Has everyone already forgotten Question Mark?

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

The problem wasn't the gun.

The problem was the ACLU, the Left, the loonies and the absolute total hysterical fear of violating someone's civil rights...

It's why the insane homeless are allowed to wander the streets of our cities.

It's why our stalker/shooter wasn't in therapy and why he was allowed to get so close to his target; everyone was afraid of him but political correctness had them fawkin' paralyzed!

And then the same damned fools turn around and want to play "I told you so" over GUN control!

How about a little NUT CONTROL!!!

 

[unregistered]

 

[kbate]

sorry, the constitution contains unreasonable requirements for Due Process and No taking of Life/Limb without such.

We cannot confine a nut until said nut has proven a dangerous nut.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Call me Heretic!





Whatever happened to that guy? Is he in LC's deep freeze?

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

sorry, the constitution contains unreasonable requirements for Due Process and No taking of Life/Limb without such.

We cannot confine a nut until said nut has proven a dangerous nut.

Good news for ya'll!

 

[Recidiva]

You've suggested armed uprising yourself. Why are you still free to roam? How does your average citizen, or even a doctor, know the difference between someone who rants about potential violence and someone who move to that next step?

The number of people who talk a violent game but do not commit violence is huge. You can't equate potential violence with violence legally.

I do think someone should have given a damn about this young man and gotten him some treatment, but fact is, schizophrenics being treated are as miserable as untreated schizophrenics. Most will fake being well and choose to go off their meds. We don't have adequate detection or treatment for this disease, and the general population is also burdened by personal fear and the idea that professionals should handle it.

So don't behave as if we have this issue whipped and everyone's just dumb. We don't have it whipped and it's one of those horrifying things that we can't do much about at this point in history without rounding up and incarcerating and drugging otherwise harmless people en mass, and those people will only be treated until their insurance runs out anyway.

Are you proposing an agency that is responsible for this? A group? A government oversight committee? Or are you just happy with ranting at everyone as long as those agencies don't exist and you can say anything you want, no matter how crazy?

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

You've suggested armed uprising yourself. Why are you still free to roam? How does your average citizen, or even a doctor, know the difference between someone who rants about potential violence and someone who move to that next step?

The number of people who talk a violent game but do not commit violence. You can't equate potential violence with violence legally.

I do think someone should have given a damn about this young man and gotten him some treatment, but fact is, schizophrenics being treated are as miserable as untreated schizophrenics. Most will fake being well and choose to go off their meds. We don't have adequate detection or treatment for this disease, and the general population is also burdened by personal fear and the idea that professionals should handle it.

So don't behave as if we have this issue whipped and everyone's just dumb. We don't have it whipped and it's one of those horrifying things that we can't do much about at this point in history without rounding up and incarcerating and drugging otherwise harmless people en mass.

Prove it.

Keep U_D from using your alt...

 

[kbate]

Good news for ya'll!

You'll hear no complaint from me on this one. Things such as due process, statutes of limitations and search warrants are important parts of our national diet - just as with dietary fiber, they keep the shite flowing but also prevent some cancers.

 

[Recidiva]

Prove it.

Keep U_D from using your alt...

I don't have to prove it, I've seen it during the last election cycle. You were supporting politicians who were suggesting armed uprising and egging on the idea with dire fears about the horrific future.

You're prone to violent rhetoric (and caps).

I don't consider you a danger to self or others, but what the hell do I know?

You can't point fingers at someone who is verbally crazy and decide that just putting them all away will solve the problems. It won't. All that means is that everyone's incarcerated due to their last slip of temper or philosophy in social company.

 

[Ishmael]

All of which begs the question, "Why should we do anything extraordinary to try to prevent these occurrences?"

Ishmael

 

[Recidiva]

All of which begs the question, "Why should we do anything extraordinary to try to prevent these occurrences?"

Ishmael

Would you be okay with it happening to you when you go to the grocery store next?

 

[kbate]

Would you be okay with it happening to you when you go to the grocery store next?

No, but I am also not willing to pay for a metal detector (or body scanner) on every doorway of every building in America.

I do not think we can legislate craziness out of existence, and I do not believe we can ban enough of the tools of murder to create a teletubby world.

Plus, if we begin using the high-school system as a psychiatric profiling center - we'll have more ACLU problems than we've got graduates.

 

[Recidiva]

No, but I am also not willing to pay for a metal detector (or body scanner) on every doorway of every building in America.

I do not think we can legislate craziness out of existence, and I do not believe we can ban enough of the tools of murder to create a teletubby world.

Plus, if we begin using the high-school system as a psychiatric profiling center - we'll have more ACLU problems than we've got graduates.

I agree. I think there are reasonable choices we can make regarding our security and unreasonable choices. I understand that I am going to face a percentage of risk that I can't prevent, because to attempt to do so will only hinder social interaction and commerce to an unacceptable degree. That line is drawn in different places for different people.

I accept a level of social risk because to do otherwise is to be the equivalent of a terrified person unable to stop washing their hands for fear of germs. Germs exist. We sometimes get sick. We sometimes die from it. But I take reasonable hygeine precautions and I get on with my day, because otherwise it's an intolerable, obsessive ordeal.

But Ishmael's question really had to do with "Why" and that's the fundamental answer. "Because people don't like having to step over dead bodies to get to the Safeway." As such, we've organized socially to complete certain tasks. We organize into groups. Food, shelter, security are absolute basics. We will have people that grow food, we will have people that provide and maintain shelter, we will have people that provide and maintain security. That's why.

 

[Saint Peter]

Post on Lit,
go to jail.

That's the law.

 

[Ishmael]

Would you be okay with it happening to you when you go to the grocery store next?

Silly question Reci. Do you want to live your life in a hermetically sealed bubble under the constant scrutiny of 'officials?'

The fact of the matter is that there is nothing that can be done to protect the individual, or society, from the criminally insane that have managed to fly beneath the radar. Any attempt to do so will only end up punishing the innocent.

Ishmael

 

[Recidiva]

Silly question Reci. Do you want to live your life in a hermetically sealed bubble under the constant scrutiny of 'officials?'

The fact of the matter is that there is nothing that can be done to protect the individual, or society, from the criminally insane that have managed to fly beneath the radar. Any attempt to do so will only end up punishing the innocent.

Ishmael

No, it isn't silly. It's fundamental.

There are certainly security precautions that can be taken without them being taken to extremes.

Your question was without context, so I was trying to get you to provide some.

"Prevent" could mean stop it from happening once, which we are currently set up to do, or try to stop it from happening at all, which is silly and which is why my question was framed the same exact way. Context matters.

Otherwise we're saying the same thing.

 

[kbate]

But Ishmael's question really had to do with "Why" and that's the fundamental answer. "Because people don't like having to step over dead bodies to get to the Safeway." As such, we've organized socially to complete certain tasks. We organize into groups. Food, shelter, security are absolute basics. We will have people that grow food, we will have people that provide and maintain shelter, we will have people that provide and maintain security. That's why.

The problem is that you cannot guarantee freedom while providing for complete security. One completely precludes the other.

Any police force strong enough to prevent or stop all Jareds, must be empowered to search, apprehend, detain anyone - anytime for any reason.

It has been attempted a thousand times in the written history of humankind, and has never worked to prevent all violence.

 

[Recidiva]

The problem is that you cannot guarantee freedom while providing for complete security. One completely precludes the other.

Any police force strong enough to prevent or stop all Jareds, must be empowered to search, apprehend, detain anyone - anytime for any reason.

It has been attempted a thousand times in the written history of humankind, and has never worked to prevent all violence.

I think I just said that.

We do have a strong, and potentially abusive and demonstrably draconian police force with our current laws.

I may not agree with the police forces and the way they function. I think that BECAUSE they've been abusive, the ACLU has a niche. I don't necessarily agree with either of them, but they brought each other into being.

I don't think we can prevent all violence. But I don't think that dismantling either the police or the ACLU will solve any problems. They both need to refine each other's tactics for a bit. Legal and procedural evolution will take place.

They're the same as the virulent political parties. Evolution brought 'em here, evolution's gonna have to fight it out.

In the meantime, individuals will fear for their security and want a say. You can't tell an adult accustomed to the idea of perfect security as an ideal, that it doesn't exist. They'll want to make it exist. I think they haven't availed themselves with the lessons of history. But it's an understandable impulse, to want to be safe.

There's an end point to legislation though. As we've discovered with the unfunded Patriot Act and the security demands that put on individual cities and states. Overspending on security bleeds people dry fast and they want jobs instead.

Just like other lessons, each generation needs to re-learn how to budget according to their abilities and resources.

There's really no fear that anybody will accomplish 100% security ever. There isn't enough money or time in the world. We will pendulum back and forth between practicality and idealism and hopefully refine some of the procedure.

 

[Ishmael]

No, it isn't silly. It's fundamental.

There are certainly security precautions that can be taken without them being taken to extremes.

Your question was without context, so I was trying to get you to provide some.

"Prevent" could mean stop it from happening once, which we are currently set up to do, or try to stop it from happening at all, which is silly and which is why my question was framed the same exact way. Context matters.

Otherwise we're saying the same thing.

Reci, think that through. Logically if you can stop an event once, you can stop it at anytime. At least in theory you can. The question that has to be answered is, "at what cost to society?"

And quite frankly this incident is NOT being used to try to determine how to identify the criminally insane, it's being used in an attempt to muzzle the political opposition. Which will have exactly zero effect on the criminally insane.

Ishmael

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

All of which begs the question, "Why should we do anything extraordinary to try to prevent these occurrences?"

Ishmael

On June 5, 1968, a deranged 25-year-old Jordanian named Sirhan Sirhan slithered through a crowd toward Sen. Robert Kennedy as the Democratic presidential candidate basked in the glow of his California presidential primary triumph. Sirhan shot and killed Kennedy, wounding several others. The ensuing investigation showed that Sirhan was a raging anti-Semite who’d become fixated on Senator Kennedy because of the latter’s support for Israel.

Two people profoundly impressed by the assassination were the terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. In 1974, they dedicated their own communist manifesto, Prairie Fire, to Sirhan, hailing him — among a cast of violent radicals — as a courageous political prisoner. In the book itself, they and the rest of the Weathermen went on to identify themselves proudly as “communist women and communist men underground in the United States” who were determined to lead a violent leftist revolution — a “fight [to] seize power and build the new society.” Their rhetoric, their heedless dehumanization of those they maligned as ideological “enemies,” was coupled with acts of horrific violence, including a plot to mass-murder U.S. soldiers in Fort Dix, a plot that went awry when the nail bomb accidentally exploded during construction, killing some of the terrorists.

This history is one the modern Left, in which Ayers and Dohrn remain icons, would rather you’d forget today. Today, instead, is for politicizing the wanton savagery of another deranged radical, 22-year-old Jared Lee Loughner, who stunned the nation by slithering through a Tucson crowd and unleashing a 31-shot fusillade, gravely wounding his primary target, Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona. In the spree, Loughner also killed six people: nine-year-old Christina Green; three elderly Arizonans, Dorothy Morris, Dorwin Stoddard, and Phyllis Schneck; John M. Roll, Arizona’s chief federal district judge; and Gabriel Zimmerman, an aide to Representative Giffords. Two other legislative aides, Pamela Simon and Ron Barber, were wounded.

Already, we have learned a great deal about the assassin. He is a deeply disturbed pot-head. In order to give meaning to the addling emptiness of his life, he turned to the anti-Semitic rants of Adolph Hitler, Marx’s Communist Manifesto, the occult, and what appears to have been an obsession with Representative Giffords, a Jewish congresswoman and supporter of Israel. Some acquaintances and schoolmates who’d endured his tirades over the years predicted he’d come to an end just like this.

NRO

Yeah, everyone who disagrees with the Left was fulminating violence...



Bet Exclamation Mark was a friend of Palestine...

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

"We do have a strong, and potentially abusive and demonstrably draconian police force with our current laws. "

And it's getting worse in the name of doing good and National Health Care...

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Silly question Reci. Do you want to live your life in a hermetically sealed bubble under the constant scrutiny of 'officials?'

The fact of the matter is that there is nothing that can be done to protect the individual, or society, from the criminally insane that have managed to fly beneath the radar. Any attempt to do so will only end up punishing the innocent.

Ishmael

Well, as long as it results in CLEAN AIR!!!




__________________
Remember: once you organize people around something as commonly agreed upon as pollution, then an organized people is on the move.
Saul David Alinsky
Rules for Radicals


The government big enough to do something for you is big enough to do something to you. If you accept the former then you are saddled with the latter, for the two are inseperable; for is generally at the expense of to.
A_J, the Stupid

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Who's planted more bombs?



Glenn Beck or William Ayers?

__________________
"I am a radical, Leftist, small "c" Communist.... Maybe I am the last Communist willing to admit it.... The ethics of Communism still appeal to me."
William Ayers

 

[unregistered]

 

[Recidiva]

Reci, think that through. Logically if you can stop an event once, you can stop it at anytime. At least in theory you can. The question that has to be answered is, "at what cost to society?"

And quite frankly this incident is NOT being used to try to determine how to identify the criminally insane, it's being used in an attempt to muzzle the political opposition. Which will have exactly zero effect on the criminally insane.

Ishmael

You, wondering why we'd want to prevent this from happening, could be construed as "just let the guy go and let him rampage at will. Why should we stop him from killing people. Let him kill as many as he wants." You being you, I have no idea what you were asking until you clarified.

You're not reading where I agree with you completely.

I think the debate should be geared toward research into schizophrenia. I don't think we need to change security or procedure. I don't think it was preventable the first time. I think he should not be released and I was trying to clarify whether or not you thought he should be.

I don't think he's going to survive very long and I think our treatment of violent schizophrenia is about the same as out treatment of rabies. Painful and fatal.