Enough with the gun issues Democrats.

[BULLDOG]

Just look what the Democrats did to your health insurance when you let them have their foot in the door

Yes, I was finally able to get insurance that nobody would sell to me at any price before then.

Yes and everyone that was paying insurance taken care of theirselves lost their insurance now they have no coverage

No they didn't. Quit lying.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

For the last time guns are not the problem psychos are

Psycos with Guns at Schools seem to be the problem, I know. let's just ban schools. Seems to work for ISIS and the Taliban.

No...you missed the elephant and gorilla in the room....the problem is that our schools are democrat gun free zones....the exact places that mass public shooter tell us they target. How do we know...because they tell us they target them, because no one there can shoot back when they are shooting innocent people.....

What is it about these mass shooters that you just don't understand? Do some basic research, find out for yourself that these guys target democrat gun free zones, then try to understand why getting rid of democrat gun free zones will stop school shootings....

Gun shows and NRA conventions are also gun free zones. You point gets lost pretty quick when that is brought up.

There should be gun free zones and those zones should be protected from outside. Just like the security forces for the Gun Shows and NRA Conventions. Yah, I know, Gun Shows are not Gun Free but they are Ammo in Guns free. Same thing. At the Republican Conventions, it's pretty much Gun Free except for the security people. You want all others to not be gun free except your own meetings. Figures.
\

See...you are repeating the last thing an anti gun extremist screeched, and you are wrong.... The NRA convention is not a gun free zone.... the only time it is is when the Secret Service take over security for the V.P. or the President..otherwise it is open or concealed carry depending on the convention site rules. And gun shows are not gun free....the dealers are all armed to the teeth to protect their goods.....

The Republican convention was not gun free.

Do you actually look into these things before you post?

The State of Ohio requires it to be a Gun Free Zone. Yes, I suggest you do your own homework before you go off slathering like that. The Venue of MOST states will not allow guns except by security. Until then, the Republican Convention AND the NRA convention will be a Gun Free Zone.

You gun nutters need to get your stories straight and start working with the various states and venues to allow you to carry your guns to those places. I imagine it will make the ones on the Diases fell so much more secure.

 

[hunarcy]

Weapons of war are NOT being sold to civilians in the United States unless they possess a license from the government.

Private citizens possessing weapons of war was the reason for the Second Amendment. It is to put us on a more equal footing with government. We should be able to have whatever we can "bear".

Well, of course, that was the main idea behind the Miller decision.

 

[hunarcy]

For the last time guns are not the problem psychos are

Psycos with Guns at Schools seem to be the problem, I know. let's just ban schools. Seems to work for ISIS and the Taliban.

No...you missed the elephant and gorilla in the room....the problem is that our schools are democrat gun free zones....the exact places that mass public shooter tell us they target. How do we know...because they tell us they target them, because no one there can shoot back when they are shooting innocent people.....

What is it about these mass shooters that you just don't understand? Do some basic research, find out for yourself that these guys target democrat gun free zones, then try to understand why getting rid of democrat gun free zones will stop school shootings....

Gun shows and NRA conventions are also gun free zones. You point gets lost pretty quick when that is brought up.

There should be gun free zones and those zones should be protected from outside. Just like the security forces for the Gun Shows and NRA Conventions. Yah, I know, Gun Shows are not Gun Free but they are Ammo in Guns free. Same thing. At the Republican Conventions, it's pretty much Gun Free except for the security people. You want all others to not be gun free except your own meetings. Figures.
\

See...you are repeating the last thing an anti gun extremist screeched, and you are wrong.... The NRA convention is not a gun free zone.... the only time it is is when the Secret Service take over security for the V.P. or the President..otherwise it is open or concealed carry depending on the convention site rules. And gun shows are not gun free....the dealers are all armed to the teeth to protect their goods.....

The Republican convention was not gun free.

Do you actually look into these things before you post?

The State of Ohio requires it to be a Gun Free Zone. Yes, I suggest you do your own homework before you go off slathering like that. The Venue of MOST states will not allow guns except by security. Until then, the Republican Convention AND the NRA convention will be a Gun Free Zone.

You gun nutters need to get your stories straight and start working with the various states and venues to allow you to carry your guns to those places. I imagine it will make the ones on the Diases fell so much more secure.

No, the State of Ohio does NOT require it to be a Gun Free Zone. It is the policy of the Arena. Policies | Quicken Loans Arena Official Website The fact is that the State of Ohio is an open carry state.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Weapons of war are NOT being sold to civilians in the United States unless they possess a license from the government.

Private citizens possessing weapons of war was the reason for the Second Amendment. It is to put us on a more equal footing with government. We should be able to have whatever we can "bear".

Well, of course, that was the main idea behind the Miller decision.

The US V Miller was about transporting sawed off shotguns over state lines. It boiled down that there were two reasons for the ruling.

1. It was ruled that the sawed off shotgun was in violation of the 1934 NFAs law. Barrels of Shotguns could not be that short and be legal.

2. It was ruled that the sawed off shotgun had no bearing on defense as outlined in the second amendment.

I have no idea why this keeps coming up. Saw off Shotguns Bad.

 

[hunarcy]

Weapons of war are NOT being sold to civilians in the United States unless they possess a license from the government.

Private citizens possessing weapons of war was the reason for the Second Amendment. It is to put us on a more equal footing with government. We should be able to have whatever we can "bear".

Well, of course, that was the main idea behind the Miller decision.

The US V Miller was about transporting sawed off shotguns over state lines. It boiled down that there were two reasons for the ruling.

1. It was ruled that the sawed off shotgun was in violation of the 1934 NFAs law. Barrels of Shotguns could not be that short and be legal.

2. It was ruled that the sawed off shotgun had no bearing on defense as outlined in the second amendment.

I have no idea why this keeps coming up. Saw off Shotguns Bad.

the Court reasoned that because the possession of a sawed-off double barrel shotgun does not have a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Which means the weapons that ARE allowed have a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, i.e. weapons of war.

 

[Pilot1]

the Court reasoned that because the possession of a sawed-off double barrel shotgun does not have a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Which means the weapons that ARE allowed have a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, i.e. weapons of war.

I'd like to see that referenced in the Majority Opinion. The natural right to keep, and bear arms is not tied to being in the militia. It is the right of the PEOPLE, meaning individual citizens.

All the 2A is saying is that government can NOT take away our right of self defense using "Arms".

 

[Vandalshandle]

This just in. NRA is passing out pacifiers to all members who show signs of withdrawal because guns are not allowed at the convention.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Work on getting a laws to randomly check troubled teens for mental stability.

Great idea. Forget about the guns, but cure mental illness instead. That should be quick and easy. I wonder why nobody thought of that before.

How many guns have crawled out and killed someone. Most of all the shooters have shown need of help before committing the shooting only to be ignored until after the act.

I know that sounds reasonable to gun nuts, but for sane people not so much.

And I suppose you think banning guns will stop shootings. Those who think that, are insane.

Snag is, no one advocates for ‘banning’ guns.

Rather than guessing what people are thinking, listen instead to what they’re actually saying.

Snag is, we're not the least bit bound to treating the bullshit you lefties spew as though it were the truth.

Rather than listening to their lies, we're looking at their actions.

 

[hunarcy]

the Court reasoned that because the possession of a sawed-off double barrel shotgun does not have a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Which means the weapons that ARE allowed have a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, i.e. weapons of war.

I'd like to see that referenced in the Majority Opinion. The natural right to keep, and bear arms is not tied to being in the militia. It is the right of the PEOPLE, meaning individual citizens.

All the 2A is saying is that government can NOT take away our right of self defense using "Arms".

United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)

 

[Cecilie1200]

Work on getting a laws to randomly check troubled teens for mental stability.

Great idea. Forget about the guns, but cure mental illness instead. That should be quick and easy. I wonder why nobody thought of that before.

How many guns have crawled out and killed someone. Most of all the shooters have shown need of help before committing the shooting only to be ignored until after the act.

Not at all true, most of these shooters were on SSRI antidepressants.

These are linked to most shootings.

From Prozac to Parkland: Are Psychiatric Drugs Causing Mass Shootings?

Gun bans and restrictions will not end these shootings. Removing these drugs, especially from our youth will.

But that ain’t sexy, and won’t win votes.

So I guess we just let the killing go on.

I agree those meds never were the right approach

Depends on the person and the condition. They're certainly known to be problematic for people under 21, and far too many doctors provide far too little supervision and management after prescribing them.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Serotonin induced schizophrenia kind of thing? I could see it, however, my point is that they've got a mental problem they're unable to fix on their own to begin with. So they toss them on drugs, because that's the quick and easy money maker for doctors. The parents of the kids just write off the side effects as "oh it'll get better" and the kids these days live in a culture of all wanting to be mentally unstable cause it's "cool" or some shit - personally I suspect half of them lie about their "depression" just so they can have an official prescription and win the victim olympics they're all so fond of playing, or worse the kid says they're sad and their parent immediately declare them as depressed because they want to live in some fantasy world where kids and teens don't go through emotional down times. (Not that there aren't some folks who suffer from depression, but I highly doubt it's as many as the stats seem to suggest. Kind of like the media acts like transgenders are half the population of the country from they way they go on about it.) Meh, on second thought, maybe all the dumb ass people taking antidepressants they don't actually need are going schizo.

It's more like ... In some cases they work, in some cases they don't work, and in other cases they make the problem worse.

Any attempt to make a solution absolute to all cases ...
Only means that your attempts mirror those of your opposition.

Antidepressants are clearly marked in packaging as far as detrimental side effects are concerned.
They should never be administered without routine supervision ... And more frequent supervision during initial stages.

It is only important to note in regards to circumstances where the pharmaceuticals actually work as desired.
If a stigma is associated with a pharmaceutical due to circumstances surrounding misuse or poor evaluation ...
Then there are people that could benefit from an appropriate approach, that will not because of the way other people react to treatment.

It's like listening to someone complain about pain ... When they have a prescription for pain meds ...
But refuse to take them because they have been convinced that if they do, they will be a junkie whoring themselves out on a street corner in a week.

.​

The point is, these types of drugs do one key thing, block the emotions that caused the depression in the first place. One of those is Empathy. Empathy is key to not acting violently toward others.

There are other methods to deal with depression and SSRI's should be the last, not the first, method of choice.

Wrong. They CAN do that, but that's not the actual intended effect.

There are other methods to deal with just about every illness you can name, but that doesn't mean that medication isn't the most effective for some cases.

You're going way too far the other direction, and appearing really obsessive into the bargain.

 

[Cecilie1200]

This just in. NRA is passing out pacifiers to all members who show signs of withdrawal because guns are not allowed at the convention.

This just in: psychiatrists are now willing to treat leftists suffering from phobic panic attacks because the NRA still exists.

 

[Pop23]

Serotonin induced schizophrenia kind of thing? I could see it, however, my point is that they've got a mental problem they're unable to fix on their own to begin with. So they toss them on drugs, because that's the quick and easy money maker for doctors. The parents of the kids just write off the side effects as "oh it'll get better" and the kids these days live in a culture of all wanting to be mentally unstable cause it's "cool" or some shit - personally I suspect half of them lie about their "depression" just so they can have an official prescription and win the victim olympics they're all so fond of playing, or worse the kid says they're sad and their parent immediately declare them as depressed because they want to live in some fantasy world where kids and teens don't go through emotional down times. (Not that there aren't some folks who suffer from depression, but I highly doubt it's as many as the stats seem to suggest. Kind of like the media acts like transgenders are half the population of the country from they way they go on about it.) Meh, on second thought, maybe all the dumb ass people taking antidepressants they don't actually need are going schizo.

It's more like ... In some cases they work, in some cases they don't work, and in other cases they make the problem worse.

Any attempt to make a solution absolute to all cases ...
Only means that your attempts mirror those of your opposition.

Antidepressants are clearly marked in packaging as far as detrimental side effects are concerned.
They should never be administered without routine supervision ... And more frequent supervision during initial stages.

It is only important to note in regards to circumstances where the pharmaceuticals actually work as desired.
If a stigma is associated with a pharmaceutical due to circumstances surrounding misuse or poor evaluation ...
Then there are people that could benefit from an appropriate approach, that will not because of the way other people react to treatment.

It's like listening to someone complain about pain ... When they have a prescription for pain meds ...
But refuse to take them because they have been convinced that if they do, they will be a junkie whoring themselves out on a street corner in a week.

.​

The point is, these types of drugs do one key thing, block the emotions that caused the depression in the first place. One of those is Empathy. Empathy is key to not acting violently toward others.

There are other methods to deal with depression and SSRI's should be the last, not the first, method of choice.

Wrong. They CAN do that, but that's not the actual intended effect.

There are other methods to deal with just about every illness you can name, but that doesn't mean that medication isn't the most effective for some cases.

You're going way too far the other direction, and appearing really obsessive into the bargain.

It actually is the effect they are supposed to do. They block the emotion that causes the depression. Empathy is one of those

 

[2aguy]

No...you missed the elephant and gorilla in the room....the problem is that our schools are democrat gun free zones....the exact places that mass public shooter tell us they target. How do we know...because they tell us they target them, because no one there can shoot back when they are shooting innocent people.....

What is it about these mass shooters that you just don't understand? Do some basic research, find out for yourself that these guys target democrat gun free zones, then try to understand why getting rid of democrat gun free zones will stop school shootings....

Gun shows and NRA conventions are also gun free zones. You point gets lost pretty quick when that is brought up.

There should be gun free zones and those zones should be protected from outside. Just like the security forces for the Gun Shows and NRA Conventions. Yah, I know, Gun Shows are not Gun Free but they are Ammo in Guns free. Same thing. At the Republican Conventions, it's pretty much Gun Free except for the security people. You want all others to not be gun free except your own meetings. Figures.
\

See...you are repeating the last thing an anti gun extremist screeched, and you are wrong.... The NRA convention is not a gun free zone.... the only time it is is when the Secret Service take over security for the V.P. or the President..otherwise it is open or concealed carry depending on the convention site rules. And gun shows are not gun free....the dealers are all armed to the teeth to protect their goods.....

The Republican convention was not gun free.

Do you actually look into these things before you post?

So the NRA doesn't have control over who speaks at their functions, and are forced to cave on their goals by the Vice President? How does that work?

Really.....? The V.P. agrees to speak at the NRA convention...a big get for the Convention, and the requirement for the appearance is the Secret Service, the organization that protects the V.P. sets up the security...

Are you really that stupid?

SO the NRA isn't really that serious about the whole carrying guns thing, right? They could tell the VP that they prefered to stick to their word and guarantee that their members were able to be armed at their functions. The VP doesn't have to be there.

Wow...you are stupid......the Vice President.....and you want to tell him to take a hike.....how do you manage to feed yourself?

 

[2aguy]

Weapons of war are NOT being sold to civilians in the United States unless they possess a license from the government.

Private citizens possessing weapons of war was the reason for the Second Amendment. It is to put us on a more equal footing with government. We should be able to have whatever we can "bear".

Well, of course, that was the main idea behind the Miller decision.

The US V Miller was about transporting sawed off shotguns over state lines. It boiled down that there were two reasons for the ruling.

1. It was ruled that the sawed off shotgun was in violation of the 1934 NFAs law. Barrels of Shotguns could not be that short and be legal.

2. It was ruled that the sawed off shotgun had no bearing on defense as outlined in the second amendment.

I have no idea why this keeps coming up. Saw off Shotguns Bad.

Because that is the decision that stated....and quoted from Heller...the protection of the AR-15 rifle, the most common rifle in use in the United States...

We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary military equipment” could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.
--------------------------

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179.

 

[2aguy]

the Court reasoned that because the possession of a sawed-off double barrel shotgun does not have a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Which means the weapons that ARE allowed have a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, i.e. weapons of war.

I'd like to see that referenced in the Majority Opinion. The natural right to keep, and bear arms is not tied to being in the militia. It is the right of the PEOPLE, meaning individual citizens.

All the 2A is saying is that government can NOT take away our right of self defense using "Arms".

They explain it in Heller, bearing arms is not connected to Militia service but the weapons protected are those in common use for lawful purposes.....like the most common rifle in the United States, the AR-15......

 

[2aguy]

This just in. NRA is passing out pacifiers to all members who show signs of withdrawal because guns are not allowed at the convention.

They are allowed at the convention dumb ass, just not when the VP and President are there....because the Secret Service has control then......

 

[BULLDOG]

Gun shows and NRA conventions are also gun free zones. You point gets lost pretty quick when that is brought up.

There should be gun free zones and those zones should be protected from outside. Just like the security forces for the Gun Shows and NRA Conventions. Yah, I know, Gun Shows are not Gun Free but they are Ammo in Guns free. Same thing. At the Republican Conventions, it's pretty much Gun Free except for the security people. You want all others to not be gun free except your own meetings. Figures.
\

See...you are repeating the last thing an anti gun extremist screeched, and you are wrong.... The NRA convention is not a gun free zone.... the only time it is is when the Secret Service take over security for the V.P. or the President..otherwise it is open or concealed carry depending on the convention site rules. And gun shows are not gun free....the dealers are all armed to the teeth to protect their goods.....

The Republican convention was not gun free.

Do you actually look into these things before you post?

So the NRA doesn't have control over who speaks at their functions, and are forced to cave on their goals by the Vice President? How does that work?

Really.....? The V.P. agrees to speak at the NRA convention...a big get for the Convention, and the requirement for the appearance is the Secret Service, the organization that protects the V.P. sets up the security...

Are you really that stupid?

SO the NRA isn't really that serious about the whole carrying guns thing, right? They could tell the VP that they prefered to stick to their word and guarantee that their members were able to be armed at their functions. The VP doesn't have to be there.

Wow...you are stupid......the Vice President.....and you want to tell him to take a hike.....how do you manage to feed yourself?

That's the price of what you think of as integrity? What am I doing asking you about integrity anyway? NRA guys don't have any of that.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Serotonin induced schizophrenia kind of thing? I could see it, however, my point is that they've got a mental problem they're unable to fix on their own to begin with. So they toss them on drugs, because that's the quick and easy money maker for doctors. The parents of the kids just write off the side effects as "oh it'll get better" and the kids these days live in a culture of all wanting to be mentally unstable cause it's "cool" or some shit - personally I suspect half of them lie about their "depression" just so they can have an official prescription and win the victim olympics they're all so fond of playing, or worse the kid says they're sad and their parent immediately declare them as depressed because they want to live in some fantasy world where kids and teens don't go through emotional down times. (Not that there aren't some folks who suffer from depression, but I highly doubt it's as many as the stats seem to suggest. Kind of like the media acts like transgenders are half the population of the country from they way they go on about it.) Meh, on second thought, maybe all the dumb ass people taking antidepressants they don't actually need are going schizo.

It's more like ... In some cases they work, in some cases they don't work, and in other cases they make the problem worse.

Any attempt to make a solution absolute to all cases ...
Only means that your attempts mirror those of your opposition.

Antidepressants are clearly marked in packaging as far as detrimental side effects are concerned.
They should never be administered without routine supervision ... And more frequent supervision during initial stages.

It is only important to note in regards to circumstances where the pharmaceuticals actually work as desired.
If a stigma is associated with a pharmaceutical due to circumstances surrounding misuse or poor evaluation ...
Then there are people that could benefit from an appropriate approach, that will not because of the way other people react to treatment.

It's like listening to someone complain about pain ... When they have a prescription for pain meds ...
But refuse to take them because they have been convinced that if they do, they will be a junkie whoring themselves out on a street corner in a week.

.​

The point is, these types of drugs do one key thing, block the emotions that caused the depression in the first place. One of those is Empathy. Empathy is key to not acting violently toward others.

There are other methods to deal with depression and SSRI's should be the last, not the first, method of choice.

Wrong. They CAN do that, but that's not the actual intended effect.

There are other methods to deal with just about every illness you can name, but that doesn't mean that medication isn't the most effective for some cases.

You're going way too far the other direction, and appearing really obsessive into the bargain.

It actually is the effect they are supposed to do. They block the emotion that causes the depression. Empathy is one of those

Wrong. Hyper-emotional, short on logic and reason, and wrong.

SSRI anti-depressants are not intended in any way to cause flattened affect of normal emotional response. They are intended to remove the UNNATURAL depression that causes that flattened affect. If you are experiencing flattened affect, lack of empathy, or inappropriate emotions, you are having a reaction to the medication, and should report it to your doctor. Either the dose is too high, or it's a bad medication fit.

Whatever your visceral hatred of anti-depressants is, you need to get some perspective about it.