

Posted Yesterday, 10:12 PM

 

rigney, on 28 Dec 2012 - 22:06, said:

Not at all! But the Syrian people are paying a tremendous price at the moment because of a mad mans desire to use his power of supression to murder his own unarmed civilian population.

 

 

 

 

 

If he had nukes, drones, seasparrows, carpetbombs, etc. like our government does would having AR-15s make ANY difference? If the USA wants you dead, you're completely screwed no matter what weapons you have.

 

The "we have to be able to defend ourself from the government" argument is COMPLETE bullshit and *everyone* knows it.

[MonDie]

Whether the improved accuracy is the result of improving technology or well-placed attacks, the U.S. government's drones have been killing many targets with few unintended casualties.

Considering that the accuracy is improving with time, I suspect that the technology is improving.

 

 

 

 

http://counterterrorism.newamerica.net/drones

 

Edited December 29, 2012 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[rigney]

If he had nukes, drones, seasparrows, carpetbombs, etc. like our government does would having AR-15s make ANY difference? If the USA wants you dead, you're completely screwed no matter what weapons you have.

 

The "we have to be able to defend ourself from the government" argument is COMPLETE bullshit and *everyone* knows it.

If you have a military bckground at all, was it blindly relegated exclusively to K.P. duty?

Edited December 29, 2012 by rigney

[ydoaPs]

Actually, since I became a Petty Officer so quickly (I made Second Class in just over 2 years after enlistment), I never had KP. I do know we can kill you from a boat when you can't even see the ocean and your Bushmaster won't help you at all. I do know that we can fly a drone over your house and blow you to bits and your Bushmaster won't help you at all. I know we can fly any manner of jet over your house and carpetbomb you and your Bushmaster won't help you at all.

 

As I said, the "we have to be able to defend ourselves from the government" argument is COMPLETE bullshit and *everyone* knows it.

[rigney]

Actually, since I became a Petty Officer so quickly (I made Second Class in just over 2 years after enlistment), I never had KP. I do know we can kill you from a boat when you can't even see the ocean and your Bushmaster won't help you at all. I do know that we can fly a drone over your house and blow you to bits and your Bushmaster won't help you at all. I know we can fly any manner of jet over your house and carpetbomb you and your Bushmaster won't help you at all.

 

As I said, the "we have to be able to defend ourselves from the government" argument is COMPLETE bullshit and *everyone* knows it.

What's with the "Bushmaster? Is that a weapon or snake? And the K.P. thing, it was a bit of levity. But I'm sure that you are familiar of our own Civil War and Douglas McArthurs crush of the Veterans Bonus March in Washington, D.C. following WW1? God forbid happenings like those, ever again. But only a foolish and/or capricious person would think it could never happen again here in the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army

Edited December 29, 2012 by rigney

[iNow]

only a foolish and/or capricious person would think it could never happen again here in the United States.

That's hardly the point. The argument being made to you is that IF IT DID HAPPEN, your little Bushmaster is not going to protect you from the advanced drones and missiles and other weapons at the disposal of the government.

 

And here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushmaster_M4_Type_Carbine

[rigney]

If he had nukes, drones, seasparrows, carpetbombs, etc. like our government does would having AR-15s make ANY difference? If the USA wants you dead, you're completely screwed no matter what weapons you have.

 

The "we have to be able to defend ourself from the government" argument is COMPLETE bullshit and *everyone* knows it.

Any belief that freedom and safety, based on fear tactics and supression; denies the claimant of both..

[ydoaPs]

If the US wants you dead, then there's simply nothing you can do. That is a fact.

 

Also, the whole "we have to be able to defend ourselves from the Government" is advocating for committing the only crime defined in the US Constitution.

[rigney]

If the US wants you dead, then there's simply nothing you can do. That is a fact.

 

Also, the whole "we have to be able to defend ourselves from the Government" is advocating for committing the only crime defined in the US Constitution.

Evidently you are referring to treason? Yes, that is the most despicable and heinous crime I can imagine. But it goes equally for a government as for its people..

Edited December 29, 2012 by rigney

[Iggy]

Actually, since I became a Petty Officer so quickly (I made Second Class in just over 2 years after enlistment), I never had KP. I do know we can kill you from a boat when you can't even see the ocean and your Bushmaster won't help you at all. I do know that we can fly a drone over your house and blow you to bits and your Bushmaster won't help you at all. I know we can fly any manner of jet over your house and carpetbomb you and your Bushmaster won't help you at all.

 

As I said, the "we have to be able to defend ourselves from the government" argument is COMPLETE bullshit and *everyone* knows it.

 

I cry for any Syrian happening to read you call their struggle bullshit. Al-Assad has chemical weapons and he could decimate cities too. Should no one fight him? Should no one resist? Are the meager rifles that oppose him so meaningless?

 

I'd rather have 200 million bushmasters at my back than 2000 drones.

 

If the US wants you dead, then there's simply nothing you can do. That is a fact.

 

Also, the whole "we have to be able to defend ourselves from the Government" is advocating for committing the only crime defined in the US Constitution.

 

You have to imagine someone like Nixon who is impeached, but refuses to leave office. Someone who uses the armed forces to stay in power longer than he is legally permitted. Would it then be treason to dethrone him by force? It isn't so clear cut. Caesar's 23 cuts weren't necessarily unjust.

[MonDie]

I'd rather have 200 million bushmasters at my back than 2000 drones.

 

I wanted to check the numbers. I'm not informed on the war in Syria, but I read that they're killing the Alawites. According to Wikipedia, the Alawites comprised 11% of the Syrian population.

In the quote above, you assumed that just under 2/3 of the U.S. population would have your back. Let's assume you have 90% of the population on your side. 311,000,000 multiplied by 0.9 is 278,000,000. To have 200,000,000 of them fighting with you, you will need 72% of them fighting with you. Here is a chart of the U.S. population divided according to age. If you start at age 0 and add up the percents for each age group, you reach 28% when you count the "15 to 19" section. Of course, there are also the extremely old people who cannot fight with you. So you will need about everyone age 18 and up fighting with you.

 

I would look up how many drones we have, but I've got to go. Sorry!

Anyway, if the government was killing that much of the population, they'd probably engineer an easily curable virus or something, then reserve the antidote for the people they like. They wouldn't use a bunch of drones.

Edited December 30, 2012 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[john5746]

Evidently you are referring to treason? Yes, that is the most despicable and heinous crime I can imagine. But it goes equally for a government as for its people..

I would argue that these massacres are worse than treason.

 

By what standards and who decides if the government is treacherous? I didn't like the Iraq war. Should I have take a gun and took a shot at the President. Should I have sent some Anthrax to congress? Heck, you probably thought war protesters were helping the terrorists with their speech.

 

 

I cry for any Syrian happening to read you call their struggle bullshit. Al-Assad has chemical weapons and he could decimate cities too. Should no one fight him? Should no one resist? Are the meager rifles that oppose him so meaningless?

No one mentioned Syria or any other government. IMO, Syria doesn't use chemical weapons because they know the US will kick their ass. When you want to rebel against a government, survival is a key factor. People usually are not looking to commit suicide for themselves and their family. If the government is much too strong and is willing and able to use ultimate force, you must find another way

You have to imagine someone like Nixon who is impeached, but refuses to leave office. Someone who uses the armed forces to stay in power longer than he is legally permitted. Would it then be treason to dethrone him by force? It isn't so clear cut. Caesar's 23 cuts weren't necessarily unjust.

Basically, it comes down to trust. I trust my elected officials, present and future more than I trust the likes of you and Rigney to have weapons of mass destruction in your hands.

 

And guess what? The more people like you want bigger and badder weapons, the more people will support monitoring people like you - what weapons and ammo you buy. How you store them. Who lives with you, around you. What websites you visit and what kind of opinions you post. In other words, you might help create the monster you fear.

 

I think it far more likely that we will have pockets of uprisings from people who are mad at the system or some other group than a government that decides to kill its people. When you use speech, you can have many different opinions, but when you use guns, you just have lots of death.

[MonDie]

The American military now has some 7,000 aerial drones, compared with fewer than 50 some 10 years ago.

 

http://www.rferl.org/content/drones_who_makes_them_and_who_has_them/24469168.html