Jump to content

Yesterday, I was never prouder of my President, nor more ashamed of my Government

oldschooler

By oldschooler
in JESUS & DRUMPF

Recommended Posts

Bunghole Hall Of Fame

|Bunghole|

Posted
Posted

Think about it. Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time!

But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money!

 

~George Carlin

 

:whistle:

Which is why I found it so very funny that Carlin played a Bishop in the movie "Dogma".

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OneHeartBeat Pro Bowler

|OneHeartBeat|

Posted
Posted

 
 
Criminals, perhaps, less likely maybe, but if they really want one. It's the mentally ill that likely will be more effected.


The problem you will run in to with that is legally determing what mental illness will qualify as being unable to own a gun. Lots of people have a history of depression. Would that qualify? I'm not sure how or who would make that determination.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jamie_B Hall Of Fame

Jamie_B

Posted
Posted

 

http://pb.rcpsych.org/content/32/6/201.full

 

 

 While there is not a condition called Christian there is a belief within the Psychiatry community that religion plays a factor in mental illness, can lead to mental illness, and / or protect against mental illness.

 

I'm asking that our resident psychiatrist Michael Weston chime in regarding this matter.  Here's your nickel;  96.jpg

 

gallery_1479_52_298.jpg

 

I of all people here realize that there are some who think that, however one can not make a medical diagnosis of "religious" in order to treat mental illness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jamie_B Hall Of Fame

Jamie_B

Posted
Posted

The problem you will run in to with that is legally determing what mental illness will qualify as being unable to own a gun. Lots of people have a history of depression. Would that qualify? I'm not sure how or who would make that determination.

 

Start with those required by courts to seek help for psychotic issues, then lets have a conversation about what should and shouldn't be included from there.

 

My own opinion is if you take drugs that help you function because if you don't you are not mentally the same person, and I don't mean depression, you shouldn't own. And I say that as someone who has people he loves deeply that have these issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jamie_B Hall Of Fame

Jamie_B

Posted
Posted

 

You can disagree with fact... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller D.C. vs Heller held that the prefatory clause ("well regulated militia") does not constrain the operative clause ("keep and bear arms") no matter how you interpret the prefatory (there are many interpretations). It furthermore defines the "militia" as all American males physically capable of self defense, regardless of any organization. So, using the prefatory clause to argue that the Second Amendment self-limits the right to keep and bear arms is a non sequitur.

 

As to "regulation," we consent by social contract to have all of our rights regulated. The very basis of American government is that we are endowed with certain inalienable rights - the government does not grant them, but we consent to reasonable regulation for the sake of organized society. The Second Amendment entails one of those rights, that to self defense.

 

Interesting interpretation, somehow I don't think you'd be willing to test the idea that your contract is merely a social one and not a legal one in court. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MichaelWeston Hall Of Fame

MichaelWeston

Posted
Posted

Well...Canadian qualifies. What I meant upthread is that many people that are atheists would consider very religious people to have a mental defect.


I am agnostic and I don't believe in any of the strict stories of religion. I think that some people use religion to cope where other things might be more healthy. Not all people do that nor is that necessarily a symptom of mental health issue. I can't imagine a scenario off the top of my head where being religious is part of the diagnosis. It could be a part of a delusion like the person believes Jesus is in their bedroom or he talks to them, just like it would be with ghosts or dragons etc. But there would probably be a reason they came in to start and it would have nothing to do with religion to start with.

Some religious people probably think atheists have a mental defect. Doesn't make it an actual mental health issue or diagnosis.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bengal Migration Hall Of Fame

|Bengal Migration|

Posted
Posted

Think about it. Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time!

But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money!

 

~George Carlin

 

:whistle:

AMEN

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Khatmandude Hall Of Fame

Khatmandude

Posted
Posted

Where was all of this outrage from the right about losing our constitutional rights when Bush passed the Patriot Act?  Seems the same people that are fearful about losing their Second Amendment rights are more than happy to suspend the 5th and 6th amendment rights.   

 

What I hate is when its not even considered whats actually the best course of action for America and Americans....it comes down to party affiliation, political affiliation and pointing at the other side that they're wrong.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Numbers Hall Of Fame

|Numbers|

Posted
Posted

Where was all of this outrage from the right about losing our constitutional rights when Bush passed the Patriot Act?  Seems the same people that are fearful about losing their Second Amendment rights are more than happy to suspend the 5th and 6th amendment rights.   

 

Probably about the same amount of angst as when Obama signed to continue it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Numbers Hall Of Fame

|Numbers|

Posted
Posted

BIswGfPCIAAFgtm.jpg

 

Just a simple question....  Out of those 247 people that bought guns, how many were here illegally, how many of those 247 bought guns from gun stores that were in violation of the current laws, how many of those 247 used other devices in their attacks, how many of those 247 came here under the current administration, etc...

 

It's very easy to blame one or the other for the issues going on in the world.  The problem is that enforcing the current laws on the books is not being done and hasn't been done under both administrations.  Enacting new laws will not make any difference until the laws are enforced as they should be.  See Sandy Hook for further examples.  The purchase of weapons from a gun store with so many violations it makes the head spin.  A gun store that never should have remained in operation.

 

FWIW, I am for creating new laws but not until they figure out how to enforce them to the fullest extent.

 

The real question is;  How could creating a new law solve the current problem without enforcing the current laws ?  The government simply must add teeth (through actual enforcement) to the law and not simply paying lip service to the issue.

 

P.S.  This is not an argument.  I just don't understand why the current laws can not be enforced.  I don't know if the current laws have failed if they haven't been enforced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Numbers Hall Of Fame

|Numbers|

Posted
Posted

the question is how do you enforce new laws without overriding the constitution?

 

It is not over riding the constitution.  It may be infringing in some people's eyes but it would be a stretch to consider it over-riding the constitution IMO.

 

Kind of lengthy but worth the read for those that care enough to do so:  Maybe even see why it's claimed it is not just about background checks.

 

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d113:s.649:

 

On that above link you can also access who voted for and against;

 

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00095#position

 

Pretty much shows that even though 90 percent of ALL Americans (out of a poll of around 1772) they could only get 68 votes for and 31 against with one not voting (Lautenberg (D-NJ).

 

Here are the YEAs and NAY's:

 

YEAs ---68

Alexander (R-TN)
Ayotte (R-NH)
Baldwin (D-WI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bennet (D-CO)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Burr (R-NC)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Collins (R-ME)
Coons (D-DE)
Corker (R-TN)
Cowan (D-MA)
Donnelly (D-IN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Flake (R-AZ)
 Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Graham (R-SC)
Hagan (D-NC)
Harkin (D-IA)
Heinrich (D-NM)
Heitkamp (D-ND)
Heller (R-NV)
Hirono (D-HI)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kaine (D-VA)
King (I-ME)
Kirk (R-IL)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Manchin (D-WV)
McCain (R-AZ)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
 Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murphy (D-CT)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schatz (D-HI)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Toomey (R-PA)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Warren (D-MA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wicker (R-MS)
Wyden (D-OR)

 

 

NAYs ---31

Barrasso (R-WY)
Begich (D-AK)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Coats (R-IN)
Cochran (R-MS)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
Cruz (R-TX)
Enzi (R-WY)
Fischer (R-NE)
 Grassley (R-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (R-WI)
Lee (R-UT)
McConnell (R-KY)
Moran (R-KS)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Paul (R-KY)
Portman (R-OH)
 Pryor (D-AR)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rubio (R-FL)
Scott (R-SC)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
 

Not Voting - 1

Lautenberg (D-NJ)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jamie_B Hall Of Fame

Jamie_B

Posted
Posted

Da Fuq?

 

http://rt.com/usa/boy-fatally-shoots-sister-686/

 

 

 

 

5-year-old Kentucky boy fatally shoots 2-year-old sister with gift riffle

 

A 5-year old boy accidentally shot and killed his 2-year-old sister in rural southern Kentucky with a rifle he had received a present last year, the local coroner said.

Police said the boy shot his sister with a .22-caliber rifle on Tuesday afternoon just moments after his mother stepped out onto the porch.

Their mother claims she had been gone for “no more than three minutes” when the incident transpired, Cumberland County Coroner Gary White told WKYT-TV.

The girl was taken to a nearby hospital, where she was pronounced dead. An autopsy is scheduled for Wednesday.

White told local newspaper the Lexington Herald-Leader, that the boy had received the rifle as a gift. It was usually kept in a corner of the house, and no one realized a shell had been left inside.

"It's a Crickett," White said in reference to the rifle. "It's a little rifle for a kid….The little boy's used to shooting the little gun."

"Just one of those crazy accidents," he continued.

State police said the shooting occurred when the boy was “playing” with the rifle, but provided no further information.

It remains unclear if any charges will be filed, Kentucky State Police spokesman Trooper Billy Gregory said.

Keystone Sporting Arms, manufacturers the Crickett and an assortment of other products geared towards children.

The company’s slogan is “my first rifle” and its website boasts a “Kids Corner” section, which depicts young boys and girls at shooting ranges and on bird and deer hunts.  

The rifle is marketed by the company as a tool “to instill gun safety in the minds of youth shooters.”

Last month, 6-year-old Brandon Holt was shot in the head and killed by his four-year-old neighbor, who was playing with a .22 in the streets outside their homes in Toms River, New Jersey.

Meanwhile, Alaska State Troopers say an 8-year-old boy shot and killed his 5-year-old sister in the western town of Mountain View on Monday. A police spokeswoman said the boy was home alone when his sister arrived.

She declined to comment on whether the shooting was intentional or accidental, only saying the child was playing with a rifle he had previously used to go hunting.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...