monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

Walter Hinteler wrote:
So he went above the medical classification (DSM / ICD)?

I have no idea.

Well, but yet you wrote

oralloy wrote:

He just decreed that a wide swath of people was to be counted as mentally ill without justification.

1 Reply

@roger,

roger wrote:

Are you sure? Just guessing, now, but my guess that it's only automatic for those that are not allowed to cash their own checks. If I'm right, that's somewhat different than their simply choosing not to cash their own checks.

100% sure. Every disabled veteran who does not cash their own disability checks is on the list of people who are prohibited from owning guns.

The Democrats aren't about public safety here. They're after everyone's guns.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Well, but you still wrote

oralloy wrote:
He just decreed that a wide swath of people was to be counted as mentally ill without justification.

Yes.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote oralloy:

Quote:

Obama's executive order deliberately targeted people with no history of mental imbalance whatsoever.

Not quite. It targeted people who were receiving Social Security benefits but who were too incompetent to handle their own checks being sent to them. That's pretty impaired.

Quote oralloy:

Quote:

And in fact it was the intent of Obama and the Democrats to declare the entire country as mentally ill. They planed to keep declaring more and more people as mentally ill until they had taken guns away from everyone.

No proof of that. As of December 2015, only 3.5 Million people were disqualified from buying guns because of this, most of which didn't actually try to buy a gun. 3.5 Million is only about 1% of the country who are too mentally incompetent to manage their Social Security checks.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

oralloy wrote:
Obama was classifying millions of people with perfectly sound minds as mentally ill just so he could violate their rights.

Did he really change the DSM respectively ICD classifications?

No of course not, this is the scary story racists tell each other because they can’t believe that a man with a white mother and African father would be permitted to touch the hems of their garments unless he was picking them up for dry cleaning. And to fathom how he got into the White House scares them so much more, holy cow, Americans might choose another leader similar to Obama...one
with a law degree and license, who might actually help people of all colors. I can hear the teeth chattering already.

2 Replies

@glitterbag,

Oralloy is a prime example of what is wrong with America's gun laws. I don't think he's a fit and proper person to own a spoon let alone anything else.

This is what the FBI said about the Sandy Hook shooter, he sounds very much like Oralloy, seriously.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41749336

1 Reply

Not about Trump, but the quiet power of the Media. This is good news for all who despise bullies.

Quote:

The Walt Disney company has ended its ban of the Los Angeles Times newspaper after a backlash from US media.
Last week it emerged Disney had stopped inviting the newspaper to press screenings because they disagreed with an article it published in September.
High-profile organisations and individuals publicly criticised the company's decision.
The New York Times and Washington Post vowed to boycott Disney screenings in solidarity with the banned newspaper.
The LA Times went public about their ban in a "note to readers" on Friday, saying it could only review's Disney's Christmas movies after they had been released publicly because the company "declined to offer The Times advance screenings".
Disney responded with a statement explaining their decision. They alleged the LA-based newspaper had "showed a complete disregard for basic journalistic standards" in a two-part piece they wrote about the company's California park and its relationship with the town of Anaheim, where it is based.
But a backlash against Disney's decision built over the weekend and on Tuesday a band of critics associations voted to disqualify Disney movies from award consideration until the ban was "publicly rescinded".
The New York Times had also issued a statement saying: "A powerful company punishing a news organization for a story they do not like is meant to have a chilling effect.
"This is a dangerous precedent and not at all in the public interest."
But by Tuesday afternoon Disney had confirmed it had changed its mind and revoked the restrictions after "productive discussions with the newly installed leadership at The Los Angeles Times regarding our specific concerns".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41909986

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Think they might boycott the White House for a similar reason?

1 Reply

@roger,

No, but they won't pay any heed to Trump's bully boy tactics.

0 Replies

@Blickers,

Blickers wrote:

Not quite. It targeted people who were receiving Social Security benefits but who were too incompetent to handle their own checks being sent to them. That's pretty impaired.

That is incorrect. It targeted everyone who didn't have their own checks mailed to them. There was no assessment as to whether these people were incapable of having checks sent to them.

But even if someone is legitimately not capable of balancing their own checkbook, that is not a sign that they can't handle a gun safely.

Blickers wrote:

No proof of that.

Sure there is. They started off by violating the rights of a large swath of people. Then they tried expanding it to include even more people.

The Democrats certainly were not going to be satisfied with just those existing civil rights violations. They expanded once, and they would have done so again.

Blickers wrote:

As of December 2015, only 3.5 Million people were disqualified from buying guns because of this, most of which didn't actually try to buy a gun.

Those would be the disabled veterans who didn't manage their finances who were initially targeted. The expansion to all disabled people who don't manage their finances would have netted a lot more. And subsequent expansions more yet.

But even violating the rights of "just" 3.5 million people is an atrocity of the highest magnitude.

Blickers wrote:

3.5 Million is only about 1% of the country

It is not acceptable to violate the civil rights of 1% of the country, nevermind the subsequent expansions to engulf more and more people.

Blickers wrote:

who are too mentally incompetent to manage their Social Security checks.

Except not all of them were incapable of managing their finances. And those who are incapable of managing a checkbook may well still be capable of managing a firearm safely.

1 Reply

@glitterbag,

glitterbag wrote:

No of course not, this is the scary story racists tell each other because they can’t believe that a man with a white mother and African father would be permitted to touch the hems of their garments unless he was picking them up for dry cleaning. And to fathom how he got into the White House scares them so much more, holy cow, Americans might choose another leader similar to Obama...one with a law degree and license, who might actually help people of all colors. I can hear the teeth chattering already.

Anyone who disagrees with me is a mean old racist!

Harrumph!

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

Oralloy is a prime example of what is wrong with America's gun laws. I don't think he's a fit and proper person to own a spoon let alone anything else.

The US military says that you don't get any say over what I can or can't own.

izzythepush wrote:

This is what the FBI said about the Sandy Hook shooter, he sounds very much like Oralloy, seriously.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41749336

Stop lying. That sounds nothing like me.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

So what's the point? That if there are more guns, murder victims tend to be killed with guns instead of knives?

For some reason the difference between the deaths by stabbings and deaths by shootings seems to elude the gunbunnies. I know, "if you're dead, you're dead", but if weapons are a means to an end, committing homicide with a gun is a lot more convenient that using a blade.

If you want to perpetrate a massacre, you'd be pretty challenged to achieve a body count like the Las Vegas shooter achieved in ten minutes with a knife or sword.

Sniping at unwary victims from a distance would be impossible without a firearm. Sure you could use a bow but you actually need to achieve a high degree of skill to become a deadly archer shooting one arrow at a time and your effective range is not much more than thirty yards.

And it's hard to envision some homicidal miscreant locking himself up in a motel room with a large knife collection, stabbing people through the door, and daring the cops to enter the room.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

And in fact it was the intent of Obama and the Democrats to declare the entire country as mentally ill. They planed to keep declaring more and more people as mentally ill until they had taken guns away from everyone.

citation?

1 Reply

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

For some reason the difference between the deaths by stabbings and deaths by shootings seems to elude the gunbunnies.

The reason is because there is no real difference.

hightor wrote:

I know, "if you're dead, you're dead", but if weapons are a means to an end, committing homicide with a gun is a lot more convenient that using a blade.

Easier perhaps. But a knife is still easy enough that someone who is bent on murder can do it with a knife.

The extra easiness that a gun provides is superfluous. The threshold is so low that a would-be murderer can still do their killing with plenty of other weapons if a gun is not available.

hightor wrote:

If you want to perpetrate a massacre, you'd be pretty challenged to achieve a body count like the Las Vegas shooter achieved in ten minutes with a knife or sword.

True. But a large bomb would do the trick. Note Tim McVey.

Also, most murders are not part of a large massacre, but are instead solitary killings.

hightor wrote:

Sniping at unwary victims from a distance would be impossible without a firearm.

I don't know about that. Someone could come up with diabolical booby traps and activate them with a cell phone while watching over the internet from a camera on a drone.

hightor wrote:

And it's hard to envision some homicidal miscreant locking himself up in a motel room with a large knife collection, stabbing people through the door, and daring the cops to enter the room.

I'm not sure that cops would be overly eager to charge into a room where someone with dangerous knives was prepared to stab them. Would this guy have swords too or just knives?

1 Reply

@hightor,

Quote:

For some reason the difference between the deaths by stabbings and deaths by shootings seems to elude the gunbunnies.

It's a logical position. It's why modern Republicans have always demanded, as a matter of simple economics, that the US military budget should make allowance for knife expenditures (or baseball bats expenditures) rather than expensive firearms. As they so frequently say, "If a soldier wants to kill someone, he'll find a way".

1 Reply

@oralloy,

I'm speaking the truth. You seem very much like the Sandy Hook shooter, and the fact you denigrate the parents of his victims only confirms that impression.

If someone like you lived near me and had firearms I would be straight onto the police to have those items seized. And the police would seize them based solely on your A2K comments. You have contempt for human life, you are a racist who insults whole groups of people and you fantasise about using nuclear weapons against friendly powers.

You are completely unfit to hold any form of weapon.

Truth, like freedom is something else you have absolutely no concept of.

1 Reply

@blatham,

How many people would he have killed if he was restricted to knives and baseball bats?

No way near as many.

0 Replies

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

citation?

Here is an article that shows that Obama started off violating the rights of disabled veterans, and then once that was going along OK for him, tried to expand the program to violate the rights of a much greater swath of people.

http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/obama-goal-no-guns-for-some-on-social-security-disability/

That demonstrates intent to violate the rights of innocent people, and intent to expand the number of innocent people whose rights are being violated.

1 Reply

Off topic.

I'm not sure how many of you might have seen the new documentary on Joan Didion, titled "Joan Didion: The Center Will Not Hold". Frank Bruni has a wonderful column on it today. Extraordinary woman and writer.

0 Replies

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know