text:
Obama proposes gun control
For those of you who don't watch TV news, President Obama just finished his TV appearance in which he announced some of the gun control recommendations from VPbiden that Obama will be lobbying for.
The President noted that there are both long-term and immediate things that need to be done.
Here are a few of the proposals:
1. Congress should require universal background checks on ALL gun purchases, licensed and private. (He noted that 70% of NRA approves of this idea.)
2. Congress should ban military style assault rifles and require a 10-round limit.
3. Congress should be tougher on those who buy guns in order to sell them to criminals.
4. Congress should get around to confirming a Director of ATF (they are only 6 years behind schedule on that).
5. Congress should put more police back on the streets. The President didn't say how (funds for various communities, I assume). I think this is an excellent idea.
President Obama also said their were 23 directives for Executive Action. A few that he cited were:
a. Background checks
b. Schools need to prepare more emergency plans.
c. CDC needs to research the impact of videos on young mind. (Their research funds had been cut in the past -- as influenced by the NRA. I guess they will be re-funded now.)
Plus 21 more? He didn't specify them all.
It's a start in the right direction--but I'm still worried about Congress. So far, the Republican Representatives are feeling no pressure to pass any kind of gun control, so it won't matter what the Senate passes as long as the House refuses to let any gun control legislation be voted on.
I guess we start by baraging our House Representatives with letters, phonecalls, and emails.
How incredibly sad that the people of our country, Congress and the President are having to deal with this issue and how it stands.
Reading the tragedies which have occurred over the last decade + and the number of deaths due to easy availability of firearms, the words used in the debates which rage across the country, now these recommendations : what would our great grandparents think has become of us? How astounded would they be of the mess we have made of it all.
Its shameful and embarrassing to me that we have been unable to manage ourselves any better than this.
I thought the proposals were reasonable even though there will likely not be an agreement on any of them. Of course, we expect a big blow-back by the NRA and members who own AR 15 assault weapons for some reason. I cannot imagine why.
I like the way my rights as a citizen of this country to not feel threatened by weapons was finally mentioned in the national debate by the President. Responsible gun owners have their rights to own civilian style guns or for the gun wackos, to organize an armed anti-government secessionist militia, but what about everyone else?
It is time for common sense regulations to address the issue of gun violence in our homes, in our streets, and in movie theaters and schools.
That was a compelling speech by a great President, a man with a good heart that has the courage to confront the gun lobby and the extremist gun owners, manufacturers and dealers. The task will be difficult because there are too many who want assault weapons and large clips capable of inflicting massive numbers of casualties to be made and sold to the public and no universal background checks. Maybe they will find yet another way to defund government and bring down the world economy to get their way.
Here is a complete list of the 23 Executive orders. Can't wait to see how some on the right try and spin these to be some sort of usurping of powers and civil liberties.
They seem pretty reasonable and obvious to me.
Here is a link that might be useful: 23 Executive Orders re Gun Control
... but where's the part where he sends men out to confiscate all the guns?
You're right, momj. I read over the list of 23 executive orders chase provided, and I can't find the "we are coming to get your guns" order.
Sure is sneaky the way he hid that so well none of us will realize it is there until it's too late and Operation Get-all-Guns is already undertaken. Yup, sure is sneaky!
c. CDC needs to research the impact of videos on young mind.
It was not that long ago that many of you were blasting the NRA about video games.
Posted by marquest z5 PA (My Page) on
Fri, Dec 21, 12 at 11:15
Anyone watching. What are your thoughts.
My First impression is......Mouth drop open and scream YOU ARE NOT BLAMING VIDEO GAMES?
Posted by duluthinbloomz4 zone 4a (My Page) on
Fri, Dec 21, 12 at 11:30
Not watching but reading... why stop with blaming video games when there are also gun-free school zones, the media, movies, and hurricanes.
Posted by dublinbay z6 KS (My Page) on
Fri, Dec 21, 12 at 12:22
I pretty much got the same disgusting message.
1. Violent videos are the cause of gun violence in Am.
"By calling on Congress to direct $10 million to the CDC for research on the possible linkage between violent video games and other media images and acts of violence, our country is taking an important first step towards protecting the most vulnerable among us," said Jim Steyer, CEO of Common Sense Media.
I am on board with everything the president proposes. However, I do have one question. How do we confiscate guns from those violent folks who already own them?
This post was edited by brushworks on Wed, Jan 16, 13 at 14:15
Brush--you seem to miss the point. It is called "compromise." Since the "other side" insists gun violence is caused by the videos, President Obama is saying --OK, let's take the idea seriously and research it so that we have some actual verifiable data to turn to rather than just the proclamations of the NRA which is known for distorting and twisting the facts--even making up facts.
So the CDC researches it. That does not mean CDC will come to a scientific conclusion that videos cause violence. CDC may very well some to the scientific conclusion that videos have little or nothing to do with violence. We won't know their conclusion until they have done the studies and arrived at a conclusion, so don't jump the gun.
I might add that you missed completely the point I was making in that quote you cited above. The NRA was trying to STOP all gun control by arguing that guns have nothing to do with the violence. Instead, according to the NRA, it is videos, not guns, that cause the violence. And I still maintain that that is the most nonsensical idea I've heard in a long time. However, we will have no factual grounds for supporting either side of that argument until some actual scientific studies are conducted--which is what President Obama is proposing.
Or are you arguing that PResident Obama should ignore everything the "other side" says and only listen to his side of the argument? If so, then I would say that you have heard nothing the President has said over and over and over again in the past 4 years about how he wants to involve everyone in these big issues that come up. Unfortunately, the Republicans keeping saying NO to anything the President wants to propose, but that does not mean that he does not want others involved. It means that others CHOOSE to be uninvolved--and then complain and whine that they were left out. President Obama is once again trying to get everyone involved. The NRA thinks videos are the villain? OK--let's check it out and see--but let's have non-political researchers do it scientifically so we can trust the outcomes.
and other media images and acts of violence
Psst, brush. Look here ^^^^
I wish the CDC would examine the impact of U.S. foreign policy on domestic gun violence. We know the drill: Make up bogus charges against a country, repeat them endlessly, call for bombing the country back into the Stone Age, have everyone cheering the fireworks of the bombing, call the soldiers with high-tech weaponry our heroes, and have apologists applaud the soldiers shooting civilians at traffic stops or shooting families in their homes during night searches.
Well, clearly, I am concerned about anything which has the potential to weaken the civil rights of people such as myself. The second one dealing with HIPPA is a bit disconcerting, but there is no detail yet, so who knows what it really means.
I'm trying to keep my mind, what is left of it, anyway, open. I find it hard to believe the Obama administration would throw me under the bus, and the millions of others like me.
OTOH, a "National Dialogue on Mental Health"? -- who knew I would be in such good company? First Catherine Zeta Jones comes out as bipolar, then Billie Joe Armstong has an epic public meltdown just weeks after my own epic meltdown, then we have 8 Oscar nominations for 'Silver Linings Playbook' just a few days ago. Who knew I would be "in"?
I totally agree with all his common-sense proposals, but good luck with trying to get it through congress. We have been down this road before. How many more senseless VA Techs or Sandy Hooks will it take???
What about privacy rights of the troubled minds? Will that rule loosen up?
Well, clearly, I am concerned about anything which has the potential to weaken the civil rights of people such as myself.
I'm wondering where you stand on that idea.
Do YOU think that individuals with previous mental health issues should own guns? Is there a line, like someone with schizophrenia cannot, but someone with bi-polar disorder can? What about PTSD?
Do you own a gun, or if not, do you think you should go out and buy a gun now that you are struggling with depression, bi-polar disorder and perhaps PTSD?
Should someone with a history of schizophrenia be allowed to purchase weapons with no questions as to their past mental record? Would you feel safe in a situation like that?
No confiscation of guns,,,,please, you know that would never fly so why even mention a tremendously divisive issue like that?
On a more constructive note we could fund more gun buy back programs run by local Police Departments with a premium paid for certain assault weapons. Not an answer in itself, but something that helps set the tone for a less armed and violent society.
I don't think this will stop these incidents from happening.
But it will sure make a lot of people brag about how much they did to stop it.
Just because the first round of ideas doesn't 'solve' the problem doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Or as Joe Biden said:
"I want to make it clear that we are not going to get caught up in the notion that unless we can do everything, we're going to do nothing," Biden told groups including the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "It's critically important we act."
"I don't think this will stop these incidents from happening."
I'd be happy if it stopped one.
This will have to be part of a gradual cultural change. That's where leadership matters and is needed. Any start is a good start at this point.
I don't think this will stop these incidents from happening.
But it will sure make a lot of people brag about how much they did to stop it.
On the other hand, nobody knows how many high capacity magazine massacres, gun murders, suicides, and child accidents these steps will prevent.
Good questions, fair questions, and I'll try to answer as directly as possible.
I am much more concerned about first, fourth, fifth, and 14th amendment rights than I am about second amendment rights. Mine specifically, but everyone else's in the US are along for the ride. Guns are property, even though I'm sure many people make them out to be far more in their minds. And, more than any other, my "right to privacy" even though it isn't an explicitly defined right and was cobbled together out of other rights and precedent by the SC in Roe v. Wade, should DEFINITELY TRUMP someone else's property rights. I'm a person, guns are just "stuff".
I'm not vehemently anti-gun, nor am I particularly pro-gun. They have their uses. Two of my sisters hunt, as does the one's son-in-law and grandchildren (boy and one of 2 girls, the other girl is more into fashion and typical teen things like that). My next door neighbor and his son hunt a lot, I've got no problems with any of that. In fact, IF hunting were legal in my heavily suburban area, which it isn't, nothing would make me happier than if they could take out some of the excess deer that make my gardening life miserable and make it kind of dicey to go down the road at certain times of the night without worrying about a collision. I've had the product of hunting various times, venison (yuck!), squirrel (pretty good, tastes like chicken), goose, etc. I'm ok with it overall.
Right now, though, honestly, with all of the trouble guns have caused, if I could wave a magic wand, they would ALL be gone, melted down into something useful -- today's gun could probably be tomorrow's steel frame for a Chevy without much trouble. I know I personally have been rather, um, what's a good term, perhaps "unsettled" by the entire debate over these tragedies, the NRA thing, etc. OK, I think "spooked" would be a good term, too. I JUST WANT IT DONE AND OVER WITH SO I CAN MOVE ON WITH MY LIFE WITHOUT FEELING UNDER THREAT FROM EITHER GUN NUTS OR MY OWN GOVERNMENT -- that kind of spells it out, bottom line, where I am right now. Sorry for the "shouting" but it seemed appropriate to me under the circumstances.
Gun ownership by people with a mental health condition is a difficult subject to fit into a nutshell, because people run the entire range of humanity, from saints to sinners (metaphorically, anyway), whether or not they have a mental illness. And, the very concept of "mental illness" is extremely broad, especially if you widen it so far as to include substance abuse, eating disorders, or, as was done so grossly unjustly not too long ago, homosexuality. There will never be a one-size fits all answer.
Overall, I think our current US standards are not unreasonable -- adjudicated mentally incompetent OR involuntarily committed is the standard in most states, and those are the Federal standards as well. However, like everything else here in the US, it's a confused mess -- for example, Oklahoma's standard for background check permit approval is that the person be mentally stable -- I couldn't find the exact language just now, but it was pretty funny, IMHO -- it could arguably exclude a LOT of the citizens of OK, yet they are a gun culture state. But, those current standards are not enforced uniformly or adequately, many states have terrible record keeping and do not update the FBI's NCIS database regularly, if at all. If they just enforced the current laws it would help. Obama's proposal to make any transaction subject to the universal background check is a great proposal, no reason everyone shouldn't be in the same boat.
I don't think it's possible to make a blanket statement about any specific condition. Clearly, some diagnoses are much more "severe" than others in cognitive and emotional disturbance. My father was a prime example of someone who owned guns, probably about 30 to 40 at one point, who absolutely should NOT have ever been allowed to. But, he grew up in a hunting/fishing culture, then was in the military in WWII (Navy, but never saw combat), so it "came naturally" back then. I know I could have probably gone through my entire teenage years very happily without being pinned down on a sofa or dining room chair at the business end of one of his rifles, which may or may not have been loaded but I know one time it was definitely loaded, and probably been a lot less insecure about life in general had that not happened.
I think it really is a case by case basis. The rub there -- what percentage of the general public probably NEEDS some significant mental health treatment but is NEVER screened, diagnosed, or treated? A lot would be my guess. Heck, this is the US, probably a h*** of a lot, like maybe 1/4th of our population at least (we are all somewhat nuts here, trust me, I know nuts when I see it). That is one issue that REALLY BOTHERS ME -- the thought that the vast number of untreated, undiagnosed people out there can do whatever they want, while people like myself may be treated "differently" in some way that feels unfair and unequal. Treat everyone the same and I have no problem with it.
But that is a tough one, too -- who decides, under what circumstances, who is the information reported to, and what do they do with it? I do see the need for psychiatrists, therapists, and other mental health professionals to have an avenue without fear of recrimination to be able to report individuals who are an imminent or serious threat. But, would I like to think that my doctor or therapist are "snitches"? Not really, it would really violate my sense of trust in them.
I think most, well, many, ok, definitely some anyway, people with psychiatric diagnoses can safely own guns. Or at least, I look at it this way, if someone REALLY is intent on causing harm or worse, they will find a way. Admittedly, hard to say who is safe and who isn't. It's a tough, tough issue. I don't want to make a blanket statement either way, there is just too much of a gray area.
Do I own a gun -- not per se. There is a left-over pellet pistol in the house, dad's last one. My sisters and their husbands took his "collection" willingly -- they never saw the business end, they were all much older and not, per dear old dad, the offspring of the milk man (I kid you not, that's what he told my mother!). I actually told one of the two what he did to me as a kid, and she didn't believe me, I got the "Dad would never do that" line. Yeah, right, I may be nuts, but I'm not delusional, it happened. One reason I freaked so much over "death threat guy" last summer. Back to the pellet gun, I would personally like it gone, my mother hangs on to it because "both of them want it" -- by the time it passes hands, it will probably be so rusty inside that it won't work -- I could help that out by leaving it in my one closet with an exterior wall, which tends to get very damp in cold weather. Yes, even though it's just a pellet gun, I would rather have it out of there. Guns do spook me just a bit, less than they probably should under the circumstances.
SHOULD I own a gun under the present circumstances? Boy, that is a hard one to answer. I've been making a fool of myself on another forum by being a total a** about that question and pushing people's buttons with the "hey, I'm bipolar, but I can buy one if I want one" line. Which is literally true, Michigan has no restrictions on anyone NOT adjudicated legally incapacitated or involuntarily confined. I couldn't though, get a concealed weapons permit, the standard there is tougher, anyone "diagnosed or under treatment" -- I don't know if there is any kind of appeals process for someone who is later "treated successfully and cured" (does that really happen?)
Bottom line, really honest answer -- probably not the best idea. I think I could handle it -- but then again, I thought I could handle a few other things in the past, turns out I didn't do such a bang-up job of handling them after all. IF I had access to one, at least please know this and believe it -- I wouldn't "do it" to anyone else. I could see possibly offing myself under the right (wrong?) circumstances. Overall, though, if last summer didn't make me kill myself, or kill me through stress, I'm probably a relatively low risk guy.
As for the last question -- would I feel safe with someone else with a serious mental condition walking around armed -- again, honest answer -- no. I don't want to die in the next Great American Firearms Tragedy any more than the next guy. I'd rather not be walking through Macy's some day and get popped through the head because someone has an ax to grind and access.
OK, good news on a couple of fronts -- I'm broke after this fiasco, so I'm not going to run out and make a major gun purchase anytime soon, new rules or not. And, I'm really, really, really broke now because I just blew the last of my bucks on ... no, not a gun, something else that required a nerve-wracking screening process to see if I would be "permitted to buy" and yes, I'm "carrying" right now, and it IS concealed -- but it's just an iPhone 5, so everyone can breath easy -- I did sweat the AT&T credit check just little bit, but I was "clean" I guess. Whew!
OK, that was a LOT to get out. I really need to get back to work before I hear a voice in my head, well, from the next office, saying "you're fired".
Hey, thanks for asking, actually, I do find it cathartic to "get it all out", it helps me to sort out the mess of emotion in my head.
Quite an answer and there is an honesty in there that I appreciate.
Full disclosure, I have to honestly say that I am uncomfortable with the thought that no mental health background check be necessary with the criminal record background check. I believe mental health is just as important to check as criminal record.
My grandfather was also in WWII, was a police officer and was an avid hunter, but years ago when he was diagnosed with Alzheimers, the doctor was required to report that and the police came to make sure all of his weapons were disposed of. A good thing too, because later on there were several incidents of him getting agitated and aggressive towards my grandmother, he was moved to a nursing home.
So when I look at the question as to whether I believe his (medical) privacy rights were violated... I fall on the side of safety. Sorry if the doctor must share that information, but I feel it is necessary.
It may come down to a matter of individual rulings at some point. Someone with an addiction? Well, have they shown violent behaviour in the past? Honestly, I have known some alcoholics who were frightening and violent even WITHOUT a gun, I can't imagine them WITH one. Do I think all drinkers shouldn't own guns? Well, aside from the fact that I see no need for anyone to own a gun, I couldn't see a medical reason most people shouldn't.
And I know at this juncture, it's probably very distressing for you to be wondering if YOU are going to be the target of some sort of witch hunt, I can understand that. But I have to, in all honesty, say that I would actually feel a lot better if mental health was also included in those background checks. And I'm not just talking about your country. In mine as well, there are too many people who own a weapon but are NOT mentally stable enough to do so, yet the procedures are not in place to provide an effective barrier to that because privacy rights may be violated.
My solution would be to just ban all of them, that way NOBODY has to divulge their medical status.
(Edited to fix a Bushism)
This post was edited by hamiltongardener on Wed, Jan 16, 13 at 16:49
Most of those are things we've discussed here. Some I've said I could understand, even though I wasn't completely comfortable with them, and others, I said I've advocated for quite a while. The only one I really have a problem with is the one about doctors asking their patients if there are guns in the house. While it doesn't come out and say doctors SHOULD ask, just by its presence saying Obamacare can't rule it out is enough to say exactly that, and I've heard of this happening more and more, and in fact two people I know from Connecticut had to allow childrens services (DCS?) to come in and inspect their home because the doctor had called with charges of child endangerment just because they answered yes to the question-- "Do you have guns in the house?"
My answer would be very succinct, and leave no room for any kind of gray area-- none of your effin busines.
Well, maybe all those idiots who keep loaded guns lying around so that toddlers can find them are so stupid that maybe a short discussion with a pediatrician might make them think about it a bit.
We had a pediatrician ask us once, when our kids were small. At the time our guns and ammunition were kept in a locked closet. She said that was fine, but when they were older and more curious/inquisitive, we might consider other steps.
/no biggy
HG, that's all good and fine, but I have one burning question -- what Bushism?
I mashed together "distressing" and "stressful" and wrote "distressful".
I was thinking about "distressing". Don't know why I just threw "stressful" at the end, I wasn't even thinking that word.
One problem I have with the requirements of drs reporting is that if a parent is afraid their child might have a problem and wonder if they should seek psychiatric help. Would they have second thoughts if they were afraid they might be wrong and the psychiatrist would report their child. Or if someone had fantasies about killing people, but wouldn't seek help for fear the dr would turn them in. Leaving a so called, "loaded gun" walking around waiting to go off
One problem I have with the requirements of drs reporting is that if a parent is afraid their child might have a problem and wonder if they should seek psychiatric help. Would they have second thoughts if they were afraid they might be wrong and the psychiatrist would report their child.
They would not seek a doctor's help for that because they would be afraid of the doctor blocking their child's ability to get a gun in the future?
Forgive me for sounding incredulous, but is owning a gun THAT entwined in American culture... like getting a driver's licence or getting a job?
You have to understand, Mrsk, that to someone from outside of your country that the notion that having guns is SO important, that a parent would not seek medical help for their child in order to not interfere with their future ability to own a gun.... it's insanity to a normal thinking person. How could your child's future ability to own a gun be THAT important?
Or if someone had fantasies about killing people, but wouldn't seek help for fear the dr would turn them in.
And again, this seems surreal to someone from outside of the USA. A person who has fantasies about killing people is going to conceal the fact that they own weapons or conceal the fact that they have those fantasies. Someone who goes to their doctor realising they need that kind of help also realises they need to give up their guns. Then again, is this normal behaviour for people seeking help from murderous fantasies? That they want to keep their guns while acknowledging they have these fantasies? Regardless, it is incumbent on any doctor who receives a patient like that to not only treat him, but also ensure the safety of those around him... including by securing weapons.
If someone has pychiatric problems, that's a different story. Then whether or not guns are in the house is a pertenent conversation to have. Past that, though, unless there are other sepcific cases-- if it's a general question asked just because, then the doctor has no right to ask it IMNSHO.
that the notion that having guns is SO important
HG, it's not having guns that is so important. from 1997 until about 4 years ago, I didn't own a single gun. But I was still just as vocal as I am now. It's the ABILITY to own a firearm that's important.
It's that someone who should be under psychiatric care DOES get a gun because they didn't get treatment for fear of being turned in to the authorities.
Yes, that's what I'm talking about. A parent does not get treatment that is needed for a mental illness for their child out of fear that it will affect their ability to get a gun later on in life, per your example above. Or an adult does not get that treatment... for the same reason.
If this is a legitimate fear, if there is a real possibility that people will start avoiding getting treatment for their children because their children might get placed on a "Non Gun Ownership" list, if their child's abiltity to have access to guns is THAT much more important than their mental health and medical treatment of such...
Then the answer to the question on the other thread is no. No, the country is not salvagable.
HG, it's not having guns that is so important. from 1997 until about 4 years ago, I didn't own a single gun. But I was still just as vocal as I am now. It's the ABILITY to own a firearm that's important.
The ABILITY to own a gun... or actually owning a gun... they both work equally as well in the post above.
Is the ABILITY to own a gun so important that people will avoid getting treatment for mental health problems for themselves or for their children, just to avoid losing the ABILITY to own a gun?
Are you proposing that they keep the ABILITY to own a gun, but the doctor just advises them to avoid guns whenever they start fantasizign about killing people?
No hg...it has nothing to do with the ability to get a gun. It's a persons own perception of themselves. They are already probably paranoid. They would see themselves as being singled out and stigmatized. You or I would probably never care if our names were on some gun registry...do not sell to, but then we don't feel like the world is out to get us anyway. Or parents who don't want to stigmatize their child because they have convinced themselves it can't be that bad.
Again, Mrsk, all I can say is that reasoning seems like madness to an outsider, but a perfectly sound explanation to you guys. As I said above, if this is a legitimate concern, a real possibility that people will avoid treatment for themselves and their children, over a gun registry, then there is nothing more that can be done or said.
Besides the fact hg...what difference would that have made in the Newtown massacre. The boy didn't buy a gun.
No, it was taken from a legal gun owner.
That's one of the reasons for having NO guns... it makes it so easy for criminals to get guns when the country is awash in legal guns.
But since the mother already suspected her child had serious mental health issues (though I still haven't heard any "official" doctor's diagnosis), she valued her own gun ownership above the safety amd health of her child. This is simply an extension of the earlier example of parents who would avoid treatment of their chiildren for the sake of keeping them off a gun registry... if the mindset/culture/whatever you call it of a country is already to that point, where owning that gun is more important than keeping them away from a child you suspect has mental illness... and this is a normal and legitimate situational concern... then I'm not sure the society is salvagable.
It's beyond the comprehension of people from outside of that societal norm, just as the reverse is difficult to comprehend from the people inside of it.
This so called list of those with mental health issues has some validity, but one has to remember that those that work in the mental health field and are required to report a patient for this list are basing this on their opinion much of the time.
that opinion is just that, that specific mental health professional and nothing more. If the same patient went to a different mental health professional it is quite possible, in many cases likely, that a different opinion could/would result.
it is quite possible for a patient being able to hide various aspects of their mental health issues from the mental health professional and one that should be reported is not.
There are certain issues and those with certain mental health issues that may need to stay on a list like this permanently, but my question is what about most people.
If one is placed on this list, is this permanent or can one be removed from this list at a later date?
Who is and isn't able to access this list, this data base? How will it be used to deny someone that ability to "legally" purchase a gun and ammo?
Will the list state "mental health issues"? Will it say what type of specific mental health issue is involved?
What happens if someone is seriously depressed because of a traumatic event in their life and maybe even suicidal? But that is overcome and no longer an issue. Will that person remain on this type of list forever.
What happens to the mental health professional that didn't report a patient because it was not believed the patient was a risk and turned out that this professional was wrong and the patient was a risk?
Will the professional suffer consequences because of a wrong opinion? A wrong opinion that could have been correct at the last meeting with the patient but then something triggered the patient and the patient became a risk?
If there are consequences for the professional, one might then assume that every patient would be reported, reported to protect the professional and not necessarily be a correct diagnosis.
There needs to be far more detail on this mental health reporting before you are going to see professional support for it.
It's a very risky slope to deal with, something that does need to be dealt with and dealt with quickly, but at the same time, it needs to be well thought out, well planned and done correctly so as to not alienate those that need to be directly involved in the reporting, in getting the mental health treatment and care that it needed.
Yes, I suspect that will be the reason no one will touch that issue with a ten foot pole.
Truthfully, I don't hold out much hope for any of this legislation proposed today. Much like the healthcare issue, by the time anything passes it will be so watered down, the entire package will be useless. Gun control in name only.
If I thought one of my kids was having some kind of problems, I would confiscate his weapons.
I was diagnosed with Ptsd about 2 years after returning from Nam. I didnt think I had a problem and when the counseler asked if I had guns at home I said yes, she suggested I remove them to my parents at the least. I thought SHE was nuts. I came to see that I did have a problem even tho I never exibited any vio;lence. Bad dreams got kinda bad, I did send them to my brother for keeping.I quit the therapy and all was well. I took them back about a year later and have had them around ever since. I dont even like to shoot a woodchuck actually. I do shoot critters but its not enjoyable. I prefer punching paper and reactive targets.
What happens to the mental health professional that didn't report a patient because it was not believed the patient was a risk and turned out that this professional was wrong and the patient was a risk?
It is happening. No professional is going to risk their practice when they know there is risk going to court.
Next will be the Sandy incident. The parents knew their son had a problem. The father and mother were court ordered to find parenting professionals.
Theater shooting victim's wife sues Holmes' psychiatrist
Dr. Lynne Fenton, the University of Colorado psychiatrist who was treating suspected theater shooter James Holmes is seen through a window leading to a district courtroom where a motions hearing was being held in Holmes case in Centennial, Colo., on Thursday, Aug. 3, 2012
That's one of the reasons for having NO guns... it makes it so easy for criminals to get guns when the country is awash in legal guns.
And that won't change a bit if the only ones they can find are ILLEGAL guns. This country is pretty awash in them, too.
If one is placed on this list, is this permanent or can one be removed from this list at a later date?
If you think you should be removed, you would need to take it to court, bring forth professionals to give testimony and leave it to a judge to decide. Not perfect, but about as good as it gets, for now, and a helluvalot better than what we've had.
Who is and isn't able to access this list, this data base? How will it be used to deny someone that ability to "legally" purchase a gun and ammo?
Anyone with an ffl (federal firearms license) can access it to get a yes or no on any person buying a firearm. When you buy a gun, they call it in, and within a couple of minutes, you get a yes or no.
What happens to the mental health professional that didn't report a patient because it was not believed the patient was a risk and turned out that this professional was wrong and the patient was a risk?
That's a real good question. One that I can't answer.
And that won't change a bit if the only ones they can find are ILLEGAL guns. This country is pretty awash in them, too.
Bill, the way to replenish the stream of illegal guns is with purchase or theft of legal ones.
When the legal guns are hard to come by, the illegal ones start drying up too.
They would not seek a doctor's help for that because they would be afraid of the doctor blocking their child's ability to get a gun in the future?
As a parent that would never occur to me ... nor would it stop me from getting help for my child if it did.
Tell that to the streetgangs, who seem to have no problem finding fully automatic weapons.
No problems, eh?
So, what do you think is the approximate breakdown of the different types of firearms used in homocides? Surely if they have no problems finding fully automatic weapons, then those must be the most prevalent weapon used in street crimes and murders, right? Or at least somewhere up the list amongst the most popular, right?
Guns are made in crude back alley shops . About any body can consruct their own gun.
I guess Upon further review of zeros 23 , I withdraw my support of most. There are either existing laws covering, or they just dont provide anything substantive.
Ya know, these banners are a real poser. like the bans in new york, they ban a gun because it has a certain appearance yet the same gun restocked is still legal?? Talk about stupid!
I admit to skipping a lot here. I just want to say that pushing the issue of gun deaths into a discussion of 'mental health' is a diversion.
Thousands of people are dying and being maimed all over the nation. They aren't 'mentally ill'. They aren't shooting more than one or two people or themselves. They were angry or afraid and they had easy access to a weapon *designed* to kill or maim *people*. The trigger is pulled before the impulse is reconsidered. The issue is permitting guns to be widespread in the community.
Don't start with the bogus Second Amendment stuff. There IS NO 'regulated militia'. I'm more afraid of "Man with a gun" than my government.
Actually, the Psychiatrist who treated James Holmes did report to the campus police that he was dangerous, following protocol, and the campus police held a committee meeting to discuss the issue, again following protocol, and they decided not to do anything, or continue further observations, or something. Since the guy had failed his preliminary exam and was on his way out of the school, I'm guessing they figured he'd go away and become somebody else's problem.
Which he sure did.
The mental health issues are extremely tricky. IMHO I do not believe any health professional should be held liable unless the patient told them they were going to kill somebody. Just because they are professionals doesn't mean they have a crystal ball. And as other posters have said, exactly which diagnosis will be on the list. Also one provider may diagnose in one way while another has a different diagnosis. It happened to myself.
I also believe it is awful extreme to ban all guns. There are many citizens that for many reasons should own guns. Take farmers for instance having their animals killed by predators. I have a friend that lives in the woods and when they go out walking they always bring a gun due to bear. Also hunters. So if all guns are banned is the government going to come kill deer, coyotes, etc. to keep population down?
It would be more difficult for people to obtain guns if they are banned but as one said they can be made in your garage or purchased from other countries. Other countries send in drugs and make a killing, I'm sure they would love to bring in guns and make even more.
I believe there does need to be some regulation but I believe lawmakers should sit down and talk about rather than rushing into it. Right now they are trying to get laws passed playing off the emotion of the citizens. They rushed into this while hurricane sandy victims have not received the help they need, our current financial issues are out of control, unemployment is high, and citizens are struggling. Thats just a few.
I'm sorry I know this post is long. I have read a lot of finger pointing directed at political parties. I'm a republican and IMHO it is both sides. They are both unwilling to work together. Its like they are in high school all over again. Instead of talking and coming up with ideas that help the country, they just stick to what their party will think. We need compormise on both sides.
Welcome to the forum, Jessica. However, let me note that no one on this forum is proposing that all guns be banned. And I am not aware of any serious proposal out there in the big world for all guns to be banned. So there is no real point in arguing about something that is NOT going to happen.
Oh, it's all such an effing mess. Call me paranoid if you want, but I'm pretty upset over the concept of a government database of people with mental health issues, because the information could be misused in so many ways. I can't help but think of the way that one of the first things the SS did when it moved into conquered territory was to register all of the Jewish residents. We know where that went....
Um, I'm just going to curl up into the fetal position and hide out in a dark, quiet room with Snow Patrol playing very softly in the background. Let me know when the angry mob with pitchforks and torches has passed.
On the question of 'illegals' : HG is of course quite right that restricting the legal ownership of guns means that the supply to 'illegals' starts to dry up. Add to this that the authorities then only have the illegals - criminals and street gangs, if you like - to police. This is followed by amnesties to allow the anonymous delivering up of illegal weapons (which works surprisingly well), coupled with really biting sentences for committing crimes while in possession, and a life sentence for importation, as we have just done. I know it will seem unbelievable to some, but criminals are far less likely to commit burglaries, robberies or 'house invasions' armed with a gun if they are certain that the victim will not be armed, the police will not be armed and that they will face at least a tripling of their sentence when caught with a gun.
Does this mean an end to robberies and violence and street crime? Of course not. But it means a huge lessening of the likelihood of resulting death, apart from the other obvious benefits of a society not awash with guns to be picked up and used in the heat of the moment, or in such awful incidents as school massacres.
As to licensing and control: of course there are good legal reasons for gun ownership. This country has a deep history of hunting and field sports and gun clubs, all of which continue to flourish. But it can be regulated and lethal weapons involved registered and made safe. I live in the English countryside, and there is a slaughter of pheasants (not peasants:) and other beautiful small creatures going on by those who feel the need for a little bloodletting in the name of 'sport'. Even these practitioners - usually going under the name of the Countryside Alliance and seeking to preserve some imagined Little England lifestyle involving tweeds and hounds and Land Rovers - have no trouble these days operating safely within the laws of the land. It took a while.
Mental health: on the country estate where I worked over the last decade, countryside rangers have the keeping of large areas of common woodland and forest, and their day to day work requires them to be expert with firearms. They have to deal with population control of wildlife and vermin and also increasingly with deer hit by traffic. Recently, one that I know was diagnosed with acute depression following domestic troubles and it was legally required that he give up his shotgun and his license be suspended. This was done as a matter of course, in discussion with his employer, his family and his doctor.
On 'it's part of American culture...' : female genital mutilation is part of the culture of some African countries. Forced marriage between teenage girls and geriatric men is part of the culture of some Indian societies. Stoning and beheading for adultery is part of the culture of some Muslim societies. Subjugation and degradation of women is part of some cultures. Gang rape is part of the culture of some Indian cities . . .
We must excuse these things and accept they will never change, because they are 'part of the culture'. ??
Best wishes
Yah, Dennis...as you can see, the red herring (blatant lie) of mental illness/problems as major cause of masskillings still gets peddled--whereas in reality the major reason is too many guns too easily available for people with a grandiose sense of self-entitlement who think that they get to decide who should live and who should die.
I was just surfing my TV and passed by Fox News in time to hear announced, "Coming up Next: Obama's 2nd Amendment Power Grab."
Guess they are going with the Obama as Hitler approach to the issue.
Just thought you'd like to know how the gun-nutters are responding.
Jon--good point about "its a cultural thing." So what? If it is dangerous and violent and inhumane, it is a cultural thing that needs to be changed, not tolerated!
My apologies dublinbay. Nobody here did mention banning all guns. I misread what I thought was banning all guns as a suggestion. I know there is no legislation for this and I believe there never will be, it was just me arguing something that wasn't there :)
Has anybody read the bill passed in NY? I'm pretty baffled by this. I tried to figure out where they were going and what they were looking for in regards to mental health. Any ideas?
Jessica, yes a month or so ago someone DID mention banning all guns.
I can't remember who it was, but I commented on it when another poster said the same thing--that no one was saying they wanted all guns banned, but someone related that sentiment.
I wish I cared enough to take the time to try to look it up, but I don't.
But make no mistake--this business of banning "certain" guns is only the beginning.
They'll get them one by one.
But make no mistake--this business of banning "certain" guns is only the beginning.
They'll get them one by one.
Oh good grief, demi - what histrionics. Who thinks the government is going to take away all the guns?
Posted by fancifowl 5Pa (My Page) on
Sun, Jan 13, 13 at 21:31
Hardly any gun owner thinks any one is coming for their guns, sure, a few nuts may think it, so?
Yes but you have to put Demi's comments in context with her belief that the President,
"wants to destroy our economy as well as our world standing so that everyone will be handing just about everything they have to the federal government and so that the federal government will in turn have control over every aspect of our lives that it possible can."
and there, still is the paranoia about guns, gun control, limits on gun sales, ammo etc.
Demi, per the usual, stated it so well
"But make no mistake--this business of banning "certain" guns is only the beginning.
They'll get them one by one.
One does wonder though, if it where a different president, other than Obama, attempting to make changes and stating the same things, would the same paranoia still exist.
Regardless, that paranoia is present now, and the NRA will "milk that paranoia for all it's worth".
I do believe, though, that they are "barking up the wrong tree", so to speak with this one.
Paranoia is not going to hold legislation hostage this time, the public has had enough and will make sure that congress doesn't prevent any kind of gun control legislation from taking affect.
The people have had enough of all of these senseless massacres and are going to demand that something be done.
The NY law? Well, my take on it is that it's the "you can't trust your doctor/therapist anymore" law -- it turns your healthcare provider into an informant for the state, and the information can be used how???? Many states already have provisions to allow HC providers to report individuals who are an "imminent" or "immediate" danger to "self or others" but this broadens it quite a bit.
I would definitely NOT be willing to seek treatment in NY state under those circumstances, and would have to seriously question whether or not I would be willing to continue with existing treatment.
This will drive many people underground, and they won't be willing to get treatment for MH issues if they know their names could end up on a list kept by the government.
It is a profound violation of trust and confidentiality.
Here is what one Columbia University psychiatrist has to say about NY's new law:
Here is a link that might be useful: Not good.
Besides the fact that as it turns out, Obama may should have checked with his Democratic colleagues before making some of his pronouncements. Seems like a lot of them aren't in agreement with him, or else they are coming up for re-election next year and their constituents aren't in total agreement.
Mrs...do you think for one minute that the President didn't know that there was resistance for his proposals amongst Democrats ?
Heck I even knew that from where up here in Canada and with none of the information the President is privy too.
My bet is he knows that the bills will fail...which does not mean he shouldn't at least try in the hopes of elevating awareness.
demifloyd wrote,
Jessica, yes a month or so ago someone DID mention banning all guns.
I can't remember who it was, but I commented on it when another poster said the same thing--that no one was saying they wanted all guns banned, but someone related that sentiment.
I wish I cared enough to take the time to try to look it up, but I don't.
Absent your producing the post in question, I would suggest you are simply misremembering.
Canadian police departments are happy at the thought of the US tightening gun controls.
NIAGARA FALLS - While Canada's gun laws are different from those south of the border, a decision by New York State to tighten their gun laws is seen as a step in the right direction by Niagara Regional Police Deputy Chief Joe Matthews.
"For us in Ontario, we know that a good number of illegal guns in Ontario have their origin in the United States, so it's always a positive thing to have neighbouring jurisdictions tighten up their gun-control legislation," said Matthews. "It's a good thing not only for us in Niagara, but especially the Toronto area and the rest of Ontario."
On Tuesday, New York State Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed into law some of America's toughest gun restrictions since the mass shooting last month at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.
Twenty schoolchildren, ages six and seven, and six educators were killed after a gunman entered the school and began shooting.
Matthews said our gun-control legislation is "significantly stronger than that of the United States and in the police community we certainly realize that it's responsible gun ownership and effective gun control. That's what makes a community safe."
The changes in legislation in New York State include a ban on assault weapons, limits on ammunition capacity and new measures to keep guns out of the hands of mentally ill individuals.
Cuomo said it's "common sense" that people who are mentally ill should not have access to guns.
The National Rifle Association issued a statement saying their members are "outraged at the draconian gun control bill."
In addition, these gun-control schemes have been tried before and failed and that they will have no impact on public safety and crime, the association said.
Gun owners in the United States say they have a constitutional right to have a firearm. In many states, a driver's licence is the only identification needed to purchase many types of weapons legally.
Gun laws in Canada are stricter. A person could register and then wait up to 60 days before obtaining a firearm. They also have to take a course and go through background checks.
Anyone coming into Canada from the United States must declare all firearms and weapons at the Canada Border Services Agency office. If they are not declared, the weapons and firearms will be seized and the individual could face criminal charges.
Canadians also need documents to prove they are entitled to possess a firearm in Canada, and the weapons must be transported safely.
Here is a link that might be useful: NRP likes the idea
actually there was a couple of posters that "wanted all guns gone"
I thought that most of those making the statement added that they knew it would be an impossibility.
My remembering and disremembering blend and blur after so many gun threads. I wish USians were as passionate about our rights to health care as access to guns.
ohiomom wrote,
Factotem ... actually there was a couple of posters that "wanted all guns gone", but the majority would like the large capacity magazines/assault type weapons controlled/banned.
And I am not "disremembering"
Just to be clear, demifloyd claimed that someone wanted to ban all guns, which is a legislative proposal. No post has been offered in support of that claim.
As for wishing for all guns to be gone, that is quite a different matter from supporting a law banning all guns. For example, bill_vincent would be happy if all guns were to disappear, but he does not appear to support legislation banning all guns.
Jessica, yes a month or so ago someone DID mention banning all guns.
I can't remember who it was, but I commented on it when another poster said the same thing--that no one was saying they wanted all guns banned, but someone related that sentiment. (Demi)
....okay factotem knock it off Demi did not say a "legislative proposal", she was commenting on what a poster/s said. And Demi was right, I remember reading it also.
Chill out ..
Posted by Factotem none (My Page) on
Thu, Jan 17, 13 at 15:32
demifloyd wrote,
Jessica, yes a month or so ago someone DID mention banning all guns.
I can't remember who it was, but I commented on it when another poster said the same thing--that no one was saying they wanted all guns banned, but someone related that sentiment.
I wish I cared enough to take the time to try to look it up, but I don't.
Absent your producing the post in question, I would suggest you are simply misremembering.
Factomem, you are obviously a slow learner.
I'm guessing I am not the only one here not interested in playing your games or in jumping when you say how high to produce ancient posts and articles because you think you "demand it."
It's really a shame because you have been capable of making some good points and seem to exhibit an ability to reason and ask good questions.
Even on this playground where we don't get along and differ, we have somewhat of a tolerance for one another and do not make it a practice to intentionally misrepresent what someone says or accuse them of lying (really--looking up donations to Scott Walker based on who you think I might be--how creepy!) in the spirit of reasonable discourse and
To accuse me of "misremembering" when I specifically said I recalled something, but could not remember who and was not going to spend the time and effort to search for it is such a sad little attempt at one upmanship among strangers.
I think you've found a place you think you can feel special.
Sorry, I have higher standards than to waste my time with people that operate as you do, and I speculate several others do, as well.
It's a shame, really. It could have been fun and interesting.
Ohiomom, thank you for posting the truth.
You see, Factomem, it's not always about gigging the other person.
It's a life lesson in how to get along with and get the most out of relationships and exchanges. It works, but only when both parties want to be courteous and reasonable.
There will be more life lessons to come.
ohiomom wrote,
....okay factotem knock it off Demi did not say a "legislative proposal", she was commenting on what a poster/s said.
She said a poster called for a ban on all guns. A ban is legislation. This is, of course, completely different from expressing a wish that all guns would disappear, which I agree many likely share. As I pointed out, bill_vincent embraced the latter while rejecting the former. Is the distinction unclear?
There are some posters that want/wish ALL guns banned .. will not get into a "dog with a bone" back and forth with you.
Demi and I could not be further apart politically, but I will not sit silently and say nothing when you, in this particular case, are reaching and twisting what she and I said.
Let it go...
Facto, I'm with Ohiomom on this one.
While many of us foreigners have wanted to see a ban on guns... there have been other posters who have as well. American posters. Especially immediately following the shooting.
Yes, believe it or not... there are some people who want guns banned. Some people are brave enough to come out and say it.
demifloyd wrote,
Posted by Factotem none (My Page) on
Thu, Jan 17, 13 at 15:32
demifloyd wrote,
Jessica, yes a month or so ago someone DID mention banning all guns.
I can't remember who it was, but I commented on it when another poster said the same thing--that no one was saying they wanted all guns banned, but someone related that sentiment.
I wish I cared enough to take the time to try to look it up, but I don't.
Absent your producing the post in question, I would suggest you are simply misremembering.
Factomem, you are obviously a slow learner.
I'm guessing I am not the only one here not interested in playing your games or in jumping when you say how high to produce ancient posts and articles because you think you "demand it."
It's really a shame because you have been capable of making some good points and seem to exhibit an ability to reason and ask good questions.
Even on this playground where we don't get along and differ, we have somewhat of a tolerance for one another and do not make it a practice to intentionally misrepresent what someone says or accuse them of lying (really--looking up donations to Scott Walker based on who you think I might be--how creepy!) in the spirit of reasonable discourse and
To accuse me of "misremembering" when I specifically said I recalled something, but could not remember who and was not going to spend the time and effort to search for it is such a sad little attempt at one upmanship among strangers.
I think you've found a place you think you can feel special.
Sorry, I have higher standards than to waste my time with people that operate as you do, and I speculate several others do, as well.
It's a shame, really. It could have been fun and interesting.
Ohiomom, thank you for posting the truth.
You see, Factomem, it's not always about gigging the other person.
It's a life lesson in how to get along with and get the most out of relationships and exchanges. It works, but only when both parties want to be courteous and reasonable.
There will be more life lessons to come.
How odd. You recently declared,
I'm using Chase's SOB method. (Scroll On By).
You are a scroll on by.
That promise sure was broken quickly.
Factomem, you are obviously a slow learner.
I'm guessing I am not the only one here not interested in playing your games or in jumping when you say how high to produce ancient posts and articles because you think you "demand it."
Yet, here you are, addressing my posts. I would say that shows I am a rather quick learner, actually.
It's strange to characterize posts from about a month ago, or articles from within a week, as "ancient". But it's quite simple: if someone makes a factual claim and refuses to support it, it is, by definition, unsupported. Using unsupported claims in furtherance of a line of reasoning is weak to the breaking point.
It's really a shame because you have been capable of making some good points and seem to exhibit an ability to reason and ask good questions.
Thanks. Several of those good questions I've asked of you continue to go unanswered. If you'd like a reminder about them, let me know and I will re-post them.
we have somewhat of a tolerance for one another and do not make it a practice to intentionally misrepresent what someone says or accuse them of lying
Yet you accuse others of lying quite often. Do you recall that, or would a recitation of examples help?
Could you provide an example of my intentionally misrepresenting what someone said?
in the spirit of reasonable discourse and
You insinuated that jillinnj was mentally ill. Was that an example of your participating in that spirit?
To accuse me of "misremembering" when I specifically said I recalled something, but could not remember who and was not going to spend the time and effort to search for it is such a sad little attempt at one upmanship among strangers.
If you feel that way, simply scroll on by.
I think you've found a place you think you can feel special.
I'm no psychologist, but this does make me wonder about the possibility of projection. But for the record, I feel special *everywhere*. I think most people do, which is terrific.
Sorry, I have higher standards than to waste my time with people that operate as you do
And yet you forge these lengthy replies about how you won't reply after declaring that you won't even read my posts. This is starting to look like a personal responsibility issue...
It's a shame, really. It could have been fun and interesting.
But it's not, so you have been skipping my posts and not replying. I see.
It's a life lesson in how to get along with and get the most out of relationships and exchanges. It works, but only when both parties want to be courteous and reasonable.
Now, this is interesting. You've referred to others' posts as "stupid", implied they are mentally ill, called them "full blown nuts", told them you don't care what they think, called them "slow learners", told them to "get a life", laughed at them, told them to "run along", gloated that they were "smoked", and so on. Do you consider any of that behavior courteous?
There will be more life lessons to come.
Do you have anything substantive to say in lieu of resorting to childish attempts to be patronizing?
hamiltongardener wrote,
Facto, I'm with Ohiomom on this one.
While many of us foreigners have wanted to see a ban on guns... there have been other posters who have as well. American posters. Especially immediately following the shooting.
Yes, believe it or not... there are some people who want guns banned. Some people are brave enough to come out and say it.
As I have stated, there has been no evidence provided in support of this assertion. Absent the offering of a post calling for a US ban on all guns (as opposed to something like bill_vincent's wish for all guns to disappear), it remains only a memory, and memories are notoriously unreliable. Once someone posts a specific quote, it will enter the domain of settled fact, and I will accept it as such promptly. This is not complicated.
I found it interesting on Morning Joe, Joe, A Republican and gun owner said that Wayne LaPierre is the worst enemy of the NRA. With his ad targeting the Obama girls he has gone so far over the line, it's almost criminal. He said in the past the NRA was a reasonable organization but rightwing zealots have taken the leadership and the organization is sinking. The whole panel was aghast at the Obama girls ad with some members of the panel saying...this is a joke, right?
mrskjun wote,
LOL Factotem..you are a caution, quickly becoming a SOB.
Yet you continue to read my posts.
I will say, it is puzzling that you would declare your intention, in advance, to evade future on-topic factual inquiries. It is of little import to me, as such failures to back up statements say as much -- maybe more -- than the responses would.
hamiltongardner -
Thank you very much for providing the citation; that is precisely what I was asking for. Now the discussion on that point can finally proceed productively, as we know to whom further inquiries should be addressed, rather than issuing a vague rejection of a position few have expressed.
In that post, jerzeegirl wrote,
This is just too much. It's time to ban guns. Now.
Jerzeegirl, do you feel it is practical to ban all guns (excepting police/military) in the US? fouquieria also implied, though did not explicitly say, he would like a total ban on guns, so perhaps he will also weigh in.
This post was edited by Factotem on Thu, Jan 17, 13 at 19:00
Yoga eh? I work in a creamery, get more exercise than I would in a gym, but I do need to get back on the weight bench.
The new owner took over this week and the first thing he said to me is "I am giving you a raise" ... yipee!!
Might even be able to buy me some "silver sneakers" :)
Thank you very much for providing the citation; that is precisely what I was asking for. Now the discussion on that point can finally proceed productively,
Ah, so it wasn't just for a "gotcha" moment on Demi. We believe you.
Carry on.
I work in a creamery, get more exercise than I would in a gym, but I do need to get back on the weight bench.
I injured my ankles last winter (tibial tendonitis) then I tried getting back to running too soon, injured them again.
This time I have been slow going, I seem to be healed, back walking every night again. Taking it slow. This spring, hubby and I will start running again, slowly this time. Doctor figures I'm OK to go.
"I quit smoking in August and I've gained 35 lbs since"
It's the whole "oral satisfaction" thing, or so I was told. Battle cigarettes off and on during the years, everytime I quit it is only a matter of time before something triggers (in my mind) the need to go back. I am weak :)
I put on 10 pounds myself, and it has to come off, such a struggle for a lazy woman ... the only exercise I will even consider is walking and that is because I enjoy it and do not consider it exercise.
Good luck!
Some one here desiring a total gun ban is no more than blather. Its when those in govt state they would ban all guns it becomes a problem. Its a problem when they SAY they only want to ban certain weapons; because they continue to want to ban different classes,styles, colors. Then of course they want bans on certain types of bullets. If they were serious, they would educate themselves on the matter, that of course doesnt happen. If they dont like the look of something, its bad.
Where did the NRA name or show photos of the Obama girls, Ive been unable to find that? It reads to me that they only stated the average kids deserve protection as do the presidents daughters. seems fine to me! How do you argue that?
hah? 'even my friends word" is not good enough?? I dont know what you are on about Kjun. all factotem did was ask for EVIDENCE.
anyone who makes a statemtn and considers it to be fact then says they do not care enough to find the evidence should be prepared to be further questioned.
This forum may be about "cliques" to you , but not to me.
My apologies for starting a needless bruhaha on this thread. I'm the one who told Jessica that , as far as I knew, there were no serious proposals on this forum (or in the big world either) to ban all guns. Since I do not read all threads on this forum, I was not aware there was an earlier thread on banning guns. I have read a number of other gun threads and no one on them was seriously proposing to ban all guns, though a couple people (myself included) did express the "wish" that all guns would disappear--but I hardly call that a serious proposal to ban guns.
Anyway, I apologize, Jessica. I was wrong--there was a thread I never read in which a couple people talked about banning guns--though I would hardly call them serious proposals. My claim that no one was seriously proposing a gun ban only applies to the threads I actually read.
To the rest of the posters here, I don't think an emotional outburst about banning guns constitutes a serious proposal that America ought to outlaw all guns. However, if some of you are so bent on being "picky," yes, a couple posters used the words "ban" and "guns" in the same sentence--but I wouldn't get all snarled up in that if I were you. Those were'nt serious proposals nor have those posters repeated or pushed those ideas. They were just letting off some steam.
But I' m sorry I said no one used the words "ban" and "guns" in the same sentence.
There, does everybody feel better now?
Some one here desiring a total gun ban is no more than blather
One thing has become apparent to me.
There will never be a gun ban, not even anything remotely resembling responsible gun control.
And the reason is not the NRA, evil Republican, or those crazy gun nuts.
The reason is because gun control advocates keep taking another step back, and another step back, and another. quick to alleviate the fears of the NRA... "Don't worry, we don't want to take your guns", "Is it alright if we restrict some of your ammo?"
Over 80% of firearms murders are committed with handguns, what's the percentage for suicides? Doncha think maybe it's the handguns that might deserve some attention here?
Keep your handguns. Keep your rifles. Keep your "protection" weapons. Keep the assault rifles. But we are putting our foots down and limiting magazine capacity. There, that'll show ya.
And as Chase said earlier... I doubt even THAT legislation will pass.
Politics is the art of the possible. Since it is highly unlikely that most of the restrictions you mention, HG, could ever make it through Congress, that is probably why those of us who would like serious gun control are not proposing those measures.
I actually wish President Obama had put a little more teeth into his proposals--but as you admit, HG, it is still unlikely that the Republicans in the House will even let the president's proposal come up for a vote--so it doesn't really matter what else should have been included.
I just hope that all of you who are in favor of gun control realize that the President's proposal probably will get stalled in the House and never find its way out of there. The Republicans have already decided to fight the PResident's proposals on the grounds that they are part of an unconstitutional power grab on the part of Hitler/Obama.
Politics is the art of the possible.
Politics is the art of compromise.
And when you begin your negotiations from such a dismally low starting point, the end point of compromise is only good for a laugh. The NRA already knows this one is going to be a pushover.
It will probably fail to pass the House because the Republican-dominated House will refuse to compromise--as usual.
Maybe if your president knew that he had the strength of the American people to back him up on a gun ban with real teeth, handguns, assault weapons, novelty weapons, mandatory training courses, mandatory liability insurance... something substantive, and the Republicans in the House could feel that swell of pressure too, then maybe he COULD get this accomplished.
Instead, they see what everyone else sees... in conversations, in the media, even on a board like this--one of the more liberal areas on the net-- there's no backbone or strength or will of the people there. Just a bunch of reassurances to the people who want to hang on to their guns.
Who wants to stand up and state a strong, firm and clear position on what gun laws they want to see in place? What do you want banned, guys? Anyone want to see a complete ban on guns? Only hunting rifles allowed? Do you think handguns should be banned? Or are you just sticking with a wishy-washy "limit on magazine capacity"?
And, Harry reid said he will not bring it up in the democrat controlled senate. Hell, even that 2 bit Al franken wont saty he would vote on a gun ban. At least, if ya are against guns, dont be yellow, say ya are.
I am thankful for Wayne Lapierre, as are nearly all gun owners.
Kate, I heard an assertion this afternoon that grabbed my attention. A representative from the Brady Campaign made the statement that candidates backed by the NRA have fared dismally at the polls in recent elections. He claimed that its failure rate was something along the lines of 95%. True, a proponent of gun control made the statement, but if based on facts - which I have no reason not to think it is -- this is an interesting development.
"Ah, so it wasn't just for a "gotcha" moment on Demi. We believe you.
Carry on."
LOL, HG! Someone is so proud, I guess I should be flattered that someone expends so much time on me because of my posts, but instead I am creeped out.
When a poster has already admitted to attempting to look up personal financial information on another poster and posts a lie as a challenging fact, with an obvious agenda against strangers, it is a serious danger signal.
Offnote to other conversation:
I just returned from my first Zumba class.
As expected, it was not enjoyable and now my knee which took three years to heal is bothering me, although I modified. I will say that sustained higher heart rate for an hour is more than I will likely do on my own so I'll give it the ten sessions.
Yoga and pilates have helped me in the past, and I've trained with weights for years and years. I would recommend yoga and/or pilates for anyone.
demifloyd wrote,
When a poster has already admitted to attempting to look up personal financial information on another poster and posts a lie as a challenging fact, with an obvious agenda against strangers, it is a serious danger signal.
Just to be clear, you posted personal financial information; I attempted to verify it.
I did not post a lie; your accusation is untrue. And, so much for your claim of only hours ago:
we have somewhat of a tolerance for one another and do not make it a practice to intentionally misrepresent what someone says or accuse them of lying
This is a particularly short-cycle example of hypocrisy.
Kate, I heard an assertion this afternoon that grabbed my attention. A representative from the Brady Campaign made the statement that candidates backed by the NRA have fared dismally at the polls in recent elections. He claimed that its failure rate was something along the lines of 95%. True, a proponent of gun control made the statement, but if based on facts - which I have no reason not to think it is -- this is an interesting development.
I'd have to see proof of that one.
I am thankful for Wayne Lapierre, as are nearly all gun owners.
I'm not. He's been more divisive than anything else, because of his extremist views. He personally is the main reason I haven't renewed my membership until recently, and even now, I renewed IN SPITE of him
Politics is the art of compromise.
NOW compromise is okay-- when you know you're coming from a position of weakness, and you want conservatives to compromise. A couple of weeks ago, when the fiscal cliff was looming, the liberal hue and cry was NO COMPROMISE, which Obama made very clear was his position, and all the sheep supported. NOW you want to compromise.
No need to apologize Kate. I really started that so I apologize. The great thing about being human is we make mistakes.
So I was listening to a speech by an assemblyman I used to work for. His name is Steve McLaughlin and he represents one of the counties I used to reside in here in lovely NY. He is a Republican. He made a point that I thought was really valid. Now of course he is not for the new Safe Act (neither am I) but his argument was that if this state were serious about saving lives then they would actually look at the guns that have been used in most murders. In NY there were 774 people murdered using a gun. Five of them used long rifles and the rest were handguns. So they are banning "assault rifles", I'm still not 100 percent sure on the definition, when many more murders have happened with handguns. Also NY rushed into this so fast that the last two days there has been so much confusion for gun dealers. They have found a laundry list of issues. This bill was dropped on the laps of the assembly around 11 pm and they only had an hour to look it over before they voted.
Unfortunately this state doesn't address other issues so quickly.
From Novembre 9, 2012: The Myth of the NRA's Influence Over Election Outcomes ...American Prospect's Paul Waldman has made the case that the NRA's dominance in elections is a myth. Specifically, his research has found that an NRA independent expenditure (IE) campaign does not improve a candidate's chance of winning.
He found the same with endorsements: "...[I]n the last four federal elections, in which the NRA made a total of 1038 endorsements in House races, the group could claim credit for a grand total of 4 wins."
Jeremy Mayer, Associate Professor in the School of Public Policy at George Mason University, wrote an op-ed for the Christian Science Monitor documenting that the NRA failed to protect pro-gun rights House Democrats in the 2010 elections. In that cycle, NRA-endorsed candidates comprised half of all defeated Democrats.
The Brady Campaign's Guns & The 2008 Elections: Common Sense Gun Laws Won, The NRA Lost, & What it Means, documented the NRA's ineffective spending in that cycle: The NRA spent 31 times more money against Obama than it spent in its negative efforts in 2000 against Al Gore, yet Obama won handily.
The NRA spent more than 90 percent of its independent expenditures in Senate races on losing candidates (for elections called as of election morning 2008).
This election cycle presents another opportunity to evaluate the reality vs. the myth of the NRA's influence. In independent expenditures through November 4, the NRA spent $11.8 million to defeat President Obama and $3.4 million across six key Senate races to defeat Senator Sherrod Brown in Ohio, Senator Bill Nelson in Florida, Tim Kaine in Virginia, Senator Claire McCaskill in Missouri, Tammy Baldwin in Wisconsin, and Chris Murphy in Connecticut. In fact, the NRA, through November 4, spent 88% of its federal independent expenditures in these 7 races.
The result? The NRA's candidates lost in the presidential race and 6 key Senate races.
If the NRA's money does not influence election outcomes, then the question becomes why do candidates fear them and continue to evade their responsibility to protect the American people from the preventable tragedy of gun violence? Numerous polls show that the overwhelming majority of Americans, including gun owners, understand that preventing gun violence does not conflict with a Second Amendment right to own guns. How long will we allow this myth to hold our nation hostage to shooting massacres and the murder of 32 people each day with guns?
From one of the links in the Brady Campaign's press release: The Myth Of NRA Dominance Part I: The NRA's Ineffective Spending To determine just how powerful the NRA really is on election day, in recent months I assembled a database covering the last four federal elections: 2004, 2006, 2008, and 2010. These years cover two presidential and non-presidential years, as well as two significant Democratic victories and two significant Republican victories. I gathered data on the outcome of every House and Senate election, including the margins of victory, the money spent by each candidate, the partisan character of each district, and whether the NRA made an endorsement in the race and how much money they spent.
The conclusion to be drawn from these data will be surprising to many: The NRA has virtually no impact on congressional elections. The NRA endorsement, so coveted by so many politicians, is almost meaningless. Nor does the money the organization spends have any demonstrable impact on the outcome of races. In short, when it comes to elections, the NRA is a paper tiger.
Edited to remove symbol
This post was edited by nancy_in_venice_ca on Fri, Jan 18, 13 at 3:03
Wow, you people have been active at midnight and the wee hours of the morning! Myself, I was sleeping. You should have told me there was an all-night party going on here!
Nancy, thank you for that information about the ineffective role of the NRA in elections. I've heard such claims elsewhere in the past, but right now couldn't tell you where they were, so you saved me the time needed to look up the info.
The main control the NRA has is psychological--all the strutting and posturing and loud voices proclaiming what danger they will wreck upon the land if they don't get their way--the psychological blackmail of a bully! Classic case, in fact.
And the public has tended to fall for it in the past--and that includes our political officials who honestly believed the NRA approval/disapproval was a determining factor in whether they won or lost elective office when, chances are, the NRA had nothing to do with their win/loss.
I remember reading a study some weeks ago (sorry, can't remember where) that a number of politicians who thought they lost due to NRA disapproval would have lost anyway, even if the NRA had not been involved. Turns out that their districts didn't much vote on gun issues. Their districts were against the politicians for other reasons. So attributing the loss to NRA opposition was just plain WRONG!
The question for now is: Can we get it across to our politicians that moral courage can prevail over NRA diaspproval?
And yes, mrsk, that includes some Democrats. I feel sorry for poor Harry Reid caught between his past pro-gun record, his desire to shield his Democrats from what they believe would be the wrath of the NRA, and his commitment, as Senate leader, to promoting the policies of his president whom Reid strongly supports. That is a tough spot to be!
However, if a group of moderate Republicans could be freed from the grip of their just-say-no party, and that group combined with the majority of the Democrats who would support the President, there would be a winning coalition and the President's proposals could be turned into law.
If, if, if. There's the rub!
Bill, you are missing Nancy's point. Congress and the Senate MISTAKENLY believe their political futures are controlled by the power of the NRA--whereas a number of studies have shown that, in fact, the NRA doesn't have much influence on election outcomes. Those who were going to win anyway, won. Those who were going to lose anyway, lost. It wasnt' the NRA that caused them to win/lose.
But as long as politicians mistakenly believe the NRA has the power to make them win or lose an election, those politicians are terrified to say NO to the NRA.
That is what I was calling "psychological blackmail" above.
In other words, the NRA has only the power that scared politicians (more interested in keeping their jobs than in enacting legislation for the welfare of the country) give to the NRA. With moral courage--standing up for what they believe is right, whether it agrees with the NRA or not--they would expose how little actual power the NRA has over politician's futures.
Please understand that we are not talking about subjective impressions we personally hold but about scientific studies with verifiable evidence to back them up. You tend to act as though something is not true if you personally don't like or believe it. That is not considered a creditable source and verifiable evidence. Sorry to be so blunt, but that is the truth.
Congress and the Senate MISTAKENLY believe their political futures are controlled by the power of the NRA--whereas a number of studies have shown that, in fact, the NRA doesn't have much influence on election outcomes. Those who were going to win anyway, won. Those who were going to lose anyway, lost. It wasnt' the NRA that caused them to win/lose.
Kate-- if that's the case, it should tell you something about the numbers of people Obama says have been ASKING for gun control-- they may be just a little (WHOLE LOT) skewed. If the NRA has no bearing on those elected, and yet, there are STILL a majority of Congress Critters and Senators who align themselves with gun rights, that tells me something I already knew-- all this about so many in favor of gun control is unfounded propoganda.
yet, there are still enough legislators who align themselves with pro gun rights.
Perception comes slowly. NRA may have been a powerful organization in the past. There was no organized movement to fight back. Bloomberg, Giffords, Mayors Against Illegal Guns. It is a money game and not how many members. There are some heavy donors coming up in these grassroot organization for gun safety.
You know what they say. Money talks.
Bloomberg, Giffords, Mayors Against Illegal Guns.
Bloomberg's PAC backed Maine's new senator, Angus King. Bloomberg Super PAC Gun-Control Push Off to Strong Start While Bloomberg's Mayors Against Illegal Guns initiative focuses on state and federal gun laws, his new Independence USA super PAC is all about electing or defeating those who make the laws. He injected less than $9 million in super PAC money into the political bloodstream, a pittance in the post-Citizens United world. But his record -- three wins, three losses, and a bonus win for an independent Senate candidate he supported through another super PAC -- is impressive.
The context here must be Karl Rove's Crossroads empire, created in 2010, which spent $300 million this year to little effect. Contrast that with Bloomberg. He started spending barely a month before the election and he didn't sink money into the presidential race. Instead he homed in on down-ballot candidates who agreed with him about the need for "sensible" gun control.
Mayors Against Illegal Guns offers examples of what that means. The mayors want to fix holes in the national system of background checks for gun buyers, such as requiring the checks at gun shows. They also want to ban gun sales to people on the terrorist watch list, ban sales of high capacity ammunition magazines, and repeal a law that makes it harder for authorities to track guns and criminals.
Bloomberg and his PAC sought out like-minded candidates and pursued their goals in the most practical way possible. "Going in late certainly didn't hurt us," New York deputy mayor Howard Wolfson said. "We were able to identify races that had not otherwise attracted a lot of attention from other outside groups, and that proved to be helpful."
Assault rifles are auomatic machine guns which will fire until empty with 1 single held pull of the trigger. They have been banned to the general public for years. If you pay the tax of several hundred dollars per, you may own them(very expensive)Assault weapons is a term coined by anti gun people to define a rifle which may be black, may have a different shape than more old fashioned traditional weapons and are semi auto matic, requiring 1 trigger pull to exit 1 round.Their operation is the same as shotguns and other traditional hunting weapons. looks is the only difference.
Handguns may be either revolvers or pistols. pistols are semi automatic which feed ammo via a magazine. revolvers ammo is contained in a cylinder and requires 1 pull of the trigger per round fire. Either may be single action or double action.
My AR15 platform is a bench rifle. looks exactly as an "assault" weapon to most gun banners. Of course it weighs 12 pounds, has about $2,000 worth of gunsmithing and accessories and would make a very terrible gun for assaulting with.
The NRA is of course 5 million individual American citizens who come from all walks of life and all income levels. Their common thread is their enjoyment of collectin arms, shooting sports of a great variety and of course the belief in the 2nd amendment. Its unfortunate we have to spend so much money, hich could be better utilized, due to the never ending wish of certain people to do away with an American tradition, and right.
By overwhelming majorities, the NRA membership AGREES with most of the gun control ideas put forth by President Obama.
In other words, by overwhelming majorities, the NRA membership DISAGREES with you and the NRA leadership.
You and the NRA leadership really need to get in step with the NRA membership--which AGREES with the President and the American public on the President's gun proposals.
Where do ya come up with this stuff? You dont think Im in touch with a whole lot of NRA members? Yes, there are those of us who would like to see some compromise. BUT, we know pretty much where that leads.
What I hear is:
yes, a ban on over 25 round mags might be worth discussing.
yes, all guns at gun shows should be insta checked.
yes, a crack down on straw buyers is 100% needed.
yes, a stiffer penalty for those commitimng crimes with guns should be mandatory.
yes, better sharing of information is needed.
private ocassional sales of guns is the business of those who make the deal, only. some have stated they could go for ALL guns being transferred thru a dealer. BUT, no one wants to have to pay the 30 bucks for the transfer, neither do I.
no gun bans, period.
These things are what seems to be the most discussed.
This New York thing has really caused an across the border buy of ammunition, and the law hasnt even taken effect yet the way I hear it? This just forces those along the border to rush out and get what ya can while ya can. And reloading supplies are drying up fast, again. Its all so unnecessary.
There was a segment on TV yesterday about how the police were having to change their target practice ammo quantities because of the sudden shortage of ammunition.
Repeat of 2008-2009. When just about every caliber disappeared, and the price doubled.
And gee, I wonder if it will double again?
And nobody, ever, think that the gun and ammo companies, hearty financial supporters of the NRA, of being in cahoots with them, spreading fear about the gub'mint confiscating everything - and raking in the cash hand over fist.
ff--I have pointed out to you several times before --or do you just ignore anything anyone else besides yourself says--that there are a number of polls and studies out there on the attitudes of NRA members. These are not polls conducted by the NRA and twisted to fit the leader's positions. These polls--well-known by most news people who frequently cite them (haven't you been listening?)-- were conducted with no agenda in mind but just a desire to find out what are the views of NRA members. To the surprise of just about everybody, it turned out that the NRA members are leagues away from their leadership. The membership --in the 60-70% range--support quite a few of the ideas President Obama is advocating.
In other words, you may not realize it, but your attitudes are not typical of the membership, but they are typical of the NRA leadership--which does NOT reflect very well the attitudes of the other members.
Argue all you want--that won't change those FACTS. It will just make sure you are completely out of step with the membership at large.
How many more times do I need to post this info for you? You sound so astounded every time I post it--like you never heard of such a thing before--even though I gave you that info. just the week before--and national news sources have been citing that info. for the past month. Where have you been hiding, FF?
Here are some facts regarding what the laws were in NY.
Assault rifles have been banned since the federal government banned them in 1994. The only difference is NY is a bunch of overachievers and made the ban permanent while the federal ban expired in 2004.
Before magazines could hold 10 rounds, the new law is 7. Gun dealers whether at shows or stores legally have to do a background check. It has been like that for many years.
They will start doing background checks for anybody buying ammunition. Whomever is selling the ammunition may charge up to a $10 fee for that check. So the bullets I buy would cost 35 instead of 25 if the dealer decides to charge that fee.
Now all gun registration must be renewed every year. $15 per gun.
These are the links for the characteristics of the new assault rifles according to NY.
Now get this. We focused so much at pushing this bill through that federal laws were not taken into consideration. So as part of the healthcare reform, we are violating federal law by professionals in the metal health fields to be disclosing any information on mental health clients.
This next one is even better. If you surf around Cuomo's new website you will find that if anybody wants to privately sell their assault rifle or 10 round magazine, they have to sell out of state. According to the ATF, what Governor Cuomo proposed is a huge no no.
Yes Kate, I read yer stuff, but you are just wrong , thats all I am aying. Whose polls are those? I am tellin ya, I havent seen any evidence of what you say in all the people Ive talked to in awhile, and its a lot more than you for sure.
We are getting the reloaders cranked up again. I figure we could load for the next ten years with the components on hand!
And its not the ammo companyies as much as it is supply and demand. There is small profit in ammo. per box, when you can bump the prices up due to demand and low supply, its a chance to make a few xtra bucks. I usually buy by the case and save a bunch then divvy up amongst others.
I havent seen any evidence of what you say in all the people Ive talked to in awhile, and its a lot more than you for sure.
As most people know, anecdotal "evidence" consisting of "people you've talked to" is not considered very reliable.
I am not relying on unreliable anecdotal "evidence," but you go ahead and place your faith in unreliable anecdotal evidence if it makes you feel better.
But I see that your interest is financial--making a few xtra bucks off guns. Check at the top of the NRA--it is run by companies making lots and lots and lots of extra bucks off guns. No wonder they are so out of step with the average NRA member who is interested in hunting, sports, and in some cases, self-protection--not in exploiting the public for a few extra dollars.
JessicaR wrote,
Now get this. We focused so much at pushing this bill through that federal laws were not taken into consideration. So as part of the healthcare reform, we are violating federal law by professionals in the metal [sic] health fields to be disclosing any information on mental health clients.
Are you claiming that as part of New York's new gun regulations, mental health professionals must disclose information on their clients in violation of the ACA?
This next one is even better. If you surf around Cuomo's new website you will find that if anybody wants to privately sell their assault rifle or 10 round magazine, they have to sell out of state. According to the ATF, what Governor Cuomo proposed is a huge no no.
Please provide a link to this statement by the ATF.
(Edited to clarify the first question)
This post was edited by Factotem on Sat, Jan 19, 13 at 23:57
Well Kate, if he hasn't seen any evidence himself, then obviously your figures are wrong. Show figures he can believe, then he will believe them.
Its like the conversations in here about how Romney was going to win......the polls which reflected what some wanted to read were the only ones worthy of being believed, or accurate. Romney showed to be astonishingly ahead in those polls they trusted, so he was.
David, EXACTLY.
But it seems so much more logical if it was a vast Obama driven left wing conspiracy, so it was a vast, Obama driven left wing conspiracy.
And besides, those ammo and gun corporations would never EVER try to screw over their customer base like that.
mylab, sarcastically speaking!
Good points. If you want to see facts and figures from trustworthy polls--showing how much the NRA membership (but not its leaders) agree with the general American public--check out my separate new thread on "Gun Control Polls."
Pretty graphs and pics, also. You'll love it. : )
mrskjun wrote,
I wonder about the poor cops in NY. They can only carry guns with seven rounds, not exempted from the law. But criminals can have as many rounds as they want. Strange laws
False. There is an existing exemption for police officers.
Do you just make this stuff up, or do you mindlessly repeat what you've read somewhere without making any effort to check it? I have to say, I would find it extremely embarrassing to be publicy wrong with such frequency.
Mrskjun, I hope you will directly respond after you check your facts, or that you will simply retract your claim if you can't make the effort to perform even a cursory verification of what you have posted.
Factotem, the new NY law absolutely expands reporting requirements and has raised serious concerns among mental health professionals.
Here is a link that might be useful: Journal News article about the MH aspect of the new law.


text:
Anyone know where I can get the spelt and sausage receipe from the Biergarten Restaurant at the German Pavillion in EPCOT?
Can you tell me exactly, what it was and how it looked. Maybe I can redo it for you. Greets from Munich/Germany
Spelt Pasta and Sausage Ragu by Chef Luciano Pellegrini - Revver - Truveo Video Search
Maybe this is what you are looking for.
Your welcome!

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Violent clashes between Iraqi army forces and al-Qaeda gunmen on Friday night (June 21st) killed two soldiers and six gunmen in Anbar province, an Iraqi military spokesman said.
An armed group attacked a unit from the Iraqi army's 1st Division in al-Khor, clashing with soldiers for about half an hour before combat support helicopters arrived, Lt. Col. Nejim al-Dulaimi, Iraqi army spokesperson in Anbar, told Al-Shorfa.
The helicopters shelled gunmen positions, killing six of them and destroying five of their vehicles, he said. Meanwhile, security forces seized arms and shoulder-mounted rockets in the gunmen's possession.
Around 10 other gunmen escaped and security forces are now searching for them, al-Dulaimi said.
Three other soldiers were wounded in the clashes, he said.


text:
OP Senior Member
Los Angeles
Thanks Meter: 14
272 posts
Join Date:Joined: Aug 2012
I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do from here.
I want to use it on T-Mobile so I would like to know if you guys have a currently working free (or at least the cheapest) and quickest way to obtain the sim Unlock code?
I want to install Beanstalk but I'm not sure if I need to flash the Jellybean update first using LGNPST or if I should also flash TeenyBin (since the OTA isn't working)
I want LTE to work but it's not a killer feature since HSPA+ is pretty good anyway, but the best Radio for Beanstalk/T-Mobile would be great to know.
A little friendly advice would be appreciated. Just don't want to brick my phone on the first day.