Is This the Face of Hate?

[truespock]

I never intended to start all this crap that continues. -- BobF

I assume that you mean by 'all this crap that continues', any opinion which fails to conform to your own--which, I couldn't help but notice, applies to everyone else here. I submit to you, sir, that if you really wish to be the SOLE 2nd Amendmentist amongst a phalanx of people who can see the wisdom in comprehensive gun restrictions, you should take the trouble to learn the fine art of rational debate. Your so-called 'facts' are emotionally based regurgitations of tedious NRA propaganda and your oblique references to 'the far, far left' merely serve to indicate your own EXTREME political bias.

Perhaps the poetry reading section might suit you better.

 

[truespock]

Way back in nursing school I did my psych rotation at a very large state mental hospital. I spent 16 weeks observing and talking to severe schizophrenics. It was fascinating, but frightening. Yes.. these people were "crazy" in every sense of the word.. and sometimes dangerous.. BUT mostly they were vulnerable. The conditions in that hospital were not great, but they were kept safe from predators... and society was kept safe from them. Many had been hospitalized for so long that they no longer had families.. or visitors.. That facility was closed due to budget cuts.. where did those people go? To the streets I guess.. along with every other sociopath or psychopath. who can be pretty cunning... and able to buy guns.

The abysmal conditions WERE used at the time as an excuse to close out the era of institutionalization, but it WAS mainly a right wing effort to divert more public monies to the pockets of the wealthy. I'd like to think that we could learn from past mistakes, for once, and build a system of mental hospitals that is clean and decent and safe ... for the people on BOTH sides of the locked gates.

 

[QuickSilver]

The abysmal conditions WERE used at the time as an excuse to close out the era of institutionalization, but it WAS mainly a right wing effort to divert more public monies to the pockets of the wealthy. I'd like to think that we could learn from past mistakes, for once, and build a system of mental hospitals that is clean and decent and safe ... for the people on BOTH sides of the locked gates.

Yes... that is exactly the excuse that was used.. but very little was offered these people.. half-way houses.. places to come to get their medication. Unfortunately, those that are so mentally ill, don't have the capacity to stay on their medication regimin, and end up roaming the streets becoming easy prey. Yes.. many of those facilities were little more than "warehouses"... but that, unfortunately, was the purpose of them. People living there were not going to get better.. and they needed a place to be.

 

[BobF]

I never intended to start all this crap that continues. -- BobF

I assume that you mean by 'all this crap that continues', any opinion which fails to conform to your own--which, I couldn't help but notice, applies to everyone else here. I submit to you, sir, that if you really wish to be the SOLE 2nd Amendmentist amongst a phalanx of people who can see the wisdom in comprehensive gun restrictions, you should take the trouble to learn the fine art of rational debate. Your so-called 'facts' are emotionally based regurgitations of tedious NRA propaganda and your oblique references to 'the far, far left' merely serve to indicate your own EXTREME political bias.

Perhaps the poetry reading

section might suit you better.

Your post is twisted and misguided. Why not post my entire quote and stop this fiddling with the facts. You sound much like one from another forum that never made much sense either.

 

[truespock]

I never intended to start all this crap that continues. -- BobF

Your post is twisted and misguided. Why not post my entire quote and stop this fiddling with the facts. You sound much like one from another forum that never made much sense either.

That's IT?! That's ALL I GET?! Another hand-wringing plaintiff wail that anyone who points out the fallacy of your so-called 'reasoning' must be "twisted and misguided" and "never made much sense"?!?! Way to embrace to Socratic Method, Bob! Your mommy and daddy must be SO proud!! Let's take a look at what you've said in this thread, that might have so inspired the open ridicule you're now enjoying, shall we???

On post #33, you said:
"One big objection to this remove our guns argument. It is not the guns problem, it is in our nations temperament that is our problem all the time. We constantly hear that we must remove the guns to end the problem. One very good example that guns do not cause the problem is the Swiss that give guns to their people and they keep them at home and walk around and ride the buses with no problems that most of us ever hear of. It is not the guns, it is our countries mentality about things."

Yup. Uhuh. The same old tired NRA harangue, 'Guns don't kill people; PEOPLE kill people'. But you're resolutely FAILING to consider the ENTIRE equation, conveniently leaving out, "Therefore, if people kill people and guns are used (by people) EXPRESSLY for that purpose, then restricting accessibility to guns is a logical first step toward stemming the tide of violence". MUCH more practical than just sitting around bemoaning one of the most unlikely to ever change aspects of basic human nature, wouldn't you say, Bob?

Also, you make it sound as if the Swiss are distributing guns to every child at his christening and this is simply not the case. According to Scopes, Time magazine and Wikipedia, all physically and mentally fit Swiss men between the ages of 20 and 30 are required to train and serve in the national militia, similarly to the now long outmoded civilian force referenced in your precious 2nd Amendment. They are issued guns, BUT NOT AMMUNITION, which they keep in their homes until the conclusion of their service. Meanwhile, the Swiss government enforces strict restrictions on the issuance of permits to potential civilian gun owners, even while encouraging CLOSELY SUPERVISED training in the use of weapons for the country's youth. The first thing that EVERY aspiring Swiss gun owner gets is a RIGOROUS psych evaluation. BTW, Bob, also strictly regulated by the Swiss are potential weapons of ANY kind, ranging from butterfly knives to ninja throwing stars. Perhaps Facebook isn't the best place to get your 'facts', after all?

In post #39, you said:
"I agree there is a difference in how the police reacted. One quietly stood for arrest and the other attempted to avoid arrest. I don't think color was the difference at all. All who resist arrest end up being man handled and pushed around."

Methinks thou doth protest too much, Bob. Your UNMISTAKABLE unspoken inference is that BLACKS typically resist arrest and WHITES do not. This is an unforgivable and wholly erroneous generalization, especially in light of the statistics (Huffington Post, NBC News, U.S. State Dept.) which clearly show that Blacks are targeted for arrest from six to ten times more frequently than are Whites in the first place.

On post #41, you said:
"Are you convinced he was not resisting arrest before being tackled and put to the ground? Usually no heavy handed stuff if you are obeying from the beginning. Running, backing away, refusing to answer questions, resisting the officers in anyway is justification for officers to become aggressive. I was not there but I am sure there was no aggression on a normal stop situation."

By you own admission, you are weighing in with a preconceived personal bias on an incident to which you have no knowledge.

"In post #53, you repeat your fallacious argument regarding the Swiss, once again completely failing to mention the stringent restrictions and close monitoring of the population's mental state which are in place there, saying:

"But this kind of thing does not happen in Switzerland and they all have guns and given to them by the government. They then get to keep them when the military terms is ended if they wish. I say there is something in their training that helps them to keep the purpose and use of guns as something OK and fun too do. The rest of the world doesn't seem to have that knowledge and ability. This person was a troubled person from early in his life. When his father gave him the gun it was the item missing from his hands. Maybe SC needs to review it's rules on gun ownership and the owners mind sets. We should not be putting such weapons into the hands of mental persons. IT IS NOT THE GUN THAT CAUSED THE PROBLEM. It was the person that held the gun."

Perhaps when the U.S. even BEGINS to approach the watchful control exhibited by the Swiss, your position might carry some weight but, until then ... :wtf:

On post #56, you said:
"A large part of the guns in the US are held by unregistered persons that are involved in criminal activities. Registering the guns is only for the folks that do agree with such and they do register and keep at home in protected ways. It is the unregistered guns, many many unregistered guns that need to be watched and stopped some way. Our current methods do nothing to end the criminal minded folks from having guns. Nobody seems to accept that in Switzerland they have government provided guns, guns are carried all over town, on public transportation, walking and in hand. Switzerland seems to have little if any problems with guns. Maybe we should spend more time studying Switzerlands success with personal guns and try to follow their lead. The US way of trying to block guns does not seem to work well at all. That all goes into the mind set of the people. Criminals do not care. Mentally ill do not care. Sound minded folks do care and are following the rules. Just having rules that the honest and caring folks agree with is not the solution when the criminals and mental illness folks don't care at all. I know, punish them all, especially the good, as the bad ones don't care one bit. Also, Australia does have guns among its people. Many folks did turn in their guns but many folks have registered and can have their weapons for various reasons from usage to collecting."

Now, you're just making' shit up, Bob. There ARE NO statistics on 'criminals' with guns because they most often TEND NOT TO MENTION IT! Plus, like a rabid dog with an imaginary bone, this is your third grossly inaccurate characterization of Switzerland. I've been there myself a number of times and I can assure you, first hand, that they're not universally 'packin' there. Now you want to bring Australia into it? I'm assuming, then, that you know as much about the land down under as you do about Switzerland?

Post #61: You repeat yourself, yet again, this time citing a 'reference' from a well-known gun lobbyist. Your sense of objectivity is simply awe inspiring!

Post #66
"In the US that requires a Constitutional amendment to make it possible. So far not enough votes to even get that started. It would take a bit of time and up to some minimum number of states would have to agree to any change proposed. So glad we have a restricted Constitution and ways to change it. Over 200 years now with only a few changes to the Constitution. For stability for the nation that is the way it should be. A good solid document that can not just be changed by some arbitrary government decisions. Only when they find ways to make the unregistered guns the outlaws seem to have no trouble getting hard to impossible to get, then maybe some good will happen. They get a gun, rob a store or two, maybe shoot some folks or police, then get a few short years in jail. Pretty sad and not much ado about them and their 'illegal' guns. These illegal guns are in use every day and over time they do a lot of damage."

Yeah, Bob, heaven forbid we should ever be able change the Constitution to force all those John Wayne fixated gun lovers out there to admit that a significant segment of the general population is simply not responsible enough to be in possession of a weapon.

And why are you trying to bring 'criminals' into it, anyway. Is this the precursor to that asinine rhetoric the 'we need the GOOD guys to have guns so they can shoot the BAD guys'?! The criminal element in our society is a completely different and separate problem from the observable fact that it's OUR RANK AND FILE CITIZENRY who comprise the problem we're discussing on this thread. Take a sociology course and get back to me, chum.

Post # 68: More of the old bait and switch, insisting that we should be going after 'criminals' while we let YOU do anything that you want, continuing to ignore the daily occurrences of 'law abiding citizens' who snap and commit mass murders.

Post # 70:
"You seem to be trying to put your words into my postings. Not at all what I am saying."

No one is adding to, or 'twisting' anything you say, Bob. I've taken the trouble to reprint each of your posts here to prove it.

"In order to keep adding restriction to legal ownership is not going after the illegal and criminal types and their sources at all."

You remind me of the Evangelical Christian who is desperately trying to justify his open hatred and persecution of everybody who doesn't see thing their way. You will never win an argument when you KNOW, deep inside, that you are dead wrong.

Originally, I had intended to reproduce, and respond to upon each of your posts in this thread but, quite frankly, you just continue to repeat yourself and I (and presumably, the other readers) am getting too bored with you to carry on. At any rate, I trust that I've made my point by now and that you, Bob, will insist upon willfully missing it.

 

[BobF]

That's IT?! That's ALL I GET?! Another hand-wringing plaintiff wail that anyone who points out the fallacy of your so-called 'reasoning' must be "twisted and misguided" and "never made much sense"?!?! Way to embrace to Socratic Method, Bob! Your mommy and daddy must be SO proud!! Let's take a look at what you've said in this thread, that might have so inspired the open ridicule you're now enjoying, shall we???

On post #33, you said:
"One big objection to this remove our guns argument. It is not the guns problem, it is in our nations temperament that is our problem all the time. We constantly hear that we must remove the guns to end the problem. One very good example that guns do not cause the problem is the Swiss that give guns to their people and they keep them at home and walk around and ride the buses with no problems that most of us ever hear of. It is not the guns, it is our countries mentality about things."

Yup. Uhuh. The same old tired NRA harangue, 'Guns don't kill people; PEOPLE kill people'. But you're resolutely FAILING to consider the ENTIRE equation, conveniently leaving out, "Therefore, if people kill people and guns are used (by people) EXPRESSLY for that purpose, then restricting accessibility to guns is a logical first step toward stemming the tide of violence". MUCH more practical than just sitting around bemoaning one of the most unlikely to ever change aspects of basic human nature, wouldn't you say, Bob?

Also, you make it sound as if the Swiss are distributing guns to every child at his christening and this is simply not the case. According to Scopes, Time magazine and Wikipedia, all physically and mentally fit Swiss men between the ages of 20 and 30 are required to train and serve in the national militia, similarly to the now long outmoded civilian force referenced in your precious 2nd Amendment. They are issued guns, BUT NOT AMMUNITION, which they keep in their homes until the conclusion of their service. Meanwhile, the Swiss government enforces strict restrictions on the issuance of permits to potential civilian gun owners, even while encouraging CLOSELY SUPERVISED training in the use of weapons for the country's youth. The first thing that EVERY aspiring Swiss gun owner gets is a RIGOROUS psych evaluation. BTW, Bob, also strictly regulated by the Swiss are potential weapons of ANY kind, ranging from butterfly knives to ninja throwing stars. Perhaps Facebook isn't the best place to get your 'facts', after all?

In post #39, you said:
"I agree there is a difference in how the police reacted. One quietly stood for arrest and the other attempted to avoid arrest. I don't think color was the difference at all. All who resist arrest end up being man handled and pushed around."

Methinks thou doth protest too much, Bob. Your UNMISTAKABLE unspoken inference is that BLACKS typically resist arrest and WHITES do not. This is an unforgivable and wholly erroneous generalization, especially in light of the statistics (Huffington Post, NBC News, U.S. State Dept.) which clearly show that Blacks are targeted for arrest from six to ten times more frequently than are Whites in the first place.

On post #41, you said:
"Are you convinced he was not resisting arrest before being tackled and put to the ground? Usually no heavy handed stuff if you are obeying from the beginning. Running, backing away, refusing to answer questions, resisting the officers in anyway is justification for officers to become aggressive. I was not there but I am sure there was no aggression on a normal stop situation."

By you own admission, you are weighing in with a preconceived personal bias on an incident to which you have no knowledge.

"In post #53, you repeat your fallacious argument regarding the Swiss, once again completely failing to mention the stringent restrictions and close monitoring of the population's mental state which are in place there, saying:

"But this kind of thing does not happen in Switzerland and they all have guns and given to them by the government. They then get to keep them when the military terms is ended if they wish. I say there is something in their training that helps them to keep the purpose and use of guns as something OK and fun too do. The rest of the world doesn't seem to have that knowledge and ability. This person was a troubled person from early in his life. When his father gave him the gun it was the item missing from his hands. Maybe SC needs to review it's rules on gun ownership and the owners mind sets. We should not be putting such weapons into the hands of mental persons. IT IS NOT THE GUN THAT CAUSED THE PROBLEM. It was the person that held the gun."

Perhaps when the U.S. even BEGINS to approach the watchful control exhibited by the Swiss, your position might carry some weight but, until then ... :wtf:

On post #56, you said:
"A large part of the guns in the US are held by unregistered persons that are involved in criminal activities. Registering the guns is only for the folks that do agree with such and they do register and keep at home in protected ways. It is the unregistered guns, many many unregistered guns that need to be watched and stopped some way. Our current methods do nothing to end the criminal minded folks from having guns. Nobody seems to accept that in Switzerland they have government provided guns, guns are carried all over town, on public transportation, walking and in hand. Switzerland seems to have little if any problems with guns. Maybe we should spend more time studying Switzerlands success with personal guns and try to follow their lead. The US way of trying to block guns does not seem to work well at all. That all goes into the mind set of the people. Criminals do not care. Mentally ill do not care. Sound minded folks do care and are following the rules. Just having rules that the honest and caring folks agree with is not the solution when the criminals and mental illness folks don't care at all. I know, punish them all, especially the good, as the bad ones don't care one bit. Also, Australia does have guns among its people. Many folks did turn in their guns but many folks have registered and can have their weapons for various reasons from usage to collecting."

Now, you're just making' shit up, Bob. There ARE NO statistics on 'criminals' with guns because they most often TEND NOT TO MENTION IT! Plus, like a rabid dog with an imaginary bone, this is your third grossly inaccurate characterization of Switzerland. I've been there myself a number of times and I can assure you, first hand, that they're not universally 'packin' there. Now you want to bring Australia into it? I'm assuming, then, that you know as much about the land down under as you do about Switzerland?

Post #61: You repeat yourself, yet again, this time citing a 'reference' from a well-known gun lobbyist. Your sense of objectivity is simply awe inspiring!

Post #66
"In the US that requires a Constitutional amendment to make it possible. So far not enough votes to even get that started. It would take a bit of time and up to some minimum number of states would have to agree to any change proposed. So glad we have a restricted Constitution and ways to change it. Over 200 years now with only a few changes to the Constitution. For stability for the nation that is the way it should be. A good solid document that can not just be changed by some arbitrary government decisions. Only when they find ways to make the unregistered guns the outlaws seem to have no trouble getting hard to impossible to get, then maybe some good will happen. They get a gun, rob a store or two, maybe shoot some folks or police, then get a few short years in jail. Pretty sad and not much ado about them and their 'illegal' guns. These illegal guns are in use every day and over time they do a lot of damage."

Yeah, Bob, heaven forbid we should ever be able change the Constitution to force all those John Wayne fixated gun lovers out there to admit that a significant segment of the general population is simply not responsible enough to be in possession of a weapon.

And why are you trying to bring 'criminals' into it, anyway. Is this the precursor to that asinine rhetoric the 'we need the GOOD guys to have guns so they can shoot the BAD guys'?! The criminal element in our society is a completely different and separate problem from the observable fact that it's OUR RANK AND FILE CITIZENRY who comprise the problem we're discussing on this thread. Take a sociology course and get back to me, chum.

Post # 68: More of the old bait and switch, insisting that we should be going after 'criminals' while we let YOU do anything that you want, continuing to ignore the daily occurrences of 'law abiding citizens' who snap and commit mass murders.

Post # 70:
"You seem to be trying to put your words into my postings. Not at all what I am saying."

No one is adding to, or 'twisting' anything you say, Bob. I've taken the trouble to resist each of your post here to prove it.

"In order to keep adding restriction to legal ownership is not going after the illegal and criminal types and their sources at all."

You remind me of the Evangelical Christian who is desperately trying to justify his open hatred and persecution of everybody who doesn't see thing their way. You will never win an argument when you KNOW, deep inside, that you are dead wrong.

Originally, I had intended to reproduce, and respond to upon each of your posts in this thread but, quite frankly, you just continue to repeat yourself and I (and presumably, the other readers) am getting to bored with you to continue. At at rate, I trust that I've made my point by now and that you, Bob, will continue to miss it.

You have just posted as the person on another forum does. If so you are not even a US citizen and your comments are not only way exaggerated and distorted, but useless as well. No real sense in what you seem to be trying to prove, but haven't. If you are a different person and a US citizen, you sure are a mixed up one for sure.

So for you, nastiness is your way. Truth and facts never count as you only consider your wants and love to tear up others that don't imitate your thinking. I tried for many months, or was it years, to be friendly on the other forum and you just continued to tear into me and some others. The result was that a number of folks no longer post over there. In fact, for a couple or so months I have not seen you over there.

You must have a lot of time to have put together the mess you posted here. Have a good day.

 

[truespock]

You have just posted as the person on another forum does. If so you are not even a US citizen and your comments are not only way exaggerated and distorted, but useless as well. No real sense in what you seem to be trying to prove, but haven't. If you are a different person and a US citizen, you sure are a mixed up one for sure.

So for you, nastiness is your way. Truth and facts never count as you only consider your wants and love to tear up others that don't imitate your thinking. I tried for many months, or was it years, to be friendly on the other forum and you just continued to tear into me and some others. The result was that a number of folks no longer post over there. In fact, for a couple or so months I have not seen you over there.

You must have a lot of time to have put together the mess you posted here. Have a good day.

I'm having a GREAT day, Bob, and YOU'RE obviously soiling yourself right about now. Here I take the time and trouble to reassemble your own words for all to see and to refute them with well-established facts, complete in each case with viable source references and all you can do is tell me I'm 'nasty', must have 'time on my hands' and infer that I'm either not a U.S. citizen (because Americans are the only true gleaming beacon of Rightness in the world, right, Bob?!) or must surely be 'mixed up'. Oh yes, and you also believe me to be stalking you from another unnamed site ... as opposed to my just thinking that you're a thoughtless, long-winded, repetitive horse's ass right here, whom I've (thankfully) never encountered before. I have instantly identified you, sir, as every forum's worst nightmare: the ultra-conservative, thoroughly bigoted, probably religious, impossible to reason with, quick to accuse others of offensive postings when YOU are, in fact, the one who's making them, America-centric, uninformed, self-righteous and patently ridiculous dink from the sticks.

I, on the other hand, just happen to be a clinical psychologist with a specialty in child development who's spent the last thirty years dealing every day with EXACTLY the kind of problems we were discussing, before you stormed in with your right wing dog and pony show. In future, please don't speak, Bob. You are lowering the collective IQ of the entire thread.

 

[BobF]

I'm having a GREAT day, Bob, and YOU'RE obviously soiling yourself right about now. Here I take the time and trouble to reassemble your own words for all to see and to refute them with well-established facts, complete in each case with viable source references and all you can do is tell me I'm 'hateful', must have 'time on my hands' and infer that I'm either not a U.S. citizen (because Americans are the only true gleaming beacon of Rightness in the world, right, Bob?!) or must surely be 'mixed up'. Oh yes, and you also believe me to be stalking you from another unnamed site ... as opposed to my just thinking that you're a thoughtless, long-winded, repetitive horse's ass right here, whom I've (thankfully) never encountered before. I have instantly identified you, sir, as every forum's worst nightmare: the ultra-conservative, thoroughly bigoted, probably religious, impossible to reason with, quick to accuse others of offensive postings when YOU are, in fact, the one who's making them, America-centric, uninformed, self-righteous and patently ridiculous dink from the sticks.

I, on the other hand, just happen to be a clinical psychologist with a specialty in child development who's spent the last thirty years dealing every day with EXACTLY the kind of problems we were discussing, before you stormed in with your right wing dog and pony show. In future, please don't speak, Bob. You are lowering the collective IQ of the entire thread.

Is that a clinical psychologist in the US or somewhere else. Still not sure if you are really speaking of any real knowledge at all as you certainly do have a garbage mouth for an educated person.

If you think not wanting the 2nd Amendment is just right wing only, you need to ask what Sen Reed was saying as he defended the 2nd Amendment. Most US citizens that have acted on gun ownership do say we should have that privilege. It is the loud and clear voices of the minority that is creating all this noise. As soon as Obama is gone it will quiet down a lot.
Lots for you to learn also. If the majority of folks in the US really wanted to end the right to own guns, then it would be taken away by amending or ending the 2nd Amendment through our Constitutional ways.

 

[Shalimar]

Mercy, TS, let's open an onsite clinic right now, soon we will all need therapy, even the foreign nationals. You soothe the Americans, I will care for the Canadianyr, and Merlin can Minister to the Aussies and Brits. Eek! Cleopatra is alive and well, sailing down Denial. Lol

 

[AZ Jim]

Is that a clinical psychologist in the US or somewhere else. Still not sure if you are really speaking of any real knowledge at all as you certainly do have a garbage mouth for an educated person.

If you think not wanting the 2nd Amendment is just right wing only, you need to ask what Sen Reed was saying as he defended the 2nd Amendment. Most US citizens that have acted on gun ownership do say we should have that privilege. It is the loud and clear voices of the minority that is creating all this noise. As soon as Obama is gone it will quiet down a lot.
Lots for you to learn also. If the majority of folks in the US really wanted to end the right to own guns, then it would be taken away by amending or ending the 2nd Amendment through our Constitutional ways.

Bob, you still don't get it. No one is talking about a total ban on handgun sales. Many of us, me included, own handgun(s). We are of the opinion that we need to do a better job controlling who has guns. BTW, remember it is only the opinion of 5 people in the SCOTUS that believe that the amendment to the constitution means you and and me when it speaks of a "well armed militia". I for one do not believe the founders meant that at all.

 

[truespock]

Is that a clinical psychologist in the US or somewhere else. Still not sure if you are really speaking of any real knowledge at all as you certainly do have a garbage mouth for an educated person.

If you think not wanting the 2nd Amendment is just right wing only, you need to ask what Sen Reed was saying as he defended the 2nd Amendment. Most US citizens that have acted on gun ownership do say we should have that privilege. It is the loud and clear voices of the minority that is creating all this noise. As soon as Obama is gone it will quiet down a lot.
Lots for you to learn also. If the majority of folks in the US really wanted to end the right to own guns, then it would be taken away by amending or ending the 2nd Amendment through our Constitutional ways.

Born and raised in the U.S.A., xenophobe; San Fransisco and Los Angeles in that order. And, yeah, the credentials are completely legit. So typical of your ilk to instantly try to negate any 'authority' my contributions might carry by simply accusing me of being a fraud when you very well know that I won't risk putting my personal information on the web just so you can verify my 'claims'. As for my 'garbage mouth', I have pointedly adopted a way of speaking to you that mirrors the way you speak to the posters here in the (vain) hopes that you will see how offensive it is and take steps to tone yourself down. And if you think that 'educated people' habitually restrict their speech in any way, shape or form then you clearly have never spent any time in a university teacher's lounge, as I have.

My god, you certainly despise Obama, don't you? Personally, I hope he declares martial law before the next election and becomes de facto Emperor of the place, JUST to honk your nose and pull your underwear up over your head!

 

[truespock]

Mercy, TS, let's open an onsite clinic right now, soon we will all need therapy, even the foreign nationals. You soothe the Americans, I will care for the Canadianyr, and Merlin can Minister to the Aussies and Brits. Eek! Cleopatra is alive and well, sailing down Denial. Lol

Well said, delightful mermaid. I think we can all see who NEEDS to be our first patient, too. Bring me the Thorazine, STAT!

 

[truespock]

Bob, you still don't get it. No one is talking about a total ban on handgun sales. Many of us, me included, own handgun(s). We are of the opinion that we need to do a better job controlling who has guns. BTW, remember it is only the opinion of 5 people in the SCOTUS that believe that the amendment to the constitution means you and and me when it speaks of a "well armed militia". I for one do not believe the founders meant that at all.

EXACTLY, Jim. I, personally, believe that a return to comprehensive health care for all who need it is AT LEAST as important as restricting guns from those who shouldn't have them.

 

[Shalimar]

Thorazine on tap, TS. For me, Haloperidol, and a double Glenfiddich should render me suitably catatonic/dead.

 

[BobF]

Born and raised in the U.S.A., xenophobe; San Fransisco and Los Angeles in that order. And, yeah, the credentials are completely legit. So typical of your ilk to instantly try to negate any 'authority' my contributions might carry by simply accusing me of being a fraud when you very well know that I won't risk putting my personal information on the web just so you can verify my 'claims'. As for my 'garbage mouth', I have pointedly adopted a way of speaking to you that mirrors the way you speak to the posters here in the (vain) hopes that you will see how offensive it is and take steps to tone yourself down. And if you think that 'educated people' habitually restrict their speech in any way, shape or form then you clearly have never spent any time in a university teacher's lounge, as I have.

My god, you certainly despise Obama, don't you? Personally, I hope he declares martial law before the next election and becomes de facto Emperor of the place, JUST to honk your nose and pull your underwear up over your head!

Yes, I know that San Francisco has a lot of crazy wackos. I have lived in San Diego, Los Angeles, and up north in San Jose. My wife had lived in San Francisco before we met and we still have relatives from that area, but most have left and moved further north. Still a couple with bay area addresses.

Obama has brought this nation nothing but trouble and great debt. Why should any one think he is great. Nearly 10 trillion more debt in his 6+ year so far. The far far left bunch just don't understand just how many years the US will be working to try to pay all that off and get back into good credit once again.

Now for the garbage mouth you claim I have done in the past, post some examples of my garbage mouth. I don't post nasty names or swear words as you do. I do take time to challenge some posters honesty and such. That is not garbage mouth but is usually called or considered a direct confrontation for honesty and fairness. I think I posted one like that just today, or was it yesterday.

Nothing wrong with one or the other folks bragging about this or that. There is nothing wrong with one or the other contradicting either. Personal insults really are not wanted or needed on this or other forums either.

So have a good day and enjoy your night.

 

[BobF]

Bob, you still don't get it. No one is talking about a total ban on handgun sales. Many of us, me included, own handgun(s). We are of the opinion that we need to do a better job controlling who has guns. BTW, remember it is only the opinion of 5 people in the SCOTUS that believe that the amendment to the constitution means you and and me when it speaks of a "well armed militia". I for one do not believe the founders meant that at all.

Jim, the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution was written in 1791. It purpose to help build a defensive well armed militia is a real and still needed item.

Yes we do need to control who has and uses arms. But the way they are going is to keep on restricting those of us, like you and me, from having arms. Not at all a good idea. I have agreed with stopping others from having arms but see no effort to block access of arms away from the criminals, medical types, non citizens, whomever is not on the list of who can own a gun. That is my constant complaint. Yes, stop those we don't want to have guns is a good thing. But all I keep reading is those that want to cut down on the official ones who are allowed to have guns.

We do need to change some laws such as not doing medical checks on mental folks, which have been spotted but no way to get into the records. No reason to be after folks like you in order to make it safer, which it won't do. Those unapproved folks, the criminals, the foreigners, etc., can still get guns. Those are the ones we should be after. Legitimate gun owners should not be kept from gun ownership.

At one point I even suggested to those radical, no guns folks, to start a 2nd Amendment movement. I never got a response to that idea.

 

[Warrigal]

Jim, the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution was written in 1791. It purpose to help build a defensive well armed militia is a real and still needed item.

But this is 2015 and the National Guard no longer need to bring their own guns to the party.
IMO, the second amendment is at best an anachronism and at worst an obstacle to public safety.

 

[BobF]

But this is 2015 and the National Guard no longer need to bring their own guns to the party.
IMI, the second amendment is at best an anachronism and at worst an obstacle to public safety.

This goes bigger than just the National Guard or other military units. Suppose some bunch takes over the government and tries to change our ways of living. Our private army will be ready to give those folks a major threat. If the military sits down and fails to fight the corrupting bunch then the private army is likely to be ready all over this country to try to fight to protect our Constitution as needed.

As I see it those early American ideas are still great and need supported. We sure don't want any take overs from inside or outside.

 

[Warrigal]

An army is a lot more than a bunch of men with guns. My father was a member of a civilian militia before WW II. It was a Scottish regiment and a disciplined unit. When war broke out it became a formal part of the AIF.

The scenario you are describing is exactly what it taking place in Syria and Iraq. It is effectively civil war, with various militias fighting for ultimate control of whatever is left of the country when half of the population has either been killed or fled across the borders. How can you guarantee that the "right" militia of armed citizens will be the saviour of your country? What will stop the crazies from winning?

 

[BobF]

An army is a lot more than a bunch of men with guns. My father was a member of a civilian militia before WW II. It was a Scottish regiment and a disciplined unit. When war broke out it became a formal part of the AIF.

The scenario you are describing is exactly what it taking place in Syria and Iraq. It is effectively civil war, with various militias fighting for ultimate control of whatever is left of the country when half of the population has either been killed or fled across the borders. How can you guarantee that the "right" militia of armed citizens will be the saviour of your country? What will stop the crazies from winning?

Sorry, but I don't agree with you post at all. If one of our governments fails to perform to the Constitution and the military is shut down by the corrupt government or one who has just tried taking over, the secret militia will do as well as it can to restore a proper government under the Constitution. They do have organizations in some areas. They do have enough firepower to cause any takeover group to think well about what they may wake up. Sort of like the minutmen of the 1970's who were unorganized but manage to hurt those nasty colonial armies and helped create the US beginnings.

I know Warrigal, strong dreams and plenty of wishful thinking but that is the underground of the US that we hope keeps those nasty ones worried.

I would think there are more than one article or story about this situation. Far better than a bunch of fearful ones whining their ways to Washington and hoping for some sort of political lie to happen.

Also, Australia is not gun free. So why try to make the US be gun free. I don't believe it is the registered guns in the US that is causing our troubles. You saw the chart I posted a couple days back I hope. It showed registration going up each year and the gun injuries were going down at the same time. No correlation to the way some folks are thinking. Go to #91 which today is on page number 7.

 

[AZ Jim]

The confederacy was nothing but a bunch of insurrectionists who decided to take over the united states, they got their asses kicked an I am proud of some of my ancestors who did the kicking. To this day they are wannabe rebels but guns or no guns it ain't gonna happen.

 

[truespock]

Yes, I know that San Francisco has a lot of crazy wackos. I have lived in San Diego, Los Angeles, and up north in San Jose. My wife had lived in San Francisco before we met and we still have relatives from that area, but most have left and moved further north. Still a couple with bay area addresses.

Obama has brought this nation nothing but trouble and great debt. Why should any one think he is great. Nearly 10 trillion more debt in his 6+ year so far. The far far left bunch just don't understand just how many years the US will be working to try to pay all that off and get back into good credit once again.

Now for the garbage mouth you claim I have done in the past, post some examples of my garbage mouth. I don't post nasty names or swear words as you do. I do take time to challenge some posters honesty and such. That is not garbage mouth but is usually called or considered a direct confrontation for honesty and fairness. I think I posted one like that just today, or was it yesterday.

Nothing wrong with one or the other folks bragging about this or that. There is nothing wrong with one or the other contradicting either. Personal insults really are not wanted or needed on this or other forums either.

So have a good day and enjoy your night.

So, you don't like it personal, eh, Bob? And you want me to quote your posts wherein YOU make it personal? Here we go, again:

Post @ 76: "Your comment is entirely wrong."

Post @ 89: "If you are pointing to me I say you are way off when saying what you have just posted."

Post #112: "This comment shows just how mixed up you yourself are."

Post #114 "Hateful, two faced comments that show you are speaking from nowhere."
"You must not know of the positions or persons I am talking of or you would have posted your knowledge."
"...so it is all in your mind and ways of responding to things you know little about. Your responses are all political and not factual."
"I will continue to post as I see things and not in order to get put down by someone that knows little more than me by your choice of life."
"No more of your hate filled post as your last couple inputs."

Post #117: "Thank goodness as any more of your political style of responses is not need for anyone."
"He never speaks with the smart mouth about things there or here, as some seem to want to do."
""Time for you to allow others to post on this forum without such snide and nasty responses. I won't stop posting but maybe if you do stop your nasty attitude responses it won't matter to me or others."
"But some folks seem to prefer to be enemies of all that don't just mimic a single line of thought."

Post #125: "That Jim is because you are so full of one sided hate that common sense just does not register for you."
"Don't waste your time trying to catch up as those remarks in this thread are just a un necessary as you post above about guns."
"Arizona has some very solid centered and right leaning citizens. Not enough of the far far left types to mess the entire state up just now."

Post #129: Now Jim, you are sure not speaking of me. As long as we have a far far left government running I have been using far far left in my postings. You are just not observant or remembering well."

Post #141: "You have a way of saying what I did not say at all. What a load of bull crap going on in this thread."
"So why don't your end your twisting and lying about my posts? If you can not post what you claim I have said you have nothing to say but made up nonsense."

Post #156: "Your post is twisted and misguided. Why not post my entire quote and stop this fiddling with the facts. You sound much like one from another forum that never made much sense either."

Post #158: "You have just posted as the person on another forum does. If so you are not even a US citizen and your comments are not only way exaggerated and distorted, but useless as well. No real sense in what you seem to be trying to prove, but haven't. If you are a different person and a US citizen, you sure are a mixed up one for sure.

So for you, nastiness is your way. Truth and facts never count as you only consider your wants and love to tear up others that don't imitate your thinking. I tried for many months, or was it years, to be friendly on the other forum and you just continued to tear into me and some others. The result was that a number of folks no longer post over there. In fact, for a couple or so months I have not seen you over there.

You must have a lot of time to have put together the mess you posted here. Have a good day."

Post #160: "Is that a clinical psychologist in the US or somewhere else. Still not sure if you are really speaking of any real knowledge at all as you certainly do have a garbage mouth for an educated person."

Post #167: "Yes, I know that San Francisco has a lot of crazy wackos."

So, to summarize, once again, Bob, you seem to just LOVE to dish out the personal abuse, laced with what is presumably your best shot at 'salty' language, to any and all who dare to disagree with you--and I am CERTAINLY not the only one here who has!--yet, when anyone gives it back to you--and I'm not the only here to do THAT either!--you squeal and cry like a stuck pig with a bad case of hemorrhoids! Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I rest my case.

By the way, stop wishing me 'good days and enjoyable nights' when we ALL know that what you're REALLY telling me is, "F you, bud!"

 

[Warrigal]

Also, Australia is not gun free. So why try to make the US be gun free

Bob, you know perfectly well that I have never said that Australia is gun free but we do have sensible regulations about gun ownership and use.

Yes, we have a problem with illegal guns in the hands of criminals but, and it is a very big but, we don't have nearly as many people wanting to own guns because we have no piece of paper that says it is our God given right to own any firearm we may choose simply because we want to.

Since Port Arthur we have been much safer as a society and we have suffered no loss of freedom.

For the record Australia has had some experience of secret militias. Prior to WW II we had a society known as the New Guard that was a very conservative organisation (anti union for the most part) that recruited returned servicemen from the Great War, particularly the officers. D H Lawrence wrote about them in his novel Kangaroo. They were prepared to take over the government to preserve the Australian (i.e. British) way of life but in the end they fizzled out. Their sole achievement was to have someone charge up on his horse and slash the ribbon at the opening of the Sydney Harbour Bridge before the Labor Premier could do the deed.

Later we had a problem with Croatians setting up bush camps to train people to go back to fight in that particular conflict. They were quickly quashed.

IMO, secret militias are liabilities, not assets. Your, and our, best asset is our democratic systems of government. From time to time, as problems with the system surface, it may be necessary to modify it. It is not a good idea to do it using the authority of the gun but through the ballot box. The same goes for constitutions.

 

[QuickSilver]

Sorry, but I don't agree with you post at all. If one of our governments fails to perform to the Constitution and the military is shut down by the corrupt government or one who has just tried taking over, the secret militia will do as well as it can to restore a proper government under the Constitution. They do have organizations in some areas. They do have enough firepower to cause any takeover group to think well about what they may wake up. Sort of like the minutmen of the 1970's who were unorganized but manage to hurt those nasty colonial armies and helped create the US beginnings.

So some "Force".... and I fail to imagine what force could do so... invades the US and takes over the government.. NOW... this force would have to be powerful enough to take over the most powerful military in the world... ... a SUPER ENTITY!!!.. But... Never fear!!!

 

[Ralphy1]

Great cartoon, says it all...