George

France

#61741 Jan 7, 2013
Really Sassy wrote:
I don't want any kind of Gun Control enacted, just to be blunt about it. What I want is some way to keep guns from getting into the hands of the Mentally Ill and more and better treatment for the Mentally Ill.
I don't believe that Guns are the problem, I believe that the Mentally Ill People and Criminals who are allowed access to the guns, are the problem.
I know of a few mentally ill people that owned guns all their lives and never got in trouble with them.

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#61742 Jan 7, 2013
George wrote:
<quoted text>I know of a few mentally ill people that owned guns all their lives and never got in trouble with them.
Then, maybe I should have said Mentally Ill People who are capable of being violent.
I'm not really knowledgable about Mentally Ill people, but I think you know what I'm trying to say. Surely, there are tasts that can show which Ones may become violeht at some point and if there is, don't allow those People to have access to Guns!
Overtaxed

Thorn Hill, TN

#61743 Jan 7, 2013
Really Sassy wrote:
I don't want any kind of Gun Control enacted, just to be blunt about it. What I want is some way to keep guns from getting into the hands of the Mentally Ill and more and better treatment for the Mentall Ill.
I don't believe that Guns are the problem, I believe that the Mentally Ill People and Criminals who are allowed access to the guns, are the problem.
That seems like basic common sense, BUT and there is usually a but, how do we decide who is mentally ill ? Is it the approx 40 MILLION Americans that have at one time or another been treated by a doctor for depression ? Is it those who have been treated with antipsychotic medications ? Is it those who are currently being treated/monitored for alzheimers disease ? If it is any of the above, all of which are "mental illnesses", what about those people's right to privacy ? What about the doctor patient relationship which would be destroyed as a result of a doctor reporting a mental problem to authorities ? I think forcing doctors to report mental problems to authorities would make it much less likely that a mentally ill patient would seek treatment if they know their problem could become public knowledge. Then there is another problem....say a person is diagnosed with a moderate mental illness, what do authorities do ? Serve a search warrant and confiscate any guns in his or her home ? What about guns owned by family members who LEGALLY own guns ? Do they lose their second amendment rights as a result of living with a person who is mentally ill ? This issue is a road littered with potholes, any of which seem to trample the "rights" guaranteed to every citizen in the constitution.
We can make mental health services as accessable as possible to those who need them, and hope the treatment they provide helps those who are contemplating murdering innocents.
AND, we can limit the size of gun magazines, and outlaw the ownership of large capacity ones that already exist. UNFORTUNATELY, that will not end the killing of innocents, just PERHAPS limit their numbers.
Truth Detector

Jamestown, TN

#61744 Jan 7, 2013
George Will had an interesting take on the cliff deal. He says that it is the beginning of the decline of liberalism. Why?

GEORGE STEPHANOULOS, HOST: And you say the deal was actually a triumph.

GEORGE WILL: In this sense, I think people will look back on this deal as where liberalism passed an apogee and went into decline for the following reason. In the Bush tax rates were passed in two steps, 2001 and 2003. In 2001, 28 Democratic members of the House voted for them. In 2003, only 7 did - and they made it for only 10 years, they were to expire.

Under this deal, 172 House Democrats voted to make the Bush rates permanent for all but 0.5 percent of American taxpayers. What that means is, is that they can no longer tax the middle class.

You cannot fund a state that liberals want, the entitlement state, without taxing the middle class at least. And now you've given up that -- with the locking-in as permanent law the Bush tax rates, that's off the table.

So you’ve painted yourselves into a corner. You’ve just fought tooth and nail FOR something that your party has been AGAINST for decades, tax decreases. Yet your spending policies will dictate tax increases when you find that the money you get from the rich isn’t enough to cover them all. At which point, you’ll have to fight to increase taxes on the middle class.

Good luck with that.


Here's an idea. The new "rich" is $250K. To cover everything you spend, just make the new, new rich,$75K. Since most democrats make way under that figure, you can sell that idea.

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#61745 Jan 7, 2013
As usual, OT, you make very good points and Ones that I don't have the answer to. Surely, there are Experts out there who can recommend something.
I put up a Link that outlines some things that Obama's Task Force MIGHT recommend that Members of Law Enforcement support. I will defer to those who have to deal with the problem, because I have no clue and I have sense enough to know it.

I just don't want the Gov't. using this as an excuse to take away Law-Abiding and Responsible Citizens' guns, especially when there seems to be so many Crazies out there, preying on Innocent People. I want to have some way to defend myself, other than arm-to-arm combat, which I know I can't win!
The simple fact is that, if a Killer is going to kill, he/she will find a way to do it, gun or no gun.
Mater

Dublin, Ireland

#61746 Jan 7, 2013
Has anyone looked up the high capacity gun magazines to see how many millions are out there already to go with the millions of guns already out there? It would be impossible to take everyone's guns. Besides that with a little knowledge, few dollars and access to a welder and grinder people could make their own high capacity gun magazines.
Hey

Manchester, TN

#61747 Jan 7, 2013
Really Sassy wrote:
I don't want any kind of Gun Control enacted, just to be blunt about it. What I want is some way to keep guns from getting into the hands of the Mentally Ill and more and better treatment for the Mentall Ill.
I don't believe that Guns are the problem, I believe that the Mentally Ill People and Criminals who are allowed access to the guns, are the problem.
I agree completely.I'm concerned with the drugs that are being pushed on too many with the very side effects such as killing oneself and others.I'm not hearing talk on this problem in DC.There is big money in these drugs.
I am afraid that the mental thing can be used to try to get rid of guns period.You can find mental anywhere you want to.
I am disturbed also how our returning vets are treated and even now being put on the DHS lists as the domestic terrorists.
Too many of these soldiers are being put on these drugs as DR Peter Briggin testified in US Congress.
I was disturbed when that one returning vet was picked up and put in the mental ward for putting something on facebook about 9/11.The attorney for this person received many calls from other vets or family members that there were 20 or more such incidents in VA.in just that one month.


Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#61749 Jan 7, 2013
Hey wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree completely.I'm concerned with the drugs that are being pushed on too many with the very side effects such as killing oneself and others.I'm not hearing talk on this problem in DC.There is big money in these drugs.
I am afraid that the mental thing can be used to try to get rid of guns period.You can find mental anywhere you want to.
I am disturbed also how our returning vets are treated and even now being put on the DHS lists as the domestic terrorists.
Too many of these soldiers are being put on these drugs as DR Peter Briggin testified in US Congress.
I was disturbed when that one returning vet was picked up and put in the mental ward for putting something on facebook about 9/11.The attorney for this person received many calls from other vets or family members that there were 20 or more such incidents in VA.in just that one month.
I am disgusted by so many things going on in this Country in recent times and you just added another one.
If you have a Link to that "Vet" story, please post it...I'd very much like to read it because I hadn't heard about it. Thanks.
Hey

Manchester, TN

#61750 Jan 7, 2013
Truth Detector wrote:
George Will had an interesting take on the cliff deal. He says that it is the beginning of the decline of liberalism. Why?
GEORGE STEPHANOULOS, HOST: And you say the deal was actually a triumph.
GEORGE WILL: In this sense, I think people will look back on this deal as where liberalism passed an apogee and went into decline for the following reason. In the Bush tax rates were passed in two steps, 2001 and 2003. In 2001, 28 Democratic members of the House voted for them. In 2003, only 7 did - and they made it for only 10 years, they were to expire.
Under this deal, 172 House Democrats voted to make the Bush rates permanent for all but 0.5 percent of American taxpayers. What that means is, is that they can no longer tax the middle class.
You cannot fund a state that liberals want, the entitlement state, without taxing the middle class at least. And now you've given up that -- with the locking-in as permanent law the Bush tax rates, that's off the table.
So you’ve painted yourselves into a corner. You’ve just fought tooth and nail FOR something that your party has been AGAINST for decades, tax decreases. Yet your spending policies will dictate tax increases when you find that the money you get from the rich isn’t enough to cover them all. At which point, you’ll have to fight to increase taxes on the middle class.
Good luck with that.
Here's an idea. The new "rich" is $250K. To cover everything you spend, just make the new, new rich,$75K. Since most democrats make way under that figure, you can sell that idea.
Do you ever watch those meter like things that keep flipping out the interest on the debt?LIke crazy money owed just flying around on that thing? That crazy interest we will never be able to repay?
WHY?
The Constitution gave Congress the right to print the money INTEREST FREE.
Why are we paying the Feds intereset.
WHY...because way back when some DC slobs got kick backs for undoing what Andrew Jackson got rid of (and paid off the debt) and gave the Fed back the scam.

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#61751 Jan 7, 2013
Hey wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you ever watch those meter like things that keep flipping out the interest on the debt?LIke crazy money owed just flying around on that thing? That crazy interest we will never be able to repay?
WHY?
The Constitution gave Congress the right to print the money INTEREST FREE.
Why are we paying the Feds intereset.
WHY...because way back when some DC slobs got kick backs for undoing what Andrew Jackson got rid of (and paid off the debt) and gave the Fed back the scam.
It just never ends, does it? Politicians and the Gov't. are really starting to give me a headache! You elect them to do a job and then, you have to watch over them like a 2-year-old the whole time they're in Office, to try and keep them from screwing you over even worse! lol!
Hey

Manchester, TN

#61752 Jan 7, 2013
Really Sassy wrote:
<quoted text>
I am disgusted by so many things going on in this Country in recent times and you just added another one.
If you have a Link to that "Vet" story, please post it...I'd very much like to read it because I hadn't heard about it. Thanks.
The Ex Marine was Raub Brandon.
Washingtonsblog-Former marine indefinately detained in psychiatric hospital.
Dr Briggin's testimony before congress.
http://www.briggin.com/index.php...
Topix is at it again with that ihternet explorer not working thing back again
Hey

Manchester, TN

#61753 Jan 7, 2013
Forget the Dr Briggins site I just put out it takes you to Charters Booze whatever?????
And no I didn't get that off my favorites list but I could have.Naw I don't like gin.
If you want to see Dr Briggins testimony Google it.
Goodbye

Houston, TX

#61754 Jan 7, 2013
Really Sassy wrote:
...Wolves THAT are goobling...
goobling???
Goodbye

Houston, TX

#61755 Jan 7, 2013
Why do you try to explain anything to a moron? It makes you look foolish.
NTMD8OR wrote:
<quoted text>
You are so naive. I have noticed, stated, and many others have stated as well, that extremely long posts will often not be posted right away. Even though your part of the post was not long , the original post was very long and you quoted all of it.
This is and always has been normal. It does not happen with every long post. I have noticed that it happens more after I have made repeated long posts, and especially when doing a lot of C&P. However, they are always posted.
I believe that some things will automatically trigger a post to be reviewed by a moderator before posting. Stop being so impatient that someone may never see your "words of wisdom"(not) and wait a while before re-posting them and complaining about it. You are so insecure.

“IMNTBHO”

Since: Dec 10

Smyrna, TN

#61756 Jan 7, 2013
Overtaxed wrote:
<quoted text>
AND, we can limit the size of gun magazines, and outlaw the ownership of large capacity ones that already exist. UNFORTUNATELY, that will not end the killing of innocents, just PERHAPS limit their numbers.
But even that is unlikely since the deadliest attack by a single shooter in US history was at Va Tech where Cho killed 32 and injured 17 before killing himself. The guns he used had only the standard 10 round clips. If you want to do the damage and prepare for it,as they all seem to do, very little can stop you. But, it s seems one sure fire way to stop most all of them is a good guy with a gun. Whether they are shot by armed security as in San Antonio or, as more often is the case, take their own life when police arrive.
Nuh

South Pittsburg, TN

#61757 Jan 7, 2013
President for life

Introduced:Jan 04, 2013 (113th Congress, 2013–2015)Sponsor:Rep. José Serrano D-NY-15

H.J.Res. 15: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.

Changing an Amendment takes an average 7 years to make it's way though the required hoops.

First it must pass two thirds of both Houses of Congress then it's send to the states. Once it's ratifited by 3/4 of the 50 State Legislatures then it becomes an amendment.

The odds of that happening is very low.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hjr...
Overtaxed

Thorn Hill, TN

#61758 Jan 7, 2013
Mater wrote:
Has anyone looked up the high capacity gun magazines to see how many millions are out there already to go with the millions of guns already out there? It would be impossible to take everyone's guns. Besides that with a little knowledge, few dollars and access to a welder and grinder people could make their own high capacity gun magazines.
I don't think that kid in Ct. would have designed his own high capacity magazine in the basement if one wasn't available and handy.
How many millions of these magazines would not be out there if the ban on them had remained in place ?
What are your suggestions as to what to do about these mass murders ? And don't say arming teachers is the answer, please.

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

#61760 Jan 7, 2013
Nuh wrote:
President for life
Introduced:Jan 04, 2013 (113th Congress, 2013–2015)Sponsor:Rep. José Serrano D-NY-15
H.J.Res. 15: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.
Changing an Amendment takes an average 7 years to make it's way though the required hoops.
First it must pass two thirds of both Houses of Congress then it's send to the states. Once it's ratifited by 3/4 of the 50 State Legislatures then it becomes an amendment.
The odds of that happening is very low.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hjr...
The same silliness was bandied about during the Bush Administration.
Unreal

Dandridge, TN

#61761 Jan 7, 2013
Nuh wrote:
President for life
Introduced:Jan 04, 2013 (113th Congress, 2013–2015)Sponsor:Rep. José Serrano D-NY-15
H.J.Res. 15: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.
Changing an Amendment takes an average 7 years to make it's way though the required hoops.
First it must pass two thirds of both Houses of Congress then it's send to the states. Once it's ratifited by 3/4 of the 50 State Legislatures then it becomes an amendment.
The odds of that happening is very low.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hjr...
NOTICE the date of 2009 when this was posted on Fact Check. Were you upset about this when it was proposed in 1997, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2005, and 2007? All those bills died, and so will this one, so don't you think it is a waste of time trying to stir up outrage over it?

Posted on June 18, 2009
It’s true that New York Rep. Jose Serrano, a Democrat, introduced a bill (H.J.RES.5) on Jan. 6, when Congress opened, proposing the repeal of the 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which limits presidents to two terms. Repealing that amendment would require ratification by three-fourths of the states.

The bill was referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties and is sitting there now. It has no cosponsors.

Serrano introduced or cosponsored the same proposal in 1997 and 1999, when Democrat Bill Clinton was president, and again in 2001 just days before Republican George Bush was sworn in for his first term. He also introduced it in 2003, 2005 and 2007, all before Barack Obama even announced he was running for president.

All of these bills died in committee without ever coming to a vote. None of Serrano’s bills attracted any cosponsors, except for the 1997 and 1999 versions, each of which was cosponsored by Rep. Chris Shays of Connecticut, a Republican.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/06/third-term-f...
Hey

Manchester, TN

#61762 Jan 7, 2013
Overtaxed wrote:
<quoted text> I don't think that kid in Ct. would have designed his own high capacity magazine in the basement if one wasn't available and handy.
How many millions of these magazines would not be out there if the ban on them had remained in place ?
What are your suggestions as to what to do about these mass murders ? And don't say arming teachers is the answer, please.
There is probably a lot of different issues.But considering that three 747s, three towers, and a hole in the Pentagon,along with a lot of dead Americans were instigated with a couple of box cutters -What?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Greeneville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Scary drivers in Greeneville! 13 min Resident 1
Bible to become Tennessee state book? 21 min Taxpayer 36
fun thing to do ***Keep a Word~Drop a Word*** (Sep '10) 26 min Taxpayer 7,784
Masons in county offices 40 min FancyPantsy 16
Capital Theater and Scott Miller 47 min Cutshaw Nation 6
Poll What all u put on a bloney sandmich? 51 min friendofdog 21
4 apply for school director 55 min No respect 12
Hillary Clinton is running for POTUS 14 hr Voter John Doe 29
More from around the web

Greeneville People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]