22 shot in Chicago this weekend

[daws101]

Negotiation appears to be a one way street here.

you've nothing to negotiate with..

I agree that certification is no deterrent to mental break down or illness. Does this mean that we're going to fire all of our police officers, or all of our military staff, or security guards since they're all carrying guns? Anyone can have a mental breakdown, you can't start running for the hills because something can happen.

Having armed officers or faculty in our schools is a reasonable way of protecting our children while at school. Many schools have already adopted this approach.

I guess that would seem reasonable...seem being the operative word

as to this :"Does this mean that we're going to fire all of our police officers, or all of our military staff, or security guards since they're all carrying guns?" you might want to back off the anti psychotics...

 

[rightwinger]

Nobody is answering my question about the perps stealing the guns they used or did they own the guns.

So just because they may steal the guns they need we shouldn't attempt to prevent them from buying the guns they need

 

[rightwinger]

How many of those guns were stolen? How many were owned by the perp?

You still avoided my question, and came back with slightly crazy? What's slightly crazy? Either you're insane, or you're not insane. Can someone be slightly pregnant?
Your politicians were shot down because their definition went far beyond insane.
Someone who had a mental breakdown 20 years ago could never own a gun?

I would say no....can you guarantee they will not go off the rails again?

Who said they went off the rail 20 years ago?
Mental breakdown isn't insanity, it isn't crazy. A person may have just lost a loved one and went into a deep depression. So his rights get taken away for that? The lib politicians thought so, apparently

A person in a deep depression should not be near guns. They are a danger to themselves and others

 

[Meister]

too many cooks in the kitchen..
vagary is a major factor in insanity.... so my definitions are as good as any...
people who want to own guns should gladly volunteer for competency tests before being allowed to own firearms...

That's in your world, dude.
"Vagary" isn't clinical is it?

When I was in college I took a psychology class and the legal clinical definition of insane was a legal term for mental illness of such degree that the individual is not responsible for his or her acts.

That's quite different from the libs definition.
That is the problem, anything else less than that definition is open to conjecture, and that just won't cut it.
You can't take away somebodies rights just willy-nilly like you and rightwinger want to do.

really? I think you meant not supposed to or it's not constitutional but in the real world it happens all the time..and conservatives are no exception.
everybody's hands are dirty....so stop being so fucking sanctimonious

Hmmmm, must have got your ass handed to you.
Try and stay on topic if you have anything.
I was just explaining why the bill never passed....and it didn't pass for good cause.
The wording was too vague the way it was written.
If they had stuck to the legal clinical definition, no one would have challenged it.
Nobody wants to put a gun in an insane persons hand....nobody.
But when you vague definitions in the hands of politicians and you, you end up with a clusterfuck.

 

[daws101]

How many of those guns were stolen? How many were owned by the perp?

You still avoided my question, and came back with slightly crazy? What's slightly crazy? Either you're insane, or you're not insane. Can someone be slightly pregnant?
Your politicians were shot down because their definition went far beyond insane.
Someone who had a mental breakdown 20 years ago could never own a gun?

I would say no....can you guarantee they will not go off the rails again?

Who said they went off the rail 20 years ago?
Mental breakdown isn't insanity, it isn't crazy. A person may have just lost a loved one and went into a deep depression. So his rights get taken away for that? The lib politicians thought so, apparently

you did, a mental break down is temporary insanity

temporary insanity n. in a criminal prosecution, a defense by the accused that he/she was briefly insane at the time the crime was committed and therefore was incapable of knowing the nature of his/her alleged criminal act. Temporary insanity is claimed as a defense whether or not the accused is mentally stable at the time of trial. One difficulty with a temporary insanity defense is the problem of proof, since any examination by psychiatrists had to be after the fact, so the only evidence must be the conduct of the accused immediately before or after the crime. It is similar to the defenses of "diminished capacity" to understand one's own actions, the so-called "twinky defense," the "abuse excuse," "heat of passion," and other claims of mental disturbance which raise the issue of criminal intent based on modern psychiatry and/or sociology. However, mental derangement at the time of an abrupt crime, such as a sudden attack or crime of passion, can be a valid defense, or at least show lack of premeditation to reduce the degree of the crime. (See: crime, insanity, intent, defense, diminished capacity)

 

[daws101]

That's in your world, dude.
"Vagary" isn't clinical is it?

When I was in college I took a psychology class and the legal clinical definition of insane was a legal term for mental illness of such degree that the individual is not responsible for his or her acts.

That's quite different from the libs definition.
That is the problem, anything else less than that definition is open to conjecture, and that just won't cut it.
You can't take away somebodies rights just willy-nilly like you and rightwinger want to do.

really? I think you meant not supposed to or it's not constitutional but in the real world it happens all the time..and conservatives are no exception.
everybody's hands are dirty....so stop being so fucking sanctimonious

Hmmmm, must have got your ass handed to you.
Try and stay on topic if you have anything.
I was just explaining why the bill never passed....and it didn't pass for good cause.
The wording was too vague the way it was written.
If they had stuck to the legal clinical definition, no one would have challenged it.
Nobody wants to put a gun in an insane persons hand....nobody.
But when you vague definitions in the hands of politicians and you, you end up with a clusterfuck.

by who? ,you must be having that dream again....it appears you are the one who's holding his ass cheeks and screaming ow!

 

[Meister]

I would say no....can you guarantee they will not go off the rails again?

Who said they went off the rail 20 years ago?
Mental breakdown isn't insanity, it isn't crazy. A person may have just lost a loved one and went into a deep depression. So his rights get taken away for that? The lib politicians thought so, apparently

A person in a deep depression should not be near guns. They are a danger to themselves and others

Agreed, but that doesn't mean they should be punished for life

 

[Meister]

really? I think you meant not supposed to or it's not constitutional but in the real world it happens all the time..and conservatives are no exception.
everybody's hands are dirty....so stop being so fucking sanctimonious

Hmmmm, must have got your ass handed to you.
Try and stay on topic if you have anything.
I was just explaining why the bill never passed....and it didn't pass for good cause.
The wording was too vague the way it was written.
If they had stuck to the legal clinical definition, no one would have challenged it.
Nobody wants to put a gun in an insane persons hand....nobody.
But when you vague definitions in the hands of politicians and you, you end up with a clusterfuck.

by who? ,you must be having that dream again....it appears you are the one who's holding his ass cheeks and screaming ow!

If I am, it certainly isn't by your lame baseless comebacks.

 

[rightwinger]

Define "crazies", the government tried to earlier and it was a farce.
This is where the rubber meets the road

Our recent massacres had one thing in common. Sandy Hook, Tucson, Virginia Tech, Aurora.....not a single person was surprised that the person did it.
These men were not just "a little off".....they were batshit crazy and everyone who made even slight contact with them thought so

So here's to you gun owners
You are catching a lot of shit for the actions of these crazies. You are being pressured to give up your gun rights because of what these assholes do. Are you willing to pass tougher laws to keep guns out of the hands of crazies with the possible negative that someone who is only "slightly crazy" might be denied a gun?

Where do you draw the line?

How many of those guns were stolen? How many were owned by the perp?

You still avoided my question, and came back with slightly crazy? What's slightly crazy? Either you're insane, or you're not insane. Can someone be slightly pregnant?
Your politicians were shot down because their definition went far beyond insane.
Someone who had a mental breakdown 20 years ago could never own a gun?

Let's start with psychiatric drugs. People taking some of these drugs lose their right to drive because they may be a danger to others....but can still go out and buy an AR-15 with a 40 round magazine
We need to empower psychiatric professionals and their families to ensure these people do not have access to guns

 

[daws101]

Too vague. But, then again, the politicians didn't do very well with it either and why it never passed.
You can have three psychiatrists treating one patient, and they can have three diagnosis's for the one patient. So where does that leave us?

too many cooks in the kitchen..
vagary is a major factor in insanity.... so my definitions are as good as any...
people who want to own guns should gladly volunteer for competency tests before being allowed to own firearms...

Bull spit. Gun ownership is a protected right imbecile. I don't need a competency test to speak in accordance with the 1st amendment nor do I need a competency test to enjoy the 2nd.

You're swinging for the fence but all you do is bunt.

you're right you're free to spew all the nonsensical bullshit you wish......on the other hand you should be first in line....

 

[rightwinger]

Who said they went off the rail 20 years ago?
Mental breakdown isn't insanity, it isn't crazy. A person may have just lost a loved one and went into a deep depression. So his rights get taken away for that? The lib politicians thought so, apparently

A person in a deep depression should not be near guns. They are a danger to themselves and others

Agreed, but that doesn't mean they should be punished for life

Who said anything about life? Get your doctor to clear you and you are good to go

 

[Meister]

Nobody is answering my question about the perps stealing the guns they used or did they own the guns.

So just because they may steal the guns they need we shouldn't attempt to prevent them from buying the guns they need

Sheeesh, all the gun laws in the world isn't going to prevent an insane person from stealing a gun and using them. I'm surprised in you leftwinger.

 

[Meister]

A person in a deep depression should not be near guns. They are a danger to themselves and others

Agreed, but that doesn't mean they should be punished for life

Who said anything about life? Get your doctor to clear you and you are good to go

There we go with that word "conjecture", and that wasn't part of the bill that failed in Congress was it?

 

[daws101]

Who said they went off the rail 20 years ago?
Mental breakdown isn't insanity, it isn't crazy. A person may have just lost a loved one and went into a deep depression. So his rights get taken away for that? The lib politicians thought so, apparently

A person in a deep depression should not be near guns. They are a danger to themselves and others

Agreed, but that doesn't mean they should be punished for life

no they shouldn't .
not owning a gun is not a punishment.

 

[daws101]

Hmmmm, must have got your ass handed to you.
Try and stay on topic if you have anything.
I was just explaining why the bill never passed....and it didn't pass for good cause.
The wording was too vague the way it was written.
If they had stuck to the legal clinical definition, no one would have challenged it.
Nobody wants to put a gun in an insane persons hand....nobody.
But when you vague definitions in the hands of politicians and you, you end up with a clusterfuck.

by who? ,you must be having that dream again....it appears you are the one who's holding his ass cheeks and screaming ow!

If I am, it certainly isn't by your lame baseless comebacks.

subjective...

 

[rightwinger]

Agreed, but that doesn't mean they should be punished for life

Who said anything about life? Get your doctor to clear you and you are good to go

There we go with that word "conjecture", and that wasn't part of the bill that failed in Congress was it?

Conjecture by a doctor?

Look .....these guys doing the massacres are not even borderline

Everyone who encounters them is afraid of them. Adam Lanzas mother was afraid of her own kid, but still she kept guns in the house. Professionals need to be empowered to put these people on a no-sell list. Sit me down with these creeps for five minutes and I could tell you they shouldn't be near guns

 

[Meister]

I would say no....can you guarantee they will not go off the rails again?

Who said they went off the rail 20 years ago?
Mental breakdown isn't insanity, it isn't crazy. A person may have just lost a loved one and went into a deep depression. So his rights get taken away for that? The lib politicians thought so, apparently

you did, a mental break down is temporary insanity

temporary insanity n. in a criminal prosecution, a defense by the accused that he/she was briefly insane at the time the crime was committed and therefore was incapable of knowing the nature of his/her alleged criminal act. Temporary insanity is claimed as a defense whether or not the accused is mentally stable at the time of trial. One difficulty with a temporary insanity defense is the problem of proof, since any examination by psychiatrists had to be after the fact, so the only evidence must be the conduct of the accused immediately before or after the crime. It is similar to the defenses of "diminished capacity" to understand one's own actions, the so-called "twinky defense," the "abuse excuse," "heat of passion," and other claims of mental disturbance which raise the issue of criminal intent based on modern psychiatry and/or sociology. However, mental derangement at the time of an abrupt crime, such as a sudden attack or crime of passion, can be a valid defense, or at least show lack of premeditation to reduce the degree of the crime. (See: crime, insanity, intent, defense, diminished capacity)

Your talking about a legal definition to support your premise. So in other words, the person would have to go through the court system to be declared temporally insane because he had a mental breakdown.

Mental breakdown in a general term that describes symptoms....but, not necessarily insane. just sayin'....

 

[LeadRoundNose]

Who said anything about life? Get your doctor to clear you and you are good to go

There we go with that word "conjecture", and that wasn't part of the bill that failed in Congress was it?

Conjecture by a doctor?

Look .....these guys doing the massacres are not even borderline

Everyone who encounters them is afraid of them. Adam Lanzas mother was afraid of her own kid, but still she kept guns in the house. Professionals need to be empowered to put these people on a no-sell list. Sit me down with these creeps for five minutes and I could tell you they shouldn't be near guns

The bold part above is why we have a 2nd amendment right. The founding fathers knew there would be asswipes like we're dealing with in this thread and made sure we had an amendment in the Constitution to stop them dead in their tracks.

 

[rightwinger]

Nobody is answering my question about the perps stealing the guns they used or did they own the guns.

So just because they may steal the guns they need we shouldn't attempt to prevent them from buying the guns they need

Sheeesh, all the gun laws in the world isn't going to prevent an insane person from stealing a gun and using them. I'm surprised in you leftwinger.

I'm sorry....but I should know better than to try to reason with gun nuts

Every attempt to try to keep guns out of the hands of those most likely to commit mass killings is met with.....that won't work, he could use a knife, he could steal a gun

What is your answer Meister?

You live next door to a fucking crazy who is stockpiling guns and screams at you everyday about walking on his lawn

What is your solution?

 

[rightwinger]

There we go with that word "conjecture", and that wasn't part of the bill that failed in Congress was it?

Conjecture by a doctor?

Look .....these guys doing the massacres are not even borderline

Everyone who encounters them is afraid of them. Adam Lanzas mother was afraid of her own kid, but still she kept guns in the house. Professionals need to be empowered to put these people on a no-sell list. Sit me down with these creeps for five minutes and I could tell you they shouldn't be near guns

The bold part above is why we have a 2nd amendment right. The founding fathers knew there would be asswipes like we're dealing with in this thread and made sure we had an amendment in the Constitution to stop them dead in their tracks.

Crazies never had a constitutional right to bear arms