General discussion

Locked

Gun Permits for the mentally ill

By aidemzo_adanac ·
Tags: Off Topic
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.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

82 total posts (Page 5 of 9)   Prev   03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07   Next
Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

aidemzo, you are too excited

by john.a.wills In reply to I watched a whole series ...

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.

Collapse -

Do you doubt the translations of Caesar, Xenophon, Plato, etc.?

by aidemzo_adanac In reply to I watched a whole series ...

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 6:4.

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

Collapse -

Hey, Oz! Breathe, mate

by neilb@uk In reply to I watched a whole series ...

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?

Collapse -

neilb, let them go.

by CharlieSpencer In reply to I watched a whole series ...

I wanna see which one passes out first.

Collapse -

Not to worry neil

by aidemzo_adanac In reply to I watched a whole series ...

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.

Collapse -

Re: "..... trying to debate that water is a solid ....."

by maxwell edison In reply to I watched a whole series ...

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

Collapse -

Max

by aidemzo_adanac In reply to I watched a whole series ...

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

Nothing actually relevant to add though, I assume?

Collapse -

Solid water - totally relevant

by maxwell edison In reply to I watched a whole series ...

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.

Collapse -

Max, water isn't an element

by aidemzo_adanac In reply to I watched a whole series ...

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!

Collapse -

The most insane thing I've ever seen

by NickNielsen In reply to Gun Permits for the menta ...

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.

Back to After Hours Forum
82 total posts (Page 5 of 9)   Prev   03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums