Confiscate, Confiscate, Confiscate

[Clarakore]

In the end the US Constitution is a political document. A very good one. Not a perfect one, ESPECIALLY because it is a political document. Politics demands compromise, and the biggest one was the slavery issue, IMO.

Great point.

The original Constitution considered African-Americans as only three-fifths of a person, not even a full human deserving of equal rights.

It took the Thirteenth and then finally the Fourteenth Amendments to constitutionally reverse that but it also took society much longer.

When it comes to the mixing of religion and politics some also used their religion and translation of their scriptures to not allow interracial marriage in the same way they deny homsexuals the right to marriage today.

Interracial marriages now make up 15% of all marriages in America yet many are still asked if the mother is the nanny in some situations.

Luckily progress has been happening and will continue including adding more amendments to the Constitution because it was by no means a perfect document that is fixed for all time but a living document that has and will continue to evolve.

Literalists are both a problem in religion and politics but more so when combined into theocracy or any hint of it.

Change comes through dialogue and when the majority seek it even if a few hardliners resist progress.

Edited May 12, 2013 by Leave Britney alone!

[pallidin]

The US Government will not, and can not, confiscate the guns of legal owners.

Why some people over-stress the comments of very few politicians which, by the way, have little to zero effect in state or federal legislature is beyond me.

It's as if their only goal is to hope to make people upset for no reason.

[danielost]

The US Government will not, and can not, confiscate the guns of legal owners.

Why some people over-stress the comments of very few politicians which, by the way, have little to zero effect in state or federal legislature is beyond me.

It's as if their only goal is to hope to make people upset for no reason.

Tody their legal gun owners. Tomorrow their not.

[Clarakore]

Tody their legal gun owners. Tomorrow their not.

Sounds like conspiracy theory to me.

[danielost]

Great point.

The original Constitution considered African-Americans as only three-fifths of a person, not even a full human deserving of equal rights.

It took the Thirteenth and then finally the Fourteenth Amendments to constitutionally reverse that but it also took society much longer.

When it comes to the mixing of religion and politics some also used their religion and translation of their scriptures to not allow interracial marriage in the same way they deny homsexuals the right to marriage today.

Interracial marriages now make up 15% of all marriages in America yet many are still asked if the mother is the nanny in some situations.

Luckily progress has been happening and will continue including adding more amendments to the Constitution because it was by no means a perfect document that is fixed for all time but a living document that has and will continue to evolve.

Literalists are both a problem in religion and politics but more so when combined into theocracy or any hint of it.

Change comes through dialogue and when the majority seek it even if a few hardliners resist progress.

Marrage, is a religous ceramony. A legal union is a political ceramony. The only reason that gays want a marrage ceramony is to force churchs to marry them. That would be the gay leadership.

[danielost]

Sounds like conspiracy theory to me.

I guess you haven't heard about bloombergs anti-gun campaign.

[Clarakore]

I guess you haven't heard about bloombergs anti-gun campaign.

I support it.

[Michelle]

Tody their legal gun owners. Tomorrow their not.

How do you like this for irony? The new laws in New York didn't exempt the police so when they take their service weapon home they are now illegal. I read a forum for LEO and they were all over this.

[Dan'O]

Sounds like conspiracy theory to me.

The US Government will not, and can not, confiscate the guns of legal owners.

Why some people over-stress the comments of very few politicians which, by the way, have little to zero effect in state or federal legislature is beyond me.

It's as if their only goal is to hope to make people upset for no reason.

Declaring others views as CT or paranoia concerning this subject is, in this instance anyway, wrong. Some are obviously and pathetically ignorant to the lefts vile and sick agenda. I live in Oregon and some communist(?) left-wing politicians put out a bill that would turn law abiding citizens into criminals if they did not give up their weapons. Look up HB 3200. This horrible bill would illegally (according to the Constitution) give the State an option for entering anyone's home without a warrant. This is not CT or paranoia. Just a horrible and dangerous fact that will cost this bills sponsors their seats.

[Clarakore]

Declaring others views as CT or paranoia concerning this subject is, in this instance anyway, wrong. Some are obviously and pathetically ignorant to the lefts vile and sick agenda. I live in Oregon and some communist(?) left-wing politicians put out a bill that would turn law abiding citizens into criminals if they did not give up their weapons. Look up HB 3200. This horrible bill would illegally (according to the Constitution) give the State an option for entering anyone's home without a warrant. This is not CT or paranoia. Just a horrible and dangerous fact that will cost this bills sponsors their seats.

This sounds like a conspiracy theory too. Anytime someone mentions "Constitution" and "communist" in the same sentence is a clear clue. Why should we take conspiracy theory seriously?

Here is a HB 3200. Can you show us the part you are talking about that would allow warrantless entries?

[Dan'O]

How do you like this for irony? The new laws in New York didn't exempt the police so when they take their service weapon home they are now illegal. I read a forum for LEO and they were all over this.

LEO are not immune to criminality. I find it kind of funny that they are up-in-arms (?) because they were not excluded. Is that true?

Also, I do not normally suffer fools. I occasionally disagree with a few here, but, I will usually be open to a limited dialog, even with the worst of them. Very, very few will actually get the honor of my silence. And it is not because they have honor or are special. It is because they are so asinine in their sad and feeble responses that I will not dignify them with a response. All I can say is...have a good day.

[Frank Merton]

Also, I do not normally suffer fools. I occasionally disagree with a few here, but, I will usually be open to a limited dialog, even with the worst of them. Very, very few will actually get the honor of my silence. And it is not because they have honor or are special. It is because they are so asinine in their sad and feeble responses that I will not dignify them with a response. All I can say is...have a good day.

Maybe, just maybe, a teeny bit arrogant?

[Dan'O]

I really do not care Mr Merton. You have copious quantities of class and decorum.

[Frank Merton]

Well I regret posting that. Whether others are arrogant or not is irrelevant.

[Clarakore]

Whether they can prove their conspiracy theories or not is totally relevant.

CTers will always default to some other tactic when they cannot prove their theories. The tactics below (not the circumstances just the reponses in bold) seem eerily similar to the one displayed above by Mr. Dan.

When we spoke, Jones ranted for two hours about FEMA concentration camps, Halliburton child kidnappers, government eugenics programs—and more. When I stopped him to ask for evidence the government is practicing eugenics, he pointed to a national security memorandum. But I found the document to be a bland policy report.

Jones "cherry picks not just facts but phrases, which, once interpreted his way, become facts in his mind," says Louis Black, editor of the Austin Chronicle, who knows Jones, a fellow Austin resident. When I confronted Jones with my reading of the report, he became pugnacious, launching into a diatribe against psychologists as agents of social control.

<snip>

Jones insists he had a "Leave It to Beaver childhood." I couldn't confirm such an idyllic past. When I asked if I could interview his family or childhood friends, he insisted his family was very "private" and he had not kept in touch with a single friend. When I asked if I might look them up, he became irritated. He doubted he could "still spell their names," and besides, I'd already taken up enough of his time. "I turned down 50 or 60 requests for interviews this week," he wanted me to know.

The number sounded wildly inflated. Conspiracy theorists have a grandiose view of themselves as heroes "manning the barricades of civilization" at an urgent "turning point" in history, Hofstadter held. Jones has a "messiah complex," Black contends. Grandiosity is often a defense against underlying feelings of powerlessness.

Field Guide to the Conspiracy Theorist: Dark Minds

Those claiming "This horrible bill would illegally (according to the Constitution) give the State an option for entering anyone's home without a warrant" and then offers a bland report (HB 3200) as proof while following up with the other examples as noted in bold above perfectly fit this other bill to a tee.

Edited May 13, 2013 by Leave Britney alone!

[Frank Merton]

I do wish you would be more careful with your "above." I don't think you were referring to what I had just posted -- at least I don't see a connection, and I don't think I've ever advocated a conspiracy theory.

The two sides of the gun issue in the States is not conspiracy anyway. I think private possession of guns should be illegal, not as part of some conspiracy to take away American freedom, but as an item of good common sense. While some on the other side of the issue may see this as a conspiracy, I think most of them see it as a right they want to keep.

[Clarakore]

I do wish you would be more careful with your "above." I don't think you were referring to what I had just posted -- at least I don't see a connection, and I don't think I've ever advocated a conspiracy theory.

The two sides of the gun issue in the States is not conspiracy anyway. I think private possession of guns should be illegal, not as part of some conspiracy to take away American freedom, but as an item of good common sense. While some on the other side of the issue may see this as a conspiracy, I think most of them see it as a right they want to keep.

Fixed it, my apologies Mr. Merton.

The main area of concern for me is where mental health issues and firearms intersect. With a proper provision of information we could make mental health a national initiative to include awareness especially over the risks of having someone experiencing mental health issues that is living in a home with firearms.

Just as people were made aware that smoking is bad and rates declined, that driving without a seatbelt is risky, or driving while drunk is dangerous, the same can be done with mental health issues in general but especially when firearms are part of the picture.

Just as we added in taxes to cigarettes to help pay for smoking awareness campaigns we could do the same with firearms.

In either case the message needs to get out, how to spot mental health issues, how to get help even if on your own, and when to know if more is needed.

The end result, be it through taxing firearms and accessories, or dipping into some other fund, would be less suffering but also hopefully others surrenduring or selling their own firearms. All voluntarily. No need to confiscate. Having family members recognize the signs could help many if one is not willing to help themselves but without taking it further than a private intervention, no need for authorities to get involved, or mental healh practitioners unless someone seeks help for themselves.

Understandably this is a more narrow focus than simply making all guns illegal but this is a start.

Edited May 13, 2013 by Leave Britney alone!

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

LBA I know you dislike being asked questions about yourself, but your comment that "this is a start" is suggestive of a desire to see all guns banned, is that true?

[Clarakore]

Seeing all guns banned is unrealistic. At least in our lifetimes.

Would love to see less guns in my city and less mass shootings overall.

Changing the culture through education and awarness is more of a progressive goal.

People in the country will always have a need to hunt. Taking their guns away would be unethical.

[Clarakore]

The gun manufacturers and the NRA lobby seem to us to be making profits through misery. The information they put out does not square with the scholastic studies.

Progressives will target the "profits through misery" part of the equation and always advocate having information based on academic consensus.

Liberals and conservatives seem to be in some war over this issue so the politicization will insure talking points and debate taking center stage over accuracy.

The most amount of information injected into the public sphere will allow for better dialogue and informed decisions to be made.

The public should decide dispassionately without fear tactics that both sides seem to be using.

The public is angry over mass shootings but they also do not want guns confiscated.

There has to be a middle ground mediated through most accurate information.

I am not a stranger to owning guns, having a CHL, and going to the range.

Not really much more to be said about this issue from my viewpoint.

Edited May 13, 2013 by Leave Britney alone!

[preacherman76]

When a mental heath expert tells a parent that thier child has a chemical imbalance, they should have to prove which chemical is off balance, by how much, and tell exactly why said mind altering drug will correct it. This will result in a few million less children on these horrible drugs, and mass shootings will be all but non existant.

[Clarakore]

Psychologist

Pyschologist are preferred to psychiatrists.

Psychologist cannot prescribe medication.

Psychologist deal with therapy and giving individuals and families tools to best improve mental health.

Psychiatrists

Big pharm profits too much from meds that do more harm to society than good. That needs to be regulated/stopped completely!

There are times that chemical imbalances are present, then a psychiatrist is needed, that is not something I know much about. If possible they should document and indentify the imbalance, unsure how much that would cost, cheaper than prisons I imagine, only thing I know is that it could take a while before finding the right medication or combination.

Kids should not be given meds imo but I don't know much about psychiatry so my opinion on meds is uninformed. I prefer psychologists.

Mental Health Issues

The stigma and/or fear of admitting to mental health issues is sadly still with us, many who know they need treatment won't seek it, not even reading up to begin helping themselves on their own if possible and knowing when to actually seek help from professionals.

Loneliness is at an all time high (20% of Americans suffer from it) and when one is lonely brain scans (fMRI) shows the same part of the brain lights up as when being physcially tortured. Loneliness also gives you the same risks of smoking and can rob years of your life, if you smoke then you have double the risks. The loss of connection is taking its toll.

On the other hand most personality disorders should not require meds. Everyone can manage their conditions and live healthily. Knowledge is power.

Edited May 13, 2013 by Leave Britney alone!

[Clarakore]

Oppositional Defiance Disorder (ODD) as a term has been making the rounds from conspiracy theorists and the mistrusful.

It has nothing to do with disagreeing with the government. It has nothing to do with guns being confiscated. It has absolutely nothing to do with believing in conspiracy theories.

It is something kids and teens are diagnosed with usually, not adults. There are no medications for it. The best course of action is having the family offer the proper support. Learning how takes reading and taking the step to consult a professional if necessary. It has only been around since 1980, which is not a long time at all, and why some are unfamiliar with it.

Marilyn Wedge, Ph. D. offers the following advice (just a brief of the article):

Pills are not for Preschoolers attempts to remedy this situation.

<snip>

parents are not at all powerless to heal their troubled children.

In fact, it is only parents and families that hold the power to truly resolve their children's problems.

And this is the theme of this blog. I will explore with those of you who are concerned about the mental health crisis facing our country's children how families can be empowered to help children overcome the most difficult of challenges-whether school failure or school phobia, whether anxiety or excessive sadness, whether misbehavior or distractibility.

Along with exploring the power of families, we will look at the power of language to guide parents to helpful solutions or to mislead them with false promises. I'll keep you up to date about Jonathon, as well as many other children. And we will explore which language is most helpful to our children in the final analysis: "ODD," "spoiled brat," or "just behaving like a boy."

Oppositional Defiant Disorder or Just Boyhood?

When looking for a counselor this is what Dr. Jeffrey Bernstein recommends among other things (click link to see full list):

• Encourages teachers and parents to move from a “consequence hungry” mentality to leading with understanding. Try to avoid battles and pick them wisely.
  
• Educates the parents that understanding defiant children is just as important, if not more important than loving them.
  
• Asks the child or teen what they think will help. I have found that many children have good ideas to help resolve conflicts.
  

What to Look for in Counseling for Defiant Children/Teens?

Edited May 13, 2013 by Leave Britney alone!

[godnodog]

Good morning,

First, I am not an american citizen nor am i living in the USA, and I am not troll poster, just an outsider observing what should not be such a deep dividing issue and surprised for lack of sensible gun regulation.

Now, I will not discuss wheater gun ownership should legal or illigal, that is only up to you folks, but I really want to ask american members of UM foruns is why isn´t there laws that limit who can own guns, in particular people with specific mental disorders, or people with violent criminal record. And also why so much resistance to guns ownership regulation? For what I´ve seen, the issue is not on gun ban, but on gun laws regulation.

And to end, I see a lot of people saying Obam this Obama that, and yet George W. Bush was a far more radical and worse President. Take the Patriot Act, isn´t that far more serious and more worrying issue that gun regulation?

Edited May 13, 2013 by godnodog

[Frank Merton]

The actuality is that one can walk up any street in the States, even those in the inner cities, and not have to be concerned in the least about stray gunfire.