maddogdrivethru.net

Open all night
It is currently Sun Sep 15, 2019 6:49 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 17 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: ENDING GUN VIOLENCE REQUIRES COMMITMENT
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 12:41 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 9:26 am
Posts: 11746
Reputation points: 7233
I wonder how many cases Anne has won in her career because if she argues in court like she argues in her articles, then I feel sorry for her clients. Essentially she's saying in order to protect the Second Amendment we must get rid of the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments. What kind of logic is that?
Quote:
ENDING GUN VIOLENCE REQUIRES COMMITMENT, NOT ALL OF IT VOLUNTARY
By Ann Coulter | Ann Coulter – Wed, Jan 23, 2013


The good news is: Obama and the Senate Democrats have no intention of passing more idiotic gun legislation in response to the Newtown massacre. The bad news is that they also have no intention of passing any legislation about the mentally ill, which would actually do something to reduce these mass shootings.

Instead, the Democrats will jawbone about "assault weapons" and other meaningless gun laws for the sole purpose of scaring soccer moms into hating the National Rifle Association. Expect to hear a lot about Republicans preferring "the gun lobby" to "children." (Which is evidently not at all like preferring the teachers lobby to children.)

Democrats are hoping to pick up another dozen congressional seats in 2014, so they need terrified women.

Just don't expect a vote. Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid cannot afford a vote on any of these nonsense gun laws because he needs to protect the seats of Democrats who have to get re-elected in districts where voters know something about guns.

Even the stupidest politician has to know how utterly meaningless "assault weapon" bans are. (In fairness, New York's Rep. Carolyn McCarthy and Gov. Andrew Cuomo may not know.) But Democrats need to gin up the most easily fooled voters.

"Assault weapons" are defined as "whatever politicians say they are." The guns that are banned and the ones that aren't are functionally identical. They're all semi-automatics.

Semi-automatics shoot one bullet per trigger pull -- that's the definition. Any handgun manufactured since the Civil War is a "semi-automatic." The most basic self-defense revolver for women is a "semi-automatic."

An example of a gun that is not a semi-automatic is a musket. Also those guns where a "BANG!" flag pops out when the clown pulls the trigger.

An automatic firearm -- what militaries and drug cartels have -- continuously fires when the trigger is pulled. They have been subject to a near-total federal ban in this country since the 1930s, so they're irrelevant to the discussion.

The only differences in the semi-automatics the Democrats want to ban and the ones they don't are purely cosmetic details, such as bayonet mounts or pistol grips.

When is the last time anyone was killed with a bayonet in this country? Bayonets were rarely used even during the Civil War. Obama mocked the idea of bayonets during one of his debates with Romney. Now he's terrified of them!

Semi-automatics with bayonets are some of the guns Democrats call "assault weapons." It would be like defining 12-inch hunting knives with camouflage-colored handles -- but not those with black handles -- as "assault knives." Assault weapons are the semi-automatics that look scary to soccer moms.

An example of the intentional obfuscation about semi-automatics (or "guns") is the "Violence Policy Center" webpage, which states: "Semiautomatic assault weapons are civilian versions of automatic military assault rifles (like the AK-47 and the M-16) and automatic military assault pistols (like the UZI)."

This would be like saying: "Little girls' pink bedrooms are civilian versions of military prisons (like Guantanamo) and terrorist rendition prisons (like CIA Black Sites)."

Yes, exactly alike, except the "prison" part.

Since not all Democrats get to run for office in New York, congressional Democrats can't risk taking votes on such silly laws. Your guns will be safe, but your children won't, because we'll still have the mentally ill showing up at movie theaters, subway stations, shopping malls and schools.

If soccer moms want to worry about something, they should worry more about schizophrenics than guns.

In the late 1980s, New York City Mayor Ed Koch tried to institutionalize Joyce Brown, a mentally ill heroin addict living on the street who went by the name "Billie Boggs" (after local television host Bill Boggs). Brown was defecating on herself, removing all her clothes, burning money, running into traffic and shouting obscenities at passers-by. In other words, she was a prototype for Occupy Wall Street.

Brown's family desperately wanted to have Brown committed to Bellevue Hospital. A Columbia psychiatrist argued for her institutionalization. The neighbors supported her commitment.

But the New York Civil Liberties Union wanted Brown back on the street. Her NYCLU attorney, Robert Levy, boasted that "Billie Boggs" was as sane as "a member of the board of the Civil Liberties Union."

A New York judge, Robert Lippman, agreed –- but not the way I do. Instead of ordering the entire NYCLU board institutionalized, he ordered the release of this poor, mentally disturbed woman. She promptly spoke at Harvard. (Princeton already had Peter Singer.) Then she was back on the street, taking heroin and getting into fights with other homeless people.

Schizophrenics are generally incapable of knowing they need help. Without involuntary commitment, they are abandoned to the streets, getting beaten up, sexually abused, stolen from and set on fire. They also sometimes push people onto subway tracks, murder grandmothers, slaughter firemen and enter "gun-free zones" to commit mass murder.

But the Democrats won't do anything about it. Even if you do not hear voices that tell you to kill strangers, liberals say: "Either we are all mad or none of us is mad." Then they get mouthy about banning guns with bayonets. On which they will not vote. Montana's Sen. Max Baucus has to get re-elected.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: ENDING GUN VIOLENCE REQUIRES COMMITMENT
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 1:03 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:06 pm
Posts: 14914
Location: inside your worst nightmare
Reputation points: 18312
There is (sadly) probably a lot of basic truth in Coulter' allegations of partisanism and power-grubbing through fear.

But two wrongs do not make a right.

_________________
Anthro's NSFW Thread


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: ENDING GUN VIOLENCE REQUIRES COMMITMENT
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 5:40 am 
Offline
buck private
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 8:01 am
Posts: 16730
Reputation points: 13603
knuckles_95 wrote:
I wonder how many cases Anne has won in her career because if she argues in court like she argues in her articles, then I feel sorry for her clients. Essentially she's saying in order to protect the Second Amendment we must get rid of the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments. What kind of logic is that?{Snip}
How about Typhoid Mary', would you have been one of those who wanted her released:
Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoid_Mary
Mary Mallon (September 23, 1869 – November 11, 1938), better known as Typhoid Mary, was the first person in the United States identified as an asymptomatic carrier of the pathogen associated with typhoid fever. She was presumed to have infected some 51 people, three of whom died, over the course of her career as a cook.[1] She was forcibly isolated twice by public health authorities and died after a total of nearly three decades in isolation.
She was isolated, but:
Quote:
The New York City health inspector determined her to be a carrier. Under sections 1169 and 1170 of the Greater New York Charter, Mallon was held in isolation for three years at a clinic located on North Brother Island.[3]

Eventually, the New York State Commissioner of Health, Eugene H. Porter, M.D., decided that disease carriers would no longer be held in isolation. Mallon could be freed if she agreed to abandon working as a cook and to take reasonable steps to prevent transmitting typhoid to others. On February 19, 1910, Mallon agreed that she "[was] prepared to change her occupation (that of a cook), and would give assurance by affidavit that she would upon her release take such hygienic precautions as would protect those with whom she came in contact, from infection". She was released from quarantine and returned to the mainland.[8]
Release and name-change

Upon release, Mallon was given a job as a laundress, which paid lower wages. Mallon changed her name to Mary Brown, and returned to her previous occupation as a cook. For the next five years, she went through a series of kitchens, spreading illness and death, keeping one step ahead of Dr. Soper.[3]

In 1915, a serious epidemic of typhoid erupted among the staff of New York's Sloane Hospital for Women, with twenty five cases and two deaths. City health authorities investigated, learning that a portly Irish-American woman had suddenly disappeared from the kitchen help. The police tracked her to an estate on Long Island.[3][8]

Second quarantine (1915-1938)

Public-health authorities again found and arrested Mallon, returning her to quarantine on North Brother Island on March 27, 1915.[8] Mallon was confined there for the remainder of her life. She became something of a minor celebrity, and was interviewed by journalists, who were forbidden to accept even a glass of water from her.[3] Later, she was allowed to work as a technician in the island's laboratory.
Expect they trampled on her rights according to " ... the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments."

Which would you want; her cooking your family meals or held in isolation?

The determination of who is dangerous, plus how to interne those seen as dangerous would be an extremely difficult problem.

As for "I wonder how many cases Anne has won in her career because if she argues in court like she argues in her articles, then I feel sorry for her clients.":
Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Coulte ... ious_views
While attending Cornell University, Coulter helped found The Cornell Review,[5] and was a member of the Delta Gamma national women's fraternity.[6] She graduated cum laude from Cornell in 1984 with a B.A. in history, and received her J.D. from the University of Michigan Law School in 1988, where she achieved membership in the Order of the Coif, and was an editor of the Michigan Law Review.[7] At Michigan, Coulter was president of the local chapter of the Federalist Society and was trained at the National Journalism Center.[8]

Career

After law school, Coulter served as a law clerk, in Kansas City, for Pasco Bowman II of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.[9] After a short time working in New York City in private practice, where she specialized in corporate law, Coulter left to work for the United States Senate Judiciary Committee after the Republican Party took control of Congress in 1994. She handled crime and immigration issues for Senator Spencer Abraham of Michigan and helped craft legislation designed to expedite the deportation of aliens convicted of felonies.[10] She later became a litigator with the Center for Individual Rights.[11]
Can't compare with what's his name.

_________________
Posted by Keld Denar
+3 Girlfriend is totally unoptimized. You are better off with a +1 Keen Witty girlfriend and then appling Greater Magic Make-up to increase her enhancement bonus.
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthre ... D-2-5-What


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: ENDING GUN VIOLENCE REQUIRES COMMITMENT
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 8:57 am 
Offline
Honorary Texan
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 2:11 am
Posts: 9357
Location: Hole-in-the-Wall
Reputation points: 8023
Quote:
Essentially IMO she's saying in order to protect the Second Amendment we must get rid of the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments. What kind of logic is that?

Fixed it.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ENDING GUN VIOLENCE REQUIRES COMMITMENT
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 3:13 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 9:26 am
Posts: 11746
Reputation points: 7233
abradley wrote:
knuckles_95 wrote:
I wonder how many cases Anne has won in her career because if she argues in court like she argues in her articles, then I feel sorry for her clients. Essentially she's saying in order to protect the Second Amendment we must get rid of the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments. What kind of logic is that?{Snip}
How about Typhoid Mary', would you have been one of those who wanted her released:
Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoid_Mary
Mary Mallon (September 23, 1869 – November 11, 1938), better known as Typhoid Mary, was the first person in the United States identified as an asymptomatic carrier of the pathogen associated with typhoid fever. She was presumed to have infected some 51 people, three of whom died, over the course of her career as a cook.[1] She was forcibly isolated twice by public health authorities and died after a total of nearly three decades in isolation.
She was isolated, but:
Quote:
The New York City health inspector determined her to be a carrier. Under sections 1169 and 1170 of the Greater New York Charter, Mallon was held in isolation for three years at a clinic located on North Brother Island.[3]

Eventually, the New York State Commissioner of Health, Eugene H. Porter, M.D., decided that disease carriers would no longer be held in isolation. Mallon could be freed if she agreed to abandon working as a cook and to take reasonable steps to prevent transmitting typhoid to others. On February 19, 1910, Mallon agreed that she "[was] prepared to change her occupation (that of a cook), and would give assurance by affidavit that she would upon her release take such hygienic precautions as would protect those with whom she came in contact, from infection". She was released from quarantine and returned to the mainland.[8]
Release and name-change

Upon release, Mallon was given a job as a laundress, which paid lower wages. Mallon changed her name to Mary Brown, and returned to her previous occupation as a cook. For the next five years, she went through a series of kitchens, spreading illness and death, keeping one step ahead of Dr. Soper.[3]

In 1915, a serious epidemic of typhoid erupted among the staff of New York's Sloane Hospital for Women, with twenty five cases and two deaths. City health authorities investigated, learning that a portly Irish-American woman had suddenly disappeared from the kitchen help. The police tracked her to an estate on Long Island.[3][8]

Second quarantine (1915-1938)

Public-health authorities again found and arrested Mallon, returning her to quarantine on North Brother Island on March 27, 1915.[8] Mallon was confined there for the remainder of her life. She became something of a minor celebrity, and was interviewed by journalists, who were forbidden to accept even a glass of water from her.[3] Later, she was allowed to work as a technician in the island's laboratory.
Expect they trampled on her rights according to " ... the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments."

Which would you want; her cooking your family meals or held in isolation?

The determination of who is dangerous, plus how to interne those seen as dangerous would be an extremely difficult problem.

As for "I wonder how many cases Anne has won in her career because if she argues in court like she argues in her articles, then I feel sorry for her clients.":
Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Coulte ... ious_views
While attending Cornell University, Coulter helped found The Cornell Review,[5] and was a member of the Delta Gamma national women's fraternity.[6] She graduated cum laude from Cornell in 1984 with a B.A. in history, and received her J.D. from the University of Michigan Law School in 1988, where she achieved membership in the Order of the Coif, and was an editor of the Michigan Law Review.[7] At Michigan, Coulter was president of the local chapter of the Federalist Society and was trained at the National Journalism Center.[8]

Career

After law school, Coulter served as a law clerk, in Kansas City, for Pasco Bowman II of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.[9] After a short time working in New York City in private practice, where she specialized in corporate law, Coulter left to work for the United States Senate Judiciary Committee after the Republican Party took control of Congress in 1994. She handled crime and immigration issues for Senator Spencer Abraham of Michigan and helped craft legislation designed to expedite the deportation of aliens convicted of felonies.[10] She later became a litigator with the Center for Individual Rights.[11]
Can't compare with what's his name.

First there is no objectivity in determining someone's mental state. There is a wide grey area when it comes to sanity. That doesn't exist when it comes to a communicable disease. You either have typhoid or you don't.

Second, Typhoid Mary agreed not to work in the kitchen anymore and do everything she could to avoid spreading the disease. She violated the terms of her release and therefore was quarantined because she put the public's health in danger but she was allowed due process. What Anne is suggesting is that those who are deemed crazy be involuntarily locked up which brings me to...

Third, who determines who's crazy or not? Since Anne is complaining that the courts ruled that this woman was not to be institutionalized but should have been locked up anyway, who do you want to make that decision? Who is the arbiter of this decision. Think of it this way, would you want the power that you are willing to bestow on someone to be given to someone who disagree with you? I mean if the person is a conservative he can decide that all gay people are crazy and therefore should be institutionalized. On the flip side the guy could be liberal and think that everyone that thinks that a guy could die and 3 days later come back to life must be crazy and therefore institutionalized.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: ENDING GUN VIOLENCE REQUIRES COMMITMENT
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 3:15 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 9:26 am
Posts: 11746
Reputation points: 7233
Old Eagle wrote:
Quote:
Essentially IMO she's saying in order to protect the Second Amendment we must get rid of the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments. What kind of logic is that?

Fixed it.

No it's what I know. She is calling for people to be forcefully locked up without due process for "being crazy". That's not an opinion that's stated emphatically in the article


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: ENDING GUN VIOLENCE REQUIRES COMMITMENT
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 3:24 pm 
Offline
buck private
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 8:01 am
Posts: 16730
Reputation points: 13603
knuckles_95 wrote:
{Snip}
First there is no objectivity in determining someone's mental state. There is a wide grey area when it comes to sanity. That doesn't exist when it comes to a communicable disease. You either have typhoid or you don't.

Second, Typhoid Mary agreed not to work in the kitchen anymore and do everything she could to avoid spreading the disease. She violated the terms of her release and therefore was quarantined because she put the public's health in danger but she was allowed due process. What Anne is suggesting is that those who are deemed crazy be involuntarily locked up which brings me to...

Third, who determines who's crazy or not? Since Anne is complaining that the courts ruled that this woman was not to be institutionalized but should have been locked up anyway, who do you want to make that decision? Who is the arbiter of this decision. Think of it this way, would you want the power that you are willing to bestow on someone to be given to someone who disagree with you? I mean if the person is a conservative he can decide that all gay people are crazy and therefore should be institutionalized. On the flip side the guy could be liberal and think that everyone that thinks that a guy could die and 3 days later come back to life must be crazy and therefore institutionalized.
As I posted "The determination of who is dangerous, plus how to interne those seen as dangerous would be an extremely difficult problem."

And I'll add, it should be looked into because the mass killings appear to be mostly committed by people with mental histories.

PS
You forgot to comment on 'what's his name's' great record compared to 'Little Anne'.

_________________
Posted by Keld Denar
+3 Girlfriend is totally unoptimized. You are better off with a +1 Keen Witty girlfriend and then appling Greater Magic Make-up to increase her enhancement bonus.
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthre ... D-2-5-What


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: ENDING GUN VIOLENCE REQUIRES COMMITMENT
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 3:32 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 9:26 am
Posts: 11746
Reputation points: 7233
abradley wrote:
knuckles_95 wrote:
{Snip}
First there is no objectivity in determining someone's mental state. There is a wide grey area when it comes to sanity. That doesn't exist when it comes to a communicable disease. You either have typhoid or you don't.

Second, Typhoid Mary agreed not to work in the kitchen anymore and do everything she could to avoid spreading the disease. She violated the terms of her release and therefore was quarantined because she put the public's health in danger but she was allowed due process. What Anne is suggesting is that those who are deemed crazy be involuntarily locked up which brings me to...

Third, who determines who's crazy or not? Since Anne is complaining that the courts ruled that this woman was not to be institutionalized but should have been locked up anyway, who do you want to make that decision? Who is the arbiter of this decision. Think of it this way, would you want the power that you are willing to bestow on someone to be given to someone who disagree with you? I mean if the person is a conservative he can decide that all gay people are crazy and therefore should be institutionalized. On the flip side the guy could be liberal and think that everyone that thinks that a guy could die and 3 days later come back to life must be crazy and therefore institutionalized.
As I posted "The determination of who is dangerous, plus how to interne those seen as dangerous would be an extremely difficult problem."

And I'll add, it should be looked into because the mass killings appear to be mostly committed by people with mental histories.

They have no recorded mental histories though. The Colorado shooter was going to a shrink, sure but prior to the shooting he had committed no crime, had not done anything to endanger anyone's lives, had not be prescribed medication, he hadn't even had any contact with the police. His only crime is he was acting weird. There was absolutely nothing that would have justified locking him up before the incident. Let's take this a step further. Do you advocate locking up every soldier that has spent time on the front line in any armed conflict? Studies say that they are prone to PTSD which is a mental illness and so they could be prone to mass killings. Would you be ok with that solution?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: ENDING GUN VIOLENCE REQUIRES COMMITMENT
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 4:19 pm 
Offline
buck private
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 8:01 am
Posts: 16730
Reputation points: 13603
knuckles_95 wrote:
{Snip}
They have no recorded mental histories though. The Colorado shooter was going to a shrink, sure but prior to the shooting he had committed no crime, had not done anything to endanger anyone's lives, had not be prescribed medication, he hadn't even had any contact with the police. His only crime is he was acting weird. There was absolutely nothing that would have justified locking him up before the incident. Let's take this a step further. Do you advocate locking up every soldier that has spent time on the front line in any armed conflict? Studies say that they are prone to PTSD which is a mental illness and so they could be prone to mass killings. Would you be ok with that solution?
:lol: No, only if they were deemed to be dangerous.

As for the Colorado shooting:
Quote:
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/15/justi ... ng-lawsuit
On June 11 -- more than five weeks before the shooting -- Holmes told Fenton that "he fantasized about killing a lot of people," the lawsuit says.

But according to the lawsuit, when a police officer asked whether Holmes should be placed on a psychiatric hold for 72 hours, Fenton "rejected the idea."

The lawsuit accuses Fenton of negligence and said the university is also liable.

In August, Fenton testified in court that her contact with Holmes ended on July 11. She said she later contacted campus police because she was "so concerned" about what happened during her last meeting with him, but she declined to detail what bothered her.

_________________
Posted by Keld Denar
+3 Girlfriend is totally unoptimized. You are better off with a +1 Keen Witty girlfriend and then appling Greater Magic Make-up to increase her enhancement bonus.
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthre ... D-2-5-What


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: ENDING GUN VIOLENCE REQUIRES COMMITMENT
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 4:50 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 9:26 am
Posts: 11746
Reputation points: 7233
abradley wrote:
knuckles_95 wrote:
{Snip}
They have no recorded mental histories though. The Colorado shooter was going to a shrink, sure but prior to the shooting he had committed no crime, had not done anything to endanger anyone's lives, had not be prescribed medication, he hadn't even had any contact with the police. His only crime is he was acting weird. There was absolutely nothing that would have justified locking him up before the incident. Let's take this a step further. Do you advocate locking up every soldier that has spent time on the front line in any armed conflict? Studies say that they are prone to PTSD which is a mental illness and so they could be prone to mass killings. Would you be ok with that solution?
:lol: No, only if they were deemed to be dangerous.

As for the Colorado shooting:
Quote:
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/15/justi ... ng-lawsuit
On June 11 -- more than five weeks before the shooting -- Holmes told Fenton that "he fantasized about killing a lot of people," the lawsuit says.

But according to the lawsuit, when a police officer asked whether Holmes should be placed on a psychiatric hold for 72 hours, Fenton "rejected the idea."

The lawsuit accuses Fenton of negligence and said the university is also liable.

In August, Fenton testified in court that her contact with Holmes ended on July 11. She said she later contacted campus police because she was "so concerned" about what happened during her last meeting with him, but she declined to detail what bothered her.

How do you deem if they are dangerous or not? He said he fantasized about killing a bunch of people, ok. If I tell a friend, "man my boss annoys me so much I could just bash her head in", is that justification to lock me up? People here complain about hate crimes punishing people for their thoughts but isn't this the same thing? Now you must love everyone you meet because lord knows if you say I can't stand Brian Kilmeade and wish he would go away you might be locked away because you're deemed dangerous


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 17 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group