Watercooler

Gun Permits for the mentally ill

Tags:
+
0 Votes

Gun Permits for the mentally ill

aidemzo_adanac
In the USA, these issues always appear to be so hard to resolve as one state permits, one state does not, one state has some allowances etc. In Canada, the same problems are usually pretty easy to sort out, all the provinces will agree to a unified solution ( in most cases) , while Quebec does something else that nobody cares about and doesn't affect anyone else. In written legal terms, there's always the 'except in Quebec' clause, as they are restricted from doing pretty much anything.
When it comes to employment rights, same thing, the rest of Canada's provinces all get a level of protection, except residents of Quebec, who's employment laws are very similar to the US where the company is protected and can do pretty much what they want to an employee.

Preamble over, after watching the morning news I was wondering how Americans deal with issues when they are so separated by state laws. I completely understand the independence of states but I also see how it detracts from moving forward as a nation on many issues.

Gun laws: Today I almost fell out of bed while watching US news and how one state has denounced a new gun law amendment to protect the medical records of mentally ill people from being released to FBI conducting background checks for new permits.

I was sure I didn't her it right so I them looked it up and found it was true! So protecting a person's medical record release, when they sign a form accepting a background/security clearance check, medial records are off the record?

Their reasoning was that, if Americans know they MAY be restricted form buying a firearm, if they have a history of mental illness, they will be less likely to voluntarily enter a mental illness facility.

Even after confirming it, I still think they are having a laff. It appears that most states have laws where IF you've been voluntarily admitted and then released, you can still get a permit. If you were admitted against your will and THEN released, you were not, then again some states allow it for both.

I just don't get how ANYONE, EVER having been admitted for ANY reason would be allowed a firearms permit.

Shouldn't that be like question #1 for a gun permit?
Are you or were you ever a nutter? If YES, no gun for you!

How can there be ANY gray area around it? Are Americans THAT mental that even someone with a history of mental illness has his right to own a firearm defended?!? I still can't quite get my head around it myself, it's just so far out of this world that I don't see how anyone can actually say it with a straight face.

The state argues that medical history records are private, unless specifically authorized for release by the patient. Fair enough, I couldn't agree more. But when you sign a release for a criminal background history check, finding out if you are mentally unstable should be authorized at the same time.

So not only do pro gun activists feel ANYONE should have a gun and be able to get one quickly an without further delays, they also feel that the mentally ill (assumed "cured") should be able to get one without revealing their past mental illness history.

Seriously, you think you have problems in the middle east, try looking right next door instead. Your problems are internal, not in foreign countries.
    • +
      0 Votes
      Slayer_

      They keep producing near brain dead Americans.

      +
      0 Votes
      aidemzo_adanac

      The right to bear arms was originally part of British Law and was aimed at allowing an armed and regulated militia. Kings had before reclaimed all guns from subjects, so they could not revolt against the kingdoms. It took a while but was soon shot down (excuse the pun).

      When English colonized America, similar rights were afforded them in order to protect their homesteads and settlements.

      Over the years, many rewrites of the original US Constitution, basically focusing on punctuation and capitalization that changes the context of the bill have been made.

      Today,m Americans are under the belief that they have a right to walk around on the streets carrying a gun and can shoot someone who invades their space or property. Many claiming that police are never there and you have to take matters into your own hands, literally justifying a modern day UNREGULATED militia. Not the regulated militia as stated in the Bill of Rights

      When regulation IS proposed/discussed, American gun supporters start crying about their rights to carry arms and shoot people at will who cross them....um, actually they say to hunt, protect their families and shoot at the target range.

      It's just like freedom of speech, most Americans have NO IDEA how it applies, when and where. You get them crying about being censored when speaking out in a privately owned store, a website etc. How they can say what they want, anywhere they go and how if they can't, it's infringing on their rights. IF you actually read and understand the Bill of Rights, you quickly see that freedom of speech means no such thing, in fact not even remotely close.

      But as Americans have a simplified, condensed version of their rights drille dinto their heads since they take their first breath, it's no wonder nobody actually takes time to read and learn what rights they actually ARE entitled to. It also explains why so many Americans stand up and shout about changes when they clearly don't understand the guidelines to begin with.

      Blame it on Obama, blame it on schools and poor education, bottom line is, blame it on Americans. Ignorance is bliss, until someone loses their life or the life of a family member. Instead of then fighting against people being able to shoot at their families, they use it as justification to arm and protect themselves and their families instead. Cutting off your nose to spite your face.

      +
      0 Votes
      Slayer_

      Much less terrorism in Canada. We're fine.

      But just in case, what size of shoes do you wear Oz? Just in case your feet are found on a beach...

      +
      0 Votes
      jck

      And I haven't shot anyone...... B-)

      +
      0 Votes
      aidemzo_adanac

      I own 2 and have never thought of them as a way to protect myself, nor needed to. If the government turned up tomorrow and said I couldn't have them anymore, 'oh well, c'est la vie, who the **** cares'?

      I don't have a need or desire to have guns, I've acquired a couple over the years but if they were cleaned and shot more than once a year It'd be rare.

      Half the time I head up into the mountains and a few days later think, 'oh, yeah I should have brought the guns up it would kill 10 minutes" other than that, no interest, no need, no decide, no give a damn. I completely forget I have them, that really are that insignificant.

      I remember being younger and staying with a scout family in Tacoma during a jamboree. When I came back I couldn't stop telling people how I met two Americans and they carried guns in the HOUSE!! Both his parents had side arms...in Tacoma....in a small private, lakeside community....after the days of the Wild West. I couldn't believe it, even though I'd seen it with my own eyes, it just blew my mind that people actually carried guns and it wasn't even a third world country, at that time anyway.

      I was actually asking my fellow scout I stayed with if they were FBI or undercover police or something. I couldn't grasp that normal people in a normal country carried guns, for what reason I just didn't know.

      My pistol grip crossbow is a lot more fun anyway. I find guns just a pain in the ***.

      Either way, that' snot really the point of the post, I was more amazed at how some states felt it was more important to protect a person's medical history, when applying for a gun permit and having a background check performed, than allowing a mental patient to carry a weapon.
      I even understand how SOME people justify their need to carry but as far as letting a person with a mental illness history obtain a permit, that's just.....insane.

      The mindset that 'give them an inch and they take a mile' is absurd in such a case. Even sane people have moments where they go on a killing rampage, of course stopping sane people from a killing rampage means ALL people can't go on a killing rampage, which would logically (or even illogically) be wrong.

      But to defend a mental patient's right to bear arms and block their mental history from being investigated is absolutely the most ridiculous thing I've heard in ages.

      Why has the USA turned into such a gong show? The world now stares at the USA and wonders how the people remember how to walk?

      +
      0 Votes
      jck

      I would shoot someone if they broke in my residence...guaranteed.

      And, I won't shoot to wound. American law sometimes (depending on the state) allows a convicted criminal to come back later and sue you for the physical damage to their body from being shot while robbing your property.

      Friggin amazing, I tell you. Sometimes I expect a John Cleese drawing to be on the next page after an article about things like this with a caption "No...sorry...too silly..."

      +
      0 Votes
      CharlieSpencer

      I won't have one in the house. I've only had one home broken into, of four houses over 30 years. No one was home, and the only thing stolen was ... a weapon. (My grandfather's WWI bayonet that I kept, in my youthful ignorance, under my side of the bed.)

      My firearms experience is limited to an M-16 during my National Guard years. I never enjoyed going to the rifle range. This was partly because I was just no damn good, but there were other factors. After just a few rounds, the smoke from the powder made my eyes itch and water. (Obviously, this didn't help my already mediocre aim.) Since the Army wants everyone to achieve a minimum standard, those failing the first 40-target series keep retrying until successful (or the ammo is exhausted). Of course, the more I fired, the more my eyes watered, the worse my aim, etc. Also, I hated cleaning my rifle. Since I was a lousy shot and had to keep trying, the weapon became dirtier and dirtier, and thus even more of a pain to clean to the armorer's standards. More power to those that enjoy target shooting, but I've turned down a few dozen opportunities. ****, I don't even play FPS games

      I don't target shoot, I don't hunt, and my wife and I are probably more danger to ourselves than self-defense purposes can justify. When my father passes away, I have literally no idea how I'm to legally transport or dispose of his two pistols.

      +
      0 Votes
      aidemzo_adanac

      You wouldn't be able to stop an intruder unless you shot him? Castle doctrine is pretty variable these days too, in many states you'd be arrested for murder. I'm not saying you are wrong or right, I'm not giving you a hard time because you feel a need to protect yourself with a firearm. If anything, I find it pretty sad that, in the land of the free, you would feel that insecure so as to need such protection.

      Personally, if anyone pulled a gun on me, they better fire it and better be e good shot. If you don't kill me you will regret it very quickly. I live in a province where guns are carried by pu$$ies. We've still have gang violence of course, a shooting or two every couple of weeks, but they are mainly targeted between dealers and gangs but people don't feel a need to be armed, nor do they push the government to make registrations easy, in fact it's the opposite. If there's a lot of gun violence, instead of forming a private militia, people push for greater gun control, not less of it. Funny enough our Constitution, just with yours is based on the same English Law your Constitution is. Just with more realistic amendments, designed for a more modern society.

      I know there's absolutely no way to remove guns from America, even if it was outlawed entirely tomorrow, in 1000 years you'd never remove the guns, it's proven impossible.

      But allowing mentally ill people the freedom from such checks, is simply mentally ill. Perhaps that's the key, gun lobbyists and the government that supports it are actually scared they'll get found out for being mentally ill.

      I don't know, maybe it's just freaking hilarious to anyone NOT living in America. To an American it's a normal way of life, to protect and serve...yourself. I know that the mindset there is 'it's all about me' but still, that's just freakin' nuts!

      So glad I wiped my hands of the US last year, no more ties, no more contracts, no more responsibilities....damn, except a guy that called me from Seattle last night, who wants to farm me out for some web work.

      Why is it I just can't escape the damn place!?!

      +
      0 Votes
      aidemzo_adanac

      Call a gun dealer, they'll come to you and buy them or call police, they'll come to you and take them. Either way, problem solved.

      +
      0 Votes

      Re:

      maxwell edison

      Re: "Personally, if anyone pulled a gun on me, they better fire it and better be a good shot. If you don't kill me you will regret it very quickly. I live in a province where guns are carried by pu$$ies."

      More chest-pounding, I see.

      I'm reminded of my 6 years in the military back in the mid 70s. I quickly learned that those who told the best Vietnam War stories were the least likely to have experienced them. Those who never talked about it (boasted) were more likely to be the real deal.

      +
      0 Votes
      neilb@uk

      "You don't know man! you were'nt there"

      Happliy, that was one war that we managed NOT to slavishly follow the US into else I might have had to flee to France to escape the draft.

      Alas that is not the case these days. "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Vietna, We watched while you fumbled around with no achievable goal. But, now, we are in Afghanistan with no achievable goal, Iraq with no achievable goal, have helped bomb Libya back to tribalism, would love to toast Iran, want to do the same to Syria...and we lick Saudi Arabia's sandals.

      All that information ripped off by the US Intelligence services. Someday, the US and UK will learn the difference between data, knowledge and wisdom. Go, Snowden! Tell it as it is.

      Sorry about the minor rant but it seems to me that the idea of the mentally ill being able to own deadly weapons translates up to countries, too.

      +
      0 Votes
      maxwell edison

      Rants are great. I didn't quite understand all of it, but I'm also glad you guys didn't follow our folly way back when.

      Re: "....the idea of the mentally ill being able to own deadly weapons translates up to countries, too.

      I like that. I really do. It seems to be in-line with an idea I had for a new discussion, but I refrained from starting it. It would have gone something like this:

      A Tale of Two Headlines

      One Headline:

      "Obama steps up military aid to Syrian rebels"

      Another headline:

      "Catholic Priest Allegedly Beheaded in Syria by Al-Qaeda-Linked Rebels as Men and Children Take Pictures and Cheer"

      Message to President Obama: You're supporting the wrong side. And yes, the other side is also the wrong side.

      +
      0 Votes
      neilb@uk

      Just an early morning, low blood sugar post. Usually makes as much sense as the ones I used to post after beer.

      Message to President Obama and to Prime Minister Cameron: You're supporting the wrong side. And yes, the other side is also the wrong side.

      The only change I would make, other than to amend the target audience, is to add "this is a Muslim sectarian war between Shiites and Sunni and you don't have the slightest idea what either of the sides really want".

      +
      0 Votes
      jck

      You get someone telling a real war story, they generally don't beat their chest. They usually get sad remembering all their buddies they lost.

      My uncle was always solemn about it. He survived Pearl Harbor while assigned to the USS Pennsylvania. He talked to me about it several times. I have his Naval Annual and several pieces from his time in the Navy and at Pearl Harbor that he kept.

      Same thing for a guy I knew in college who'd been in Vietnam and retired from the Navy. And, several other guys I knew from hanging around with guys in the Veterans Affairs office at the university I attended.

      Or my old neighbors...the husband was in Vietnam...and, it's hard for him to talk about it still to this day. He's only opened up 2 times in the almost 10 years I've known him and his wife.

      Anyways...nuff said

      +
      0 Votes
      maxwell edison

      Oh for Pete's sake, jck. I call out someone doing his usual chest-pounding using a "war story" analogy, and you go off on some stupid nit-picking mission. Then again, I suppose you buy into the fool's chest-pounding as well.

      +
      0 Votes

      jck was corroborating your point from your post titled "Re:" that those who have been there don't pound their chest.

      +
      0 Votes
      maxwell edison

      Heaven forbid you, jck, or someone else back me up when I call-out such chest pounding; instead jck's segue into his "sad story" observation, and you point out my "bad form".

      What do you think of Oz's constant "chest pounding", Nick? Or am I the only one who dares to call it schoolboy childishness?

      +
      0 Votes

      Max

      aidemzo_adanac

      Chest pounding is saying you will shoot anyone who enters your home. It is usually followed by gun make, model, bore amount of ammo on hand, how everyone in the family has been in the military, how one is personally MORE responsible with a gun than the rest of the population, due to intense gun range training etc.

      Saying, 'if you pull your gun, you better kill me' is a simple reality. You can take a shot, but don't expect to take any others. It leans on man's natural instinct to fight until the death, when in a life or death situation.

      So, you have it completely backward but that's to be expected , you don't seem to pick up on anything else here either. Your comprehension has been proven abysmal too many times to even begin counting.

      +
      0 Votes
      aidemzo_adanac

      Please, do tell, I know you have problem with posting links but you can still find them and quote them.

      Chest pounding is inherently an American thing.

      I have a gun under my pillow and will shoot anyone entering my home to protect my family. THUMP, THUMP, THUMP

      If it wasn't for America, the rest of the world would be speaking German, THUMP THUMP THUMP

      America doesn't let terrorists walk on it like all the other free nations do! THUMP, THUMP, THUMP

      America has freedoms and rights....you wouldn't understand. THUMP THUMP THUMP

      American is the mightiest country on Earth, everyone wants to move here, you are just jealous. THUMP THUMP THUMP

      Get over yourself, peel a banana and try throwing your feces at someone else who might think you were cool.

      +
      0 Votes
      aidemzo_adanac

      Don't need a cartoon, the replies here are a joke themselves.

      It's like people have the most illogical and blatantly ignorant train of though.

      In a discusion where the topic is about mental health record checks being unavailable to peopl seekign a license to own a deadly weapon, you get replies like "I own two guns and I've never shot anyone?" How about using some sanity, logic and relevance instead?

      "I would shoot someone if they broke into my residence."
      Did saying that put a bit more hair on your chest and make the beer a bit weaker too? Do you have a sign with that on your door? "Break in here and I will shoot you dead!"

      Shoot to kill, and American law is also very quick to ignore the castle doctrine, welcome to cell block C, here's Bubba and he needs a new girlfriend.

      So many tough guys, for such a weak nation.

      +
      0 Votes
      CharlieSpencer

      The cops it is. I just don't know if I have to provide any proof of ownership, registration, or other documentation. I'd prefer to get rid of them in NC, where he lives, but since I don't live there, I'm unclear on how to legally demonstrate my inheritance of them. Most of the advice I've found on the web assumes I want to keep them, which I most certainly don't. Frankly, I'd like to see them melted down for scrap, but I don't own a blast furnace...

      +
      0 Votes
      CharlieSpencer

      "How can there be ANY gray area around it? Are Americans THAT mental that even someone with a history of mental illness has his right to own a firearm defended?!?"

      Recent polls since Sandy Point show that between 70% and 80% of the US voting population supports a national database for the pre-screening of all gun sales. Also, the percentage of gun-owning households is down from 37% or so in the late '60s to 24% or so today. While fewer people overall own them, that minority is buying at record levels. The number of gun owning households may be down, but the average number of guns in them is going up.

      My totally unsupported guess is the gun industry, like the tobacco industry, sees its shrinking customer base and will do anything to slow that decline. This includes using its puppets in the NRA leadership to whip gun owners into a frenzy whenever any form of gun legislation is merely filed, regardless of whether it is eventually debated or (gos forbid) passed. Overwrought owners go on buying sprees in the potential affected political subdivision, regardless of the extent of the potential restrictions, regardless of the chances of passing or failing. The NRA exercises political power all out of proportion to its percentage of the voting population simply because it has deep pockets, which are mostly refilled not by individual owners' dues but by the gun industry.

      Indeed, I suspect the industry of viewing each new mass shooting like children at Christmas. They know there will be a rash of new gun control legislation proposed, driving up sales to those trying to get as many arms as possible before that legislation takes effect (which it never does). It doesn't matter if gun advocates or gun controllers win or lose the game, or even how it's played; the industry comes out ahead as soon as the anthem plays and the umpire cries, "Play ball!"

      +
      0 Votes
      aidemzo_adanac

      IN this case, that's the whole point. People support pre-screening, but those with a history of mental illness CANNOT be screened to see if they've been in a looney bin or not. The government, who doesn't protect anyone's privacy for any reason, protects people' s medical records from review, even when applying for a permit!

      It varies by state but it seems commonly, if you admit yourself and later leave, you are okay to have a gun. If you are admitted by court or whatever means, after you are deemed sane again, you are okay to get a gun.

      The people conducting record checks are not allowed to look at your mental history records, a big problem in my eyes. If you HAVE a permit and THEN are sent to the nuthouse, your permit is simply suspended until your release.

      "Here you go, you are free from the insane asylum today, here's your pistol back, have a great day!" It sounds absolutely insane but it's a reality that is actually defended.

      I've seen more realistic concepts lines in a National Lampoon movie!


      P.S. don't worry about the tobacco industry, I'm dumb enough to keep them afloat.

      +
      0 Votes
      jp85257

      it would be a violation of the HIPAA law. We must obey Federal laws. We wouldn't want to use common sense.

      +
      0 Votes
      john.a.wills

      never mind of what. Once I recognized that my behavior was harmful to others I saw a clinical psychologist, he gave me some exercises to do, I did them, the weird behavior stopped. Should I be forbidden to have a gun for that reason? I don't actually want one, you understand, as they are burglar magnets, and as sometimes small children, not to mention a lunatic neighbor, come into my house

      +
      0 Votes
      aidemzo_adanac

      This isn't about people's mental illness stopping them from buying a gun. The issues is people's mental history is unavailable for review at all!

      Would you want someone with a metal history of violent outbreaks to have a gun? HE/she may not have a criminal record at that point but may still have mental problems that lead to violence...a ticking time bomb.

      How about severe bipolar disorder? "Gee it wasn't like him, he seemed so cheerful, most of the time!"

      or someone who has had marital issues that have resulted in mental disorders, a desire to exact revenge, nervous breakdowns etc. Should ANYONE in America carry a gun, no matter what, just because people can't determine what the real meaning of the 2nd amendment is due to the many rewrites and so much grey area?

      +
      0 Votes
      john.a.wills

      about the non-reviewability of important aspects of a would-be gun owner's history, but I question your claim that the Second Amendment has been rewritten. The U.S. Constitution has suffered 27 Amendments, and I do not think that any of the 3rd (we should perhaps really count from the 12th, as the first 11 came together) through the 27th rewrite the 2nd. You may be thinking of judicial rewrites, as in Imbler vs Pachtman and Roe vs Wade, but I do not think that there has been anything equivalent regarding the 2nd; do you know of any?

      I also do not know of any rewirites to the Bible since Pope Innocent I promulgated his list of books in 405; some would-be reformers, notably Karlstadt, Zwingli and Luther, disliked certain books, and certain small churches have a 151st Psalm or a 3 Maccabees or a 3 Ezra, but I don't think those can be what you are thinking of: the vast majority of Xn use Innocent's Bible unchanged.

      +
      0 Votes

      And, quite possibly, the Supreme Court's D.C v. Heller that overturned two centuries of precedent and determined the Second Amendment applied not only to militias, but as an individual right.

      +
      0 Votes
      aidemzo_adanac

      In the case of the Second Amendment, the language between the Congressional and state versions have different meanings and is why there is still scrutiny between courts.

      I personally find context issues the hardest to discuss. Most people understand the basics with grammar....Some people understand the basics with grammar, but I find countless people who have no concept of context. It makes discussion and especially debate all but impossible.

      Context, to me, is imperative in everything written or said, CONTEXT is the key to language. It's like a cornerstone that the English language rests upon, with the correct context, you can completely screw up grammar and even use incorrect terms, but proper context will result in the same understanding of what is said.

      People who don't comprehend context will land people in jail, will make unjust and false accusations, will completely misunderstand the nature and focus of what is said and so much more. Without context, we don't have language and yet, I find that, it is horribly understood by most.

      Context removes the need for further interpretation, it s what everything we say is built upon. Yet so many have no grasp and, as such, completely misconstrue what people say or write all the time.

      +
      0 Votes
      aidemzo_adanac

      I was talking about how simply rewriting it over times, same words, different punctuation and capitalization, makes it mean different things.

      I think what most Americans forget is that it was NOT intended as a means for future American citizens to have the right to carry and use weapons to defend their TV from being stolen.

      The original Constitutional right was taken from the English Law (which most of our North American Charter of Rights and Constitution is built upon).

      In England it was written so that Protestants could protect themselves from the religious and political unrest of the time. Then in order to stop an uprisin gin the US, it was amended and the right to bear arms and form an organized militia was put forth, so that an organized group of citizens could act against uprising, if needed, until other measures (the military for example) were able to convene and act upon issues themselves.

      Today, you get some uneducated yokel shooting off his mouth about how it is his right to carry a weapon for personal protection, as if granted by God himself.

      One US description states
      "The Second Amendment is the only right having an introduction: "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State." In 1789, "militia" included our modern concept of "police," a word not in common use then. Volunteer "vigilance committees" did policing."

      So already, according to the above commentary, it was NOT initially designed for people to walk into Target with a side arm, JUST IN CASE someone ****es them off.

      TWO VERSIONS:
      The first passed by two-thirds of the members of each house of Congress (the first step for ratifying a constitutional amendment). A different version passed by three-fourths of the states (the second step for ratifying a constitution amendment). The primary difference between the two versions are a capitalization and a simple comma.
      http://www.occasionalplanet.org/2012/08/28/confusion-the-wording-of-the-second-amendment/

      A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

      The version ratified by the states and authenticated by Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson reads:

      A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

      If you read those two as meaning the same thing, back to grammar school for you.

      The first focuses on the Militia not being infringed upon by the State.
      The second focuses on the people's right to bear arms.

      Two extremely different meanings, two tiny changes in grammar. It is also said that in the 1700's, English grammar was overwrought with the use of punctuation, this the extra comma to separate and define the language. Later dropping it, leave it open to misinterpretation by today's poor use of grammar.

      +
      0 Votes
      aidemzo_adanac

      Rewrites. The bible was translated from Hebrew to English, where there are many words that must be ASSUMED or GUESSED as to the correct replacement, otherwise it implies a completely different context.

      One interpretation is that Jesus walked up on water. Using the same rules, the same Hebrew writings can also mean, Jesus walked BY water or walked BESIDE water. SO which is it? Did he walk ON water, BY water or BESIDE water?

      Nobody knows or course, just speculation as to what was meant.

      English language has also changed a great deal in so many years. What we once would have used to translate a specific Hebrew word may be completely different today.

      So without downplaying the initial Hebrew writings themselves, without looking at what did and didn't happen, right from the get go, there are more holes than in Windows XP (well maybe not quite THAT bad but you get my point).

      GIven that the bible has been reinterpreted hundreds, if not thousands of times, in MAnY Languages where similar terms are not available, it is purely up to the translator to decide if Jesus walked ON water, BY water or Beside water. Any translator would be pleased to say Jesus walked ON water, it simply sounds a lot more riveting.

      Without even getting into specifics, various rewrites,m new translations to countless languages etc, one simply cannot accept the Bible, in English, as a true translation, yet alone read it repeatedly an base your entire existence, morals and beliefs on such a poor translation.

      That's before even getting into the reality of what was said vs logic.

      +
      0 Votes
      john.a.wills

      1. The stories of Jesus walking on the water come to us in Hebrew;
      2. The language of those stories lacks a good supply of prepositions or equivalents;
      3. I most often read the Bible in a translation into English;
      4. I most often read the Bible in an antique translation.
      All these assumptions are false.

      +
      0 Votes
      aidemzo_adanac

      Regardless of what language stories originate, they are translated and much is lost in translation.

      Regardless of good prepositions, I have seen before how several direct English translations offer different results when converting that exact phrase.

      The language YOU choose to read the Bible in is irrelevant, unless reading directly from the original Author's source. Great book, slow read but an interesting 'story' all the same.

      Again about translation? Why?

      As always when it comes to defending religious beliefs, no support, just an attempt at creating some form of doubt without relevant fact. Like pretending to throw a ball to a dog and hiding it behind your back, 'look over there!' In the case of the inexplicable, the famed "god has his ways' always prevails, to an idiot anyway. LOL, what a maroon!

      +
      0 Votes
      maxwell edison

      Are you claiming to be some sort of expert on the various writings and translations of the Bible? Really? This is laughable.

      Not for content, because I have no idea; but I know that you have no idea either, because you are about the farthest thing from a Biblical Scholar. I laugh at you and how you claim to be an expert on all things.

      To paraphrase Mark Twain, sometimes it's better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you're a fool, rather than to open your mouth and confirm it.

      +
      0 Votes
      aidemzo_adanac

      No I don' claim to be an expert and, reading through my post, I don't know where you got such an opinion as it was not even implied.

      What I do know is that even those tasked with translation today, have agreed that it is 100% dependent on the translator as to what exact words come out of the translation, as I specifically illustrated.

      You can laugh all you like, you also have no idea what my biblical exposure is, although no longer a practicing Christian, I don't go to church every Sunday, the Bible is not exactly a secret tome. It's writings have been criticized, supported, questioned, believed and translated so many times into so many different languages, that it's not like a members only handbook.

      I have actually read the bible, many times (a daily routine) as I was in a Christian school as a child, sang in the choir and all the rest of that rubbish.

      The funniest part though is thinking ANYONE is an expert on a subject yet to be proven even exists. Nobody that was there is still alive today, so who can claim to be an expert on what really happened? Some of the most skilled translators worldwide have differentiating opinions as to what the original scripts actually say. Just the mere fact that it is open to choice of translation must cast doubt as to the accuracy and validity of ANY translation, new or old.

      Did Moses part the Red Sea? that's open to translation
      Did Noah build an ark? That's open to translation.
      Did Jesus walk on water? That's open to translation.

      There's no doubt in my mind that something SIMILAR to these events occurred but the dramatics and details WILL vary based on the translator's choice of words.

      Saying a guy felt a storm a comin ' and built a large ark to try and save his family, friends and his own farm animals/livelihood isn't half as exciting as saying God told him to build an dark and save two of every breed on Earth, though it is MUCH more realistic.

      Apparently Jesus stayed behind to climb the mountain and pray, while his disciples set out on stormy sea of Galilee. Now depending on which Gospel you buy into, Matthew, Mark or John, Jesus either walked to the ship, where he protected his disciples or Peter walked on the sea, toward Jesus, and doubted his faith/feared the storm before starting to sink himself, Jesus then did a Baywatch move an walked on the water to rescue Peter (well, even in Baywatch they swim, after a sexy. slow-mo jog into the surf). But hey, what' s a little continuity issue when it comes to translating your favorite stories right?

      You can only be a believer, someone who has believed what they were preached, believed what they have read and simply have FAITH, not expert opinion, as to what is true or false.

      The fact that even ancient translations have been proven easily questionable due to several English words offering a nearly direct translation, is what I am getting at. Even early translations were shown to have multiple meanings, with the best, most inviting selections included in the English text.

      Nobody back then was looking to find out that writings were not as eventful, faithful and exciting as initially assumed, they were looking for words that supported their faith or belief. Translations which made the most exciting stories, which supported religious claims etc.

      It wasn't like modern day skepticism that is focused on uncovering the untruths. It is a biased translation, which has been found inaccurate, or at least not the ONLY possible translation, by scholars worldwide.

      Expert on religion, you crack me up when you offer up such mindless BS.

      +
      0 Votes
      john.a.wills

      The books of the Bible have been copied and read far more than most books their age. Do you doubt the translations of Caesar, Xenophon, Plato, etc.?
      With your stated background it's a little odd that you thought the gospels to have been written in Hebrew (though I understand that there was once a Governor of Texas who thought Paul had written in English). You mention 3 walking-on-water stories in the gospels and claim contradictions among them. Well, they may be describing 3 different events, and you haven't told us your opinion of their genre (history, parable, midrash,...). The other examples you are now giving also seem to be genre problems rather than vocabulary/translation ones.
      Your original claim was that the Bible had been changed many times; you seem to have amended this to a claim that translations are untrustworthy (tradduttore traditore, or something like that).
      So, take one of the walking-on-water stories, specifying book, chapter and verse(s), and tell us what different translators into English have produced in the way of the preposition(s) that made you suspicious. We can worry about allegory and so forth, and about relationship to the other two stories, once we have this story well dealt with.

      +
      0 Votes
      aidemzo_adanac

      To a certain extent and they have been proven to have many discrepancies. now take THAT another millenium back and see how accurate BELIEFS were. Remember those people didn't even understand the universe, the creation of life, death etc. And 2000 years later, people still base their entire existence on their 'teachings'? LOL

      Sorry but we have science now, which has far more conclusive evidence than any biblical alignment. Just as the Mayans predictions were confirmed as all knowing, however it is a matter of seeking random numbers that coincide with a predetermined conclusion, fogging the reality and scientific facts.
      "With your stated background it's a little odd that you thought the gospels to have been written in Hebrew"
      Why because it was written in Hebrew?
      That was one language attributed to the bible which was actually a muddled mix of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. A language which doesn't even exist today actually and yet is accepted in direct English translation.

      Of course that must all be made up lies though, even though it states on Biblica.com ,"The first human author to write down the biblical record was Moses. He was commanded by God to take on this task, for Exodus 34:27 records God's words to Moses, "Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel." And what language did he use? He wrote in his native language, called Hebrew.

      For you to then expect me to follow along with your requests, as if you were my f*****g English teacher, is simply laughable.
      "We can worry about allegory and so forth, and about relationship to the other two stories, once we have this story well dealt with."

      Give your head a shake, you arrogant p***k!

      You remind me of another friend I have who thinks he knows more about sports than any living breathing entity on planet Earth.

      One particular sport, which last year he admitted NOT following at all, is now one he has become an authority on. I sent him some info that I had found from a group of professional sports anaylsts, many who had coached and played in the league themselves. he said it was impossible, 'do the math', of course it couldn't possibly work that way. However I live in a civilization where you don't NEED to have a life history examining a subject in order to be qualified to discuss it. We have information on any subject, in fact Canadians get such information from the network shows that offer a centered VIEW of two sides of a debate, allowing you to conclude yourself based on the information presented. There have been several such series, documentaries etc that focus specifically on the translations of the Bible and how there is a LOT of room for discrepancy, as agreed by priests, linguists and scholars around the globe. I don't listen to one guy each week, preaching the same old, unproven BS week in and week out. Telling me how someone else will guide my life as it is prewritten in my destiny if I choose to listen. I prefer to evaluate all options and not give into the one that is most convenient.

      My own opinion is far from qualified, as is yours and everyone else posting on TR. Biblical history is not my life's study. TO those who have made it their live's work, if a priest in England, a historian in Australia, and qualified translators from other parts of the globe can all read the same passage and have three very similar, yet equally divided, conclusions, I'll take THEIR knowledge,over yours or anyone else's here, any day of the week.

      Now if one of them tried to teach me about educational software, I'd probably take heed to your comments over theirs. It's logical to follow the path of knowledge, not the path of belief.

      Lets also not forget the bias in with which the Bible was written.

      Funny enough, Americans, who have limited scientific exposure and still mainly follow religious beliefs, are the ones who will support the bible's teachings the most, with the exception of how they live by the Quoran in the middle east. People in other, developed nations, all seem to have a much more open view as to the Bible being a good book and a lot was lost in translation. However, they also have a greater immersion into science from a younger age than most Americans, as determined by a US scientist now living in Canada due to the greater exposure to science that we have in the mainstream and educational system.

      The Quoran is just as real, believable and accurate to some religions though. What makes YOU so qualified to disbelieve it and SELECT to follow Chrsitian faith instead?

      What makes the bible any more accurate than any other religion's 'guide to happy health"?

      There is only ONE reason people follow the bible's writings and their priests sermons, whether following the new or old testament, FAITH, BELIEF, TRUST but not FACT, in even the most minuscule way. You have NO FACTS, just FAITH that what you read and are told is credible and correct.

      So to play your little game anyway:
      ____________________________
      Shmuel Golding in his The Light of Reason, volume 3, says:

      For those who understand the Greek text there is no problem in interpreting this story. Johns gospel records that when the disciples received Jesus into the ship; it was already at the land. They saw Jesus walking, not on the sea, but beside the sea as the Greek word ept indicates.

      One need not be a scholar to look up a word in a dictionary and in this case epi is a preposition, which can mean - in, - on, - alongside, or - beside. In koine' Greek (common Greek, usually not written but spoken, a type of slang Greek), the term "ep-" usually did refer to "alongside, since there was a more common slang term used for such.


      Guess what the Christian apologists interpreted epi to mean ON. The New International Version (NIV) Study Guide says: A special display of the majestic presence and power of the transcendent Lord who rules over the sea (Mark 6:48).

      This is what Strong's Lexicon, a reference much beloved by fundamentalist Christians has to say about the subject. However, you have to remember that Strong's is Christian in origin and accordingly, supports Christian selling points and that it's use is primarily in the Christian community. On page 1909 is says; epi epi ep-ee a root; prep AV-on 196, in 120, upon 159, unto 41, to 41, misc. 339; 896

      1) upon, on, at, by, before

      2) of position, on, at, by, over, against

      3) to, over, on, at, across, against

      4) toward, beside

      Notice, out of 19 adjectives, 9 clearly can mean besides the sea, 4 can be interpret either way and 6 can be interpret as walking on the sea.

      According to this, you could present the incident of Jesus walking on the water in several different ways. Christians apparently wanted to make Jesus perform another miracle and walking on water was a doozie.

      The Greek word epi meaning alongside of fits this story. As written, it could be correctly used BOTH ways, depends on which what message you want to present.
      __________________________________

      So are they all wrong because you BELIEVE they are?
      Are you suggesting that your comprehension of ancient Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek is superior ?

      Are you suggesting that not only are you pretending to be an

      +
      0 Votes
      neilb@uk

      You're falling into the trap and coming from the theist position that the Bible is Truth and something that YOU have to explain in terms of "mistranslation" rather than just marking it down as yet another creation myth of the sort that Christians, if they bothered to read them, would dismiss out of hand.

      At least we KNOW that the translation of the Hitchhikers Guide was correct but we can no more prove the creation myth in it than we can prove the Bible has any basis in reality.

      If you want to see how rooted in reality some Christians aren't, check this http://creation.com/how-did-all-the-animals-fit-on-noahs-ark for mental gymnastics and you'll never feel the need to worry about a simple thing like mistranslation, again.

      My favourite bit is "Drinking water would only have taken up 9.4% of the volume. This volume would be reduced further if rainwater was collected and piped into troughs." This was the bloody FLOOD! It rained enough to cover the Earth and they are taking drinking water on board?

      +
      0 Votes
      CharlieSpencer

      I wanna see which one passes out first.

      +
      0 Votes
      aidemzo_adanac

      How hard is it to prove fact vs faith?
      Practicing Christians (and I am sure other religious zealots) are so eager to simply believe what they are preached that they throw all sense of logic right out of the window anyway.

      It's like someone trying to debate that water is a solid and not having any support for their belief.
      The crazy part is that, no matter how much common sense and logic proves their unrealistic belief to be false, they still refuse to question what some dude said on Sunday.

      +
      0 Votes
      maxwell edison

      But water can be a solid..... or a liquid.....or a gas.

      +
      0 Votes

      Max

      aidemzo_adanac

      Clever, well...not really but I'm sure you feel it was.

      Nothing actually relevant to add though, I assume?

      +
      0 Votes
      maxwell edison

      You used a bad example, one that showed your total ignorance. Water is the only element found on the planet earth which can present itself in all three forms: liquid, gas, or solid.

      +
      0 Votes
      aidemzo_adanac

      My periodic table doesn't actually include H2O, well it has H and O but not the compound H2O. Is it something they added to the US tables?

      I suppose "you used a bad example, one that showed your total ignorance".

      Not only were you wrong once but TWICE!! Water is NOT the only "compound" OR element that can exist as liquid, solid or gas. ALL elements on the periodic table can be a solid, liquid or gas. And there are actually 5 stats of matter, not three. In the case of water, the 3 you mention are NATURAL states.

      Water is just the only substance that exists "naturally"on Earth in the three, most common, physical states of matter (not including plasma and Bose-Einstein condensate, two more lesser recognized states of matter).

      Oceans = liquid / geysers = steam /glaciers = solid

      All other "elements" have to be physically changed from one state to another, in which case all 5 states of matter apply.

      I suppose "you used a bad example, one that showed your total ignorance".

      Man, I TOLD you science education was wickedly poor in the USA! Way to prove a point, Max, while once again, "showing your total ignorance."

      I've seen some slips but that was tripping, falling flat on your face and breaking your nose all in just two sentences!

      +
      0 Votes

      Some of the same people in the gun crowd saying we should do something about mental illness are some of the same people screaming about checking medical records.

      One thing that keeps the radicals (both left and right) entertaining: they never allow themselves to be constrained by foolish consistency.

      +
      0 Votes
      maxwell edison

      Why are people so willingly giving away their freedom? Not only on any given "gun issue", but on any issue at all? That's insane to me. And equally insane are those who speak so disparagingly to, and about, those who say, no, you can't have it, and I will resist any attempt to take it. (Usually the same people.)

      Edit for addition:

      For example, for someone to say, " If the government turned up tomorrow and said I couldn't have them (my widgets) anymore, 'oh well, c'est la vie, who the **** cares'?"

      Now that's insane.

      +
      0 Votes

      Which beg another question: Why are people so unwilling to give away their freedom on gun issues so willing to give away other freedoms? Or to take away the freedom of others?

      I'm not putting you in that group, Max, by a long shot, but in my area of the country, too many of those in favor of unfettered firearms ownership feel government should interfere in people's lives in other ways.

      +
      0 Votes
      CharlieSpencer

      by anti-******** protestors who tell expectant mothers to put the baby up for adoption, but have never considered adopting a child themselves.

      I was also entertained several months ago when the NRA filed to stop a gun buyback program run by the Tuscon police. It seems the cops were going to destroy those purchased firearms, instead of auctioning them like confiscated property.

      +
      0 Votes
      neilb@uk

      You really do have a better class of nutters over there.

      +
      0 Votes
      CharlieSpencer

      And now it's much easier to share them with the rest of the world through the magic of the Internet

      +
      0 Votes
      aidemzo_adanac

      In reference to American nutters (or Americans in general) you used the word 'class'. ooopsie! Also, in order to be deemed a nutter, you'd have to have someone sane to compare to.

      +
      0 Votes
      CharlieSpencer

      I'll see your Al Gore and raise you Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Michael Bloomberg when he's in his 'Nutritionist-in-Chief' mode, the entire 'anti-immunization' movement, Ron Paul when he's on a 'return to gold standard' rant, and anyone who thinks rappers using the word 'Ni**er' as entertainment are 'keeping it real', but that a woman raised in the Jim Crow South should be condemned for having used it in casual conversation decades ago.

      +
      0 Votes
      maxwell edison

      ..... Al Gore is the type of nutter who is especially offensive to Neil. Strange bedfellows kind of thing, and Neil's a bit too cozy to AlGore for Neil's own comfort.

      +
      0 Votes
      neilb@uk

      Now, you know you've been warned about him! Don't make me have to hit you.

      +
      0 Votes
      aidemzo_adanac

      What relation is there between Neil's comments and AlGore? I think you are just poking the bear, trolling, casting or whatever people like to call it thee days. Well, hook in lip, here I am!

      Is it simply that Neil is aware of the reality of climate change that you equate him to being a Gore fan or is it something more real that I was unaware of?

      I am pretty sure, though not positive, that neil's understanding of climate change would make Al Gore appear to be as ignorant as...well, Al Gore.

      Al Gore, being your easily darted poster boy for ANY conversation about climate change. is one example of why I see so many problems in the USA, where they affiliate one nut job's comments as representing an entire philosophy.

      Al Gore's BS is so easily dismissed, it is then just as easy to dismiss the real facts about climate change. It is the same with president's, laws, rights etc. If ONE tiny shred of doubt is placed on one proponent, then all that is involved is quickly deemed incredible.

      It's an easy. lazy and irresponsible way to exclude oneself from responsibility or taking action. A convenience for those who wish to simply be stubborn and a scapegoat for those who want to wait until everyone else goes first.

      I'm not saying it is just you or or even one party vs another, it happens all over, every day, from the right and left, perhaps why the US has such a hard time overcoming things like recession, attacks, presidential changes etc. Nobody can get anything done there it seems.

      +
      0 Votes
      neilb@uk

      Max believes, wrongly, that I am Al Gore's secret love child and he never misses an opportunity to try and make some capital out of this. He has been warned on many occasions!

      +
      0 Votes
      maxwell edison

      The mere mention of "Al Gore" to Neil could be described as a "private joke" between Neil and me. Just because it's shared In a public forum does not oblige me to explain it to you, If you don't "get it", too damn bad.

      +
      0 Votes
      aidemzo_adanac

      As I said, I don't know what inside joke is behind it, nor do I actually care, I assumed it was a poke due to neil being very well versed on climate change and you reducing all comments to a political stand, as always.

      +
      0 Votes
      neilb@uk

      is the Hitler-equivalence for Godwin's Law in Climate Change discussions. Saves me from frustration and saves Max from having to "select one from..."

      1) Climate's changed before
      2) It's the sun
      3) There is no consensus
      4) It's really cooling
      5) Models are unreliable
      6) Temperature record is unreliable
      7) Animals and plants can adapt
      It hasn't warmed since 1998
      9) Antarctica is gaining ice
      10) Greenland is gaining ice
      etc, etc

      Invoking Al Gore early on generally stops me from screaming at the screen as I type.

      +
      0 Votes
      CharlieSpencer

      Perhaps they've seen others abuse those freedoms to the point where those freedoms start to look like shackles. Freedom carries the price tag of responsibility. When enough people misuse their freedom to bear arms, others start to perceive that freedom as a threat and to question its value. Freedom of religion looks shaky when a majority wants it to apply only to their belief system, and either passively ignore or actively suppress that of others by force of law. Freedom of speech takes a hit every time someone falsely screams 'Censorship!' when a privately-owned newspaper won't publish his letter.

      There are also those who don't understand that exercising one's freedom doesn't exempt one from the consequences. The right to display a Confederate flag doesn't exempt one from having former associates publicly sever business connections.

      +
      0 Votes
      aidemzo_adanac

      I know you hate to look at specifics and context when simplicity supports all your points but reality has to come into play too.

      We are not talking about taking away people's widgets, their right to vote, protest or equal opportunity. We are specifically talking about a system that does not permit mental health checks when mental health issues are behind the vast majority of homicides by gun.

      Suicide, mass shootings, killing the family etc. Are these now deemed just oddities and not connected directly to someone with mental health issues, which may have been overlooked and helped them conduct their crimes?

      Do we now accept mass murderers as people who had a right to own a gun, despite their mental health issues?

      THis is not even remotely similar to the government just flipping a coin and putting a stop to someones freedom.
      The pattern is becoming clear with you though.

      When reading your posts here, I've often commented on how you are VERY careful to select snippets from comments that can easily be taken out of context and offer up a different viewpoint.

      When it comes to ancient American history, you hang onto it verbatim and completely disregard context.

      I am starting to find that perhaps you simply disregard context completely, maybe not even recognizing or understanding it as all your arguments and support for antiquated writings seem to stem form a lack of contextual understanding.

      It would explain a lot and certainly make a lot more of your comments understandable.

      Like it or not, context is everything!

      +
      0 Votes
      maxwell edison

      ..... I substituted widgets for guns? Even without the substitution, my sentiment stands. I substituted the confiscated item in question so as to illustrate the LARGER context. You obviously missed the point, but I can understand why.

      I'm reminded of a story about the guy with a mind so narrow he could see through a keyhole with both eyes wide open.

      +
      0 Votes
      aidemzo_adanac

      Your defensive reply is based in the first sentence of my post and my focus that this isn't about widgets. We aren't discussing your favorite flavour of bubble gum, whether Coke is better than Pepsi, it's about people with mental illness being able to legally purchase deadly weapons. No need to reduce it to something as simple as a widget, in order to support your choice of of the most simple minded values.

      Your choice of using widgets was an attempt to remove the deadly weapon focus from your nonsensical support due to translation, and therefore reduce the importance of seeing this as an unforeseen issue (in 1776) and not possibly able to be defined by the simplified set of rights set out in that day and time.

      Seems you have some consistency anyway, if something is open to and dependent upon translation (the second amendment and the bible for example), you will support your personal belief but not recognize that it can be a variable.

      I have not offered personal belief in either case, I do think it's nuts to let nuts buy guns but I also understand that the law is open to how it is written specifically, with two different understandings leading in two different directions.

      You suggest I am narrow minded, which is the hilarious part of your BS. I'm the one who has left it open for definition, not the one who only sees one solution for all the world's evils, based on a narrow minded view that doesn't accept that there are variances in English speech and grammar that completely change a meaning.

      +
      0 Votes
      maxwell edison

      ..... I call it out for what it is, and you claim I took your comment out of context. Out of context, my a$$. You are an intellectual coward for that.

      You said that you'd have no problem if a government official entered your home and confiscated your firearm(s). Well, I would have a problem if a government official entered MY home and confiscated ANYTHING.

      You showed your true colors, and your "out of context" claim does nothing to hide them.

      +
      0 Votes
      aidemzo_adanac

      You just don't understand the concept of context, so I'll let it sit. You have proven time and time again that you NEVER understand context, except how to take something our of context so you can bend it in your favour.

      You said that you'd have no problem if a government official entered your home and confiscated your firearm(s)."

      Prove it, I never said anything of the sort. I'll await your link and quote.

      I would have a problem if a government official entered MY home and confiscated ANYTHING.
      And so would I, do you have a relevant comment that pertains to the discussion at hand?

      I was speaking about releasing access to mental health records, just as they do criminal history, when applying for a permit. YOU take that to mean I would accept someone walking into my home and confiscating my property? How do you dream this stuff up?

      I know, in your little mind, you think that agreeing to a medical history check would then mean the government would have then have the keys to your home and will help themselves to a sandwich on the way out.

      Same thing? Not even remotely close, not even with your wildly stretched imagination.

      My true colours? Yeah sure. I think that a mental history check would reduce the number of mentally unstable people currently allowed to own deadly weapons. Of my God! My true colours are out! How dare I suggest it? If that's showing my true colours, let them fly proudly.

      Why can't some nutbag, with a history of mental voilence toward people like your wife or children, buy a firearm? It's their right afterall.

      You also fail to recognize that I didn't say people COULDN'T own a weapon but I think even you can understand that SOME people are not mentally suited to own a weapon and be able to make the split second decisions needed to safely possess one. How many mass murders are deemed mentally ill? How many times have people who have killed a person's family been given an easy out due to being determined mentally unable to make sound decisions?

      How do YOU justify supporting people, who are mentally unstable, being issued a license to own a firearm? I dare you to print such views in your local area news.

      Go and get a petition signed by your neighbours, letting them know that it is an American's right to own a firearm and that you support the mentally unstable being able to buy firearms without a mental history check.

      Just sleep with one eye open and ignore the neighbours burning your effigy on their lawns.


      Let's see how it pans out then. Heaven forbid that some nutcase went to your son's place of work, a disgruntled ex employee, and shot the place up, injuring or killing people in the process, possibly including your son.

      AFTER the fact, they investigate and find that he has a history of violence and mental illness.
      You wouldn't wonder how he managed to purchase a gun to begin with and you wouldn't think it right if police then entered his house and removed all firearms in his possession.

      Of course, in such a case you would completely support any investigation into his mental healthy and the removal of weapons from his possession. You can be pretty ignorant but even I know you aren't THAT clued out.

      What you DON'T accept is a means to try and PREVENT that from occurring to begin with, as it infringes on, what you deem to be, an individual right.

      Of course resolution is far better than prevention when it comes to American citizen's and your families live's. That's the way it was understood to be, over 230 years ago so it must still be relevant and applicable today.

      Man, if there is ANY Sense in your blind, closed minded viewpoint, I sure as **** can't see it.

      +
      0 Votes
      maxwell edison

      That certainly explains a few things; and I'm glad we cleared that up.

      +
      0 Votes
      aidemzo_adanac

      Proving once again that you are completely devoid of any ability to understand what you read. The reading comprehension level of perhaps a grade 2 student, at best.

      Instead of answering the question and proving your previous lies, as that couldn't be done anyway, you simply make up more lies about something that wasn't said.

      I remember at one time I thought you were fairly clever, boy I guess I've been proven wrong too many times to count. Then again, I have a lot of patience when it comes to the 'challenged ones' in life.

      +
      0 Votes
      aidemzo_adanac

      This isn't about giving away your freedoms, it's about allowing a mental health record check to register for a gun.
      Do you consider having privacy with your medical records a 'freedom'?
      Your medical records ARE private and will remain so, as is your criminal history.
      When you register for a gun, you give special permission for a criminal record check. I suppose, in some way, you see that as giving up your freedoms that America's founding fathers granted you.
      First a criminal record check, then a mental health check and next thing you know, the government will force you to praise Allah and remove your right to protest peacefully or else be locked up?! Seriously, losing one freedom leads to the next?! Paranoid?

      To allow a mental health check too is no different than allowing a criminal record check. Employers also ask for your criminal history, but obviously not your mental health history (though I often feel they should).

      When looking to gain permission to purchase a deadly weapon (in a country where gun violence is so far out of control it will be impossible to stop altogether anyway), is it REALLY a matter of giving up your "freedom"?
      It's not like all of a sudden your medical records are made publicly available on a Google search. Your record is STILL private and protected by your federal or state laws, unless you sign a form allowing such review by an authorized party.

      Freedom you seek is to do as you please, no questions asked. For ANY American, in right mind or not, to be able to purchase a lethal weapon, no questions asked.

      It's a bit absurd to consider really. Once again, context and situation is irrelevant when you use a big black shroud to determine all that is wrong or right.

      +
      0 Votes
      aidemzo_adanac

      If I had a right to drive a horse and buggy in town, and tomorrow they said I couldn't, it wouldn't phase me. I have no NEED for a horse and buggy, nor the desire to clean up after a horse, feed it, house it etc.

      If the government said tomorrow that I couldn't own a gun, I'd pull them out of the basement closet and hand them over with a smile, 'thanks for finally getting rid of them for me'. Again I have no need and no desire to have them, I just do.

      Such rights are irrelevant to most people, outside of America, where guns are a necessity for daily survival of course.

      +
      0 Votes
      djed

      While I agree with you that there should be gun ownership restrictions on people who were involuntarily committed, voluntary commitment is a different situation; it means the person is enough self-aware that they need help that they're seeking it. They're much more likely to hurt themselves than someone else.

      As to mental health as a whole, you're a long way off. Very few of the mentally ill are violent like they portray in the media. The media love to play up when one of the violent ones goes off, but barely report on the huge number of everyday murders. The vast majority of people who kill are perfectly "sane" and would never be committed. What we really need is better screening to take care of the violent before they become a danger.

      +
      0 Votes
      aidemzo_adanac

      "As to mental health as a whole, you're a long way off. Very few of the mentally ill are violent like they portray in the media."

      I'm pretty sure I haven't said MOST were violent. But people with a violent mental history would certainly be the red flag we need to determine with mental health record checks. I was actually not a long way off at all, as you suggest.

      People with mental health problems will often realize it one day and say they are fine the next. So the self admitted should also be properly evaluated and THEIR medical records wil determine if they are healthy enough to handle gun ownership or not. Either way, right now it's completely unknown if he's a mass murderer in waiting or someone with bouts of depression. And how is harming yourself with a firearm any more reason for excuse than someone who would kill others?
      "They're much more likely to hurt themselves than someone else."

      Are you suggesting natural selection? If so, I've got a lot of people I'd like to see armed, just in case they decide to top themselves instead of someone else.

      "The vast majority of people who kill are perfectly "sane" and would never be committed."

      Who said otherwise? That STILL doesn't mean that a person's mental health is not a KEY consideration before issuing a license to purchase a lethal weapon.

      What we really need is better screening to take care of the violent before they become a danger.

      Agreed, but until such time as that is possible, say not in my lifetime, why is it so absurd to CONSIDER someone's mental health as well as their criminal history before determining if they are capable or being responsible with a firearm?

      I honestly assumed ti would be checked and was quite shocked to find out it isn't.

      Will a mental health record check stop future gun violence? **** no!
      Will a mental health record check handle all the other problems where people acquire firearms when they shouldn't? **** no!

      Will a mental health check help to reduce the number of people on a mental rampage, people who have a proven mental instability history, people who are schizophrenic, people who a mentally violent? **** yes.

      Step 1 not keep going and sort the rest out.

      The problem with doing ANYTHING in the USA is that NOTHING ever gets done. This is because if there is one tiny little exception, the entire rule is deemed null and void. If not ALL people with mental health issues are a risk to buy a gun, then NOBODY is.

      +
      0 Votes
      djed

      "People with mental health problems will often realize it one day and say they are fine the next."

      That is also something that happens in very few cases. And, even when it does, it says nothing about their potential for violence. Irrelevant.

      "Are you suggesting natural selection?"

      No, I'm suggesting mental health is not a major determiner for whether a person is violent or not. Those who may try to harm themselves almost always do it on impulse and don't want a gun around. A waiting period is the best solution for them.

      I don't care if guns are registered or not. It's not any kind of deterrent, but it may help law enforcement after the fact. But, if they are registered, the rules should be applied fairly. If you want to single out populations that are more violent than the average, I suggest ex-military. Much higher incidence than the mentally ill.

      +
      0 Votes
      aidemzo_adanac

      I've known three such cases myself and I don't work in the mental health industry. in fact, just 15 minutes form my home is a mental health hospital, once of Canada's largest, and I see DOZENS of patients gong there to self admit on Friday and checking out on Sunday.

      Which one of them do you feel should NOT be checked for mental health history, before you'd say it was okay for them to go and buy a firearm?

      How is someone's POTENTIAL for violence irrelevant? You've got to be having a laff and perhaps should be under such evaluation yourself. If ONE such person is enabled due to slack laws, and then kills a dozen people JUST ONCE, is that not enough to take preventative measures?

      You also seem to be completely deluded, as so many others are too, that simply checking medical history means that nobody can go buy a gun anymore. I suppose in your mind, there is also no need for a criminal record check either. Very few people with a criminal record would actually go commit such a crime, so why check criminal history at all? Why even HAVE a registry, just let everyone freely buy guns?

      Clearly, you don't have the logical, mental capacity to discuss reality as you are blinded by the simplicity of fallacies.

      Saying that it is something that "happens in very few cases", is simply mis guided, which is WHY this is a problem to begin with, information is not available when needed. In your response, where are the stats to prove how many self admitted patients are not inclined to conduct a violent act. I know you can't do it, it was rhetorical. your own comments were a mere assumption, based on nothing at all but your own 'guess'.

      So lets say ONE guy in each state is self admitted and has a capability of violence, just once each month (an EXTREMELY low figure I am sure). That's 642 US citizens a year who are mentally impaired and inclined to violence, whom YOU would excuse having a medical history check before buying a firearm. I would guess that that actual number is higher just in your state.

      642 doesn't even put a dent in the list of 'known' serial killers in the USA! Are you really so naive that you don't recognize these issues, with like minded people it would certainly explain why your country can't get it together and just looks to the world for sympathy when nutters go on the rampage?

      One of those morons who say "guns don't kill people, PEOPLE kill people" missing the "but I think ALL people should be able to have a gun without any proper record checks performed and it must be quick, no waiting for a gun."

      Then "oh my god, how can this happen in our tiny town! It wasn't the gun, the kid who was mentally disturbed and nobody acted upon it,....but we should have been checking those records, so it will just happen again."

      It's always passing blame but not accepting responsibility, commonly phrased as 'the American way;

      No wonder you guys have the problems you do, nobody has a clue as they are simply blinded by a 230 year old amendment to the British Law that encompasses every right and wrong in your country, as if they also predicted the future of America like the Mayans predicted the end of time.

      At that point, I'd say you deserved whatever you get and have no basis to complain when a person goes and kills dozens of innocent people.
      Your kid is shot at school, too freakin' bad, you asked for it. Your wife is shot by a looney in Target, too bad, you supported his rights.

      Clearly you don't care about such things and don't feel it is realistic to reduce the number of mentally insane people allowed to go and purchase firearms, so you have no voice when such atrocities happen.

      Thankfully, many Americans have a brain, unfortunately their voices are hushed very quickly by those such as yours who don't recognize how to reduce the potential of the problems you face.

      +
      0 Votes
      djed

      "How is someone's POTENTIAL for violence irrelevant?"

      Please reread my post. I said that thinking you have a problem one day and thinking you're fine the next has nothing to do with a potential for violence. If you think it does, psychology would disagree with you.

      "You also seem to be completely deluded, as so many others are too, that simply checking medical history means that nobody can go buy a gun anymore."

      If checking someone's history doesn't stop them from buying a gun, then why do it? Just to spend money? Aren't we talking about denying people who've had medical treatment a right that other people have? And how do you distinguish one ailment from another for this purpose? Some "sane" people are violent. Some mentally ill are violent. It has nothing to do with a particular form of illness. It also opens up a huge privacy issue.

      "your own comments were a mere assumption, based on nothing at all but your own 'guess'."

      Based on a degree and experience.

      "One of those morons who say "guns don't kill people, PEOPLE kill people" missing the 'but I think ALL people should be able to have a gun without any proper record checks performed and it must be quick, no waiting for a gun.'"

      No. As I said, I don't care about registration; it's not any kind of prevention. Proper record checks are fine with me. You want to specifically check medical histories. I could live with that. I'm just saying that if you take that into consideration, you should also pay attention to relevant issues. There are many more ex-military committing murder in the US than the mentally ill. Shouldn't you restrict them, too? Are you worried about the number of murders, or just who is doing the killing? The military are good guys, they get a pass. Or maybe you just don't like mental patients.

      Years ago I knew a woman who would have a particular hallucination. When she had it, she knew it wasn't real and it was time to go back to the doctor. She was a very nice, calm, peaceful person. You, on the other hand, have anger issues. I'd feel safer with her having a gun than with you having one.

      +
      0 Votes
      aidemzo_adanac

      Not directly BUT, it does show mental instability which is also a root behind a lot of violent behaviour due to mental illness, such as being bipolar. I've know two severely bipolar people, one killed himself (OD) another put his granddaughter in hospital, thought she was consipring with her mother to have him locked up.

      If checking someone's history doesn't stop them from buying a gun, then why do it?

      Don't be ridiculous! So checking a criminal record automatically disqualified people from owning guns too? There' s a term you need to understand, EVALUATION. By evaluating someone's criminal AND mental history, you can build a roadmap as to the LIKELINESS of the person to be responsible with it or not.

      You can own a firearm in Canada, if your record check shows you were criminally charged with shoplifting. Just because you have a criminal history, it doesn't mean you can't own a firearm and neither does accessing a record to evaluate a situation.

      "Aren't we talking about denying people who've had medical treatment a right that other people have? "
      No. the applicant willingly permits the check of criminal and SHOULD ALSO INCLUDE mental health records. When you have a criminal record check when applying for a permit, are they then removing a right that others have? Everyone has a right to privacy in those matters, unless you sign a release of information. Why would criminal history be any different than medical history?

      You then propose to be an accountant who works in a finance department, though possessing a degree in mental health sciences. Who did YOU pi$$ off at the clinic? So very credible! Especially to someone who actually has studied psychology in uni.

      There are many more ex-military committing murder in the US than the mentally ill.

      And you don't see them as having mental issues that have been unaddressed? Why check criminal records if there are such people around, criminal record checks won't stop guns getting into bad hands every time either.

      I never said ANYTHING about excusing ex military either. It's about numbers, as you suggest and therefore if just a few less peopl eare killed each year, due to improved screening, then the solution fits the need indeed. Perhaps military/mental history checks SHOULD be tied together, it still doesn't mean that medial history checks are not needed as a measure of prevention.

      I have no anger issues, how do you know I'm angry? YOU have never met me, seen me or heard my tone of voice. I am very passionate about my beliefs and I will propose and support them against any defense put forward, that doesn't mean I am ANGRY.

      Why would I be angry anyway? I've never met you, don't really care to, your comments and beliefs have absolutely no bearing on my life in any way shape or form. I honestly don't care what you think or believe, I know you are wrong but that doesn't effect my views or the way the rest of my life unfolds. You are merely keystrokes on the Internet, not a real person that I have any real involvement with.

      That's just a false and grossly unqualified assumption on your part.

      +
      0 Votes
      djed

      Well, at least you put some thought into that response. The thing about using medical records is that they don't give useful information unless you get detailed notes. Knowing that someone has a particular disorder says nothing about their potential for violence, unlike criminal charges. Whoever is making a decision based on that will be making a lot of mistakes. In other words, people's rights will be violated. Also, criminal records are public, medical records are not. For several good reasons that will occur to you if you think about your own, your family's, and your friend's records.

      I've also known several people with bipolar affective disorder. Again, it doesn't mean someone is violent. It sounds like you're basing your opinions only on the two you've known.

      "Who did YOU pi$$ off at the clinic?"

      When you work at small clinics you take on several jobs over a near 30-year career. If I remember correctly, when I signed up with TechRepublic there weren't any choices that adequately described my job so I picked one. I also administered a small LAN, the reason for signing up here, but not a major activity. I really liked the last line of your post: "That's just a false and grossly unqualified assumption on your part."

      As for your anger, do you normally call people morons in polite conversation? Don Rickles does that to be funny. If you were trying to be funny, it was an odd time and place for it. I couldn't find another explanation.

    • +
      0 Votes
      Slayer_

      They keep producing near brain dead Americans.

      +
      0 Votes
      aidemzo_adanac

      The right to bear arms was originally part of British Law and was aimed at allowing an armed and regulated militia. Kings had before reclaimed all guns from subjects, so they could not revolt against the kingdoms. It took a while but was soon shot down (excuse the pun).

      When English colonized America, similar rights were afforded them in order to protect their homesteads and settlements.

      Over the years, many rewrites of the original US Constitution, basically focusing on punctuation and capitalization that changes the context of the bill have been made.

      Today,m Americans are under the belief that they have a right to walk around on the streets carrying a gun and can shoot someone who invades their space or property. Many claiming that police are never there and you have to take matters into your own hands, literally justifying a modern day UNREGULATED militia. Not the regulated militia as stated in the Bill of Rights

      When regulation IS proposed/discussed, American gun supporters start crying about their rights to carry arms and shoot people at will who cross them....um, actually they say to hunt, protect their families and shoot at the target range.

      It's just like freedom of speech, most Americans have NO IDEA how it applies, when and where. You get them crying about being censored when speaking out in a privately owned store, a website etc. How they can say what they want, anywhere they go and how if they can't, it's infringing on their rights. IF you actually read and understand the Bill of Rights, you quickly see that freedom of speech means no such thing, in fact not even remotely close.

      But as Americans have a simplified, condensed version of their rights drille dinto their heads since they take their first breath, it's no wonder nobody actually takes time to read and learn what rights they actually ARE entitled to. It also explains why so many Americans stand up and shout about changes when they clearly don't understand the guidelines to begin with.

      Blame it on Obama, blame it on schools and poor education, bottom line is, blame it on Americans. Ignorance is bliss, until someone loses their life or the life of a family member. Instead of then fighting against people being able to shoot at their families, they use it as justification to arm and protect themselves and their families instead. Cutting off your nose to spite your face.

      +
      0 Votes
      Slayer_

      Much less terrorism in Canada. We're fine.

      But just in case, what size of shoes do you wear Oz? Just in case your feet are found on a beach...

      +
      0 Votes
      jck

      And I haven't shot anyone...... B-)

      +
      0 Votes
      aidemzo_adanac

      I own 2 and have never thought of them as a way to protect myself, nor needed to. If the government turned up tomorrow and said I couldn't have them anymore, 'oh well, c'est la vie, who the **** cares'?

      I don't have a need or desire to have guns, I've acquired a couple over the years but if they were cleaned and shot more than once a year It'd be rare.

      Half the time I head up into the mountains and a few days later think, 'oh, yeah I should have brought the guns up it would kill 10 minutes" other than that, no interest, no need, no decide, no give a damn. I completely forget I have them, that really are that insignificant.

      I remember being younger and staying with a scout family in Tacoma during a jamboree. When I came back I couldn't stop telling people how I met two Americans and they carried guns in the HOUSE!! Both his parents had side arms...in Tacoma....in a small private, lakeside community....after the days of the Wild West. I couldn't believe it, even though I'd seen it with my own eyes, it just blew my mind that people actually carried guns and it wasn't even a third world country, at that time anyway.

      I was actually asking my fellow scout I stayed with if they were FBI or undercover police or something. I couldn't grasp that normal people in a normal country carried guns, for what reason I just didn't know.

      My pistol grip crossbow is a lot more fun anyway. I find guns just a pain in the ***.

      Either way, that' snot really the point of the post, I was more amazed at how some states felt it was more important to protect a person's medical history, when applying for a gun permit and having a background check performed, than allowing a mental patient to carry a weapon.
      I even understand how SOME people justify their need to carry but as far as letting a person with a mental illness history obtain a permit, that's just.....insane.

      The mindset that 'give them an inch and they take a mile' is absurd in such a case. Even sane people have moments where they go on a killing rampage, of course stopping sane people from a killing rampage means ALL people can't go on a killing rampage, which would logically (or even illogically) be wrong.

      But to defend a mental patient's right to bear arms and block their mental history from being investigated is absolutely the most ridiculous thing I've heard in ages.

      Why has the USA turned into such a gong show? The world now stares at the USA and wonders how the people remember how to walk?

      +
      0 Votes
      jck

      I would shoot someone if they broke in my residence...guaranteed.

      And, I won't shoot to wound. American law sometimes (depending on the state) allows a convicted criminal to come back later and sue you for the physical damage to their body from being shot while robbing your property.

      Friggin amazing, I tell you. Sometimes I expect a John Cleese drawing to be on the next page after an article about things like this with a caption "No...sorry...too silly..."

      +
      0 Votes
      CharlieSpencer

      I won't have one in the house. I've only had one home broken into, of four houses over 30 years. No one was home, and the only thing stolen was ... a weapon. (My grandfather's WWI bayonet that I kept, in my youthful ignorance, under my side of the bed.)

      My firearms experience is limited to an M-16 during my National Guard years. I never enjoyed going to the rifle range. This was partly because I was just no damn good, but there were other factors. After just a few rounds, the smoke from the powder made my eyes itch and water. (Obviously, this didn't help my already mediocre aim.) Since the Army wants everyone to achieve a minimum standard, those failing the first 40-target series keep retrying until successful (or the ammo is exhausted). Of course, the more I fired, the more my eyes watered, the worse my aim, etc. Also, I hated cleaning my rifle. Since I was a lousy shot and had to keep trying, the weapon became dirtier and dirtier, and thus even more of a pain to clean to the armorer's standards. More power to those that enjoy target shooting, but I've turned down a few dozen opportunities. ****, I don't even play FPS games

      I don't target shoot, I don't hunt, and my wife and I are probably more danger to ourselves than self-defense purposes can justify. When my father passes away, I have literally no idea how I'm to legally transport or dispose of his two pistols.

      +
      0 Votes
      aidemzo_adanac

      You wouldn't be able to stop an intruder unless you shot him? Castle doctrine is pretty variable these days too, in many states you'd be arrested for murder. I'm not saying you are wrong or right, I'm not giving you a hard time because you feel a need to protect yourself with a firearm. If anything, I find it pretty sad that, in the land of the free, you would feel that insecure so as to need such protection.

      Personally, if anyone pulled a gun on me, they better fire it and better be e good shot. If you don't kill me you will regret it very quickly. I live in a province where guns are carried by pu$$ies. We've still have gang violence of course, a shooting or two every couple of weeks, but they are mainly targeted between dealers and gangs but people don't feel a need to be armed, nor do they push the government to make registrations easy, in fact it's the opposite. If there's a lot of gun violence, instead of forming a private militia, people push for greater gun control, not less of it. Funny enough our Constitution, just with yours is based on the same English Law your Constitution is. Just with more realistic amendments, designed for a more modern society.

      I know there's absolutely no way to remove guns from America, even if it was outlawed entirely tomorrow, in 1000 years you'd never remove the guns, it's proven impossible.

      But allowing mentally ill people the freedom from such checks, is simply mentally ill. Perhaps that's the key, gun lobbyists and the government that supports it are actually scared they'll get found out for being mentally ill.

      I don't know, maybe it's just freaking hilarious to anyone NOT living in America. To an American it's a normal way of life, to protect and serve...yourself. I know that the mindset there is 'it's all about me' but still, that's just freakin' nuts!

      So glad I wiped my hands of the US last year, no more ties, no more contracts, no more responsibilities....damn, except a guy that called me from Seattle last night, who wants to farm me out for some web work.

      Why is it I just can't escape the damn place!?!

      +
      0 Votes
      aidemzo_adanac

      Call a gun dealer, they'll come to you and buy them or call police, they'll come to you and take them. Either way, problem solved.

      +
      0 Votes

      Re:

      maxwell edison

      Re: "Personally, if anyone pulled a gun on me, they better fire it and better be a good shot. If you don't kill me you will regret it very quickly. I live in a province where guns are carried by pu$$ies."

      More chest-pounding, I see.

      I'm reminded of my 6 years in the military back in the mid 70s. I quickly learned that those who told the best Vietnam War stories were the least likely to have experienced them. Those who never talked about it (boasted) were more likely to be the real deal.

      +
      0 Votes
      neilb@uk

      "You don't know man! you were'nt there"

      Happliy, that was one war that we managed NOT to slavishly follow the US into else I might have had to flee to France to escape the draft.

      Alas that is not the case these days. "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Vietna, We watched while you fumbled around with no achievable goal. But, now, we are in Afghanistan with no achievable goal, Iraq with no achievable goal, have helped bomb Libya back to tribalism, would love to toast Iran, want to do the same to Syria...and we lick Saudi Arabia's sandals.

      All that information ripped off by the US Intelligence services. Someday, the US and UK will learn the difference between data, knowledge and wisdom. Go, Snowden! Tell it as it is.

      Sorry about the minor rant but it seems to me that the idea of the mentally ill being able to own deadly weapons translates up to countries, too.

      +
      0 Votes
      maxwell edison

      Rants are great. I didn't quite understand all of it, but I'm also glad you guys didn't follow our folly way back when.

      Re: "....the idea of the mentally ill being able to own deadly weapons translates up to countries, too.

      I like that. I really do. It seems to be in-line with an idea I had for a new discussion, but I refrained from starting it. It would have gone something like this:

      A Tale of Two Headlines

      One Headline:

      "Obama steps up military aid to Syrian rebels"

      Another headline:

      "Catholic Priest Allegedly Beheaded in Syria by Al-Qaeda-Linked Rebels as Men and Children Take Pictures and Cheer"

      Message to President Obama: You're supporting the wrong side. And yes, the other side is also the wrong side.

      +
      0 Votes
      neilb@uk

      Just an early morning, low blood sugar post. Usually makes as much sense as the ones I used to post after beer.

      Message to President Obama and to Prime Minister Cameron: You're supporting the wrong side. And yes, the other side is also the wrong side.

      The only change I would make, other than to amend the target audience, is to add "this is a Muslim sectarian war between Shiites and Sunni and you don't have the slightest idea what either of the sides really want".

      +
      0 Votes
      jck

      You get someone telling a real war story, they generally don't beat their chest. They usually get sad remembering all their buddies they lost.

      My uncle was always solemn about it. He survived Pearl Harbor while assigned to the USS Pennsylvania. He talked to me about it several times. I have his Naval Annual and several pieces from his time in the Navy and at Pearl Harbor that he kept.

      Same thing for a guy I knew in college who'd been in Vietnam and retired from the Navy. And, several other guys I knew from hanging around with guys in the Veterans Affairs office at the university I attended.

      Or my old neighbors...the husband was in Vietnam...and, it's hard for him to talk about it still to this day. He's only opened up 2 times in the almost 10 years I've known him and his wife.

      Anyways...nuff said

      +
      0 Votes
      maxwell edison

      Oh for Pete's sake, jck. I call out someone doing his usual chest-pounding using a "war story" analogy, and you go off on some stupid nit-picking mission. Then again, I suppose you buy into the fool's chest-pounding as well.

      +
      0 Votes

      jck was corroborating your point from your post titled "Re:" that those who have been there don't pound their chest.

      +
      0 Votes
      maxwell edison

      Heaven forbid you, jck, or someone else back me up when I call-out such chest pounding; instead jck's segue into his "sad story" observation, and you point out my "bad form".

      What do you think of Oz's constant "chest pounding", Nick? Or am I the only one who dares to call it schoolboy childishness?

      +
      0 Votes

      Max

      aidemzo_adanac

      Chest pounding is saying you will shoot anyone who enters your home. It is usually followed by gun make, model, bore amount of ammo on hand, how everyone in the family has been in the military, how one is personally MORE responsible with a gun than the rest of the population, due to intense gun range training etc.

      Saying, 'if you pull your gun, you better kill me' is a simple reality. You can take a shot, but don't expect to take any others. It leans on man's natural instinct to fight until the death, when in a life or death situation.

      So, you have it completely backward but that's to be expected , you don't seem to pick up on anything else here either. Your comprehension has been proven abysmal too many times to even begin counting.

      +
      0 Votes
      aidemzo_adanac

      Please, do tell, I know you have problem with posting links but you can still find them and quote them.

      Chest pounding is inherently an American thing.

      I have a gun under my pillow and will shoot anyone entering my home to protect my family. THUMP, THUMP, THUMP

      If it wasn't for America, the rest of the world would be speaking German, THUMP THUMP THUMP

      America doesn't let terrorists walk on it like all the other free nations do! THUMP, THUMP, THUMP

      America has freedoms and rights....you wouldn't understand. THUMP THUMP THUMP

      American is the mightiest country on Earth, everyone wants to move here, you are just jealous. THUMP THUMP THUMP

      Get over yourself, peel a banana and try throwing your feces at someone else who might think you were cool.

      +
      0 Votes
      aidemzo_adanac

      Don't need a cartoon, the replies here are a joke themselves.

      It's like people have the most illogical and blatantly ignorant train of though.

      In a discusion where the topic is about mental health record checks being unavailable to peopl seekign a license to own a deadly weapon, you get replies like "I own two guns and I've never shot anyone?" How about using some sanity, logic and relevance instead?

      "I would shoot someone if they broke into my residence."
      Did saying that put a bit more hair on your chest and make the beer a bit weaker too? Do you have a sign with that on your door? "Break in here and I will shoot you dead!"

      Shoot to kill, and American law is also very quick to ignore the castle doctrine, welcome to cell block C, here's Bubba and he needs a new girlfriend.

      So many tough guys, for such a weak nation.

      +
      0 Votes
      CharlieSpencer

      The cops it is. I just don't know if I have to provide any proof of ownership, registration, or other documentation. I'd prefer to get rid of them in NC, where he lives, but since I don't live there, I'm unclear on how to legally demonstrate my inheritance of them. Most of the advice I've found on the web assumes I want to keep them, which I most certainly don't. Frankly, I'd like to see them melted down for scrap, but I don't own a blast furnace...

      +
      0 Votes
      CharlieSpencer

      "How can there be ANY gray area around it? Are Americans THAT mental that even someone with a history of mental illness has his right to own a firearm defended?!?"

      Recent polls since Sandy Point show that between 70% and 80% of the US voting population supports a national database for the pre-screening of all gun sales. Also, the percentage of gun-owning households is down from 37% or so in the late '60s to 24% or so today. While fewer people overall own them, that minority is buying at record levels. The number of gun owning households may be down, but the average number of guns in them is going up.

      My totally unsupported guess is the gun industry, like the tobacco industry, sees its shrinking customer base and will do anything to slow that decline. This includes using its puppets in the NRA leadership to whip gun owners into a frenzy whenever any form of gun legislation is merely filed, regardless of whether it is eventually debated or (gos forbid) passed. Overwrought owners go on buying sprees in the potential affected political subdivision, regardless of the extent of the potential restrictions, regardless of the chances of passing or failing. The NRA exercises political power all out of proportion to its percentage of the voting population simply because it has deep pockets, which are mostly refilled not by individual owners' dues but by the gun industry.

      Indeed, I suspect the industry of viewing each new mass shooting like children at Christmas. They know there will be a rash of new gun control legislation proposed, driving up sales to those trying to get as many arms as possible before that legislation takes effect (which it never does). It doesn't matter if gun advocates or gun controllers win or lose the game, or even how it's played; the industry comes out ahead as soon as the anthem plays and the umpire cries, "Play ball!"

      +
      0 Votes
      aidemzo_adanac

      IN this case, that's the whole point. People support pre-screening, but those with a history of mental illness CANNOT be screened to see if they've been in a looney bin or not. The government, who doesn't protect anyone's privacy for any reason, protects people' s medical records from review, even when applying for a permit!

      It varies by state but it seems commonly, if you admit yourself and later leave, you are okay to have a gun. If you are admitted by court or whatever means, after you are deemed sane again, you are okay to get a gun.

      The people conducting record checks are not allowed to look at your mental history records, a big problem in my eyes. If you HAVE a permit and THEN are sent to the nuthouse, your permit is simply suspended until your release.

      "Here you go, you are free from the insane asylum today, here's your pistol back, have a great day!" It sounds absolutely insane but it's a reality that is actually defended.

      I've seen more realistic concepts lines in a National Lampoon movie!


      P.S. don't worry about the tobacco industry, I'm dumb enough to keep them afloat.

      +
      0 Votes
      jp85257

      it would be a violation of the HIPAA law. We must obey Federal laws. We wouldn't want to use common sense.

      +
      0 Votes
      john.a.wills

      never mind of what. Once I recognized that my behavior was harmful to others I saw a clinical psychologist, he gave me some exercises to do, I did them, the weird behavior stopped. Should I be forbidden to have a gun for that reason? I don't actually want one, you understand, as they are burglar magnets, and as sometimes small children, not to mention a lunatic neighbor, come into my house

      +
      0 Votes
      aidemzo_adanac

      This isn't about people's mental illness stopping them from buying a gun. The issues is people's mental history is unavailable for review at all!

      Would you want someone with a metal history of violent outbreaks to have a gun? HE/she may not have a criminal record at that point but may still have mental problems that lead to violence...a ticking time bomb.

      How about severe bipolar disorder? "Gee it wasn't like him, he seemed so cheerful, most of the time!"

      or someone who has had marital issues that have resulted in mental disorders, a desire to exact revenge, nervous breakdowns etc. Should ANYONE in America carry a gun, no matter what, just because people can't determine what the real meaning of the 2nd amendment is due to the many rewrites and so much grey area?

      +
      0 Votes
      john.a.wills

      about the non-reviewability of important aspects of a would-be gun owner's history, but I question your claim that the Second Amendment has been rewritten. The U.S. Constitution has suffered 27 Amendments, and I do not think that any of the 3rd (we should perhaps really count from the 12th, as the first 11 came together) through the 27th rewrite the 2nd. You may be thinking of judicial rewrites, as in Imbler vs Pachtman and Roe vs Wade, but I do not think that there has been anything equivalent regarding the 2nd; do you know of any?

      I also do not know of any rewirites to the Bible since Pope Innocent I promulgated his list of books in 405; some would-be reformers, notably Karlstadt, Zwingli and Luther, disliked certain books, and certain small churches have a 151st Psalm or a 3 Maccabees or a 3 Ezra, but I don't think those can be what you are thinking of: the vast majority of Xn use Innocent's Bible unchanged.

      +
      0 Votes

      And, quite possibly, the Supreme Court's D.C v. Heller that overturned two centuries of precedent and determined the Second Amendment applied not only to militias, but as an individual right.

      +
      0 Votes
      aidemzo_adanac

      In the case of the Second Amendment, the language between the Congressional and state versions have different meanings and is why there is still scrutiny between courts.

      I personally find context issues the hardest to discuss. Most people understand the basics with grammar....Some people understand the basics with grammar, but I find countless people who have no concept of context. It makes discussion and especially debate all but impossible.

      Context, to me, is imperative in everything written or said, CONTEXT is the key to language. It's like a cornerstone that the English language rests upon, with the correct context, you can completely screw up grammar and even use incorrect terms, but proper context will result in the same understanding of what is said.

      People who don't comprehend context will land people in jail, will make unjust and false accusations, will completely misunderstand the nature and focus of what is said and so much more. Without context, we don't have language and yet, I find that, it is horribly understood by most.

      Context removes the need for further interpretation, it s what everything we say is built upon. Yet so many have no grasp and, as such, completely misconstrue what people say or write all the time.

      +
      0 Votes
      aidemzo_adanac

      I was talking about how simply rewriting it over times, same words, different punctuation and capitalization, makes it mean different things.

      I think what most Americans forget is that it was NOT intended as a means for future American citizens to have the right to carry and use weapons to defend their TV from being stolen.

      The original Constitutional right was taken from the English Law (which most of our North American Charter of Rights and Constitution is built upon).

      In England it was written so that Protestants could protect themselves from the religious and political unrest of the time. Then in order to stop an uprisin gin the US, it was amended and the right to bear arms and form an organized militia was put forth, so that an organized group of citizens could act against uprising, if needed, until other measures (the military for example) were able to convene and act upon issues themselves.

      Today, you get some uneducated yokel shooting off his mouth about how it is his right to carry a weapon for personal protection, as if granted by God himself.

      One US description states
      "The Second Amendment is the only right having an introduction: "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State." In 1789, "militia" included our modern concept of "police," a word not in common use then. Volunteer "vigilance committees" did policing."

      So already, according to the above commentary, it was NOT initially designed for people to walk into Target with a side arm, JUST IN CASE someone ****es them off.

      TWO VERSIONS:
      The first passed by two-thirds of the members of each house of Congress (the first step for ratifying a constitutional amendment). A different version passed by three-fourths of the states (the second step for ratifying a constitution amendment). The primary difference between the two versions are a capitalization and a simple comma.
      http://www.occasionalplanet.org/2012/08/28/confusion-the-wording-of-the-second-amendment/

      A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

      The version ratified by the states and authenticated by Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson reads:

      A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

      If you read those two as meaning the same thing, back to grammar school for you.

      The first focuses on the Militia not being infringed upon by the State.
      The second focuses on the people's right to bear arms.

      Two extremely different meanings, two tiny changes in grammar. It is also said that in the 1700's, English grammar was overwrought with the use of punctuation, this the extra comma to separate and define the language. Later dropping it, leave it open to misinterpretation by today's poor use of grammar.

      +
      0 Votes
      aidemzo_adanac

      Rewrites. The bible was translated from Hebrew to English, where there are many words that must be ASSUMED or GUESSED as to the correct replacement, otherwise it implies a completely different context.

      One interpretation is that Jesus walked up on water. Using the same rules, the same Hebrew writings can also mean, Jesus walked BY water or walked BESIDE water. SO which is it? Did he walk ON water, BY water or BESIDE water?

      Nobody knows or course, just speculation as to what was meant.

      English language has also changed a great deal in so many years. What we once would have used to translate a specific Hebrew word may be completely different today.

      So without downplaying the initial Hebrew writings themselves, without looking at what did and didn't happen, right from the get go, there are more holes than in Windows XP (well maybe not quite THAT bad but you get my point).

      GIven that the bible has been reinterpreted hundreds, if not thousands of times, in MAnY Languages where similar terms are not available, it is purely up to the translator to decide if Jesus walked ON water, BY water or Beside water. Any translator would be pleased to say Jesus walked ON water, it simply sounds a lot more riveting.

      Without even getting into specifics, various rewrites,m new translations to countless languages etc, one simply cannot accept the Bible, in English, as a true translation, yet alone read it repeatedly an base your entire existence, morals and beliefs on such a poor translation.

      That's before even getting into the reality of what was said vs logic.

      +
      0 Votes
      john.a.wills

      1. The stories of Jesus walking on the water come to us in Hebrew;
      2. The language of those stories lacks a good supply of prepositions or equivalents;
      3. I most often read the Bible in a translation into English;
      4. I most often read the Bible in an antique translation.
      All these assumptions are false.

      +
      0 Votes
      aidemzo_adanac

      Regardless of what language stories originate, they are translated and much is lost in translation.

      Regardless of good prepositions, I have seen before how several direct English translations offer different results when converting that exact phrase.

      The language YOU choose to read the Bible in is irrelevant, unless reading directly from the original Author's source. Great book, slow read but an interesting 'story' all the same.

      Again about translation? Why?

      As always when it comes to defending religious beliefs, no support, just an attempt at creating some form of doubt without relevant fact. Like pretending to throw a ball to a dog and hiding it behind your back, 'look over there!' In the case of the inexplicable, the famed "god has his ways' always prevails, to an idiot anyway. LOL, what a maroon!

      +
      0 Votes
      maxwell edison

      Are you claiming to be some sort of expert on the various writings and translations of the Bible? Really? This is laughable.

      Not for content, because I have no idea; but I know that you have no idea either, because you are about the farthest thing from a Biblical Scholar. I laugh at you and how you claim to be an expert on all things.

      To paraphrase Mark Twain, sometimes it's better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you're a fool, rather than to open your mouth and confirm it.

      +
      0 Votes
      aidemzo_adanac

      No I don' claim to be an expert and, reading through my post, I don't know where you got such an opinion as it was not even implied.

      What I do know is that even those tasked with translation today, have agreed that it is 100% dependent on the translator as to what exact words come out of the translation, as I specifically illustrated.

      You can laugh all you like, you also have no idea what my biblical exposure is, although no longer a practicing Christian, I don't go to church every Sunday, the Bible is not exactly a secret tome. It's writings have been criticized, supported, questioned, believed and translated so many times into so many different languages, that it's not like a members only handbook.

      I have actually read the bible, many times (a daily routine) as I was in a Christian school as a child, sang in the choir and all the rest of that rubbish.

      The funniest part though is thinking ANYONE is an expert on a subject yet to be proven even exists. Nobody that was there is still alive today, so who can claim to be an expert on what really happened? Some of the most skilled translators worldwide have differentiating opinions as to what the original scripts actually say. Just the mere fact that it is open to choice of translation must cast doubt as to the accuracy and validity of ANY translation, new or old.

      Did Moses part the Red Sea? that's open to translation
      Did Noah build an ark? That's open to translation.
      Did Jesus walk on water? That's open to translation.

      There's no doubt in my mind that something SIMILAR to these events occurred but the dramatics and details WILL vary based on the translator's choice of words.

      Saying a guy felt a storm a comin ' and built a large ark to try and save his family, friends and his own farm animals/livelihood isn't half as exciting as saying God told him to build an dark and save two of every breed on Earth, though it is MUCH more realistic.

      Apparently Jesus stayed behind to climb the mountain and pray, while his disciples set out on stormy sea of Galilee. Now depending on which Gospel you buy into, Matthew, Mark or John, Jesus either walked to the ship, where he protected his disciples or Peter walked on the sea, toward Jesus, and doubted his faith/feared the storm before starting to sink himself, Jesus then did a Baywatch move an walked on the water to rescue Peter (well, even in Baywatch they swim, after a sexy. slow-mo jog into the surf). But hey, what' s a little continuity issue when it comes to translating your favorite stories right?

      You can only be a believer, someone who has believed what they were preached, believed what they have read and simply have FAITH, not expert opinion, as to what is true or false.

      The fact that even ancient translations have been proven easily questionable due to several English words offering a nearly direct translation, is what I am getting at. Even early translations were shown to have multiple meanings, with the best, most inviting selections included in the English text.

      Nobody back then was looking to find out that writings were not as eventful, faithful and exciting as initially assumed, they were looking for words that supported their faith or belief. Translations which made the most exciting stories, which supported religious claims etc.

      It wasn't like modern day skepticism that is focused on uncovering the untruths. It is a biased translation, which has been found inaccurate, or at least not the ONLY possible translation, by scholars worldwide.

      Expert on religion, you crack me up when you offer up such mindless BS.

      +
      0 Votes
      john.a.wills

      The books of the Bible have been copied and read far more than most books their age. Do you doubt the translations of Caesar, Xenophon, Plato, etc.?
      With your stated background it's a little odd that you thought the gospels to have been written in Hebrew (though I understand that there was once a Governor of Texas who thought Paul had written in English). You mention 3 walking-on-water stories in the gospels and claim contradictions among them. Well, they may be describing 3 different events, and you haven't told us your opinion of their genre (history, parable, midrash,...). The other examples you are now giving also seem to be genre problems rather than vocabulary/translation ones.
      Your original claim was that the Bible had been changed many times; you seem to have amended this to a claim that translations are untrustworthy (tradduttore traditore, or something like that).
      So, take one of the walking-on-water stories, specifying book, chapter and verse(s), and tell us what different translators into English have produced in the way of the preposition(s) that made you suspicious. We can worry about allegory and so forth, and about relationship to the other two stories, once we have this story well dealt with.

      +
      0 Votes
      aidemzo_adanac

      To a certain extent and they have been proven to have many discrepancies. now take THAT another millenium back and see how accurate BELIEFS were. Remember those people didn't even understand the universe, the creation of life, death etc. And 2000 years later, people still base their entire existence on their 'teachings'? LOL

      Sorry but we have science now, which has far more conclusive evidence than any biblical alignment. Just as the Mayans predictions were confirmed as all knowing, however it is a matter of seeking random numbers that coincide with a predetermined conclusion, fogging the reality and scientific facts.
      "With your stated background it's a little odd that you thought the gospels to have been written in Hebrew"
      Why because it was written in Hebrew?
      That was one language attributed to the bible which was actually a muddled mix of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. A language which doesn't even exist today actually and yet is accepted in direct English translation.

      Of course that must all be made up lies though, even though it states on Biblica.com ,"The first human author to write down the biblical record was Moses. He was commanded by God to take on this task, for Exodus 34:27 records God's words to Moses, "Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel." And what language did he use? He wrote in his native language, called Hebrew.

      For you to then expect me to follow along with your requests, as if you were my f*****g English teacher, is simply laughable.
      "We can worry about allegory and so forth, and about relationship to the other two stories, once we have this story well dealt with."

      Give your head a shake, you arrogant p***k!

      You remind me of another friend I have who thinks he knows more about sports than any living breathing entity on planet Earth.

      One particular sport, which last year he admitted NOT following at all, is now one he has become an authority on. I sent him some info that I had found from a group of professional sports anaylsts, many who had coached and played in the league themselves. he said it was impossible, 'do the math', of course it couldn't possibly work that way. However I live in a civilization where you don't NEED to have a life history examining a subject in order to be qualified to discuss it. We have information on any subject, in fact Canadians get such information from the network shows that offer a centered VIEW of two sides of a debate, allowing you to conclude yourself based on the information presented. There have been several such series, documentaries etc that focus specifically on the translations of the Bible and how there is a LOT of room for discrepancy, as agreed by priests, linguists and scholars around the globe. I don't listen to one guy each week, preaching the same old, unproven BS week in and week out. Telling me how someone else will guide my life as it is prewritten in my destiny if I choose to listen. I prefer to evaluate all options and not give into the one that is most convenient.

      My own opinion is far from qualified, as is yours and everyone else posting on TR. Biblical history is not my life's study. TO those who have made it their live's work, if a priest in England, a historian in Australia, and qualified translators from other parts of the globe can all read the same passage and have three very similar, yet equally divided, conclusions, I'll take THEIR knowledge,over yours or anyone else's here, any day of the week.

      Now if one of them tried to teach me about educational software, I'd probably take heed to your comments over theirs. It's logical to follow the path of knowledge, not the path of belief.

      Lets also not forget the bias in with which the Bible was written.

      Funny enough, Americans, who have limited scientific exposure and still mainly follow religious beliefs, are the ones who will support the bible's teachings the most, with the exception of how they live by the Quoran in the middle east. People in other, developed nations, all seem to have a much more open view as to the Bible being a good book and a lot was lost in translation. However, they also have a greater immersion into science from a younger age than most Americans, as determined by a US scientist now living in Canada due to the greater exposure to science that we have in the mainstream and educational system.

      The Quoran is just as real, believable and accurate to some religions though. What makes YOU so qualified to disbelieve it and SELECT to follow Chrsitian faith instead?

      What makes the bible any more accurate than any other religion's 'guide to happy health"?

      There is only ONE reason people follow the bible's writings and their priests sermons, whether following the new or old testament, FAITH, BELIEF, TRUST but not FACT, in even the most minuscule way. You have NO FACTS, just FAITH that what you read and are told is credible and correct.

      So to play your little game anyway:
      ____________________________
      Shmuel Golding in his The Light of Reason, volume 3, says:

      For those who understand the Greek text there is no problem in interpreting this story. Johns gospel records that when the disciples received Jesus into the ship; it was already at the land. They saw Jesus walking, not on the sea, but beside the sea as the Greek word ept indicates.

      One need not be a scholar to look up a word in a dictionary and in this case epi is a preposition, which can mean - in, - on, - alongside, or - beside. In koine' Greek (common Greek, usually not written but spoken, a type of slang Greek), the term "ep-" usually did refer to "alongside, since there was a more common slang term used for such.


      Guess what the Christian apologists interpreted epi to mean ON. The New International Version (NIV) Study Guide says: A special display of the majestic presence and power of the transcendent Lord who rules over the sea (Mark 6:48).

      This is what Strong's Lexicon, a reference much beloved by fundamentalist Christians has to say about the subject. However, you have to remember that Strong's is Christian in origin and accordingly, supports Christian selling points and that it's use is primarily in the Christian community. On page 1909 is says; epi epi ep-ee a root; prep AV-on 196, in 120, upon 159, unto 41, to 41, misc. 339; 896

      1) upon, on, at, by, before

      2) of position, on, at, by, over, against

      3) to, over, on, at, across, against

      4) toward, beside

      Notice, out of 19 adjectives, 9 clearly can mean besides the sea, 4 can be interpret either way and 6 can be interpret as walking on the sea.

      According to this, you could present the incident of Jesus walking on the water in several different ways. Christians apparently wanted to make Jesus perform another miracle and walking on water was a doozie.

      The Greek word epi meaning alongside of fits this story. As written, it could be correctly used BOTH ways, depends on which what message you want to present.
      __________________________________

      So are they all wrong because you BELIEVE they are?
      Are you suggesting that your comprehension of ancient Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek is superior ?

      Are you suggesting that not only are you pretending to be an

      +
      0 Votes
      neilb@uk

      You're falling into the trap and coming from the theist position that the Bible is Truth and something that YOU have to explain in terms of "mistranslation" rather than just marking it down as yet another creation myth of the sort that Christians, if they bothered to read them, would dismiss out of hand.

      At least we KNOW that the translation of the Hitchhikers Guide was correct but we can no more prove the creation myth in it than we can prove the Bible has any basis in reality.

      If you want to see how rooted in reality some Christians aren't, check this http://creation.com/how-did-all-the-animals-fit-on-noahs-ark for mental gymnastics and you'll never feel the need to worry about a simple thing like mistranslation, again.

      My favourite bit is "Drinking water would only have taken up 9.4% of the volume. This volume would be reduced further if rainwater was collected and piped into troughs." This was the bloody FLOOD! It rained enough to cover the Earth and they are taking drinking water on board?

      +
      0 Votes
      CharlieSpencer

      I wanna see which one passes out first.

      +
      0 Votes
      aidemzo_adanac

      How hard is it to prove fact vs faith?
      Practicing Christians (and I am sure other religious zealots) are so eager to simply believe what they are preached that they throw all sense of logic right out of the window anyway.

      It's like someone trying to debate that water is a solid and not having any support for their belief.
      The crazy part is that, no matter how much common sense and logic proves their unrealistic belief to be false, they still refuse to question what some dude said on Sunday.

      +
      0 Votes
      maxwell edison

      But water can be a solid..... or a liquid.....or a gas.

      +
      0 Votes

      Max

      aidemzo_adanac

      Clever, well...not really but I'm sure you feel it was.

      Nothing actually relevant to add though, I assume?

      +
      0 Votes
      maxwell edison

      You used a bad example, one that showed your total ignorance. Water is the only element found on the planet earth which can present itself in all three forms: liquid, gas, or solid.

      +
      0 Votes
      aidemzo_adanac

      My periodic table doesn't actually include H2O, well it has H and O but not the compound H2O. Is it something they added to the US tables?

      I suppose "you used a bad example, one that showed your total ignorance".

      Not only were you wrong once but TWICE!! Water is NOT the only "compound" OR element that can exist as liquid, solid or gas. ALL elements on the periodic table can be a solid, liquid or gas. And there are actually 5 stats of matter, not three. In the case of water, the 3 you mention are NATURAL states.

      Water is just the only substance that exists "naturally"on Earth in the three, most common, physical states of matter (not including plasma and Bose-Einstein condensate, two more lesser recognized states of matter).

      Oceans = liquid / geysers = steam /glaciers = solid

      All other "elements" have to be physically changed from one state to another, in which case all 5 states of matter apply.

      I suppose "you used a bad example, one that showed your total ignorance".

      Man, I TOLD you science education was wickedly poor in the USA! Way to prove a point, Max, while once again, "showing your total ignorance."

      I've seen some slips but that was tripping, falling flat on your face and breaking your nose all in just two sentences!

      +
      0 Votes

      Some of the same people in the gun crowd saying we should do something about mental illness are some of the same people screaming about checking medical records.

      One thing that keeps the radicals (both left and right) entertaining: they never allow themselves to be constrained by foolish consistency.

      +
      0 Votes
      maxwell edison

      Why are people so willingly giving away their freedom? Not only on any given "gun issue", but on any issue at all? That's insane to me. And equally insane are those who speak so disparagingly to, and about, those who say, no, you can't have it, and I will resist any attempt to take it. (Usually the same people.)

      Edit for addition:

      For example, for someone to say, " If the government turned up tomorrow and said I couldn't have them (my widgets) anymore, 'oh well, c'est la vie, who the **** cares'?"

      Now that's insane.

      +
      0 Votes

      Which beg another question: Why are people so unwilling to give away their freedom on gun issues so willing to give away other freedoms? Or to take away the freedom of others?

      I'm not putting you in that group, Max, by a long shot, but in my area of the country, too many of those in favor of unfettered firearms ownership feel government should interfere in people's lives in other ways.

      +
      0 Votes
      CharlieSpencer

      by anti-******** protestors who tell expectant mothers to put the baby up for adoption, but have never considered adopting a child themselves.

      I was also entertained several months ago when the NRA filed to stop a gun buyback program run by the Tuscon police. It seems the cops were going to destroy those purchased firearms, instead of auctioning them like confiscated property.

      +
      0 Votes
      neilb@uk

      You really do have a better class of nutters over there.

      +
      0 Votes
      CharlieSpencer

      And now it's much easier to share them with the rest of the world through the magic of the Internet

      +
      0 Votes
      aidemzo_adanac

      In reference to American nutters (or Americans in general) you used the word 'class'. ooopsie! Also, in order to be deemed a nutter, you'd have to have someone sane to compare to.

      +
      0 Votes
      CharlieSpencer

      I'll see your Al Gore and raise you Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Michael Bloomberg when he's in his 'Nutritionist-in-Chief' mode, the entire 'anti-immunization' movement, Ron Paul when he's on a 'return to gold standard' rant, and anyone who thinks rappers using the word 'Ni**er' as entertainment are 'keeping it real', but that a woman raised in the Jim Crow South should be condemned for having used it in casual conversation decades ago.

      +
      0 Votes
      maxwell edison

      ..... Al Gore is the type of nutter who is especially offensive to Neil. Strange bedfellows kind of thing, and Neil's a bit too cozy to AlGore for Neil's own comfort.

      +
      0 Votes
      neilb@uk

      Now, you know you've been warned about him! Don't make me have to hit you.

      +
      0 Votes
      aidemzo_adanac

      What relation is there between Neil's comments and AlGore? I think you are just poking the bear, trolling, casting or whatever people like to call it thee days. Well, hook in lip, here I am!

      Is it simply that Neil is aware of the reality of climate change that you equate him to being a Gore fan or is it something more real that I was unaware of?

      I am pretty sure, though not positive, that neil's understanding of climate change would make Al Gore appear to be as ignorant as...well, Al Gore.

      Al Gore, being your easily darted poster boy for ANY conversation about climate change. is one example of why I see so many problems in the USA, where they affiliate one nut job's comments as representing an entire philosophy.

      Al Gore's BS is so easily dismissed, it is then just as easy to dismiss the real facts about climate change. It is the same with president's, laws, rights etc. If ONE tiny shred of doubt is placed on one proponent, then all that is involved is quickly deemed incredible.

      It's an easy. lazy and irresponsible way to exclude oneself from responsibility or taking action. A convenience for those who wish to simply be stubborn and a scapegoat for those who want to wait until everyone else goes first.

      I'm not saying it is just you or or even one party vs another, it happens all over, every day, from the right and left, perhaps why the US has such a hard time overcoming things like recession, attacks, presidential changes etc. Nobody can get anything done there it seems.

      +
      0 Votes
      neilb@uk

      Max believes, wrongly, that I am Al Gore's secret love child and he never misses an opportunity to try and make some capital out of this. He has been warned on many occasions!

      +
      0 Votes
      maxwell edison

      The mere mention of "Al Gore" to Neil could be described as a "private joke" between Neil and me. Just because it's shared In a public forum does not oblige me to explain it to you, If you don't "get it", too damn bad.

      +
      0 Votes
      aidemzo_adanac

      As I said, I don't know what inside joke is behind it, nor do I actually care, I assumed it was a poke due to neil being very well versed on climate change and you reducing all comments to a political stand, as always.

      +
      0 Votes
      neilb@uk

      is the Hitler-equivalence for Godwin's Law in Climate Change discussions. Saves me from frustration and saves Max from having to "select one from..."

      1) Climate's changed before
      2) It's the sun
      3) There is no consensus
      4) It's really cooling
      5) Models are unreliable
      6) Temperature record is unreliable
      7) Animals and plants can adapt
      It hasn't warmed since 1998
      9) Antarctica is gaining ice
      10) Greenland is gaining ice
      etc, etc

      Invoking Al Gore early on generally stops me from screaming at the screen as I type.

      +
      0 Votes
      CharlieSpencer

      Perhaps they've seen others abuse those freedoms to the point where those freedoms start to look like shackles. Freedom carries the price tag of responsibility. When enough people misuse their freedom to bear arms, others start to perceive that freedom as a threat and to question its value. Freedom of religion looks shaky when a majority wants it to apply only to their belief system, and either passively ignore or actively suppress that of others by force of law. Freedom of speech takes a hit every time someone falsely screams 'Censorship!' when a privately-owned newspaper won't publish his letter.

      There are also those who don't understand that exercising one's freedom doesn't exempt one from the consequences. The right to display a Confederate flag doesn't exempt one from having former associates publicly sever business connections.

      +
      0 Votes
      aidemzo_adanac

      I know you hate to look at specifics and context when simplicity supports all your points but reality has to come into play too.

      We are not talking about taking away people's widgets, their right to vote, protest or equal opportunity. We are specifically talking about a system that does not permit mental health checks when mental health issues are behind the vast majority of homicides by gun.

      Suicide, mass shootings, killing the family etc. Are these now deemed just oddities and not connected directly to someone with mental health issues, which may have been overlooked and helped them conduct their crimes?

      Do we now accept mass murderers as people who had a right to own a gun, despite their mental health issues?

      THis is not even remotely similar to the government just flipping a coin and putting a stop to someones freedom.
      The pattern is becoming clear with you though.

      When reading your posts here, I've often commented on how you are VERY careful to select snippets from comments that can easily be taken out of context and offer up a different viewpoint.

      When it comes to ancient American history, you hang onto it verbatim and completely disregard context.

      I am starting to find that perhaps you simply disregard context completely, maybe not even recognizing or understanding it as all your arguments and support for antiquated writings seem to stem form a lack of contextual understanding.

      It would explain a lot and certainly make a lot more of your comments understandable.

      Like it or not, context is everything!

      +
      0 Votes
      maxwell edison

      ..... I substituted widgets for guns? Even without the substitution, my sentiment stands. I substituted the confiscated item in question so as to illustrate the LARGER context. You obviously missed the point, but I can understand why.

      I'm reminded of a story about the guy with a mind so narrow he could see through a keyhole with both eyes wide open.

      +
      0 Votes
      aidemzo_adanac

      Your defensive reply is based in the first sentence of my post and my focus that this isn't about widgets. We aren't discussing your favorite flavour of bubble gum, whether Coke is better than Pepsi, it's about people with mental illness being able to legally purchase deadly weapons. No need to reduce it to something as simple as a widget, in order to support your choice of of the most simple minded values.

      Your choice of using widgets was an attempt to remove the deadly weapon focus from your nonsensical support due to translation, and therefore reduce the importance of seeing this as an unforeseen issue (in 1776) and not possibly able to be defined by the simplified set of rights set out in that day and time.

      Seems you have some consistency anyway, if something is open to and dependent upon translation (the second amendment and the bible for example), you will support your personal belief but not recognize that it can be a variable.

      I have not offered personal belief in either case, I do think it's nuts to let nuts buy guns but I also understand that the law is open to how it is written specifically, with two different understandings leading in two different directions.

      You suggest I am narrow minded, which is the hilarious part of your BS. I'm the one who has left it open for definition, not the one who only sees one solution for all the world's evils, based on a narrow minded view that doesn't accept that there are variances in English speech and grammar that completely change a meaning.

      +
      0 Votes
      maxwell edison

      ..... I call it out for what it is, and you claim I took your comment out of context. Out of context, my a$$. You are an intellectual coward for that.

      You said that you'd have no problem if a government official entered your home and confiscated your firearm(s). Well, I would have a problem if a government official entered MY home and confiscated ANYTHING.

      You showed your true colors, and your "out of context" claim does nothing to hide them.

      +
      0 Votes
      aidemzo_adanac

      You just don't understand the concept of context, so I'll let it sit. You have proven time and time again that you NEVER understand context, except how to take something our of context so you can bend it in your favour.

      You said that you'd have no problem if a government official entered your home and confiscated your firearm(s)."

      Prove it, I never said anything of the sort. I'll await your link and quote.

      I would have a problem if a government official entered MY home and confiscated ANYTHING.
      And so would I, do you have a relevant comment that pertains to the discussion at hand?

      I was speaking about releasing access to mental health records, just as they do criminal history, when applying for a permit. YOU take that to mean I would accept someone walking into my home and confiscating my property? How do you dream this stuff up?

      I know, in your little mind, you think that agreeing to a medical history check would then mean the government would have then have the keys to your home and will help themselves to a sandwich on the way out.

      Same thing? Not even remotely close, not even with your wildly stretched imagination.

      My true colours? Yeah sure. I think that a mental history check would reduce the number of mentally unstable people currently allowed to own deadly weapons. Of my God! My true colours are out! How dare I suggest it? If that's showing my true colours, let them fly proudly.

      Why can't some nutbag, with a history of mental voilence toward people like your wife or children, buy a firearm? It's their right afterall.

      You also fail to recognize that I didn't say people COULDN'T own a weapon but I think even you can understand that SOME people are not mentally suited to own a weapon and be able to make the split second decisions needed to safely possess one. How many mass murders are deemed mentally ill? How many times have people who have killed a person's family been given an easy out due to being determined mentally unable to make sound decisions?

      How do YOU justify supporting people, who are mentally unstable, being issued a license to own a firearm? I dare you to print such views in your local area news.

      Go and get a petition signed by your neighbours, letting them know that it is an American's right to own a firearm and that you support the mentally unstable being able to buy firearms without a mental history check.

      Just sleep with one eye open and ignore the neighbours burning your effigy on their lawns.


      Let's see how it pans out then. Heaven forbid that some nutcase went to your son's place of work, a disgruntled ex employee, and shot the place up, injuring or killing people in the process, possibly including your son.

      AFTER the fact, they investigate and find that he has a history of violence and mental illness.
      You wouldn't wonder how he managed to purchase a gun to begin with and you wouldn't think it right if police then entered his house and removed all firearms in his possession.

      Of course, in such a case you would completely support any investigation into his mental healthy and the removal of weapons from his possession. You can be pretty ignorant but even I know you aren't THAT clued out.

      What you DON'T accept is a means to try and PREVENT that from occurring to begin with, as it infringes on, what you deem to be, an individual right.

      Of course resolution is far better than prevention when it comes to American citizen's and your families live's. That's the way it was understood to be, over 230 years ago so it must still be relevant and applicable today.

      Man, if there is ANY Sense in your blind, closed minded viewpoint, I sure as **** can't see it.

      +
      0 Votes
      maxwell edison

      That certainly explains a few things; and I'm glad we cleared that up.

      +
      0 Votes
      aidemzo_adanac

      Proving once again that you are completely devoid of any ability to understand what you read. The reading comprehension level of perhaps a grade 2 student, at best.

      Instead of answering the question and proving your previous lies, as that couldn't be done anyway, you simply make up more lies about something that wasn't said.

      I remember at one time I thought you were fairly clever, boy I guess I've been proven wrong too many times to count. Then again, I have a lot of patience when it comes to the 'challenged ones' in life.

      +
      0 Votes
      aidemzo_adanac

      This isn't about giving away your freedoms, it's about allowing a mental health record check to register for a gun.
      Do you consider having privacy with your medical records a 'freedom'?
      Your medical records ARE private and will remain so, as is your criminal history.
      When you register for a gun, you give special permission for a criminal record check. I suppose, in some way, you see that as giving up your freedoms that America's founding fathers granted you.
      First a criminal record check, then a mental health check and next thing you know, the government will force you to praise Allah and remove your right to protest peacefully or else be locked up?! Seriously, losing one freedom leads to the next?! Paranoid?

      To allow a mental health check too is no different than allowing a criminal record check. Employers also ask for your criminal history, but obviously not your mental health history (though I often feel they should).

      When looking to gain permission to purchase a deadly weapon (in a country where gun violence is so far out of control it will be impossible to stop altogether anyway), is it REALLY a matter of giving up your "freedom"?
      It's not like all of a sudden your medical records are made publicly available on a Google search. Your record is STILL private and protected by your federal or state laws, unless you sign a form allowing such review by an authorized party.

      Freedom you seek is to do as you please, no questions asked. For ANY American, in right mind or not, to be able to purchase a lethal weapon, no questions asked.

      It's a bit absurd to consider really. Once again, context and situation is irrelevant when you use a big black shroud to determine all that is wrong or right.

      +
      0 Votes
      aidemzo_adanac

      If I had a right to drive a horse and buggy in town, and tomorrow they said I couldn't, it wouldn't phase me. I have no NEED for a horse and buggy, nor the desire to clean up after a horse, feed it, house it etc.

      If the government said tomorrow that I couldn't own a gun, I'd pull them out of the basement closet and hand them over with a smile, 'thanks for finally getting rid of them for me'. Again I have no need and no desire to have them, I just do.

      Such rights are irrelevant to most people, outside of America, where guns are a necessity for daily survival of course.

      +
      0 Votes
      djed

      While I agree with you that there should be gun ownership restrictions on people who were involuntarily committed, voluntary commitment is a different situation; it means the person is enough self-aware that they need help that they're seeking it. They're much more likely to hurt themselves than someone else.

      As to mental health as a whole, you're a long way off. Very few of the mentally ill are violent like they portray in the media. The media love to play up when one of the violent ones goes off, but barely report on the huge number of everyday murders. The vast majority of people who kill are perfectly "sane" and would never be committed. What we really need is better screening to take care of the violent before they become a danger.

      +
      0 Votes
      aidemzo_adanac

      "As to mental health as a whole, you're a long way off. Very few of the mentally ill are violent like they portray in the media."

      I'm pretty sure I haven't said MOST were violent. But people with a violent mental history would certainly be the red flag we need to determine with mental health record checks. I was actually not a long way off at all, as you suggest.

      People with mental health problems will often realize it one day and say they are fine the next. So the self admitted should also be properly evaluated and THEIR medical records wil determine if they are healthy enough to handle gun ownership or not. Either way, right now it's completely unknown if he's a mass murderer in waiting or someone with bouts of depression. And how is harming yourself with a firearm any more reason for excuse than someone who would kill others?
      "They're much more likely to hurt themselves than someone else."

      Are you suggesting natural selection? If so, I've got a lot of people I'd like to see armed, just in case they decide to top themselves instead of someone else.

      "The vast majority of people who kill are perfectly "sane" and would never be committed."

      Who said otherwise? That STILL doesn't mean that a person's mental health is not a KEY consideration before issuing a license to purchase a lethal weapon.

      What we really need is better screening to take care of the violent before they become a danger.

      Agreed, but until such time as that is possible, say not in my lifetime, why is it so absurd to CONSIDER someone's mental health as well as their criminal history before determining if they are capable or being responsible with a firearm?

      I honestly assumed ti would be checked and was quite shocked to find out it isn't.

      Will a mental health record check stop future gun violence? **** no!
      Will a mental health record check handle all the other problems where people acquire firearms when they shouldn't? **** no!

      Will a mental health check help to reduce the number of people on a mental rampage, people who have a proven mental instability history, people who are schizophrenic, people who a mentally violent? **** yes.

      Step 1 not keep going and sort the rest out.

      The problem with doing ANYTHING in the USA is that NOTHING ever gets done. This is because if there is one tiny little exception, the entire rule is deemed null and void. If not ALL people with mental health issues are a risk to buy a gun, then NOBODY is.

      +
      0 Votes
      djed

      "People with mental health problems will often realize it one day and say they are fine the next."

      That is also something that happens in very few cases. And, even when it does, it says nothing about their potential for violence. Irrelevant.

      "Are you suggesting natural selection?"

      No, I'm suggesting mental health is not a major determiner for whether a person is violent or not. Those who may try to harm themselves almost always do it on impulse and don't want a gun around. A waiting period is the best solution for them.

      I don't care if guns are registered or not. It's not any kind of deterrent, but it may help law enforcement after the fact. But, if they are registered, the rules should be applied fairly. If you want to single out populations that are more violent than the average, I suggest ex-military. Much higher incidence than the mentally ill.

      +
      0 Votes
      aidemzo_adanac

      I've known three such cases myself and I don't work in the mental health industry. in fact, just 15 minutes form my home is a mental health hospital, once of Canada's largest, and I see DOZENS of patients gong there to self admit on Friday and checking out on Sunday.

      Which one of them do you feel should NOT be checked for mental health history, before you'd say it was okay for them to go and buy a firearm?

      How is someone's POTENTIAL for violence irrelevant? You've got to be having a laff and perhaps should be under such evaluation yourself. If ONE such person is enabled due to slack laws, and then kills a dozen people JUST ONCE, is that not enough to take preventative measures?

      You also seem to be completely deluded, as so many others are too, that simply checking medical history means that nobody can go buy a gun anymore. I suppose in your mind, there is also no need for a criminal record check either. Very few people with a criminal record would actually go commit such a crime, so why check criminal history at all? Why even HAVE a registry, just let everyone freely buy guns?

      Clearly, you don't have the logical, mental capacity to discuss reality as you are blinded by the simplicity of fallacies.

      Saying that it is something that "happens in very few cases", is simply mis guided, which is WHY this is a problem to begin with, information is not available when needed. In your response, where are the stats to prove how many self admitted patients are not inclined to conduct a violent act. I know you can't do it, it was rhetorical. your own comments were a mere assumption, based on nothing at all but your own 'guess'.

      So lets say ONE guy in each state is self admitted and has a capability of violence, just once each month (an EXTREMELY low figure I am sure). That's 642 US citizens a year who are mentally impaired and inclined to violence, whom YOU would excuse having a medical history check before buying a firearm. I would guess that that actual number is higher just in your state.

      642 doesn't even put a dent in the list of 'known' serial killers in the USA! Are you really so naive that you don't recognize these issues, with like minded people it would certainly explain why your country can't get it together and just looks to the world for sympathy when nutters go on the rampage?

      One of those morons who say "guns don't kill people, PEOPLE kill people" missing the "but I think ALL people should be able to have a gun without any proper record checks performed and it must be quick, no waiting for a gun."

      Then "oh my god, how can this happen in our tiny town! It wasn't the gun, the kid who was mentally disturbed and nobody acted upon it,....but we should have been checking those records, so it will just happen again."

      It's always passing blame but not accepting responsibility, commonly phrased as 'the American way;

      No wonder you guys have the problems you do, nobody has a clue as they are simply blinded by a 230 year old amendment to the British Law that encompasses every right and wrong in your country, as if they also predicted the future of America like the Mayans predicted the end of time.

      At that point, I'd say you deserved whatever you get and have no basis to complain when a person goes and kills dozens of innocent people.
      Your kid is shot at school, too freakin' bad, you asked for it. Your wife is shot by a looney in Target, too bad, you supported his rights.

      Clearly you don't care about such things and don't feel it is realistic to reduce the number of mentally insane people allowed to go and purchase firearms, so you have no voice when such atrocities happen.

      Thankfully, many Americans have a brain, unfortunately their voices are hushed very quickly by those such as yours who don't recognize how to reduce the potential of the problems you face.

      +
      0 Votes
      djed

      "How is someone's POTENTIAL for violence irrelevant?"

      Please reread my post. I said that thinking you have a problem one day and thinking you're fine the next has nothing to do with a potential for violence. If you think it does, psychology would disagree with you.

      "You also seem to be completely deluded, as so many others are too, that simply checking medical history means that nobody can go buy a gun anymore."

      If checking someone's history doesn't stop them from buying a gun, then why do it? Just to spend money? Aren't we talking about denying people who've had medical treatment a right that other people have? And how do you distinguish one ailment from another for this purpose? Some "sane" people are violent. Some mentally ill are violent. It has nothing to do with a particular form of illness. It also opens up a huge privacy issue.

      "your own comments were a mere assumption, based on nothing at all but your own 'guess'."

      Based on a degree and experience.

      "One of those morons who say "guns don't kill people, PEOPLE kill people" missing the 'but I think ALL people should be able to have a gun without any proper record checks performed and it must be quick, no waiting for a gun.'"

      No. As I said, I don't care about registration; it's not any kind of prevention. Proper record checks are fine with me. You want to specifically check medical histories. I could live with that. I'm just saying that if you take that into consideration, you should also pay attention to relevant issues. There are many more ex-military committing murder in the US than the mentally ill. Shouldn't you restrict them, too? Are you worried about the number of murders, or just who is doing the killing? The military are good guys, they get a pass. Or maybe you just don't like mental patients.

      Years ago I knew a woman who would have a particular hallucination. When she had it, she knew it wasn't real and it was time to go back to the doctor. She was a very nice, calm, peaceful person. You, on the other hand, have anger issues. I'd feel safer with her having a gun than with you having one.

      +
      0 Votes
      aidemzo_adanac

      Not directly BUT, it does show mental instability which is also a root behind a lot of violent behaviour due to mental illness, such as being bipolar. I've know two severely bipolar people, one killed himself (OD) another put his granddaughter in hospital, thought she was consipring with her mother to have him locked up.

      If checking someone's history doesn't stop them from buying a gun, then why do it?

      Don't be ridiculous! So checking a criminal record automatically disqualified people from owning guns too? There' s a term you need to understand, EVALUATION. By evaluating someone's criminal AND mental history, you can build a roadmap as to the LIKELINESS of the person to be responsible with it or not.

      You can own a firearm in Canada, if your record check shows you were criminally charged with shoplifting. Just because you have a criminal history, it doesn't mean you can't own a firearm and neither does accessing a record to evaluate a situation.

      "Aren't we talking about denying people who've had medical treatment a right that other people have? "
      No. the applicant willingly permits the check of criminal and SHOULD ALSO INCLUDE mental health records. When you have a criminal record check when applying for a permit, are they then removing a right that others have? Everyone has a right to privacy in those matters, unless you sign a release of information. Why would criminal history be any different than medical history?

      You then propose to be an accountant who works in a finance department, though possessing a degree in mental health sciences. Who did YOU pi$$ off at the clinic? So very credible! Especially to someone who actually has studied psychology in uni.

      There are many more ex-military committing murder in the US than the mentally ill.

      And you don't see them as having mental issues that have been unaddressed? Why check criminal records if there are such people around, criminal record checks won't stop guns getting into bad hands every time either.

      I never said ANYTHING about excusing ex military either. It's about numbers, as you suggest and therefore if just a few less peopl eare killed each year, due to improved screening, then the solution fits the need indeed. Perhaps military/mental history checks SHOULD be tied together, it still doesn't mean that medial history checks are not needed as a measure of prevention.

      I have no anger issues, how do you know I'm angry? YOU have never met me, seen me or heard my tone of voice. I am very passionate about my beliefs and I will propose and support them against any defense put forward, that doesn't mean I am ANGRY.

      Why would I be angry anyway? I've never met you, don't really care to, your comments and beliefs have absolutely no bearing on my life in any way shape or form. I honestly don't care what you think or believe, I know you are wrong but that doesn't effect my views or the way the rest of my life unfolds. You are merely keystrokes on the Internet, not a real person that I have any real involvement with.

      That's just a false and grossly unqualified assumption on your part.

      +
      0 Votes
      djed

      Well, at least you put some thought into that response. The thing about using medical records is that they don't give useful information unless you get detailed notes. Knowing that someone has a particular disorder says nothing about their potential for violence, unlike criminal charges. Whoever is making a decision based on that will be making a lot of mistakes. In other words, people's rights will be violated. Also, criminal records are public, medical records are not. For several good reasons that will occur to you if you think about your own, your family's, and your friend's records.

      I've also known several people with bipolar affective disorder. Again, it doesn't mean someone is violent. It sounds like you're basing your opinions only on the two you've known.

      "Who did YOU pi$$ off at the clinic?"

      When you work at small clinics you take on several jobs over a near 30-year career. If I remember correctly, when I signed up with TechRepublic there weren't any choices that adequately described my job so I picked one. I also administered a small LAN, the reason for signing up here, but not a major activity. I really liked the last line of your post: "That's just a false and grossly unqualified assumption on your part."

      As for your anger, do you normally call people morons in polite conversation? Don Rickles does that to be funny. If you were trying to be funny, it was an odd time and place for it. I couldn't find another explanation.