Sapo wrote:
I respectfully disagree. I think it always comes down to a guy with a rifle...in combat or anywhere else. Just look at Iraq and how that ground down. At some point your high-tech weapons are useless. Especially if you think you can just unleash them on your own citizenry. I actually think the 2nd amendment is more relevant now than ever. Our federal government is becoming the very thing the Founders feared. Without the 2nd amendment you are a subject not a citizen. But that's a discussion for another day.
And that's how a political disagreement should be...instead of Internet shouting and name-calling. That's how cats like you and I roll, Todd.
WHATEVER PUSSY! TALK SHIT/GET HIT!!!
j/k I respectfully agree with Mr. Sapo and meant no disrespect, I'm sure you both have beautiful wives and strong babies.
"You are now either a clueless inbred brownshirt Teabagger, or a babykilling hippie Marxist on welfare."-Songsmith
bassist_25 wrote:
And that's how a political disagreement should be...instead of Internet shouting and name-calling. That's how cats like you and I roll, Todd.
Damn straight. Its a bassist thang. We are so badass we don't have to yell or insult everybody!
Sapo wrote:
Its still as valid today as it ever was. Why is it less so now in your opinion? Small arms technology hasn't really changed all that much in almost 100 years. Using your example, that 12 gauge would come in handy after the Abrams run out of gas, no?.
If the government were forced into guerilla warfare, then you may have a point. We haven't done so well when it comes to that (e.g., Vietnam, current Iraq war). However, I still think it's crazy that people think that "arming themselves against the government" is not an archiac concept when the government owns the F/A-18s, the M1A1s, the gunships, and the spy satellites.
Again, I'm not bashing the 2nd Amendment. I just think that justifying it through the protection against the government argument has lost a lot of its validilty.
...A guerilla revolution would make for a pretty cool fictional novel, though.
exactly. and it's been said, not all the people in the military would just kill this countries citizens just because they were told to. but still, that dosn't help the rest of us. i agree with current gun laws. there should be a background check. there should be a waiting period. there should be ways to garentee that only responsible adults have weapons that can kill other people. but there is one problem. criminals that buy their guns illegally have no background check done on them. there is no waiting period. know what i mean? if you wanna get rid of guns, get rid of illegal, black market guns. not the legal kind.
I have a question wrote:Blair Holt Firearm Licensing
& Record of Sale Act
2-16-2009
This is the Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sale Act of 2009. Basically this would make it illegal to own a firearm - any rifle with a clip or ANY pistol unless: ·It is registered ·You are fingerprinted ·You supply a current Driver's License ·You supply your Social Security #·You will submit to a physical & mental evaluation at any time of their choosing ·Each update - change or ownership through private or public sale must be reported and costs $25 - Failure to do so you automatically lose the right to own a firearm and are subject up to a year in jail. ·There is a child provision clause on page 16 section 305 stating a child-access provision. Gun must be locked and inaccessible to any child under 18. They would have the right to come and inspect that you are storing your gun safely away from accessibility to children and fine is punishable for up to 5 yrs. in prison.
I don't really mind anything up till the mental and physical evaluation, and on the part where they can come at anytime and check on it. Seriously, who are they to tell you if you are insane or not. I think lawmakers should have mental evaluations and drug testing...which they don't!
RobTheDrummer wrote:I don't really mind anything up till the mental and physical evaluation.
Yeah. that's great. Let's give the mentally unstable handguns and proper ammunition. Let's not look out for the possibility that they could do something that they can't correlate as possibly "wrong", or look out for their own well being to prevent them from hurting themselves at all.
RobTheDrummer wrote:and on the part where they can come at anytime and check on it.
I agree with this part. Only because I feel that if you pass the mental and physical evaluation there is no reason for a checkup.
RobTheDrummer wrote:I don't really mind anything up till the mental and physical evaluation.
Yeah. that's great. Let's give the mentally unstable handguns and proper ammunition. Let's not look out for the possibility that they could do something that they can't correlate as possibly "wrong", or look out for their own well being to prevent them from hurting themselves at all.
You miss my point that who's to say someone is mentally unstable? I mean, they could say I am mentally unstable and make up a reason why and say that I can't own a gun. There are plenty of people out there who are mentally unstable, yet come off as perfectly normal. There is no way of proving such a thing as mental instability, other than a bunch of bullshit theory and physical cues.
I use ticks, both facial and deer, to determine who is mentally unstable. I mean whoever would walk around with ticks on their face is definitely a nut job.
RobTheDrummer wrote:I don't really mind anything up till the mental and physical evaluation.
Yeah. that's great. Let's give the mentally unstable handguns and proper ammunition. Let's not look out for the possibility that they could do something that they can't correlate as possibly "wrong", or look out for their own well being to prevent them from hurting themselves at all.
You miss my point that who's to say someone is mentally unstable? I mean, they could say I am mentally unstable and make up a reason why and say that I can't own a gun. There are plenty of people out there who are mentally unstable, yet come off as perfectly normal. There is no way of proving such a thing as mental instability, other than a bunch of bullshit theory and physical cues.
your out of your element, walt.
there are many many tests that prove mental instability, not to mention these people... i think they are doctors, or well... psychologists. like a dentist works with teeth, psychologists work with people on a mental level and i think i trust most of them in any judgment they would make about someone's mental stability. i know i would not like every paranoid schizophrenic to have a gun. that's stupid. your stupid. and your van is stupid, but i digest. mental evaluation isn't something to have the government do, because when bureaucracy gets involved, all progress moves to de-progress. no, i don't want people that are mentally unstable to have a gun. physical evaluation? come on, i'm not fit, but i know how to handle a gun. i mean, even detective Sipowitz could handle a revolver (free pair of broken drumsticks to who can get that reference).
so, the mental thing yes, the physical thing, no, and to the government coming inside MY home to look at MY things and to check out what I do in MY privacy? seriously, guess how i feel about that...
all insults and derogatory remarks are directed at robthedrummer... cuz he's a doo doo head.
FreebirdSucks wrote:
Yeah. that's great. Let's give the mentally unstable handguns and proper ammunition. Let's not look out for the possibility that they could do something that they can't correlate as possibly "wrong", or look out for their own well being to prevent them from hurting themselves at all.
You miss my point that who's to say someone is mentally unstable? I mean, they could say I am mentally unstable and make up a reason why and say that I can't own a gun. There are plenty of people out there who are mentally unstable, yet come off as perfectly normal. There is no way of proving such a thing as mental instability, other than a bunch of bullshit theory and physical cues.
your out of your element, walt.
there are many many tests that prove mental instability, not to mention these people... i think they are doctors, or well... psychologists. like a dentist works with teeth, psychologists work with people on a mental level and i think i trust most of them in any judgment they would make about someone's mental stability. i know i would not like every paranoid schizophrenic to have a gun. that's stupid. your stupid. and your van is stupid, but i digest. mental evaluation isn't something to have the government do, because when bureaucracy gets involved, all progress moves to de-progress. no, i don't want people that are mentally unstable to have a gun. physical evaluation? come on, i'm not fit, but i know how to handle a gun. i mean, even detective Sipowitz could handle a revolver (free pair of broken drumsticks to who can get that reference).
so, the mental thing yes, the physical thing, no, and to the government coming inside MY home to look at MY things and to check out what I do in MY privacy? seriously, guess how i feel about that...
all insults and derogatory remarks are directed at robthedrummer... cuz he's a doo doo head.
Well, the obvious ones don't count asshole. I'm saying there is a lot of bullshit theory out there. So fuckoffandsucksomedicks!
RobTheDrummer wrote:And it's donny, you dumb fuck! You're out of your element, donny!
shit, your right, aren't you? well fuck me sideways...
regardless schizophrenia dosn't show until the mid 20's (usually) but in some cases it can show earlier and later. there are people in there 50's how never showed any signs until they hit their 50's. not to mention it's showing to be hereditary. i think all that means something, you know? i wouldn't want someone that never had a history of mental illness to buy a gun, and then, one day, their dog tells them that every bass player in the altoona area needs to be killed in cold blood. especially knowing that if it is caught early enough, it can be treated and they can lead an otherwise normal life... maybe that one mental evaluation that the dude could have got when he tried to buy the .357 mag in his 20's.
oh yea, and robthedrummer... you really are out of your element here. i know arguing with you about something like this, you'll never admit defeat or that you could be wrong... but i'll just remember that on this topic, i know more than you do. so eat my sweaty ass.
wasn't there a thread somewhere about how much we should try to class up rockpage?
How about the clock tower killer in Texas? He had a tumor that ended up fucking with his brain and the way he thought. You can't predict that kind of shit asshole, so your solution would be to take them all because someone might end up being crazy someday. You suck, and so do your beliefs in bullshit theory! hahaha
1. Nothing is ever "proven" in science, especially behavioral sciences. Things are only statistically significant insofar as they support theoretical hypotheses in that findings are believed to not be a result of random chance.
2. Most people's understanding of psychological principles goes as far as Dr. Phil and some basic knowledge of Freud. There are a lot of "bullshit theories." Those are perpetuated by people such as Dr. Phil and "Dr." John Gray. Legitimate psychological research is passed through the peer-reviewed process, and metrics, such as the ones to measure psychological stability, are tested and re-tested to determine construct validity along with concurrent validity that determines predictive outcomes with similar metrics. I suggest shifting through the peer-reviewed research, gaining an understanding of validity (construct, external, internal, predictive, and concurrent validity are all good places to start), and then make a decision on what constitutes a poor theory. Physical cues can be used as operational definitions if they have a correlational relationship with behavioral outcomes. Just about any attribute can be operationalized if it is quantifiably related to the behavior that is being measured. That includes everything from volume of voice to EEG readings.
3. The DSM is a living text that changes as research expands and grows. It is largely authored by psychiatrists, who probably do not have extensive research backgrounds, but still retain a lot of professional clinical experience. I personally would like to see more Ph.D-trained psychologists in the authorship, as they would have the most extensive research background. Actually, more Psy.d-trained psychologists would make its credibility stronger, IMO, since they would have both extensive clinical experience and still a sizable amount of research experience, at least from their undergraduate training. Regardless, the DSM is largely a valid text for diagnosing a myriad of psychological disorders, and it will become even more valid as certain controversies (i.e., dissociative identity disorder) are resolved.
4. Rob needs to rock the giant luxury car again.
"He's the electric horseman, you better back off!" - old sKool making a reference to the culturally relevant 1979 film.
