The President has failed us

[Jaxxon]

USMail XXXII wrote:

<quoted text>
Why not? He lives for that bone.

Is gz a guy tonight?

Freak changes genders so often you need a score card to keep up.

[-Dont Panic-]

USMail XXXII wrote:

<quoted text> DP, the vast majority of these refugees are refugees because they were insurgents in their homelands. At least one member of their family was involved in insurgency. They fought, they lost, they ran for their lives. These folk can never return and can't stay living in refugee camps for life. We have a practice of imprisoning domestic insurgents - other nations just run them out of their country.

The US State Department dumped a bunch of Somali refugees here in the town I go buy things in. It was a culture shock for everyone involved. We didn't appreciate their men cutting in front of our wives and daughters at the checkout stands and we really didn't appreciate their women licking the fruits and vegetables in the produce sections to determine if they were ripe. Their inability to obey traffic laws was the straw that broke the camels back so we ran them pigmies out of town and told the State Department to never send anymore.

[NTRPRNR1]

-Dont Panic- wrote:

<quoted text>
I simply do not believe that banning certain types of semi-automatic firearms will do anything to alleviate the problem of mass murder inside the USA. It's like turning up the volume on your car radio to hide a knocking sound in the engine compartment. It doesn't address the issue.
Do something about mentally ill people. Make a law so people can report a suspected lunatic without the fear of a civil law suit. When someone with a felony attempts to purchase a firearm, don't just deny the sale. Arrest the felon for attempting to commit a felony. Instead of sending approved firearms background checks to the local law enforcement, send the ones that were denied and leave honest law abiding citizens alone. Create a database similar to the sexual predator database with the names and addresses of convicted felons so that we can check to see if that crazy neighbor is even supposed to have that gun they play with out in the back yard. Allow people to report felons in possession of firearms and actually do something about it before they murder someone with it. There are a lot of things that can be done that will actually make a difference. Banning a certain type of gun will only set a president allowing more and more firearms to be added to that list until all firearms are illegal. Slippery slope indeed.

Okay, we tried it before, then released the hold when we let it expire, subsequently flooded the market, provided the guns manufacturers record profits, armed the cartels, etc., etc.

Republicans don't want to help the mentally ill. They live in protected environments and don't care if criminals kill each other and innocent bystanders. They won't care until it spills into their neighborhoods. Oops! Just did, didn't it? But, still, nobody wants to help with mental health care. Nope. They want to leave the most unstable out there to prey on the rest of us.

And, what if you're wrong, and crimes involving those kinds of weapons DO decline? Would it then be worth it? Why don't we find out if new mandatory background checks for purchase, and an end to the flood of assault weapons being sold that probably DO go out of this country to supply insurgents and Al Qaeda operatives and cartel drug dealers, etc. could make a difference in the stats? Could you draw a line in the sand if we resumed the ban we had before? Could you compromise there and with high capacity magazines? If you could, I'll get behind you if there are any further intrusions or suggestions we should ban more. A one time only deal.

[USMail XXXII]

gzeena wrote:

Anyone who supports Rose is a freaking loser.
You all cannot even lie correctly to cover her big lie.
You all can lie all you want but Rose's lie about her MIA/KIA brother in Vietnam will shine so bright that your proceeding lie will be cast into darkness.

You make a case for the need of late-term abortions.

[Angels Flight]

gzeena wrote:

<quoted text>
And you fill this forum with some bullshit.

Gesundheit, geesneeza.

[Jaxxon]

USMail XXXII wrote:

<quoted text>
You make a case for the need of late-term abortions.

I was thinking more along the lines of retroactive.

[USMail XXXII]

Jaxxon wrote:

<quoted text>
Is gz a guy tonight?
Freak changes genders so often you need a score card to keep up.

It's funny that the staunchest homophobic Neanderthals around here prefer to disguise themselves as a members of the opposite sex.

[NTRPRNR1]

Hell on Hee1s wrote:

<quoted text>
Refer to post 95902
for more info.
You have the same disease.
Evil in the heart.
Revenge.
I come to help avenge my fellow Patriots.

Sorry it's not working. Your "fellow patriots" are just about as unstable as Adam Lanza. You're not mentally ill - just unstable and sociopaths.

[NTRPRNR1]

http://www.worldcrunch.com/tech-science/after...

After Newtown: Why Most Mass Murderers Are Actually Not Mentally Ill

[EXCERPT:} Mass murderers are not, according to statistics, mentally ill in the psychiatric sense. That is to say they are not living outside reality. Serious mental illnesses such as schizophrenia are the source of disordered behaviors. Whereas a mass shooting requires organization, preparation, being able to acquire and make proper use of a gun as well as defining a strategy to gain access to the site.(cont.)

[USMail XXXII]

NTRPRNR1 wrote:

<quoted text>Okay, we tried it before, then released the hold when we let it expire, subsequently flooded the market, provided the guns manufacturers record profits, armed the cartels, etc., etc.
Republicans don't want to help the mentally ill. They live in protected environments and don't care if criminals kill each other and innocent bystanders. They won't care until it spills into their neighborhoods. Oops! Just did, didn't it? But, still, nobody wants to help with mental health care. Nope. They want to leave the most unstable out there to prey on the rest of us.
And, what if you're wrong, and crimes involving those kinds of weapons DO decline? Would it then be worth it? Why don't we find out if new mandatory background checks for purchase, and an end to the flood of assault weapons being sold that probably DO go out of this country to supply insurgents and Al Qaeda operatives and cartel drug dealers, etc. could make a difference in the stats? Could you draw a line in the sand if we resumed the ban we had before? Could you compromise there and with high capacity magazines? If you could, I'll get behind you if there are any further intrusions or suggestions we should ban more. A one time only deal.

How can one have a civil conversation with the NRA?

NRA's LaPierre: Absolutism is virtue, not vice.
By REID J. EPSTEIN | 1/22/13 11:10 PM EST

National Rifle Association CEO Wayne LaPierre blasted President Obama for his inaugural warning against “absolutism” and reiterated his promise to give no ground on gun control.

LaPierre’s rebuttal, billed by the NRA as a “major response” to Obama’s Inaugural address, included a specific call to keep semi-automatic firearms legal and said requiring universal background checks for gun sales would put an end to American traditions.

[...]Absolutism, LaPierre said, is a virtue without which gun owners and NRA members would lose their constitutional rights.“Obama wants to turn the idea of absolutism into a dirty word,” LaPierre said.“Just another word for extremism. He wants you, all of you, and Americans throughout all of this country, to accept the idea of principles as he sees fit. It’s a way of redefining words so that common sense is turned upside down and that nobody knows the difference.”
http://www.politico.com/politico44/2013/01/nr...

[-Dont Panic-]

NTRPRNR1 wrote:

<quoted text>Okay, we tried it before, then released the hold when we let it expire, subsequently flooded the market, provided the guns manufacturers record profits, armed the cartels, etc., etc.
Republicans don't want to help the mentally ill. They live in protected environments and don't care if criminals kill each other and innocent bystanders. They won't care until it spills into their neighborhoods. Oops! Just did, didn't it? But, still, nobody wants to help with mental health care. Nope. They want to leave the most unstable out there to prey on the rest of us.
And, what if you're wrong, and crimes involving those kinds of weapons DO decline? Would it then be worth it? Why don't we find out if new mandatory background checks for purchase, and an end to the flood of assault weapons being sold that probably DO go out of this country to supply insurgents and Al Qaeda operatives and cartel drug dealers, etc. could make a difference in the stats? Could you draw a line in the sand if we resumed the ban we had before? Could you compromise there and with high capacity magazines? If you could, I'll get behind you if there are any further intrusions or suggestions we should ban more. A one time only deal.

Do something about the mentally ill first. That is what started the whole gun ban thingy in the first place. Mentally ill people committing mass murder in our schools and other public places is the problem. The tools they use to murder is irrelevant. Why they are doing it is the question that needs to be asked.

We did banish assault rifles and high capacity magazines and all the independent studies demonstrated ZERO effect on violent crime. It didn't work as advertised. Do the right thing and spend the money it takes to help the mentally ill. When they are placed on medications or taken off medications, force the insurance to pay for the medical supervision that the medication label calls for instead of sending them out the door with a bottle of new pills and wonder why they are killing themselves and others.

It's no mystery why all these service members are killing themselves. They lack the mental health care that they need and deserve. The pills they are prescribed have warnings about suicidal thoughts and tendencies yet we treat them like we've treated every mentally ill person here in the US. We just ignore them until something bad happens then we just talk about them but do nothing about it.

[Angels Flight]

Shakes the Klown wrote:

<quoted text>
Why do you want to know that, you gonna throw a party in your mouth?

He's a floral kind of animal.

Gary the Flower-Eating Goat Found Not Guilty of Vandalism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

[USMail XXXII]

Jaxxon wrote:

<quoted text>
I was thinking more along the lines of retroactive.

Jeje!

[NTRPRNR1]

-Dont Panic- wrote:

<quoted text>
Do something about the mentally ill first. That is what started the whole gun ban thingy in the first place. Mentally ill people committing mass murder in our schools and other public places is the problem. The tools they use to murder is irrelevant. Why they are doing it is the question that needs to be asked.
We did banish assault rifles and high capacity magazines and all the independent studies demonstrated ZERO effect on violent crime. It didn't work as advertised. Do the right thing and spend the money it takes to help the mentally ill. When they are placed on medications or taken off medications, force the insurance to pay for the medical supervision that the medication label calls for instead of sending them out the door with a bottle of new pills and wonder why they are killing themselves and others.
It's no mystery why all these service members are killing themselves. They lack the mental health care that they need and deserve. The pills they are prescribed have warnings about suicidal thoughts and tendencies yet we treat them like we've treated every mentally ill person here in the US. We just ignore them until something bad happens then we just talk about them but do nothing about it.

You missed my link? There's scientific evidence that mass murderers aren't mentally ill in the classic sense of mental illness:

Again:

http://www.worldcrunch.com/tech-science/after...

[NTRPRNR1]

WAR - The World Is a Ghetto:

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

[NTRPRNR1]

USMail XXXII wrote:

<quoted text>
How can one have a civil conversation with the NRA?
NRA's LaPierre: Absolutism is virtue, not vice.
By REID J. EPSTEIN | 1/22/13 11:10 PM EST
National Rifle Association CEO Wayne LaPierre blasted President Obama for his inaugural warning against “absolutism” and reiterated his promise to give no ground on gun control.
LaPierre’s rebuttal, billed by the NRA as a “major response” to Obama’s Inaugural address, included a specific call to keep semi-automatic firearms legal and said requiring universal background checks for gun sales would put an end to American traditions.
[...]Absolutism, LaPierre said, is a virtue without which gun owners and NRA members would lose their constitutional rights.“Obama wants to turn the idea of absolutism into a dirty word,” LaPierre said.“Just another word for extremism. He wants you, all of you, and Americans throughout all of this country, to accept the idea of principles as he sees fit. It’s a way of redefining words so that common sense is turned upside down and that nobody knows the difference.”
http://www.politico.com/politico44/2013/01/nr...

Jaxx posted a link yesterday to their roster of Board Members with informative little fact sheets on each. Republicans these days aren't known for considering anything that falls outside of their comfort zone. Guns make them comfortable. Must have a lot of investment capital in Smith and Wesson;-)

[NTRPRNR1]

Hell on Hee1s wrote:

<quoted text>
It's been confirmed that Adam Lanza died on December 13, 2012, not December 14, 2012, the day of Sandy Hook shooting.
http://www.genealogybank.com/gbnk/ssdi/doc/ss...

OMG. The conspiracy lunacy strikes again. None of those mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters were real, nobody died, and everything is a friggin' trick to confuse Americans and steal their guns and deprive them of their Second Amendment rights.

SEEK HELP!!!

Seriously.

[USMail XXXII]

NTRPRNR1 wrote:

http://www.worldcrunch.com/tec h-science/after-newtown-why-mo st-mass-murderers-are-actually -not-mentally-ill/adam-lanza-s andy-hook-killer/c4s10454/#.UQ ONMFcqDdY
After Newtown: Why Most Mass Murderers Are Actually Not Mentally Ill
[EXCERPT:} Mass murderers are not, according to statistics, mentally ill in the psychiatric sense. That is to say they are not living outside reality. Serious mental illnesses such as schizophrenia are the source of disordered behaviors. Whereas a mass shooting requires organization, preparation, being able to acquire and make proper use of a gun as well as defining a strategy to gain access to the site.(cont.)

That deserves further discussion. There's a difference between medical and legal definitions of mental incapacity and there are as many legal definitions of mental incapacity as there are States.

While mental incapacity is an affirmative defense, mental decease/disorders are not. The first lands you in the nuthouse the other in the electric chair.

[Angels Flight]

NTRPRNR1 wrote:

WAR - The World Is a Ghetto:
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Get Down
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
WAR

[USMail XXXII]

Shakes the Klown wrote:

<quoted text>
Why do you want to know that, you gonna throw a party in your mouth?

ROFL!