Printable View
Oh sorry I thought FCO was some gov't body that dealt with nerve agents or some such. yeah, stupid question.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
But I'm guessing no-one outside the UK knows that FCO stands for Foreign and Commonwealth Office either.
I'm impressed with how astoundingly biased you can start a reply about bias with.Quote:
The problem with Trump is he has 'I'm guilty' stamped all over him.
Hasn't this been utterly debunked?Quote:
...interfered with our election
Haha right yeah, I though at least you'd know what FCO is.Quote:
Oh sorry I thought FCO was some gov't body that dealt with nerve agents or some such.
Perhaps the bias you're perceiving is due to your own bias the other way.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
You mean Russia interfering with the US election? Well they just indicted a dozen or so Russian nationals on that very basis so obv. you don't mean that...Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Or do you mean that Trump's campaign team was complicit? Think that's up for debate. The fact that he hired certain people who are clearly dodgy, and that he himself is acting so dodgy about the whole thing, and the amount of other circumstantial evidence, makes me skeptical that he's altogether innocent. Could all just be a set of coincidences though, not sure.
Don't underestimate my capacity for not knowing things please.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
No it's just "he has I'm guilty stamped all over him" perfectly demonstrates the inherent bias. This should be eivdent even to those who agree with you.
ok well as long as we're not still flirting with the idea that the Russians "hacked" it.Quote:
You mean Russia interfering with the US election? Well they just indicted a dozen or so Russian nationals on that very basis so obv. you don't mean that...
I couldn't give a fuck if he is or isn't. Talking to potential international partners is to be expected. Of course he'd be shady about it... it will cost him votes because of the massive anti-Russia propaganda we've been exposed to for best part of a century.Quote:
makes me skeptical that he's altogether innocent.
I disagree. If I come home to find the sofa chewed up and my dog greets my at the door by grovelling at my feet, I'd say 'he has guilty stamped all over him', and that's an accurate description of his behaviour. It doesn't mean he is guilty, just that he acts guilty.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Interesting though that Trump doesn't seem to be doing anything to keep them from hacking the midterms.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Wouldn't make a difference if it was Russia or Brazil or the UK or Canada. It's illegal for obvious reasons to conspire with a foreign government to receive support for your campaign in return for political favours.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Stamped by CNN, lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
False. Also, actions speak louder than words. You probably missed the part about how Trump launched cruise missile attacks against Syria and armed the Ukraine. Funny how that doesn't really make it in to the libtard news cycle.Quote:
He won't say a bad word about Russia no matter what,
LOL, how do you not die of irony here? You're conflating correlation and causation.Quote:
he fired his Sec. State the day after he criticised Russia.
Name one?Quote:
His campaign team was full of people tied to Russia in shady ways.
He fires people who do a bad job. There you go again with the correlation/causation fallacy. Comey is about to be under investigation himself FFS!!!Quote:
He fires anyone who is sniffing around Russia like Comey
Cause Mueller is witch-huntingQuote:
and wants to fire Mueller
Really? Keep going then. I'm pretty sure you've exhausted the list of liberal lies being propagated by the mainstream media. But please, if you know something else...tell us.Quote:
and ...the list goes on and on.
Please....elaborateQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Oh, and if you can....please try and identify the SOURCE of any circumstantial evidence you cite.
this is completely unsubstantiated, unproven, and without any degree of credible merit. It's completely made up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
What favors (spelled correctly) did Russia get?
Were they thrilled that we blew up their shit in Syria, or that we armed a hostile neighbor of theirs? Was that their plan all along? Help Trump win, then let Trump undermine Russian national security?? Holy shit Putin must be one hell of a stable genius.
There's questionable unproven evidence that Trump has done something.
There's questionable unproven evidence that Hillary has done something.
If one's response to these is that one is without a doubt innocent and the other one guilty, the only logical explanation to that is bias.
And inb4 anyone tells me what I actually think, I don't know if Trump is guilty, but I think there's enough to warrant an investigation. I don't know if Hillary is guilty, but I'd have no objections about an investigation.
Like what, specifically?Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
You know what, but even Comey's allegations alone. Not investigating alleged links between a foreign power and a presidential campaign would be stupendously stupid without extremely solid proof that nothing definitely happened.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
James Comey on twitter:
Ruh roh!Quote:
Mr. President, the American people will hear my story very soon. And they can judge for themselves who is honorable and who is not.
But clearly you don't. You just blue-pilled yourself into believing it because you don't like Trump.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
What allegations?Quote:
but even Comey's allegations alone
So because Hillary alleges it....that means a multi-million dollar, 2 year inquiry has to be launched??Quote:
Not investigating alleged links between a foreign power and a presidential campaign would be stupendously stupid without extremely solid proof that nothing definitely happened.
Just like that?????
You need to spend some time out of that tyrannical left wing echo chamber you live in.
Trump's tweet which led to Comey's response
Fox and Friends, that arbiter of truth, is the president's proof that Comey lied under oath.Quote:
Wow, watch Comey lie under oath to Senator G [Chairman Charles Grassley] when asked ‘have you ever been an anonymous source…or known someone else to be an anonymous source…?’ He said strongly ‘never, no.’ He lied as shown clearly on @foxandfriends.”
rofl.
LOL, I think Stormy Daniels has a better chance of bringing down Trump than Comey does.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
And her chances are approximately zilch.
Because no-one has alleged any. Because none of his campaign team had shady business dealings with Finland. Because no-one lied about talking to Finns. Because the president never conspired to make up a story about why they were talking to Finns.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
See how easy that is?
The cool thing is, Trump is bringing himself down every day. He barely needs any help doing it. It is almost as much fun to watch him self-immolate as it is to watch his apologists describe his self-immolation as 3D chess.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Yeah, I missed the word "alleged". I ninja-edited it. But not fast enoughQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
The question now is....why are allegations enough?
Because typically (and in this case) they are based on suspicions which are founded in something tangible but not conclusive. That's why you investigate allegations to see if they are true.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Shouldn't we first investigate the credibility of the person making the allegations. If they have an obvious reason to have a heavily biased perceptions of events....are their allegations credible??Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Imagine if I accused you of having six heads, is your willingness to investigate influenced by the fact that you just saw me take LSD?
When the former head of the FBI swears under oath about the president asking him to let his buddy (Flynn) off the hook, then I think no matter what you think of either Comey or Trump you should investigate it, yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Cute. I just said I don't "believe" them, I just think there's enough to warrant an investigation. You on the other hand have decided to believe without a doubt they're false, without any tangible proof.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
You know what allegations.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_..._investigation
I said nothing about Hillary alleging anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
It is sorta fun to watch you squirm though.
Not even close to being a valid argument, since no-one witnessed Comey take LSD prior to his meeting with Trump and there's no reason to think therefore that he hallucinated the alleged words that Trump allegedly said to him.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Lol ya I don't know where Hillary fits in all this unless banana thinks she's a shape-shifter who assumed Comey's form for the express purpose of making the allegations.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
That's just a legal magic trick. They can't get an obstruction charge without proving intent. And since intent can't be proven...that should be the end of the investigation. Instead, people like you have blue-pilled themselves to try and prove intent by showing that the Russia stuff is true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I'm not the one in charge of the investigation, so what I think has zero influence on how it all shakes out.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
You should instead maybe be talking to your congressman if you feel the investigation is such a huge waste of taxpayers' money.
i didnt say you, i said people like you and that includes my congressperson
mueller is department of justice. thays the executive branch. congress is the legislative branch.
congress has already concluded its investogation and released its findings. did you happen to catch what that report said????
When Trump tweets about something he thinks has happened, it is likely that he already knows it happened. This has revealed several times in the past. Like when he tweeted about being illegal spied on by the Obama administration, he already knew he was because of his clearance. The media called him a stupid liar but then months later after reports were released by Congress that confirmed what Trump said, mum's the word.
Apparently just before Mueller was appointed, he was working for the same firm that represented Manafort.
+1 for the theory that Trump (and Flynn/others) implemented a sting with the ultimate goal of getting Obama and his fellow criminals to illegally spy on him.
I'm not sure if I believe that one. I'm more partial to the one that I think is more or less confirmed, that Trump was informed by the admiral head of the NSA after he won that Obama illegally bugged Trump Tower (illegally using FISA).
I just watched AirForce one arrive for Trump's scheduled visit to NH. My office window is about 20 inches from the runway so I got a first hand view of the operation.
If you saw what I just saw, you wouldn't be worried about "who pays" for school security.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/03/20...-confirms.html
Obviously this is a developing story and details are still forthcoming. So nothing definitive yet. But if this is a case where a qualified, well-trained, armed school resource officer turned this from a situation with dozens of potential fatalities to a situation with only two injuries....then I want to hear Poop and Oskar explain why having armed school staff is a bad idea.Quote:
The Associated Press reported one of the three people injured is the shooter. The shooter's identity was not immediately available. ABC 7 reported a school resource officer jumped into action to bring the situation to an end.
Thus far the only argument they've made is that the potential for accidents would result in more deaths. This shooting today could have been 20 deaths, or 50. The worst result of an accident so far was when some broken ceiling tiles fell on a kid's head.
Since we have already established that it costs exactly zero dollarinos to put armed officers in every school, I don't see why not. The more shootings there are, the more officers you put in place. Thus solving the problem once and for all. You have made a great case and I must concede my point. I don't even know why we don't just gift guns to mentally unstable people since it will create jobs and cost zero lives.
I have no argument therefore allow me to be absurd.
Banana said exactly that. It costs literally no money, but also: Trump lives vicariously so there's infinite money for everything anyway. I'll just go with that. You want me to seriously argue against that? I feel more productive licking a window.
movicus el goalpostiumQuote:
Originally Posted by oskar
What we established, was that if the officer is already there, the marginal costs of keeping that officer's training up to an acceptable standard of performance is negligibly small.
If banana was arguing that training teachers will cost nothing, then that is indeed absurd. However, as I recall, he was talking about guards (even you said officers, not teachers), who already undergo training, therefore the additional cost of training guards should be zero because they should already be being trained to a high standard. What extra cost is there? The extra cost is the salary of the guard.
Teachers, well if we're training them, then sure that costs more money, but it might be less than an "officer" whose sole duty is to guard the school, as opposed a teacher who has duties beyond being a guard, such as teaching. Perhaps there will be greater value.
One way or another, I don't see that cost is really a relevant issue. The morality and sanity of arming teachers is open to debate, but surely you take the extra cost on the chin? It'll be peanuts compared to what governments collect in tax revenue.
Even you have been deluded by the propaganda man. Fortunately though, you're not hopelessly lost like some others.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
The phrase "arm teachers" is literally incorrect. No one is talking about drafting teachers to some kind of task force, training them like soldiers at boot camp, and then unleashing them as Gestapo hall monitors. That's what the left wants you to believe. They want you to think that schools are going to ask frail, timid, white-haired english teachers to get strapped. They want you to imagine this whole new ominous responsibility being imposed on educators. That's not the case at all.
Lots of teachers already own guns. All they want to do is bring their guns to school. If they can demonstrate a record of responsibility and a knowledge of appropriate safety measures, then why wouldn't the school let them? Furthermore, why wouldn't the school WANT that?
And how the fuck does that cost money?
More details rolling in now. The shooter was indeed engaged by an armed officer. He did fire, and so did the shooter. Though it's not clear if the officer killed the shooter, or if the shooter killed himself. Either way, it was the engagement with the officer that ended the shooting and the shooter.
What's the over/under on how long it takes for the left to suggest that Trump set this whole thing up?
So let me break this down again:Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
This is a localized problem within the US.
Countries that are culturally and economically comparable don't have these types of shootings.
In multiple of these shootings, the shooter had been diagnosed with a mental illness, but was still able to legally purchase a firearm.
Unless you have been institutionalized you can probably still legally purchase a firearm regardless of your medical history.
In many of these shootings the assailant was reported for saying they will carry out an attack, yet no further action was taken by the authorities.
With all of that, my first go-to wouldn't be to arm teachers or put more armed guards in schools. Even SWAT teams that presumably receive adequate training, still run the risk of executing innocent unarmed people based on a fake report. Cops do kill kids with toy guns occasionally. So yes, I think security officers pose an unnecessary risk to an environment that should not be at risk given reasonable gun laws and competent reaction to terroristic threats.
Well I'm not arguing in favour of arming anyone in English or Finnish schools. USA is unique, and requires a unique solution.Quote:
This is a localized problem within the US.
I just find it strange that a lot of people seem to be more horrified at the thought of allowing teachers to have guns than they are about some nutjob wiping out a load of kids. If the former stops the latter, then what's the problem?
Because it's the epitome of symptomatic problem solving. Europe has had school shootings. Not anymore. You just recently ran into one of the consequences.
Unless you want to pull a wuf and say the 2011 norway shooting or the Charlie Hebdo shooting would have happened in schools if the whole of europe wasn't a "soft target", we're comparing a shooting every couple of weeks to one a decade. The difference to me seems obvious: much tougher background checks and proactive psychological evaluation of students.
Yes, sometimes an armed guard can intervene and there's only 3 dead kids instead of 20. But sometimes there are 20 dead kids. Unless you can put one Jack Bauer in every classroom, that's not a very effective solution.
In what way are they unique?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
You already answered this. Any nutjob can purchase a gun legally.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
The solution obviously isn't to address that fact, it's to make sure the ratio of lethally armed non-nutjobs to lethally armed nutjobs is high enough to reduce the number of deaths from dozens to a few every time, assuming the non-nutjob in question puts on their big boy pants and confronts the nutjob.
Sheesh.
Yes please, let's do that.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Is it? The numbers don't support that conclusion. Perhaps if you're going to narrow the criteria to be just "school shootings", you might have some numbers. But even that data looks like swiss cheese when you consider what 'counts' as a school shootingQuote:
This is a localized problem within the US.
Furthermore, the comparison you're making ignores significant factors. In a country where guns are allowed, shootings are going to be most concentrated in the softest targets. If your whole country is a soft-target, then your shootings are going to be more disbursed.
.Quote:
Countries that are culturally and economically comparable don't have these types of shootings
Not true. See the links above. The US ranks 11th. But let's assume for a minute that it were true. Does that mean that the US is somehow "worse off"? Look at Ong's situation. He's potentially got criminals poking around his property and the best he can do is buy a Louisville Slugger.
So? The DSM-V contains enough mental illnesses to diagnose 70% of the population. I'm almost more concerned about the other 30%. What kind of sick sociopath do you have to be for a psychologist to declare you "normal".Quote:
In multiple of these shootings, the shooter had been diagnosed with a mental illness, but was still able to legally purchase a firearm.
Where are you going with this? An episode of mental illness in one's past automatically precludes them from buying a gun ever? That's not a world I want to live in. Do you know how many soldiers come back from war with PTSD? Are we really saying they can't have a gun??Quote:
Unless you have been institutionalized you can probably still legally purchase a firearm regardless of your medical history.
How about your medical history doesn't mean shit. How about if you're a free citizen, you can exercise your rights as you see fit, including owning a gun. If some crazy people get guns, so be it. That's a FAR better alternative then letting ideologues with medical licenses become arbiters of freedom.
Really bud? Really? Didn't you just rail against me for half a dozen posts about "who pays" for something as simple as providing active shooter training to a school resource officer? Now you want to have law enforcement take action every time someone makes a shitpost on the internet?Quote:
In many of these shootings the assailant was reported for saying they will carry out an attack, yet no further action was taken by the authorities.
Fixed your postQuote:
With all ofthatthose potential means to infringe on the rights of an innocent person, my first go-to wouldn't beto arm teachers or put more armed guards in schoolssecurity.
SO? SWAT teams and cops do a hell of a lot more good than bad. No system is perfect. Human beings make mistakes. Now we have data that shows what things look like when mistakes are made and risks are realized. When guns were brought to school, a risk was taken, and that risk was realized when a broken ceiling tile fell on a kid's neck he got cuts and scrapes. The benefit of taking that risk...of having armed security in schools.....was shown today in the potential saving of dozens of lives.Quote:
Even SWAT teams that presumably receive adequate training, still run the risk of executing innocent unarmed people based on a fake report. Cops do kill kids with toy guns occasionally. So yes, I think security officers pose an unnecessary risk
You don't think the risk is worth it? Really???????????????? x?^100000000000
Pollyanna talk. C'mon man. one of the reasons there are so many school shootings...is because it happened once. After Columbine got so much attention, any kid who is thinking "How am I gonna cause massive chaos on my way out?" now has something to look at for inspiration.Quote:
to an environment that should not be at risk
More liberal propaganda. Why do you get to claim the words "reasonable" and "competent" for your views? I think your proposals sound oppressive and invasive. I think you're playing a dangerous game with people's fundamental rights, in the name of a phenomenon that claims, on average, less than 50 lives a year. Nothing you've said sounds "reasonable" to me.Quote:
given reasonable gun laws and competent reaction to terroristic threats.
Worst idea ever.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Do you have kids?
who decides who is a "nutjob" and who isn't?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
What about the nutjobs that you don't know are nutjobs?
Does the statistical fact that a nutjob is more likely to be a victim of a shooting than a perpetrator matter to you? How do you propose the nutjobs protect themselves?
Not someone who's diagnostic criteria put 70% of the population in the nutjob category.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
What about them?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Is that a statistical fact, and if so, where did you get it?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I'm not running in circles with you. I've already explained why these statistics aren't useful when wuf posted them.
YesQuote:
Where are you going with this? An episode of mental illness in one's past automatically precludes them from buying a gun ever? That's not a world I want to live in. Do you know how many soldiers come back from war with PTSD? Are we really saying they can't have a gun??
Here's a video of a cop who was later diagnosed with having had PTSD from a previous incident going about his duty:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XFYTtgZAlE
You mean, you have no defense of your incorrect, statistically disproved, claims. GothcyaQuote:
Originally Posted by oskar
That's insane.Quote:
Yes
movicus el goalpostiumQuote:
Here's a video of a cop who was later diagnosed with having had PTSD from a previous incident going about his duty:
We're not talking about PTSD and fitness for duty in law enforcement. We're talking about PTSD and a person's right to defend life and property.
Who then?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Well....according to a stat I just found (cited below), 95% of shootings are committed by people WITHOUT a diagnosable mental illness. So....how is denying the rights of known nutjobs going to help?Quote:
What about them?
I actually heard it from a psychologist that I know. But a quick google search turns of shitloads of confirming results, including this one:Quote:
Is that a statistical fact, and if so, where did you get it?
http://behavioralscientist.org/myth-...ass-shootings/
EDIT: Here's some moreQuote:
less than 5% of shootings are committed by people with a diagnosable mental illness. Like mentally healthy offenders, the mentally ill are far more likely to shoot people they know rather than strangers. The mentally ill are also far more likely to be victims of gun violence rather than perpetrators.
https://www.nami.org/Learn-More/Publ...Reporting-Laws
https://www.apa.org/advocacy/gun-vio...erceptions.pdfQuote:
In fact, people with mental illness are more likely to be the victims of violence.
Quote:
persons with serious mental illness are significantly more likely to be the victims of violence than to perpetrate it
So, Ong. You understand why I didn't want to waste the effort. This is a lost cause.
You call it a "waste of effort" but what you're really saying is that you're incapable.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
You've made a number of claims and assertions. I've challenged them sincerely and honestly. You are now saying that defending those claims against that challenge "isn't worth it?". What does that say about your claims in the first place?
I mean, what the fuck man?? You said that returning soldiers with PTSD shouldn't be allowed to have guns. When asked why? You said "well here's a cop who fucked up once"
You proud of that?
Some people think shouting "You're wrong you *!(&!*!" over and over till you get sick of it and leave means they won the 'argument'.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Pretty much.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
But I am interested in whether Ong really thinks the resources are better spent on arming teachers/guard/w/e than in mental health and gun control.
You mean 'wizardry and tyranny'Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
This has been answered. USA is unique because pretty much anybody can buy a gun.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Yes. Gun control is too contentious an issue in USA and any effort to curb the widespread ownership of guns will simply cause friction between political opponents while ensuring the bad guy to good guy ratio is shifting ever more in favour of the bad guy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
And if you think throwing money at mental health research, facilities and treatment is going to make a blind bit of difference, you're living in a dream world.
Arming teachers is a deterrant. It might just work.
And why should that not be changed for people with severe mental disorders or people who have made terroristic threats? The TSC can put people on no-fly lists for way less. That's arguably a bigger encroachment on a persons freedom than their right to purchase a firearm.
I agree with oskar on that point.
The bolded is objectively wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
The right to bear arms is codified into law. The privilege of flying isn't.
Which mental disorders...specifically?Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
So let's say you leave your facebook logged in and fall asleep. Then your ass-hole kid brother comes in and plays a prank by posting something on your feed that could be construed as violent or terroristic? You can't ever buy a gun again?Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Or let's say MadMojoMonkey finally cracks under the pressure and frustration of his irrelevance here and decides to post "I wish I could shoot you in the face Banana!". He doesn't really want to shoot me in the face. It's just an expression of rage that came out in a forum where he is ostensibly anonymous. Are we really saying that's a legit, credible threat that should undermine a person's constitutional rights?
Your ideas aren't very fleshed out, and every time we try to dig into the details, we devolve very quickly into invasive oppression of people's rights.
Proactive psychological testing??
WHAT????????
The rights of people to bear arms "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". That's the law. Those exact words. But you're advocating a policy where no one has the right to bear arms unless you submit to a government evaluation. And then only people with the "correct" personality can have rights. Everyone else is fucked.
Freedom of movement is though.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Let's throw paranoid schitzophrenia out there for one. You happy for someone who might think your kid is a gook soldier to carry a weapon around in public?Quote:
Which mental disorders...specifically?
It's not outrageous that it should be looked into. If it was just a prank, well they won't be google history researching school shootings, for example. A nutjob doesn't just make one shitpost and then go into hiding, he leaves a trail. A shitpost saying "Ima kill kids" might just be enough to have a look into, just to see if it's a habit.Quote:
So let's say you leave your facebook logged in and fall asleep. Then your ass-hole kid brother comes in and plays a prank by posting something on your feed that could be construed as violent or terroristic? You can't ever buy a gun again?
Ok, that's one. It affects 1.1% of the population. Another 68.9% of the population has another disorder diagnosable under the DSM-V.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Which ones should preclude gun ownership, and which ones are ok?
It's not very specific tho, is it? There's nothing in the constitution that the 2nd amendment does not apply to convicted criminals. Neither does it specify the types of arms a well regulated militia might bear. Why not fully automatic weapons? Explosives? Bio-chemical weapons? Anti personnel mines? Why should you not be allowed to own an anti-personnel mine as a convicted felon when that right is clearly codified into law.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Any other mental illness that has a documented risk of the affected person acting in an uncontrollably violent manner. I don't think I'm casting a wide net here, I'm expecting to trim off 5% maybe.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Ok perhaps a better question to ask is...
If I was accused of murder, what mental illness would give me the defence of "diminshed responsibility"?
Let's take those illnesses as a starting point.
There's a strict list of criteria that needs to be met for someone to lose autonomy. When you're forcibly admitted to an institution or for someone to gain guardianship of an adult family member. Those are a good start.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
It sounds like you're saying that bad laws are an excuse for more bad laws.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
In reality, there are methods by which a convicted but rehabilitated felon can have their charges expunged and access firearms again.
Also, I kinda lean towards the idea that people should be allowed to have fully automatic weapons, explosives, or whatever. If the government can have it....why can't you?
Isn't one of your amendments about the right to go about your business unimpeded?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
It's already been demonstrated that process is broken in a way that is very much corrupt.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/o...-shooters.html
But you don't think Kim should have nukes? What sort of hypocrisy is this?Quote:
Also, I kinda lean towards the idea that people should be allowed to have fully automatic weapons, explosives, or whatever. If the government can have it....why can't you?
NoQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
he's not an American citizen. Constitution doesn't apply to himQuote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Nice.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
The government controls the use of weapons, so naturally they're going to have things but use them only under specific circumstances (i know i know, like tyranny -but more I meant national defense). No-one needs a howitzer to shoot off on their farm on July 4 and if anyone thinks they should have a right to own a howitzer for self-defense then that's just silly.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
The constitutional right to bear arms is not for self-defense. It's to protect the people from a tyrannical government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Anybody in America you think shouldn't be allowed to have a gun? Babies? The mentally retarded?
Same thing isn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
How does this article support your position?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
No. Nothing like freedom of travel or freedom of movement is directly stated in the constitution, AFAIK.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Illegal detention is definitely a thing, as well as unlawful arrest, not to mention kidnapping.
Actually, there simply must be legal precedent.
Atomic bombs? VX nerve agent? air strike drones? Inter continental missiles?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Saying, "If I can't have 'em, no one should have 'em, and vice versa" is not hypocrisy.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Who are you to decide what other people need?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I'm not the one deciding. I'm only giving my opinion that saying you need a howitzer for self-defense (from tyranny) is silly.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Who are the US to decide who should have nukes?Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
http://i.imgur.com/95asiad.jpg
Now that I see it, I want it. Can't quite put my finger on why.
Maybe because it looks like a giant dick.
But the cops can't just pull you over 'cause they're bored, cause that is against the constitution (as I understand it). How is forbidding you to travel on a plane any different?Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
That is what I imagine banana's back yard looks like.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Doesn't look like a giant dick to me. It looks a bit short, relative to the size of the balls. Decent girth though.
The camo paint is a nice touch i thought. I mean no-one is going to recognize that as a gun now.
It'd look virtually invisible in a forest of 100ft trees.
So would your mom.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Illegal ImmigrantsQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Follow me now...Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
She says....
She says it was CLEAR. Then she says....Quote:
It was clear to me that he did not have a psychiatric illness that would justify involuntary hospitalization
and the patient was held against his will for two days. Why? Great question. The author gives two answers.Quote:
I ended up admitting this patient
the first...
Does that strike you as medically informed opinion? Or corrupt selfishness?Quote:
the order to release the man who might be the next mass shooter would not be signed with my pen
her second reason...
Can someone explain to me how it's a "benefit" to prevent a man from buying a gun when he's committed no crime and for whom there is no medical justification for him to be forcefully institutionalized.Quote:
the one concrete benefit of officially committing him would be that he could be prohibited from buying a gun from any federally licensed retailer.
I don't want armed officers in school (unless private school and private security paid for privately).
I don't want teachers trained to be armed with government funds.
I want people who have developed the proper training and credentials on their own time to be allowed to carry in a school just like they can at home, in a car, and at the store.
This is not factually accurate.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Interesting perspective.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Deterrence is one of the components to solve this problem. Are we ridiculing deterrence now?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Nobody should have these.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Also I'm the guy who thinks these things exist because governments want them so they can leverage over other governments mainly. I think if enough people embraced a free market such that it could sustain without reverting to government again, threats like nukes would swiftly be eradicated.