True, but at the end of the day we still have dead people. What I'm talking about is how do we go farther than a stricter law for people that have these challenged folks living with them. Well, no, that only became an issue when a bunch of folks from the left didn't like what it meant and wanted to change it or bend it to say what they wanted it to say. And how did this country come to be again? What were they trying to break away from? Why is it so hard to think it just might need to happen again?
What else do you want to do? Just like football, there is rarely any such thing as perfect. We can only be as effective as we can. One thing is that we can have better gun background checks. Right now the NRA throws a fit if anyone suggests that a proper background check might take more than 10 minutes checking against a master felon and terrorist list. Checking out mental health records might take more time with medical privacy issues and all. But it is important. More typical right-wing fascist lying horseshit. You couldn't back this up to save your life. The right-wingers try to redefine and bend the Constitution to their view all of the time. Like trying to say it protects Christianity, cannot mandate health insurance, cannot make private land-owners respect environmental laws, or lend money to college students. You want me to teach you history again? I have no time. I'll be brief. This country came to be for many reasons--mostly for heavy taxation and light representation. The right to own firearms was not one of the reasons we broke away. Everybody (except slaves) already had the right to own firearms as English colonists. It was only when the colonies were breaking out in open rebellion in 1774 and 1775 and militias, that the British thought they controlled, starting assembling independently. Then the British sought to restrict ownership of military muskets and bayonets and the hoards of black powder that the revolutionary militias were socking away. You are advocating revolution against the government? How radically left a sentiment can you possibly have, komrade?
I really don't know, that is why I said it wasn't going to be easy. I would think that with all the privacy laws in place already that even identifying them could be a violation, you know, because you can't call a spade a spade anymore. It will inevitably hurt someones freaking feeling and end up going to court. Maybe we should just shoot them. I knew this would get you, and you can't back any of that up either. Touche Anything but, the founders clearly stated that the right to bear arms was for the people to be able to protect themselves from their own government. Shooting deer and the like is just an added bonus. We have to be ready and vigilant. Currently we are neither.
Do you really believe that I can't? I know from experience that I can make a list of citations and you won't read a damn one. Where exactly does it clearly say this? What are you talking about?
I was sitting in church this morning, and I thought about the Charleston shootings, and the feeling of vulnerability I felt actually made the skin on my scalp crawl. It just became how clear we were all sitting ducks in the sanctuary.
Several thoughts: 1) There is something bizarre about naming a kid Dylan or any derivation. We have taught seven. ALL have had major issues. It is uncanny! Don't know whether it is parenting skills of folks that name kids Dylan. I know there are several mass shooters named Dylan. Beware of Dylan's! 2). The more certain people are that they have the answers, the more they are clueless. 3) Laws are not the answer. Right now law abiding citizens have never committed a murder. Never. 4). To date my vast arsenal of weapons have behaved well. They have not shot or murdered anyone. I will take the wager that they never will. 5) Having said that, the gun-people relationship must change. It has too. 6) How anyone could read those web pages, or, as reported, hear that guy talk, and not DO SOMETHING is beyond me. 7) In summary, I think people are desperate to find an answer that takes human failings out of the loop. We are petrified to face the facts so we pursue surrogate solutions that don't get at the problem of human fragility and failure. The answer includes people, intelligence and responsibility, both personal and community. I really feel this is the WHAT, but I have no idea about the HOW.
Had the same feeling, but the Springfield 9mm sub compact in my coat pocket was reassuring. I trust God would keep us safe in church, but I was prepared to lend a hand. Frankly, I am surprised there was not a retaliatory attack at a church today.
Very very well said. 100% correct. It can never be "our" fault and by that I mean the parent of the looney kid.
There is no easy answer to your question, and if we are honest with ourselves as a society, hopefully that question will be further explored in the months ahead. My knowledge of this subject stems from my wife who is a therapist. I'll try to explain as best I can what has progressively happened to the mental health system over the past 25 years or so that has led us to the point we are at today. When I was in college at Stephen F Austin in Nacogdoches, TX my first major was Psychology and in my second year I did an intern at Rusk State Mental Hospital in Rusk, TX. This was where they housed the most insane individuals, most all of whom did not belong to families who could afford private care for them. The majority of them were criminally insane which meant that they had committed violent crimes. After proper medication most of them were fairly docile unless something triggered them but for the most part they were manageable, well-fed and cared for and all of their medical needs attended to. I tell you this to set a precedence for the rest of the story because it was shortly after this point that facilities just like Rusk State Hospital started closing. Those closings coincided with 9/11 and the Bush Tax Cuts which short-changed Mental Health big time. In fairness, Mental Health has always been the first thing to get cut from funding because the political consequences of doing so do not start showing up for several years after the funding gets cut. First, facilities like Rusk started closing down and the people who were housed there were returned to their "homes." This means they were dumped somewhere satisfactory enough for the state to make a legal case. After the funding cuts, the privatization of mental health began creeping into heavily republican states in an effort to further trim state budgets and to follow the republican agenda of privatization. Again, in fairness some of the privatization efforts had their intended effect; the problem arose later as private greed began creeping into the equation and the Wal-Mart model started being applied to mental health. Here in NC, the consequences have been alarming. I understand that it has been the same in most other states as well. Not all states have moved to a private mental health system and they aren't doing any better because their funding has been so heavily slashed, with the only difference being that there is less overhead because the bottom line doesn't have to be protected when it is a government agency rather than a private one. This is my own crude synopsis but you can see how far we've come from in-patient care for the worst of the worst to hardly providing direct care at all until someone has already committed a crime against someone else or themselves.
