Defend your right to own a car.

[Sinfix_15]

Public transportation is available in many places and could be made available in all place. Do we need cars? over 100 people die in car accidents a DAY in the united states.... in a single day... everyday. There's no mental health screening to purchase car so there's no telling what type of deranged individual is operating a vehicle on your public streets. Cars have historically been assistants to crime related activities. People use cars as get away cars, to transport people illegally, to transport drugs and a variety of other criminal activities. If everyone used public transportation this would be completely eliminated.

The banning of personal transportation would delete many common problems in the united states. A few examples...

It would be more difficult to conceal kidnapping. A child would be seen in the open in distress and obviously would alert public transport if forced to board.

Drug transport would be crippled. A shipment of drugs would not be able to transport from one end of the country to the other.

Drunk driving would be a thing of the past. Public transport drivers would be trained and tested.

Fatality from driver error would cease to exist.

Law enforcement would have a mobilization advantage over any criminal activity.

You could go on and on and on.......

So, defend your right to own a car? i say "right"..... but truthfully... you do not have the right. The constitution said nothing about cars..... our forefathers didnt intend for you to own a corvette that did 0-60 in 3 seconds or a motorcycle that does 190 mph. You are allowed this privilege by your government and we clearly abuse it since 100s of people die a day as a result of cars.

As a nation, we cant sit back and watch our kids continue to die. If we can save just 1 life..... just 1 child.... then we have to try.

http://www.fort-lauderdale-injury-lawyer-blog.com/DSC00542%5B1%5D.jpg

[Elbow]

We should have FAR better licensing requirements and health screens IMO. At least the equivalent of getting a competition license.

Your relation to gun violence is comical though, how many of these 100 people a day dead are from a legitimate attack using a vehicle? I like guns and support owning guns, but some of you need to use common sense and understand other views to make a valid argument.

[Sinfix_15]

We should have FAR better licensing requirements and health screens IMO. At least the equivalent of getting a competition license.

Almost every car crash fatality happens with a licensed driver. We dont need cars capable of inflicting the carnage that they do. We dont need cars that go the speeds that they go. I understand that racing is part of our history and something that you enjoy..... but race cars are dangerous. With these cars being made available to the public there's no way of keeping them away from people who intend to abuse them. If 1 life can be saved, then it needs to be done.

[Elbow]

I can't even think of a reply on this level.

Like I said, think of a real debate. You make everyone else that supports guns sound like you and that's a bad thing. You're comparing automobile ACCIDENTS to firearm CRIME.

Yes, more people die in cars, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see WHY and to see they aren't CAUSED BY AN ATTACK.

[Sinfix_15]

I can't even think of a reply on this level.

Like I said, think of a real debate. You make everyone else that supports guns sound like you and that's a bad thing. You're comparing automobile ACCIDENTS to firearm CRIME.

Yes, more people die in cars, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see WHY and to see they aren't CAUSED BY AN ATTACK.

Not every car death is an accident or crash. Cars are used for CRIME. People intentionally and voluntarily use vehicles to commit illegal activity. Alcoholism is a mental health disorder that we're not adequately identifying. Every year innocent children are killed by drunk drivers. Innocent young females are trafficked for prostitution. Drugs are transported. People die as a result of voluntary exhibitions of speed. If we can stop 1 shipment of drugs...... one young girl from being trafficked.... one child from dying to a drunk driver... then we have to try.






It's funny how i use the SAME argument..... but when it's something i care about, im a lunatic..... but when it's something you care about.... oh the story changes then.... argument is ridiculous. You're definitely a liberal. You cant engage in a debate simply because you're not equip to do so.

[Sinfix_15]

The roots of car modification all trace back to criminal activity. Nascar even proclaims that it was born from moonshiners. Moonshiners modified their cars to outrun the police. The mob modified their cars to outrun the police. It's clear that only the police should have cars.......

America has a car culture problem, we glorify this activity in movies and tvshows with car chases and races. Public street racing is glorified in the fast and furious, dukes or hazard... america has an obsession with car chases and it's sickening. We need to quit putting our children at the risk of excessive automobiles. If we can save 1 life we need to try.

[Elbow]

The roots of car modification all trace back to criminal activity. Nascar even proclaims that it was born from moonshiners. Moonshiners modified their cars to outrun the police. The mob modified their cars to outrun the police. It's clear that only the police should have cars.......

America has a car culture problem, we glorify this activity in movies and tvshows with car chases and races. Public street racing is glorified in the fast and furious, dukes or hazard... america has an obsession with car chases and it's sickening. We need to quit putting our children at the risk of excessive automobiles. If we can save 1 life we need to try.

You're forgetting I'm not against guns though. Once again you can't read.

If you really can't see why comparing guns and cars doesn't work then we are done.

[Sinfix_15]

You're forgetting I'm not against guns though. Once again you can't read.

If you really can't see why comparing guns and cars doesn't work then we are done.

You seem to make the mistake of thinking that your mind set is one shared by everyone and begin attacking me as you often do with other members. You also cant seem to read as you're in a car thread talking about guns. I'm honestly unsure how to have a civil debate if you're incapable of sticking to topic and debating your point of view without simply trying to attack me.

[Sinfix_15]

simon, just tell me why you need a car capable of going over 100mph? why do we need motorcycles that go 180mph....? can you give me a reason?

[Elbow]

You seem to make the mistake of thinking that your mind set is one shared by everyone and begin attacking me as you often do with other members. You also cant seem to read as you're in a car thread talking about guns. I'm honestly unsure how to have a civil debate if you're incapable of sticking to topic and debating your point of view without simply trying to attack me.

Right. You attacked me first in my other thread. lol

All I'm saying is a car to gun debate doesn't work the same, some points are true such as DUIs, but others not so much. Stop acting like I'm the bad guy, I support guns, I support owning guns. I'm just saying gun supporters need real arguments and I personally don't find this one. I'm not attacking you over it.

Funny that you negative repped me for it though. lolol


simon, just tell me why you need a car capable of going over 100mph? why do we need motorcycles that go 180mph....? can you give me a reason?

No, I also drive a stock truck that I wouldn't take over 100mph. So find someone with a fast car to answer that one. lol

[Sinfix_15]

Right. You attacked me first in my other thread. lol

All I'm saying is a car to gun debate doesn't work the same, some points are true such as DUIs, but others not so much. Stop acting like I'm the bad guy, I support guns, I support owning guns. I'm just saying gun supporters need real arguments and I personally don't find this one. I'm not attacking you over it.

Funny that you negative repped me for it though. lolol



No, I also drive a stock truck that I wouldn't take over 100mph. So find someone with a fast car to answer that one. lol

It doesnt matter if you would or wouldnt take it over 100mph... it is CAPABLE..... your truck is capable of crushing an entire family and killing them if you misused it or operated it while intoxicated.

Why do you need a truck capable of doing 100mph... and why do you need a truck to begin with? We need either a vehicle ban completely..... or weight and speed restrictions. Would you be ok with a 1000 pound limit on all cars and a universal maximum speed of 40mph?

[Elbow]

It doesnt matter if you would or wouldnt take it over 100mph... it is CAPABLE..... your truck is capable of crushing an entire family and killing them if you misused it or operated it while intoxicated.

Why do you need a truck capable of doing 100mph... and why do you need a truck to begin with? We need either a vehicle ban completely..... or weight and speed restrictions. Would you be ok with a 1000 pound limit on all cars and a universal maximum speed of 40mph?

On the street? I wouldn't care.

I still don't get why you're asking me these questions though, ask someone that is anti-gun.

[Sinfix_15]

On the street? I wouldn't care.

I still don't get why you're asking me these questions though, ask someone that is anti-gun.

Nobody is talking about guns.

On the street? what prevents someone from misusing their off road vehicle on the street? universal restriction on ALL vehicles produced and on all vehicle modification. Think of the lives that would be saved. Someone could have not lost their son or daughter had we as americans acted on this sooner.

[Sinfix_15]

Got to run...... hope someone provides a better counter argument since Simon is dead in the water.

[Elbow]

I don't have a counter-argument because you're trying to get someone that's anti-guns to say this is stupid and then turn it around on them. Since we share the same gun beliefs, that can't happen with me.

[David88vert]

I can't even think of a reply on this level.

Like I said, think of a real debate. You make everyone else that supports guns sound like you and that's a bad thing. You're comparing automobile ACCIDENTS to firearm CRIME.

Yes, more people die in cars, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see WHY and to see they aren't CAUSED BY AN ATTACK.

Intentionally used as a weapon - and within the last 24 hours:
Tamara Hatchett, 28, is accused of trying to run down her ex-boyfriend before crashing into his car in front of the Heart of the City Club on State Street in Bunnell and leaving the scene. | News-JournalOnline.com (http://www.news-journalonline.com/article/20130117/NEWS/301179980?Title=Police-Bunnell-woman-tries-to-run-down-ex-crashes-into-car)

Police: Kathleen Trombley killed in crash after trying to run down two men on sidewalk after bar fight | wtsp.com (http://www.wtsp.com/news/article/292523/8/TPD-Car-tries-to-rundown-pedestrians)

Henry Daily Herald | DUI driver tried to run down cops, say police (http://www.henryherald.com/news/2013/jan/17/dui-driver-tried-run-down-cops-say-police/)

And kids being killed by a driver intentionally - remember Susan Smith?
Susan Smith - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Smith)

Why can't you just ride the bus and save a life? None of the incidents above were even close to 100mph.

[Elbow]

Intentionally used as a weapon - and within the last 24 hours:
Tamara Hatchett, 28, is accused of trying to run down her ex-boyfriend before crashing into his car in front of the Heart of the City Club on State Street in Bunnell and leaving the scene. | News-JournalOnline.com (http://www.news-journalonline.com/article/20130117/NEWS/301179980?Title=Police-Bunnell-woman-tries-to-run-down-ex-crashes-into-car)

Police: Kathleen Trombley killed in crash after trying to run down two men on sidewalk after bar fight | wtsp.com (http://www.wtsp.com/news/article/292523/8/TPD-Car-tries-to-rundown-pedestrians)

Henry Daily Herald | DUI driver tried to run down cops, say police (http://www.henryherald.com/news/2013/jan/17/dui-driver-tried-run-down-cops-say-police/)

And kids being killed by a driver intentionally - remember Susan Smith?
Susan Smith - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Smith)

Why can't you just ride the bus and save a life? None of the incidents above were even close to 100mph.

I don't see what your point is.

I was wrong, I guess there are quite a few cases of cars being used as weapons.

I don't want cars OR guns banned though. So what exactly do you all want me to argue? lol Just choose a side and argue just to argue?

[David88vert]

We should just take the whole deal of state control over their own juristiction away and let the President resolve everything with an executive order. No need for the state legislatures or courts to deal with these decisions anymore. No need to have Congress or the federal courts to have any say in it either, just go directly to the King (President), and let him issue a decree (executive order).
I think it worked really well in the Middle Ages, so it should work well now, right?

[Elbow]

We should just take the whole deal of state control over their own juristiction away and let the President resolve everything with an executive order. No need for the state legislatures or courts to deal with these decisions anymore. No need to have Congress or the federal courts to have any say in it either, just go directly to the King (President), and let him issue a decree (executive order).
I think it worked really well in the Middle Ages, so it should work well now, right?

I feel like you're speaking to me as if I disagree with this conversation. lol

[David88vert]

Actually, that one wasn't directed at you.

[Elbow]

Actually, that one wasn't directed at you.

Oh, sorry.

[bu villain]

Sinflix, here is my reply although I'm not one of the ones that thinks we should ban all guns either. There are pros and cons to all technology and tools. The restrictions we place on them are based upon the balance of those benefits and dangers. Cars and the easy availability of them play a very beneficial role in our country but they are also very dangerous so we do put certain restrictions on them (age, licensing, insurance, etc). Guns also are very dangerous like cars so most everyone agrees we should have some restrictions on those as well. People who argue for restrictions on guns believe the restrictions help to mitigate the large danger they pose in order to balance them against their small benefit. Everyone will weigh the pros/cons of gun availability differently because we all have different values and there is plenty of logic/evidence for both sides.

[.blank cd]

Stupid thread is stupid

[Bacon]

Fatality from driver error would cease to exist?

That wouldnt be true.

Sent from my Galaxy S3 using Tapatalk.

[quickdodge®]

Defend your right to own a car

Do people actually think owning a car is a "right?"

[E36slide]

You pay insurance and taxes on your car after its paid for....owning a car is a privilege not a right.


Sent from my mind

[.blank cd]

Do people actually think owning a car is a "right?"

According to the Supreme Court, technically it is.

[quickdodge®]

According to the Supreme Court, technically it is.

I'd like to the see the "technicality" part of it.

[Doppelgänger]

As much as I've agreed with Sin on some things, and as much as I used to really NOT get along with Simon, I really have to take Simon's side on this. The comparison is a joke at best and one cannot be compared to the other. You are taking an object whose one and only sole purpose is to KILL. Not designed for anything else...just to KILL. On the other hand, you are takign an object that was designed to move people and goods across a distance in less time than previous methods. People dying from automobiles is a side effect of their creation. People dying from guns is NOT a side effect to their creation. When someone gets into a car and drives down a road, their intention is to get from point A to point B. When someone pulls a gun out and pulls the trigger, their intent is to make that person cease to exist. No one pulls a trigger and then goes "oh, I only meant to lightly hurt you with an object that was designed to kill". Same goes with the knife thing, the rock thing, the metal pole thing the baseball bat thing. NONE of those items intended purpose was to KILL like a gun's purpose is. That is the difference.

You know what else you are sorely missing from this "debate" (lol)?? Something that is the whole point of all of this battle-of-the-paranoid gun stuff? Are you really wondering by now what the fuck I am getting at? There is a BIG thing here that people seem to forget with this "comparison" and is the whole point of all of this discussion. Have you figure it out yet? Probably not.














Are you scrolling down looking for the answer?













Take a moment to think about it.












GOVERNMENT REGULATION!!!!!!
It seems NO ONE gets all up in a fucking fit when the government decides what is good for YOU when YOU are deciding what car YOU want to buy. Yes R E G U L A T I O N. That is the real core of the gun topic- regulations...not removal. If you belive for one tenth of a second that the "government is going to take your guns away", you are too dumb to even have a half logical discussion with. If you compare Obama to Hitler, Stalin, Mau or any other dictator who "took the guns away", you really have an issue with history and reasoning....and probably should just glue your mouth shut and glue your hands into fists. So you think that ANYONE with the opinion that the firearms industry could benefit from more regulation is a dictator who wants to kill everyone as they please. Funny that at no time has the President ever said anything about taking the guns away at all. But good job with the ASSumption. "Oh but regulation leads to government tracking and then when they know where the guns are they will ban them and come take them from us!".....yeah, right. Your car is registered to you already...as well as many other things. But back to my original point. The government has been regulating automobiles far more than guns and for a lot longer. So why are none of you extreme pro-gun people crying your eyes out that the government has regulated the airbags in your POS SUV or that automobile manufacturers have set fuel MPG standards and emissions standards that have robbed your car of valuable horsepower? Why are you not complaining about all the safety equipment? What about all that "regulation"? Would you agree that by making the car safer that serious injury/percentage of fatal accidents has decreased? Yes, I am NOT saying overall numbers because the number of cars on the road has increased between, let's say, the 1950's and now. So don't think for one second that you can say "well xxxx people died in 1962 and xxxxxxxxxxxx people died in 2011 from car accidents. The government has even gone as far as telling you what you can and cannot have on the road. What about that? Yeah, it sucks, I'd love to own some cars that aren't available here. I understand the "risk" that a car from overseas might not meet "US-spec" safety standards.....but plenty of other countries have safety standards that are just as good as ours and emissions requirements like ours. They've determined that some stuff just doesn't belong here. But I'm not going to waste all my time bitching and complaining, and getting all pissy about it.....I just bought something that I like and is allowed on the road by DOT standards. Also, the government has regulated how big of a car you can drive on the road and requires special licensing for different classes and an eventual limit on how big things on the road can be. Imagine that.

So if you want to compare XYZ to guns, do it from the right point of view using what is relavent...the fact that a object has existed in society, the object's reasong for existance and what has been done about the object.

With that said, I agree 100% that licensing tests need to be greatly revised and much harder to pass and the age should be raised and more license classes...as in you have you have a license proving you have demonstrated the ability to navigate a Hummer H2 or a Nissan Armada properly. Pass regulation that seniors need to take exams/driving tests more often as they get older. Penalties for driving without a license should also be more harsh (not a suspended license...but having never had taken the exam at all).


As far as guns go, I'm not anti-gun by any means. But at what point do you need some of these weapons that are currently available? Are you such a poor shot or unsure of your ability to use a gun that you need some crazy rifle? Are you going to go hunting with a Bushmaster M4? No. Are you carring a AR-15 down the street "just in case" someone tried to rob you? No. I'm sure anone with a head on their shoulders would say that a handgun is the proper tool in pretty much any case of defense. So what is the need that you can justify for one type of weapon that some people don't think have any use? Don't even get me started on all the bills that have been passed in years past that have actually made it hard to pass new regulation to have sensable and logical regulations to help reduce how guns end up in the hands of criminals...

[.blank cd]

I'd like to the see the "technicality" part of it.

I'll pull up the case law when I get home.

[Sinfix_15]

Sinflix, here is my reply although I'm not one of the ones that thinks we should ban all guns either. There are pros and cons to all technology and tools. The restrictions we place on them are based upon the balance of those benefits and dangers. Cars and the easy availability of them play a very beneficial role in our country but they are also very dangerous so we do put certain restrictions on them (age, licensing, insurance, etc). Guns also are very dangerous like cars so most everyone agrees we should have some restrictions on those as well. People who argue for restrictions on guns believe the restrictions help to mitigate the large danger they pose in order to balance them against their small benefit. Everyone will weigh the pros/cons of gun availability differently because we all have different values and there is plenty of logic/evidence for both sides.

Nice healthy argument you present here. I agree with most of it. Benefit vs dangers, are we judging this based on perception or stats? Statistically, only 300 people died from rifles last year, that's a pretty small margin of danger. Also, dont undervalue the benefit. A gun could save your life. Nothing is more valuable than that. Also, i stated that the government could provide us with transportation as they do in many places. The government's ability to meet our travel demands wouldnt be that much of a difference between their ability to protect us would it? Also, Obama's verbiage was " If we can save 1 life then we have to try " , i didnt say that... he did. If it's about lives.... and measured down to the importance of a single life.... then cars kill more people than guns. A life is a life no matter how it's taken. Are we saying that getting to bestbuy 15 minutes faster is more important than human life? Buses can provide transportation... sure, it would be a huge pain in the ass.... much like gun control.



Stupid thread is stupid Any attempt to poke holes in the cloud that liberals live on is met with "that's stupid" or "youre a racist". Your party is so arrogant that theyre insulted that anyone questions them at all, doesnt matter how much merit the questioning may have.


As much as I've agreed with Sin on some things, and as much as I used to really NOT get along with Simon, I really have to take Simon's side on this. The comparison is a joke at best and one cannot be compared to the other. You are taking an object whose one and only sole purpose is to KILL. Not designed for anything else...just to KILL. On the other hand, you are takign an object that was designed to move people and goods across a distance in less time than previous methods. People dying from automobiles is a side effect of their creation. People dying from guns is NOT a side effect to their creation. When someone gets into a car and drives down a road, their intention is to get from point A to point B. When someone pulls a gun out and pulls the trigger, their intent is to make that person cease to exist. No one pulls a trigger and then goes "oh, I only meant to lightly hurt you with an object that was designed to kill". Same goes with the knife thing, the rock thing, the metal pole thing the baseball bat thing. NONE of those items intended purpose was to KILL like a gun's purpose is. That is the difference.

You know what else you are sorely missing from this "debate" (lol)?? Something that is the whole point of all of this battle-of-the-paranoid gun stuff? Are you really wondering by now what the fuck I am getting at? There is a BIG thing here that people seem to forget with this "comparison" and is the whole point of all of this discussion. Have you figure it out yet? Probably not.














Are you scrolling down looking for the answer?













Take a moment to think about it.












GOVERNMENT REGULATION!!!!!!
It seems NO ONE gets all up in a fucking fit when the government decides what is good for YOU when YOU are deciding what car YOU want to buy. Yes R E G U L A T I O N. That is the real core of the gun topic- regulations...not removal. If you belive for one tenth of a second that the "government is going to take your guns away", you are too dumb to even have a half logical discussion with. If you compare Obama to Hitler, Stalin, Mau or any other dictator who "took the guns away", you really have an issue with history and reasoning....and probably should just glue your mouth shut and glue your hands into fists. So you think that ANYONE with the opinion that the firearms industry could benefit from more regulation is a dictator who wants to kill everyone as they please. Funny that at no time has the President ever said anything about taking the guns away at all. But good job with the ASSumption. "Oh but regulation leads to government tracking and then when they know where the guns are they will ban them and come take them from us!".....yeah, right. Your car is registered to you already...as well as many other things. But back to my original point. The government has been regulating automobiles far more than guns and for a lot longer. So why are none of you extreme pro-gun people crying your eyes out that the government has regulated the airbags in your POS SUV or that automobile manufacturers have set fuel MPG standards and emissions standards that have robbed your car of valuable horsepower? Why are you not complaining about all the safety equipment? What about all that "regulation"? Would you agree that by making the car safer that serious injury/percentage of fatal accidents has decreased? Yes, I am NOT saying overall numbers because the number of cars on the road has increased between, let's say, the 1950's and now. So don't think for one second that you can say "well xxxx people died in 1962 and xxxxxxxxxxxx people died in 2011 from car accidents. The government has even gone as far as telling you what you can and cannot have on the road. What about that? Yeah, it sucks, I'd love to own some cars that aren't available here. I understand the "risk" that a car from overseas might not meet "US-spec" safety standards.....but plenty of other countries have safety standards that are just as good as ours and emissions requirements like ours. They've determined that some stuff just doesn't belong here. But I'm not going to waste all my time bitching and complaining, and getting all pissy about it.....I just bought something that I like and is allowed on the road by DOT standards. Also, the government has regulated how big of a car you can drive on the road and requires special licensing for different classes and an eventual limit on how big things on the road can be. Imagine that.

So if you want to compare XYZ to guns, do it from the right point of view using what is relavent...the fact that a object has existed in society, the object's reasong for existance and what has been done about the object.

With that said, I agree 100% that licensing tests need to be greatly revised and much harder to pass and the age should be raised and more license classes...as in you have you have a license proving you have demonstrated the ability to navigate a Hummer H2 or a Nissan Armada properly. Pass regulation that seniors need to take exams/driving tests more often as they get older. Penalties for driving without a license should also be more harsh (not a suspended license...but having never had taken the exam at all).


As far as guns go, I'm not anti-gun by any means. But at what point do you need some of these weapons that are currently available? Are you such a poor shot or unsure of your ability to use a gun that you need some crazy rifle? Are you going to go hunting with a Bushmaster M4? No. Are you carring a AR-15 down the street "just in case" someone tried to rob you? No. I'm sure anone with a head on their shoulders would say that a handgun is the proper tool in pretty much any case of defense. So what is the need that you can justify for one type of weapon that some people don't think have any use? Don't even get me started on all the bills that have been passed in years past that have actually made it hard to pass new regulation to have sensable and logical regulations to help reduce how guns end up in the hands of criminals...

Few issues here. While i agree that you have the right to transportation, why does your car need to exceed 55 mph? Probably 1/2 the vehicles in america can double... sometimes triple the highest speed limit. Should we just ban corvettes? Camaros? Regulate vehicle speeds and weights? my argument wasnt limited to an all out car ban, i mentioned regulation as well.

The question is, what is the correct regulation? and what is the purpose? You say guns are meant for killing.... i agree... so lets stretch that out a little further. Made for killing what? Rifle is primarily a hunting gun... even lumping all rifles into 1 group, including assault rifles.... rifles only accounted for 3** deaths last year. Handguns were literally more than 10x that amount. More people were killed by blunt objects than they were rifles. Why are assault rifles the ones that need to be regulated? statistically... theyre the bottom of the totem pole when it comes to violence. Do you really see street thugs running around with $2000 ARs robbing liquor stores? No, you dont.

A cars purpose is for travel, so how do you justify any performance that goes above the definition of travel? Do cars need to go 50-60-70-80? where does it stop? What would be the criteria for these regulations.

These are the questions i want answered before i accept any gun regulation. I dont accept rifles being banned based on perception. The most violent LOOKING gun.... just so happens to be the least violent gun statistically. It's also the gun with the most versatile purpose. Many use them for hunting, sport shooting... ect ect.

I honestly do not see what is so ridiculous about this comparison.

[Sinfix_15]

one more thing... the government tyranny concept people keep saying is ridiculous....

Do you think american government tyranny is IMPOSSIBLE? if so, why? I posted the statistics in the gun thread about how in the last 100 years more people have been killed by their own government than all wars combined. What makes this IMPOSSIBLE.... emphasis on IMPOSSIBLE... i understand it's unlikely.

[David88vert]

I'll pull up the case law when I get home.

I suspect this this is the case that you will cite:
Donald S. MILLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sally R. REED, California Department of Motor Vehicles;  Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General, Defendants-Appellees 9th Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals - 1999
MILLER v. REED, No. (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1054787.html)

As for Kent vs. Dulles (1958), it found that the right to travel is a liberty that can’t be denied without due process (5th Amendment); however, it did not say that the method of travel was a right, hence it it considered a priveledge on this case law, if taken as a single case. What is important to note is that neither state constitutions nor the US Constitution deal specifically with driving, hence, it is not a stated "right".

The Supreme Court of the State of Georgia ruled that, "In this connection, it is well to keep in mind that, while the public has an absolute "RIGHT" to the use of the streets for their primary purpose, which is for travel, the use of the streets from the purpose of parking automobiles is a privilege, and not a "RIGHT"; and the privilege must be accepted with such reasonable burdens as the city may place as conditions to the exercise of that privilege." - Gardner v. City of Brunswick, 28 S.E.2d 135

Let me clarify - driving and owning are not the same thing. Owning and driving on private land should not be considered the same as driving on public roads.
We all have a right to travel on public roads; however, there is no statement, implied or inferred, that we have a right to operate a vehicle on public roads, hence, it is not a "right to drive"

[quickdodge®]

that we have a right to operate a vehicle on public roads, hence, it is not a "right to drive"

Exactly how I knew it.

[.blank cd]

Any attempt to poke holes in the cloud that liberals live on is met with "that's stupid" or "youre a racist". Your party is so arrogant that theyre insulted that anyone questions them at all, doesnt matter how much merit the questioning may have.You, or anyone else here has yet to "poke any holes" in any "liberal clouds".

[Sinfix_15]

You, or anyone else here has yet to "poke any holes" in any "liberal clouds".

You believing this does nothing other than further prove my claims. While i admit you are a formidable adversary...

you have been shit on more than a few times by the other "righties" on this forum.

[.blank cd]

You believing this does nothing other than further prove my claims. While i admit you are a formidable adversary...

you have been shit on more than a few times by the other "righties" on this forum.

Hasn't happened.

[Sinfix_15]

Hasn't happened.

oooook

[C230K]

I highly doubt that you Sinfix would trade the keys to your 100mph+ motorcycle for a breeze card from Marta

[quickdodge®]

I highly doubt that you Sinfix would trade the keys to your 100mph+ motorcycle for a breeze card from Marta

I highly doubt that as well seeing as how he doesn't live on, or near, the Marta line.

[Sinfix_15]

I highly doubt that as well seeing as how he doesn't live on, or near, the Marta line.

Public transport is called Metra here. If we can save one life we need to try. The more ways the government can accommodate our lives the better right?

[bu villain]

Nice healthy argument you present here. I agree with most of it. Benefit vs dangers, are we judging this based on perception or stats? Statistically, only 300 people died from rifles last year, that's a pretty small margin of danger. Also, dont undervalue the benefit. A gun could save your life. Nothing is more valuable than that. Also, i stated that the government could provide us with transportation as they do in many places. The government's ability to meet our travel demands wouldnt be that much of a difference between their ability to protect us would it? Also, Obama's verbiage was " If we can save 1 life then we have to try " , i didnt say that... he did. If it's about lives.... and measured down to the importance of a single life.... then cars kill more people than guns. A life is a life no matter how it's taken. Are we saying that getting to bestbuy 15 minutes faster is more important than human life? Buses can provide transportation... sure, it would be a huge pain in the ass.... much like gun control.

Unfortunately we don't have very many studies on gun violence, partly due to the NRA's influence, and that is part of the reason we have such strong disagreements on what is reasonable. You say not to undervalue a gun's ability to save your life but stats say that if you have a gun in your home, you are more likely to be involved in an accidental shooting than to successfully protect yourself from a home invasion. How should that be interpreted? I'm sure you could find many stats that support gun ownership. The point is, there is evidence on both sides so a reasonable debate still exists. Furthermore, stats will never make us all have the same values.

I don't agree with Obama's gun policies but I also think you are taking that statement too literally. I think it is merely a rhetorical statement to say we need to take a strong look at what should be done to prevent these types of incidents to the extent we have control over. I don't think Obama would support banning all children even though that would certainly cut down on the number of child deaths we have every year.

[BenjaminJunu]

owning a car is a right!!!!! but driving it on public roads is a privilege that can be taken away from you.
If you don't want to die driving on the street there is a easy way to solve that. don't go in street. while kids that go to school, or the movies are shot and killed.... avoidable right????
find me the person that intentionally kills 30 children with a car.... you wont find it.
there are hundreds of deaths using a car. where is you point here?
there are also hundreds of deaths by people with guns. which one happens more often, intentionally?

there are many restrictions for driving on the road and there are police officers that monitor people on the road, stopping drug trafficking. there are police officers trained to spot drunk drivers.
Not every one is allowed to drive.

No one can deny, weapons of all kinds are used every single day. should we ban forks and knives. what about hammers?
just answer one question for me. what is easier. killing 30 students at a school with a gun or killing 30 students with a car?
I am not against guns, but i certainly would love to see some restrictions and regulations.


take our cars away, but don't take our guns.......

[David88vert]

1927 Bath School Massacre killed 38. Killer used a truck and explosives and a single bullet.

[quickdodge®]

owning a car is a right!!!!! but driving it on public roads is a privilege that can be taken away from you.

Owning a car is definitely not a right. It is not mandatory that you own a car. But you are right on the second half. Hence driver's licenses.

And I honestly see no correlation to the ban cars/ban guns thing. Not even close to the same thing. While cars are used as weapons, it happens a lot less often than a shooting. A lot less, I imagine. I'm sure if using cars as weapons was that "popular," there would be more stories on it on the news.

[David88vert]

Between 15k-18k are killed by just drunk drivers each year. This is considered fist degree homicide by vehicle and is a felony punishable by up to twenty years.
That's more than all gun killings.

[quickdodge®]

Between 15k-18k are killed by just drunk drivers each year. This is considered fist degree homicide by vehicle and is a felony punishable by up to twenty years.
That's more than all gun killings.

If those number are correct, I understand your angle, but those idiots (drunk drivers) are probably not intentionally going out to kill someone. I bet the number of accidental gun shooting deaths is a lot lower than any other statistic in this conversation.

[BenjaminJunu]

1927 Bath School Massacre killed 38. Killer used a truck and explosives and a single bullet.

and explosives.....

[David88vert]

In Ga, if you drink and get behind the wheel and kill someone, intent is the same.

[quickdodge®]

intent is the same.

In the eyes of the law. I'm talking about in the mind of the offender.

[David88vert]

and explosives.....

Read up and study.
Those who wish to kill will - you have to stop the intent. Banning tools does nothing.

[BenjaminJunu]

Between 15k-18k are killed by just drunk drivers each year. This is considered fist degree homicide by vehicle and is a felony punishable by up to twenty years.
That's more than all gun killings.

you're completely right on that. That's just another one of america's problems. Almost any idiot can get a drivers license, it should be much harder and more expensive to get a drivers license.

[David88vert]

In the eyes of the law. I'm talking about in the mind of the offender.

Mental state is being ignored for gun killings, but you want to use it if it is a car killing? Intentional impairment does not excuse behavior.

[BenjaminJunu]

Read up and study.
Those who wish to kill will - you have to stop the intent. Banning tools does nothing.

Banning tools will do nothing, and no matter how hard we try we will never stop murders, and deaths. It's always going to happens. Guns or not. I'm just saying Guns should be regulated.

[David88vert]

you're completely right on that. That's just another one of america's problems. Almost any idiot can get a drivers license, it should be much harder and more expensive to get a drivers license.

This is an issue that individual states regulate, not the federal government. It is not a Constitutionally protected right either.
Your method of recourse is through your state courts and legislature, not Congress.

[quickdodge®]

Mental state is being ignored for gun killings, but you want to use it if it is a car killing? Intentional impairment does not excuse behavior.

Believe me when I say I wouldn't stand up for a drunk driver at any cost. I have no problems with any of the harshest punishments given to them. But I doubt that a lot of drunk drivers don't intentionally go get drunk so they can drive and kill someone. If they do, they should get the toughest punishments. I think you're trying to go in deeper than it really needs to be. I'll just say that I've never heard of a drunk driver saying that he's going to get drunk and drive so he can slaughter someone. Even if the person is inebriated, I doubt their intent is to kill.

I don't think mental state should be ignored for gun killings. You pick up a gun and shoot and kill, then you still deserve the harshest of punishments.

No need to put words on my monitor, man.

[David88vert]

Banning tools will do nothing, and no matter how hard we try we will never stop murders, and deaths. It's always going to happens. Guns or not. I'm just saying Guns should be regulated.

They are currently regulated. Criminals do not follow the law though. Passing new laws that will only impact legal owners is not rational.
There is a different thread for guns. This is cars.
We could save lives by reducing the amount of drivers on the road. Why is that not a proposal or on the news every night?

[David88vert]

Believe me when I say I wouldn't stand up for a drunk driver at any cost. I have no problems with any of the harshest punishments given to them. But I doubt that a lot of drunk drivers don't intentionally go get drunk so they can drive and kill someone. If they do, they should get the toughest punishments. I think you're trying to go in deeper than it really needs to be. I'll just say that I've never heard of a drunk driver saying that he's going to get drunk and drive so he can slaughter someone. Even if the person is inebriated, I doubt their intent is to kill.

I don't think mental state should be ignored for gun killings. You pick up a gun and shoot and kill, then you still deserve the harshest of punishments.

No need to put words on my monitor, man.

So, how do we know what was going on in the Newtown shooters mind as he was pulling the trigger?
Killing by car, gun, knife, rock, fist, etc is still killing.

[quickdodge®]

So, how do we know what was going on in the Newtown shooters mind as he was pulling the trigger?

We don't. And I don't care. If he hadn't have died, I would've loved for him to be given the book. This is what I do like about the Aurora situation. They got the guy. I hope they throw him to the wolves. I hate it when killers "get away" with their crimes buy killing themselves before they get caught.


Killing by car, gun, knife, rock, fist, etc is still killing.

I didn't say it wasn't. You're putting implications that aren't there in my posts.

[David88vert]

We don't. And I don't care. If he hadn't have died, I would've loved for him to be given the book. This is what I do like about the Aurora situation. They got the guy. I hope they throw him to the wolves. I hate it when killers "get away" with their crimes buy killing themselves before they get caught.



I didn't say it wasn't. You're putting implications that aren't there in my posts.

We agree on Aurora and other killings.
I'm not trying to imply you are saying differently.

One for the othe folks.
Remember the Isla Vista massacre? Intentional mass killing by car.

Common thread of all of these killings? All had mental health issues.

[.blank cd]

Common thread of all of these killings? All had mental health issues.Not necessarily

[David88vert]

Not necessarily

What do you know that the experts don't? Back up your statements.

[.blank cd]

What do you know that the experts don't? Back up your statements.
As someone studying in the field of psychology, I can assure you that most of the experts will tell you that generally anyone who kills another human being, without first a clear definition of "mental health issues" doesnt exactly have mental health issues. If a disregard for human life is somehow a new qualifier for "crazy", I can stuff A LOT of people in that category.

[.blank cd]

Mental illness is just another scapegoat for gun violence. There's no clear way to tell who is more prone to violent behavior and there's no real evidence that suggests mentally ill people commit gun violence at a greater rate than the general population. I personally know clinically mentally unstable people who wouldn't hurt a fly, clinical psychopaths and sociopaths who are no more prone to violence than anyone else, and otherwise normal people who I would have to keep an eye on if someone pissed them off the right way.

[David88vert]

Mental illness is just another scapegoat for gun violence. There's no clear way to tell who is more prone to violent behavior and there's no real evidence that suggests mentally ill people commit gun violence at a greater rate than the general population. I personally know clinically mentally unstable people who wouldn't hurt a fly, clinical psychopaths and sociopaths who are no more prone to violence than anyone else, and otherwise normal people who I would have to keep an eye on if someone pissed them off the right way.


As someone studying in the field of psychology, I can assure you that most of the experts will tell you that generally anyone who kills another human being, without first a clear definition of "mental health issues" doesnt exactly have mental health issues. If a disregard for human life is somehow a new qualifier for "crazy", I can stuff A LOT of people in that category.

Let me see if I understand you correctly.
You take Pschology 101 or some lectures, and have not studied any of these cases that I clearly pointed out, have not met with any of the individuals, have not reviewed any of their profiles, but you know more about these cases than the professionals that have actually studied these cases?
Is that correct? Because I gave specific instances in this thread, and you came back with a general vague statement, essentially using yourself and your own personal background as your basis for an opinion going against professional psychologists. You might want to get checked for Narcissistic Personality Disorder, if that is the case.

Newtown - Adama Lanza
Adam’s uncle said he was taking an anti-psychotic drug called Fanapt.Fanapt can cause suicidal thoughts and affect judgment according to product warnings by drug manufacturer Novartis.
He was evidently bad enough that his mother was taking him to a psychatrist, and the Huffington Post reported that she was seeking to have him committed.

Aurora Massacre - James Holmes (student at University of CA, Riverside and University of CO, Denver)
Holmes' defense attorneys claimed in a motion he was a "psychiatric patient" of the medical director of Anschutz's Student Mental Health Services prior to the Aurora shooting. CBS News reported that Holmes met with at least three mental health professionals at the University of Colorado prior to the massacre. Two weeks before the shooting, he sent a text message asking a graduate student if they had heard of the disorder dysphoric mania, and warning the student to stay away from him "because I am bad news."
His psychatrist is Dr. Lynne Fenton, and she is being sued by one of the widows.
Aurora widow sues James Holmes (http://newsfixnow.com/2013/01/21/aurora-widow-sues-james-holmes-psychiatrist/)

Isla Vista Massacre - David Attias (student at University of CA, Santa Barbara)
Fact: He Was found legally insane and to have bipolar disorder.
David Attias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Attias)
The Isla Vista Car Massacre: Ten Years Later The Santa Barbara Independent (http://www.independent.com/news/2011/mar/07/isla-vista-car-massacre-ten-years-later/)
The Latest : Insane driver who killed four in Isla Vista massacre could be set free following hearing | 89.3 KPCC (http://www.scpr.org/blogs/news/2012/05/29/6356/insane-driver-who-killed-four-isla-vista-massacre-/)

Susan Smith - Smith's defense psychiatrist diagnosed her with dependent personality disorder.

You really want to claim that mental illmess is just a scapegoat in these specific cases?

Oh, and you never did back up your statement about cars being a technical right either. Par for the course it seems...

[.blank cd]

Let me see if I understand you correctly.
You take Pschology 101 or some lectures, and have not studied any of these cases that I clearly pointed out, have not met with any of the individuals, have not reviewed any of their profiles, but you know more about these cases than the professionals that have actually studied these cases?
Is that correct? Because I gave specific instances in this thread, and you came back with a general vague statement, essentially using yourself and your own personal background as your basis for an opinion going against professional psychologists. You might want to get checked for Narcissistic Personality Disorder, if that is the case.

Newtown - Adama Lanza
Adam’s uncle said he was taking an anti-psychotic drug called Fanapt.Fanapt can cause suicidal thoughts and affect judgment according to product warnings by drug manufacturer Novartis.
He was evidently bad enough that his mother was taking him to a psychatrist, and the Huffington Post reported that she was seeking to have him committed.

Aurora Massacre - James Holmes (student at University of CA, Riverside and University of CO, Denver)
Holmes' defense attorneys claimed in a motion he was a "psychiatric patient" of the medical director of Anschutz's Student Mental Health Services prior to the Aurora shooting. CBS News reported that Holmes met with at least three mental health professionals at the University of Colorado prior to the massacre. Two weeks before the shooting, he sent a text message asking a graduate student if they had heard of the disorder dysphoric mania, and warning the student to stay away from him "because I am bad news."
His psychatrist is Dr. Lynne Fenton, and she is being sued by one of the widows.
Aurora widow sues James Holmes (http://newsfixnow.com/2013/01/21/aurora-widow-sues-james-holmes-psychiatrist/)

Isla Vista Massacre - David Attias (student at University of CA, Santa Barbara)
Fact: He Was found legally insane and to have bipolar disorder.
David Attias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Attias)
The Isla Vista Car Massacre: Ten Years Later The Santa Barbara Independent (http://www.independent.com/news/2011/mar/07/isla-vista-car-massacre-ten-years-later/)
The Latest : Insane driver who killed four in Isla Vista massacre could be set free following hearing | 89.3 KPCC (http://www.scpr.org/blogs/news/2012/05/29/6356/insane-driver-who-killed-four-isla-vista-massacre-/)

Susan Smith - Smith's defense psychiatrist diagnosed her with dependent personality disorder.

You really want to claim that mental illmess is just a scapegoat in these specific cases?

You've referenced three cases of people who were diagnosed mentally Ill prior to committing a crime, (the jury is still out on Mr. Holmes),out of how many cases of gun violence, per year?

In the scientific world, we call that inconclusive evidence. Thank you for playing.

[.blank cd]

Quick research shows that its speculative that Mr. Lanza may have been autistic, which is a developmental disorder, and not a mental illness.

However, I can't find a reliable source that confirms he was taking any SSRI's. Only autopsy report will confirm or deny that, not what some distant family member thinks she saw him taking

[David88vert]

You've referenced three cases of people who were diagnosed mentally Ill prior to committing a crime, (the jury is still out on Mr. Holmes),out of how many cases of gun violence, per year?

In the scientific world, we call that inconclusive evidence. Thank you for playing.



What on earth are you talking about? I gave specific cases earlier in this thread, and you claimed, "Not necessarily."
I asked you to address these specifically, and once again, you failed to back up your statements. That's twice in this thread alone.

I've given you specifics, and you muddle around with vague generalities. I never stated anything even remotely similar to "All gun violence comes from mental health issues" or anything even remotely similar to any such statement - that is all of your own ramblings and inferences.

You're not a scientist or a psychologist. You're a person who lacks the ability to read and comprehend what is plainly in front of you.

[.blank cd]

I just broke your common thread for you.

[David88vert]

Quick research shows that its speculative that Mr. Lanza may have been autistic, which is a developmental disorder, and not a mental illness.

However, I can't find a reliable source that confirms he was taking any SSRI's. Only autopsy report will confirm or deny that, not what some distant family member thinks she saw him taking

You mean that you typed, "Adam Lanza" in Google, and that is the basis of your research into your expert psychological statement that we should value over people that actually are involved in this specific case.

So, your expert opinion is that he did not have any mental illness, and just woke up one day and decided to go kill a bunch of kids? Not crazy at all, right?

[David88vert]

I just broke your common thread for you.

You broke nothing. You have no basis for any of your statements.
I'm out for tonight. When you come up with something other than your expert opinion, let us know.

[.blank cd]

You mean that you typed, "Adam Lanza" in Google, and that is the basis of your research into your expert psychological statement that we should value over people that actually are involved in this specific case.

So, your expert opinion is that he did not have any mental illness, and just woke up one day and decided to go kill a bunch of kids? Not crazy at all, right?

I'm concluding that you don't know what you're talking about and that zero "experts" have confirmed anything you're saying. Out of 4 of your referenced cases, 1 was declared unfit to stand trial, and two had legitimate mental illnesses. You use this false premise to make a poor case about how mental illness is the problem, when its really not that big of an issue. What you think being "crazy" and "mentally ill" means is irrelevant and really not medically accurate. If I sat down and really delved into it, I'd blow your whole argument apart like I do so regularly. But I'm not because I just don't care and would rather watch you make an ignorant fool out of yourself because its fun.

[Sinfix_15]

Unfortunately we don't have very many studies on gun violence, partly due to the NRA's influence, and that is part of the reason we have such strong disagreements on what is reasonable. You say not to undervalue a gun's ability to save your life but stats say that if you have a gun in your home, you are more likely to be involved in an accidental shooting than to successfully protect yourself from a home invasion. How should that be interpreted? I'm sure you could find many stats that support gun ownership. The point is, there is evidence on both sides so a reasonable debate still exists. Furthermore, stats will never make us all have the same values.

I don't agree with Obama's gun policies but I also think you are taking that statement too literally. I think it is merely a rhetorical statement to say we need to take a strong look at what should be done to prevent these types of incidents to the extent we have control over. I don't think Obama would support banning all children even though that would certainly cut down on the number of child deaths we have every year.

I dont think a study on gun violence is that important. Would i oppose studies on gun violence? right now i oppose any and everything even remotely negative towards gun ownership because i feel like the left is waiting to pounce on the first opportunity they get to sway public opinion on gun control. I feel criminal psychology covers guns violence. A gun is a tool... like a hammer, that can be used to do lawful or unlawful things. Putting a gun in my hand doesnt coerce me into being a criminal. The problem with stats is that you can cherry pick them to say whatever you want them to say. That is what makes Obama's verbiage even more offensive. He reveals what he WANTS to say/do, and the stats that follow are nothing more than him trying to decide his approach. If the political winds shifted in the right direction tomorrow, Obama would sign gun control so fast his pen would burn a hole in the paper. The reason there is a political war going on over this topic.... is because there is a political war going on over this topic. Both sides stand fit for battle.... the only difference in Obama and the NRA is that Obama is still pandering to an audience that feels like he's a victim. As much as he wants to put his foot up the NRA's ass, he has to somewhat maintain his persona.

The true brilliance of the ideas that our nation was founded on shines through when i look back and realize that every proposal you can make regarding gun control has already been answered.. back in 1787. The words are very clear and very precise. They were constructed with times like this in mind. If Obama or any other politician actually wants to make the world a safer place, theyre going to have to work WITH gun owners and accept the reality that a gun free america will NEVER exist. Any effort towards seeking it is wasted effort, wasted time, wasted tax money. If there was ever a time to "agree to disagree", that time would be when the other party is 100 million people who own guns.

[David88vert]

I'm concluding that you don't know what you're talking about and that zero "experts" have confirmed anything you're saying. Out of 4 of your referenced cases, 1 was declared unfit to stand trial, and two had legitimate mental illnesses. You use this false premise to make a poor case about how mental illness is the problem, when its really not that big of an issue. What you think being "crazy" and "mentally ill" means is irrelevant and really not medically accurate. If I sat down and really delved into it, I'd blow your whole argument apart like I do so regularly. But I'm not because I just don't care and would rather watch you make an ignorant fool out of yourself because its fun.

Once again, you provide nothing of factual basis for your personal opinion, and you expect to be considered knowledgeable. What a joke.
I have provided facts, not my opinion, but the opinions of professional psychologists.
You prefer your own opinion to those who actually knew the people involved and professionals who studied these cases. I don't believe that I have met anyone that is so clueless as you.

In the cases that I showed in this thread, all are considered mental health issues. I never made any claim that all violence is due to mental health issues. Your repeated statements implying that I am at that position shows that you are unable to read and comprehend a simple statement.

The ME that actually examined Adam Lanza has stated that he had no tumors and that he does not expect the genetic or toxicology reports to show any reason for this shooting.

I suppose that you know better than Nancy Jackson and the other professionals that agree that he had some sort of disorder, since you have spent all of 10 minutes with Google on the subject.

Maybe you should follow the NY Daily: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/lanza-psychic-break-article-1.1243602?localLinksEnabled=false

You are a joke and everyone is laughing at you.

[E36slide]

This whole thread is personal opinion. People choose to shoot other people not because their crazy. I know a lot of kids who have killed people just because they thought it was cool and they were trying to fit in. So that makes them mentally ill ? I think it just means they were poorly raised and stupid. You are a product of your environment. People who grow up around violence are more prone to be violent. People use "clinically insane/ill" to get out of the death penalty. So they act all crazy because that's what their told to do by their lawyer (I've seen half of this first hand being I've seen all types of crazy people in jail). I'm not saying it isn't possible for mentally ill people to kill someone but its deff a small percentage of gun violence. A good bit of shootings are accidental. I love reading you smart people's arguments. Y'all try so hard to one up each other...try using common sense when researching. Common sense says a person in rage and posses a forearm means to hurt you this doesn't mean their mentally ill it means they were overly pissed. I'm sure half of you have been so angry with someone you could have shot them if you had your gun on you.




Sent from my mind

[E36slide]

Almost every car crash fatality happens with a licensed driver. We dont need cars capable of inflicting the carnage that they do. We dont need cars that go the speeds that they go. I understand that racing is part of our history and something that you enjoy..... but race cars are dangerous. With these cars being made available to the public there's no way of keeping them away from people who intend to abuse them. If 1 life can be saved, then it needs to be done.

You're being hypocritical. There is no way you can sit there and say you have never driven a very fast car fast on public roads.. If you have then you shouldn't be able to drive at all. Where was your test for mental illnesses to drive a vehicle ? You have boasted about crushing people from digs in your sr powered beast. You are a danger to all who drive on the roads. So is everyone in this car forum. We all drive above the speed limit, we all want stupid fast cars that's just life. Giving people a test to make sure their capable of driving is dumb (mental tests at least). Most accidents are from common error "drink falls in lap instead of pulling over you bend over to pick it up while swerving into on common traffic boooooom head on collision" before you obtain your license you have to go through two tests. I'm sure the inspector could tell if the person they are testing has some type of disorder that would impact their driving ability.


I could kill you in a geo metro just as I could in a lambo.


Sent from my mind

[David88vert]

This whole thread is personal opinion. People choose to shoot other people not because their crazy. I know a lot of kids who have killed people just because they thought it was cool and they were trying to fit in. So that makes them mentally ill ? I think it just means they were poorly raised and stupid. You are a product of your environment. People who grow up around violence are more prone to be violent. People use "clinically insane/ill" to get out of the death penalty. So they act all crazy because that's what their told to do by their lawyer (I've seen half of this first hand being I've seen all types of crazy people in jail). I'm not saying it isn't possible for mentally ill people to kill someone but its deff a small percentage of gun violence. A good bit of shootings are accidental. I love reading you smart people's arguments. Y'all try so hard to one up each other...try using common sense when researching. Common sense says a person in rage and posses a forearm means to hurt you this doesn't mean their mentally ill it means they were overly pissed. I'm sure half of you have been so angry with someone you could have shot them if you had your gun on you.


No one is claiming that all people with mental health issues are violent. Or even that they are the majority.
No one is claiming that all violence comes from people with mental health issues. Or even that they are the majority.
Specific cases are being discussed - that's all.

Published opinions from trained, certified professional psychologists should have more credibility that someone who has sat in on a couple of lectures and hasn't studied the cases at all, right?

People without mental health issues make bad judgment calls all the time. These people generally end up in jail, and perhaps even kill a couple of people. What we don't typically see is a sane person making a bad judgement call and specifically blasting their way into an elementary school and executing a bunch of first graders.




You're being hypocritical. There is no way you can sit there and say you have never driven a very fast car fast on public roads.. If you have then you shouldn't be able to drive at all. Where was your test for mental illnesses to drive a vehicle ? You have boasted about crushing people from digs in your sr powered beast. You are a danger to all who drive on the roads. So is everyone in this car forum. We all drive above the speed limit, we all want stupid fast cars that's just life. Giving people a test to make sure their capable of driving is dumb (mental tests at least). Most accidents are from common error "drink falls in lap instead of pulling over you bend over to pick it up while swerving into on common traffic boooooom head on collision" before you obtain your license you have to go through two tests. I'm sure the inspector could tell if the person they are testing has some type of disorder that would impact their driving ability.
I could kill you in a geo metro just as I could in a lambo.


You do realize that a lot of what is posted in this thread is simply to provoke though, don't you?

[E36slide]

No one is claiming that all people with mental health issues are violent. Or even that they are the majority.
No one is claiming that all violence comes from people with mental health issues. Or even that they are the majority.
Specific cases are being discussed - that's all.

Published opinions from trained, certified professional psychologists should have more credibility that someone who has sat in on a couple of lectures and hasn't studied the cases at all, right?

People without mental health issues make bad judgment calls all the time. These people generally end up in jail, and perhaps even kill a couple of people. What we don't typically see is a sane person making a bad judgement call and specifically blasting their way into an elementary school and executing a bunch of first graders.





You do realize that a lot of what is posted in this thread is simply to provoke though, don't you?

Just because you have a degree doesn't make you an expert on how a person thinks. Everyone is different.. Have you ever talked to someone who has murdered another person ? I have. A bunch actually. Sane people can snap just like a crazy person can snap. My roommate in jail beat his grandma to death with a hammer because she wouldn't give him money for drugs. From just meeting him he seemed like a very nice guy. Nothing seemed crazy about him until I found out what he did to get into jail. Y'all are referencing cases but haven't actually met these people or been i their situation so how would it be useful for your argument. Are y'all just arguing for fun or something ?


And I know most of sin fix's post are just a way to stir up a pointless lecture/argument.


Sent from my mind

[David88vert]

Just because you have a degree doesn't make you an expert on how a person thinks. Everyone is different.. Have you ever talked to someone who has murdered another person ? I have. A bunch actually. Sane people can snap just like a crazy person can snap. My roommate in jail beat his grandma to death with a hammer because she wouldn't give him money for drugs. From just meeting him he seemed like a very nice guy. Nothing seemed crazy about him until I found out what he did to get into jail. Y'all are referencing cases but haven't actually met these people or been i their situation so how would it be useful for your argument. Are y'all just arguing for fun or something ?


And I know most of sin fix's post are just a way to stir up a pointless lecture/argument.


Sent from my mind

You have no clue about who I know or have known.
You spent a tiny amount of time in a county jail. Spend some time with some people who lived behind the wall at Jackson for awhile.

[E36slide]

You have no clue about who I know or have known.
You spent a tiny amount of time in a county jail. Spend some time with some people who lived behind the wall at Jackson for awhile.

A year and a half is hardly a short time. I've met many people from Jackson. They all said Gwinnett county jail was worse. I never said you didn't thAts why I asked if you have...a question mark usually implies a question I wasn't assuming you haven't.


Sent from my mind

[.blank cd]

Newtown - Adama Lanza
Adam’s uncle said he was taking an anti-psychotic drug called Fanapt.Fanapt can cause suicidal thoughts and affect judgment according to product warnings..There is no evidence so far that Adam Lanza was taking any seretonin inhibitors. Zero. And there are no medical experts who confirm he was taking drugs OR that he had a mental disorder. What his uncle thinks he was taking is MERELY SPECULATION. (That would be a common thread with you, speculation.) Relatives say he MAY have been autistic, but autism IS NOT a mental illness, it is classified as a developmental disorder, and there is ZERO link between people with autism and violent behavior. ZERO professional psychologists worth their degree or their salt will disagree.
Gunman's family at a loss to explain Connecticut shooting - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/16/justice/connecticut-shooting-suspect-profile/index.html)
Autism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism)
You're 0 for 1 so far...


Aurora Massacre - James HolmesFirst we need to back up and realize that everyone who is a "patient of psychiatry" DOES NOT have mental health issues. Then we further need to understand what a mental health issue is, and while dysphoric mania is listed as a legitimate mental illness, Holmes was never officially diagnosed with the disorder. For all we know so far, it was a self diagnosis by a student of neurology and someone planning to cover his tracks. Speculation again confirmed, no official diagnosis again...

Thats 0 for 2


Isla Vista Massacre - David Attias (student at University of CA, Santa Barbara)
Fact: He Was found legally insane and to have bipolar disorder.Alright, you hit one! 1 for 3


Susan Smith - Smith's defense psychiatrist diagnosed her with dependent personality disorder.Meh, this is close, and a toss-up. Personality disorder is not necessarily a mental disorder.

It seems what the common thread is, is that you're trying to compartmentalize people with issues as all having some legitimate mental health issues. The American Psychiatric Asocciation, The DSM-IV, and the International Classification of diseases all classify personality disorders, developmental disorders, and mental disorders separate of each other.

Mental disorder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_disorder)

Here are both of said publications, but I suspect you wouldnt know what you're looking at anyway.

http://allpsych.com/disorders/dsm.html

http://www.who.int/classifications/icd/en/

People who go on killing sprees do not necessarily have to have a mental disorder, because like I said before, if we classify people capable of killing other people as mentally ill, we can stuff A LOT of people in that category.


I have provided facts, not my opinion, but the opinions of professional psychologists.I dont believe you've referenced any professional psychologists opinions.


In the cases that I showed in this thread, all are considered mental health issues.Nope. Not really.



No one is claiming that all people with mental health issues are violent. Or even that they are the majority.
No one is claiming that all violence comes from people with mental health issues. Or even that they are the majority.
Specific cases are being discussed - that's all.Slow down, you're backpedaling so fast I cant keep up.

Thanks for playing, again.

[.blank cd]

Just because you have a degree doesn't make you an expert on how a person thinks.LOL, yes it does.

[quickdodge®]

People use "clinically insane/ill" to get out of the death penalty.

I agree with you here. I would have to say that killings by firearms by "normal" folks are probably higher in percentage than killing by people with mental disorders or accidental.


There is no way you can sit there and say you have never driven a very fast car fast on public roads.. ...............
............. You are a danger to all who drive on the roads. So is everyone in this car forum. We all drive above the speed limit, we all want stupid fast cars that's just life.

I know I can say that I've never driven a very fast car on public roads. And I can surely say that I'm definitely not a danger to folks on the road. Am I a potential danger? Of course. Accidents happen. How do I know? One accident (1993 in the rain) in twenty-seven years is a nice number to have. I'm sure the inspector could tell if the person they are testing has some type of disorder that would impact their driving ability. Also, I drive maybe five miles over the limit. I used to not, but I never drove over ten over back before I had my CDL. And I couldn't care less about owning a fast car.


I'm sure the inspector could tell if the person they are testing has some type of disorder that would impact their driving ability.

If I were a betting person, I'd take you up on that. I'm quite confident that driving test instructors do not have a degree in psychology. Having a mental disorder doesn't mean you're "loony" twenty-four hours a day.






You do realize that a lot of what is posted in this thread is simply to provoke though, don't you?

I'll be honest, I believe this thread was created for just that, lolol.


A year and a half is hardly a short time.

In jail speak, that amount of time is a short time. Might not feel like it, but it is.

[E36slide]

LOL, yes it does.

Sorry it doesn't guy. You will never know what a killer truly feels before and after he kills only he will know. You can only make assumptions. Your job is to make assumptions on why people do what they do. You can't be 100% on why they did it.

Instead you make excuses for the person. "He's suffering from ---enter fake mental illness here----"



Sent from my mind

[E36slide]

I agree with you here. I would have to say that killings by firearms by "normal" folks are probably higher in percentage than killing by people with mental disorders or accidental.



I know I can say that I've never driven a very fast car on public roads. And I can surely say that I'm definitely not a danger to folks on the road. Am I a potential danger? Of course. Accidents happen. How do I know? One accident (1993 in the rain) in twenty-seven years is a nice number to have. I'm sure the inspector could tell if the person they are testing has some type of disorder that would impact their driving ability. Also, I drive maybe five miles over the limit. I used to not, but I never drove over ten over back before I had my CDL. And I couldn't care less about owning a fast car.



If I were a betting person, I'd take you up on that. I'm quite confident that driving test instructors do not have a degree in psychology. Having a mental disorder doesn't mean you're "loony" twenty-four hours a day.






I'll be honest, I believe this thread was created for just that, lolol.



In jail speak, that amount of time is a short time. Might not feel like it, but it is.

Actually a year in half In county is about 3 years in prison. County has less privileges. 20 hour lock down 10 min phone calls 15 min visitation. This is for people innocent until proven guilty ? Prison has 20x more privileges time goes a lot faster to a person free to do things throughout the day (giving thy have a low charge like mine) shit the only bad thing would be the gangs and the people being rapped but that's actually slim to none. I believe people hype that up a bit.

I also don't need a degree to know someone is whacky in the head (or above the norm).


Sent from my mind

[.blank cd]

Sorry it doesn't guy.Sorry, it does guy. Tell all that bullshit to the doctors who've spent years in PhD programs. Your opinion of the field of psychological medicine is starkly different from reality.

[quickdodge®]

Actually a year in half In county is about 3 years in prison. County has less privileges. 20 hour lock down 10 min phone calls 15 min visitation. This is for people innocent until proven guilty ? Prison has 20x more privileges time goes a lot faster to a person free to do things throughout the day (giving thy have a low charge like mine) shit the only bad thing would be the gangs and the people being rapped but that's actually slim to none. I believe people hype that up a bit.

I also don't need a degree to know someone is whacky in the head (or above the norm).


Sent from my mind

Three years is not exactly enough to make a "seasoned vet" of the penal system, dude. I'm not really concerned with which level is worse than the other. Jail is jail. Personally, I don't see the reason that you see for your continued bragging about your knowledge of the incarcerated.

As far as gang life and violence, it is as bad as it's "hyped up to be" in certain systems.

And lastly, as far as you not needing a degree is laughable, dude. Because every single person with a mental illness displays that illness every second, minute and hour of every day of every week of every year. Come on, man.

[E36slide]

Sorry, it does guy. Tell all that bullshit to the doctors who've spent years in PhD programs. Your opinion of the field of psychological medicine is starkly different from reality.

Sounds like a waste of money and time.

Funny how they study people give data to scientist who create drugs that cause more damage then good.

Money well spent !


Sent from my mind

[.blank cd]

Sounds like a waste of money and time.

Funny how they study people give data to scientist who create drugs that cause more damage then good.

Money well spent !


Sent from my mind

This is why you're not a doctor in anything.

[Vteckidd]

Almost every car crash fatality happens with a licensed driver. We dont need cars capable of inflicting the carnage that they do. We dont need cars that go the speeds that they go. I understand that racing is part of our history and something that you enjoy..... but race cars are dangerous. With these cars being made available to the public there's no way of keeping them away from people who intend to abuse them. If 1 life can be saved, then it needs to be done.

youre kind of mizing two arguments truthfully.

Accidental car deaths is not congruent to mass killing perpetrated willingly.

To have an accurate comparison you would need to include:
All accidental car deaths vs all accidental shooting deaths
All crimes committed with a car vs all crimes committed with a gun

I suspect the cars vastly outweigh the guns in either scenario but it should. Cars are much more likely to be used daily than guns. You drive to work because you have to, you dont have to shoot your gun at a range daily to survive.

It would be like comparing eating and choking hazards to accidental death by say, going to the mall.

[Vteckidd]

simon, just tell me why you need a car capable of going over 100mph? why do we need motorcycles that go 180mph....? can you give me a reason?

we dont need it, but we have rules governing it.

The main detriment to your argument is the father never guaranteed the right to a car. If its not specifically mentioned in the constitution, its not a right, its a privilege.

[E36slide]

Three years is not exactly enough to make a "seasoned vet" of the penal system, dude. I'm not really concerned with which level is worse than the other. Jail is jail. Personally, I don't see the reason that you see for your continued bragging about your knowledge of the incarcerated.

As far as gang life and violence, it is as bad as it's "hyped up to be" in certain systems.

And lastly, as far as you not needing a degree is laughable, dude. Because every single person with a mental illness displays that illness every second, minute and hour of every day of every week of every year. Come on, man.

Lol, dude I when I was younger I was told I had a learning disability and that I was ADHD. I was examined by many doctors. They didn't know I just didn't give a fuck at the time. A doctor can't go into your brain and see what it is your thinking or what it is making you think that. These illnesses you speak of are not actual illnesses. I don't have a learning disability (in high school I was I. Honors gifted classes). What illnesses can you not see that isn't obvious ? I'm curious. Enlightened me.. Because my family is pretty damn fucked up. I've watched my mom bs so many "phd" doctors... Half of the shit she said she had she didn't. People need a job do we make up illnesses like ADHD.. I can't focus so I need drugs...no I just don't care to focus. Giving those drugs that are suppose to help leave more side affects then they help. No I do not need a degree to point out someone with autism, or someone who's schizophrenic. Major mental illnesses are pretty obvious guy. I just laugh at commercials now days. "Do you have hard time sleeping ?" Well take hvsghjenbennebsbbjksmns and you will sleep like a baby.. Side affects may include loss of sight, puking, diarrhea, head aches, and even death...

Lol so if I ever get diagnosed with some type of "mental illness" ill take my damn chances. Because the same guy with a phd said I would never be able to comprehend above a 9th grade level yet I'm using words like comprehend correctly on a sentence. Cool phd guy lolol

As far as jail goes. I don't brag about it but was using for an argument stand point. I was around people who seemed normal, but have killed people. Yes 3 years doesn't seem like a lot but for someone like me who hasn't ever been i trouble prior that's a hell of a long time.


Sent from my mind

[quickdodge®]

Lol, dude I when I was younger I was told I had a learning disability and that I was ADHD. I was examined by many doctors. They didn't know I just didn't give a fuck at the time. A doctor can't go into your brain and see what it is your thinking or what it is making you think that. These illnesses you speak of are not actual illnesses. I don't have a learning disability (in high school I was I. Honors gifted classes). What illnesses can you not see that isn't obvious ? I'm curious. Enlightened me.. Because my family is pretty damn fucked up. I've watched my mom bs so many "phd" doctors... Half of the shit she said she had she didn't. People need a job do we make up illnesses like ADHD.. I can't focus so I need drugs...no I just don't care to focus. Giving those drugs that are suppose to help leave more side affects then they help. No I do not need a degree to point out someone with autism, or someone who's schizophrenic. Major mental illnesses are pretty obvious guy. I just laugh at commercials now days. "Do you have hard time sleeping ?" Well take hvsghjenbennebsbbjksmns and you will sleep like a baby.. Side affects may include loss of sight, puking, diarrhea, head aches, and even death...

Lol so if I ever get diagnosed with some type of "mental illness" ill take my damn chances. Because the same guy with a phd said I would never be able to comprehend above a 9th grade level yet I'm using words like comprehend correctly on a sentence. Cool phd guy lolol

The only thing I'll say about this part of your reply is that it looks to me like you did what you could to circumnavigate my reply to fit you and your "argument." It really made no sense.



As far as jail goes. I don't brag about it but was using for an argument stand point. I was around people who seemed normal, but have killed people. Yes 3 years doesn't seem like a lot but for someone like me who hasn't ever been i trouble prior that's a hell of a long time.

But with only one and a half years, you have no argument.

And the last part about the "3 years " not seeming like a lot? That's what I said in the beginning, it may feel like a long time. Never mind that you didn't do three years.

[E36slide]

This is why you're not a doctor in anything.

Lol I just date one.


Sent from my mind

[.blank cd]

Lol I just date one.


Sent from my mind

No you don't. Or else you wouldn't have made a stupid generalization like you did. Plus it's been proven you're a pathological liar so I have no reason to believe this

[E36slide]

No you don't. Or else you wouldn't have made a stupid generalization like you did. Plus it's been proven you're a pathological liar so I have no reason to believe this

You may message my gf ? She went to Emory.


Sent from my mind

[E36slide]

The only thing I'll say about this part of your reply is that it looks to me like you did what you could to circumnavigate my reply to fit you and your "argument." It really made no sense.




But with only one and a half years, you have no argument.

And the last part about the "3 years " not seeming like a lot? That's what I said in the beginning, it may feel like a long time. Never mind that you didn't do three years.

No I just did a year and six months county. Which is like 3 years in prison. Hence when you get county time it's usually 2 for 1.


Edit: I was showing you how someone with a phd tried to evaluate me and said I had illnesses I didn't actually have. You see people who don't act like you think a normal person should so you label then mentally ill and stuff them full of medicine.

Sent from my mind

[.blank cd]

You may message my gf ? She went to Emory.


Sent from my mind

There's a lot of things at Emory. She's a PhD'd psychologist? If she has a phd in anything, or even pursuing a phd, she'd think you were as stupid of a shit as everyone else on IA for sayin some dumb shit like "doctors aren't experts"

[quickdodge®]

No I just did a year and six months county. Which is like 3 years in prison. Hence when you get county time it's usually 2 for 1.


Exactly, my friend. A year and a half. This "like 3 years" is just crap. One and half years is one and half years, not "like 3 years." Not nearly long enough to put yourself in a "know-it-all" position when it comes to the penal system. And I'm not saying that you said you're a "know-it-all," but although you can offer up some advice on the matter, you're well behind the learning curve of prison life.

[David88vert]

There is no evidence so far that Adam Lanza was taking any seretonin inhibitors. Zero. And there are no medical experts who confirm he was taking drugs OR that he had a mental disorder. What his uncle thinks he was taking is MERELY SPECULATION. (That would be a common thread with you, speculation.) Relatives say he MAY have been autistic, but autism IS NOT a mental illness, it is classified as a developmental disorder, and there is ZERO link between people with autism and violent behavior. ZERO professional psychologists worth their degree or their salt will disagree.
Gunman's family at a loss to explain Connecticut shooting - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/16/justice/connecticut-shooting-suspect-profile/index.html)
Autism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism)
You're 0 for 1 so far...

First we need to back up and realize that everyone who is a "patient of psychiatry" DOES NOT have mental health issues. Then we further need to understand what a mental health issue is, and while dysphoric mania is listed as a legitimate mental illness, Holmes was never officially diagnosed with the disorder. For all we know so far, it was a self diagnosis by a student of neurology and someone planning to cover his tracks. Speculation again confirmed, no official diagnosis again...

Thats 0 for 2

Alright, you hit one! 1 for 3

Meh, this is close, and a toss-up. Personality disorder is not necessarily a mental disorder.

It seems what the common thread is, is that you're trying to compartmentalize people with issues as all having some legitimate mental health issues. The American Psychiatric Asocciation, The DSM-IV, and the International Classification of diseases all classify personality disorders, developmental disorders, and mental disorders separate of each other.

Mental disorder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_disorder)

Here are both of said publications, but I suspect you wouldnt know what you're looking at anyway.

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM IV) (http://allpsych.com/disorders/dsm.html)

WHO | International Classification of Diseases (ICD) (http://www.who.int/classifications/icd/en/)

People who go on killing sprees do not necessarily have to have a mental disorder, because like I said before, if we classify people capable of killing other people as mentally ill, we can stuff A LOT of people in that category.

I dont believe you've referenced any professional psychologists opinions.

Nope. Not really.


Slow down, you're backpedaling so fast I cant keep up.

Thanks for playing, again.

If you knew what you were talking about, you would know already that Adam Lanza's toxicology report has not been released yet. Additionally, you should know that the ME has already completed his autopsy, but the full report is not yet released. Professional psychatrists that have actually studied this case stand on the side of him having mental health issues. You, having not studied the case at all, seem to think that you know better than them. When asked about Adam Lanza, Dr. Harold Koplewicz, President of the Child Mind Institute told INSIDE EDITION, "There are many teenagers who complain they don't feel anything. By physically hurting themselves, either with cutting or with burning, they feel more alive. This is clearly a symptom of psychiatric disorder." He ent on to say, “The one thing we do know is that when people feel hopeless, that is the most important symptom that makes someone strike out against others and against themselves,” he noted. “Having Asperger’s disorder by itself doesn’t put one at higher risk for killing someone or killing themselves, but feeling socially isolated, feeling trapped, feeling educationally overwhelmed, feeling tremendous despair without any tools to get your way out of the box, can lead to any human being to desperate measures."

“It would be unfair to say every child with Asperger’s will become a mass murderer, but combining Asperger’s with his troubled family situation, a sense of isolation — no job, no school — and no care and treatment, is a recipe for a disaster.” - Nancy Alspaugh-Jackson, director of ACT Today, a major autism treatment program in Los Angeles

In plain English - autism is not the sole basis for the killing, but is likely one of the multiple contributing factors.

These are the two most interviewed psychologists on Adam Lanza. Are these two "not woth their degree or their salt"?

I believe that you and I can agree that MOST autistic individuals are of little danger to society. I NEVER claimed them to be, nor that autism itself is a mental illness. You keep trying to imply that I said something like that, so you can try to feel better about your lack of basis for your comments.

You can try to play word games all you want, but the facts remain the same.

Susan Smith's psychatrist definitely spent more time studying her than you have. Here is a quick insight on the trial testimony. A Psychological Aspect of Susan Smith: Dependent Personality Disorder. Essays on Literary Works (http://www.mannmuseum.com/a-psychological-aspect-of-susan-smith-dependent-personality-disorder/)

James Holmes - let's watch the trial and see what the professional opinions are on the stand. I believe that they have a little more knowledge than you have. Actually, a lot more knowledge, as you have shown that you give your opinions with no basis, and have not produced a single professional psychologist's opinion to back up your claims.

[E36slide]

There's a lot of things at Emory. She's a PhD'd psychologist? If she has a phd in anything, or even pursuing a phd, she'd think you were as stupid of a shit as everyone else on IA for sayin some dumb shit like "doctors aren't experts"

Never said doctors weren't experts but you don't need to be one to see someone has a obvious mental illness. She gave up on med school because of how much it cost but in the field of medicine she's very smart. Now she is a financial major.


Sent from my mind

[.blank cd]

A year and a half in county and he thinks its equal to 3 years in prison? LOL

Prognosis confirmed.

[E36slide]

A year and a half in county and he thinks its equal to 3 years in prison? LOL

Prognosis confirmed.

A guy with a phd thinks he knows something about jail. Cute

Prison has more privileges then county making county worse. People would come in from Jackson and beg to be sent back that's how bad gwinnette county really is. People get stabbed and messed up just as bad in county as they do in prison. What softball team did you play on in county ? Exactly there is none. Your lucky to even watch a movie.


Sent from my mind

[quickdodge®]

Wait a minute......... I'm enjoying the dialogue that were having, E36, but you just shot yourself in the foot, dude. Here is the transcript


This is why you're not a doctor in anything.


Lol I just date one.


Sent from my mind


You may message my gf ? She went to Emory.


Sent from my mind


She gave up on med school because of how much it cost but in the field of medicine she's very smart. Now she is a financial major.


Sent from my mind

You stated that you are dating a doctor. Going to medical school for a spell and quitting is not a qualifier for any form of licensing from the AMA. The girl you're dating is, in fact, NOT a doctor at all. And even if she were, her license is not like a deed to a house or title to a car, you're name would not be on there so you would not be qualified to do anything in the medical field just because you're dating a doctor.

[quickdodge®]

A guy with a phd thinks he knows something about jail. Cute

Prison has more privileges then county making county worse. People would come in from Jackson and beg to be sent back that's how bad gwinnette county really is. People get stabbed and messed up just as bad in county as they do in prison. What softball team did you play on in county ? Exactly there is none. Your lucky to even watch a movie.


Sent from my mind

Why are you hell bent on this angle of the jail time? Who cares, man? Jail is jail is jail. Who cares what it feels like?


Never said doctors weren't experts but you don't need to be one to see someone has a obvious mental illness.

So you think you could spot an illness in a five minute time span with someone? Lolol.

[Sinfix_15]

And I know most of sin fix's post are just a way to stir up a pointless lecture/argument.


Sent from my mind

Should have been obvious that this thread was a satire just from reading the title. As with any argument, it's purpose is to make you think about a particular topic differently. I feel that objective has been accomplished.

[.blank cd]

If you knew what you were talking about, you would know already that Adam Lanza's toxicology report has not been released yet.Did I say his toxicology report was released? Please quote me where I did, otherwise, you're talking out of your ass again


Additionally, you should know that the ME has already completed his autopsy, but the full report is not yet released. Professional psychatrists that have actually studied this case stand on the side of him having mental health issues. No. No they havent.


When asked about Adam Lanza, Dr. Harold Koplewicz, President of the Child Mind Institute told INSIDE EDITION, "There are many teenagers who complain they don't feel anything. By physically hurting themselves, either with cutting or with burning, they feel more alive. This is clearly a symptom of psychiatric disorder." He ent on to say, “The one thing we do know is that when people feel hopeless, that is the most important symptom that makes someone strike out against others and against themselves,” he noted. “Having Asperger’s disorder by itself doesn’t put one at higher risk for killing someone or killing themselves, but feeling socially isolated, feeling trapped, feeling educationally overwhelmed, feeling tremendous despair without any tools to get your way out of the box, can lead to any human being to desperate measures."What are you getting at here?


“It would be unfair to say every child with Asperger’s will become a mass murderer, but combining Asperger’s with his troubled family situation, a sense of isolation — no job, no school — and no care and treatment, is a recipe for a disaster.” - Nancy Alspaugh-Jackson, director of ACT Today, a major autism treatment program in Los AngelesMs Jackson is a journalist and an activist. Not a Dr.


In plain English - autism is not the sole basis for the killing, but is likely one of the multiple contributing factors.Autism is not a contributing factor. Dr. Harold Koplewicz would disagree with your generalization.


These are the two most interviewed psychologists on Adam Lanza. Are these two "not woth their degree or their salt"?One is not a doctor, the other confirmed everything I said. So yes, the one doctor is worth his salt.


I believe that you and I can agree that MOST autistic individuals are of little danger to society. I NEVER claimed them to be, nor that autism itself is a mental illness. You keep trying to imply that I said something like that, so you can try to feel better about your lack of basis for your comments.Your exact quote was "the common thread between all these incidents was a mental illness" I pointed out with 100% accuracy that one of the four incidents you referenced had a legitimate clinically defined mental illness.


Susan Smith's psychatrist definitely spent more time studying her than you have. Here is a quick insight on the trial testimony. A Psychological Aspect of Susan Smith: Dependent Personality Disorder. Essays on Literary Works (http://www.mannmuseum.com/a-psychological-aspect-of-susan-smith-dependent-personality-disorder/)You say a personality disorder is a mental disorder; professional psychologists, and myself, have said differently. I guess it's "po-Tay-toe po-tah-toe", only in you're case it's potato-turtles.

Done talking out of your ass yet? Or should I school you some more? At this rate I should start charging tuition.

[quickdodge®]

Should have been obvious that this thread was a satire just from reading the title. As with any argument, it's purpose is to make you think about a particular topic differently. I feel that objective has been accomplished.

I think about it the same as I did before, lolol. And that's not at all.

[.blank cd]

Should have been obvious that this thread was a satire just from reading the title. As with any argument, it's purpose is to make you think about a particular topic differently. I feel that objective has been accomplished.

I feel that the objective was lost on the OP.

[Sinfix_15]

youre kind of mizing two arguments truthfully.

Accidental car deaths is not congruent to mass killing perpetrated willingly.

To have an accurate comparison you would need to include:
All accidental car deaths vs all accidental shooting deaths
All crimes committed with a car vs all crimes committed with a gun

I suspect the cars vastly outweigh the guns in either scenario but it should. Cars are much more likely to be used daily than guns. You drive to work because you have to, you dont have to shoot your gun at a range daily to survive.

It would be like comparing eating and choking hazards to accidental death by say, going to the mall.

My suggestion would not remove travel, it would just have the government provide you with your travel via public transportation. The same way the police would provide us with protection if there were no guns.

[David88vert]

A year and a half in county and he thinks its equal to 3 years in prison? LOL

Prognosis confirmed.

Damn. I HAVE to agree with you here.
LOL.

[David88vert]

A guy with a phd thinks he knows something about jail. Cute

Prison has more privileges then county making county worse. People would come in from Jackson and beg to be sent back that's how bad gwinnette county really is. People get stabbed and messed up just as bad in county as they do in prison. What softball team did you play on in county ? Exactly there is none. Your lucky to even watch a movie.


Sent from my mind

I know someone in Gwinnett right now. Theres a reason that Gwinnett is known as the country club. Its not tough at all.

[.blank cd]

youre kind of mizing two arguments truthfully.

Accidental car deaths is not congruent to mass killing perpetrated willingly.

To have an accurate comparison you would need to include:
All accidental car deaths vs all accidental shooting deaths
All crimes committed with a car vs all crimes committed with a gun

I suspect the cars vastly outweigh the guns in either scenario but it should. Cars are much more likely to be used daily than guns. You drive to work because you have to, you dont have to shoot your gun at a range daily to survive.

It would be like comparing eating and choking hazards to accidental death by say, going to the mall.

Of course since conservatives love to pass backwards ass laws, we can't get any kind of solid research on guns

[Sinfix_15]

I feel that the objective was lost on the OP.

It's a little more effective if you lower your liberal firewall. You know, that alarm that goes off in your head when you *almost* have a rational thought?

[Sinfix_15]

Of course since conservatives love to pass backwards ass laws, we can't get any kind of solid research on guns

I hurd dat da gobberment made the 2nd amendmant so dat we could use our guns to control negros.

http://www.alicewalkerfilm.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Danny-Glover1.jpg

[quickdodge®]

I hurd dat da gobberment made the 2nd amendmant so dat we could use our guns to control negros.

You spelled "heard" wrong.

[E36slide]

Wait a minute......... I'm enjoying the dialogue that were having, E36, but you just shot yourself in the foot, dude. Here is the transcript









You stated that you are dating a doctor. Going to medical school for a spell and quitting is not a qualifier for any form of licensing from the AMA. The girl you're dating is, in fact, NOT a doctor at all. And even if she were, her license is not like a deed to a house or title to a car, you're name would not be on there so you would not be qualified to do anything in the medical field just because you're dating a doctor.

She has a degree in one of the medical fields I just don't know which. She done ant have her phd so to y'all she's no expert.


Sent from my mind

[Sinfix_15]

She has a degree in one of the medical fields I just don't know which. She done ant have her phd so to y'all she's no expert.


Sent from my mind

Can you get her to log on one day and give us a psychological explanation for...... well..... you.

[E36slide]

I know someone in Gwinnett right now. Theres a reason that Gwinnett is known as the country club. Its not tough at all.

I'm sure he's in the new towers or m pod.


Sent from my mind

[quickdodge®]

She has a degree in one of the medical fields I just don't know which.
She done ant have her phd so to y'all she's no expert.[/QUOTE]

Which is it, dude? You stated above that she quit the medical field due to high tuition costs and that she is a financial major.


She done ant have her phd so to y'all she's no expert.

It's not according to us. It's according to the licensing board. Not to mention you don't even have any idea what field of medicine she is purported to have this mythical degree in. You do know that general pediatrics doctors are not trained in psychology, right?

[E36slide]

She done ant have her phd so to y'all she's no expert.

Which is it, dude? You stated above that she quit the medical field due to high tuition costs and that she is a financial major.



It's not according to us. It's according to the licensing board. Not to mention you don't even have any idea what field of medicine she is purported to have this mythical degree in. You do know that general pediatrics doctors are not trained in psychology, right?[/QUOTE]

I must explain everything through and through with y'all. It's amazing. She did not continue for her phd it was to expensive. I never cared enough to ask. All my responses are done quickly sorry if I don't type 4 pages so that you can understand.


Sent from my mind

[quickdodge®]

I must explain everything through and through with y'all. It's amazing. She did not continue for her phd it was to expensive. I never cared enough to ask. All my responses are done quickly sorry if I don't type 4 pages so that you can understand.

You're not explaining anything to anyone, man. So she's not a doctor, let alone licensed as such, but you're promoting her as one. And you're also throwing her service capabilities out there not even having a clue as to which area of medicine she would be in?

I'm understanding just fine, sir, because, since we're throwing out levels of education here, I'm a Dean's list graduate from college and I'm quite adept at comprehension. I'm not typing four page responses and I'm definitely getting my points across.

[Elbow]

This may very well be the stupidest thread ever made in this section.

[.blank cd]

It was established from jump street that:

A) E36's girlfriend is about as legitimately degreed as Manti Te'o's girlfriend

And B) E36s creamy white Aloe Vera soft ass would last as long in Atlanta State Prison as the Falcons lasted in the post season.

[E36slide]

You're not explaining anything to anyone, man. So she's not a doctor, let alone licensed as such, but you're promoting her as one. And you're also throwing her service capabilities out there not even having a clue as to which area of medicine she would be in?

I'm understanding just fine, sir, because, since we're throwing out levels of education here, I'm a Dean's list graduate from college and I'm quite adept at comprehension. I'm not typing four page responses and I'm definitely getting my points across.

That's fine... Ill type my point tonight via computer and not cell phone.

I applaud your condescending effort at be lilting my education level based on shitty typed out responses. Ill be sure to log in when I get home and actually give you my 100% attention because as of now your getting 10%. It's not easy to type and work a large machine but I'm doing my best.

Giving you're an educated guy so is my girlfriend. Yes she's not a doctor but posses knowledge in the medical field. I'm sure she would be up to par being she has been on every deans list I. Every school she attended. Giving that she is highly intelligent she lacks common sense as do most of you. I can verbally argue better then I can typing out an argument. I think to much when typing especially if I'm busy doing something.


Sent from my mind

[Elbow]

That's fine... Ill type my point tonight via computer and not cell phone.

I applaud your condescending effort at be lilting my education level based on shitty typed out responses. Ill be sure to log in when I get home and actually give you my 100% attention because as of now your getting 10%. It's not easy to type and work a large machine but I'm doing my best.

Giving you're an educated guy so is my girlfriend. Yes she's not a doctor but posses knowledge in the medical field. I'm sure she would be up to par being she has been on every deans list I. Every school she attended. Giving that she is highly intelligent she lacks common sense as do most of you. I can verbally argue better then I can typing out an argument. I think to much when typing especially if I'm busy doing something.


Sent from my mind

This is the second time now that I've seen you say your girlfriend lacks common sense. What a great boy she found!

You lack it too, didn't you try to sell me a reclinable seat when I specifically said I needed a one piece?

[quickdodge®]

I applaud your condescending effort at be lilting my education level based on shitty typed out responses.

I wasn't trying to belittle you any more than you were me when you typed that you amazed that you keep having to type out your explanations because we just weren't getting it. Also since you volunteered your educational prowess in an earlier post of yours.


Yes she's not a doctor but posses knowledge in the medical field. I'm sure she would be up to par being she has been on every deans list I. Every school she attended. Giving that she is highly intelligent she lacks common sense as do most of you.

I have, what I think, a high level of common sense. So this girl is not a doctor, even quitting school for it, but yet she's still going to be up to par with her knowledge in psychology? Even though you have no idea if she was even remotely in the area of psychology? You do know that anesthesiologists are not the same as psychologists, right? And her being on one Dean's List doesn't make her any more of a doctor than me being on the Dean's List makes me an astronaut.

I'm not understanding how you're able to question my common sense when you're just so far out of the realm, dude.

[E36slide]

This is the second time now that I've seen you say your girlfriend lacks common sense. What a great boy she found!

You lack it too, didn't you try to sell me a reclinable seat when I specifically said I needed a one piece?

No not I but my friend tried to sell my seat to you.

I tell my girl friend she doesn't have common sense. She's catching on.


Sent from my mind

[E36slide]

I wasn't trying to belittle you any more than you were me when you typed that you amazed that you keep having to type out your explanations because we just weren't getting it. Also since you volunteered your educational prowess in an earlier post of yours.



I have, what I think, a high level of common sense. So this girl is not a doctor, even quitting school for it, but yet she's still going to be up to par with her knowledge in psychology? Even though you have no idea if she was even remotely in the area of psychology? You do know that anesthesiologists are not the same as psychologists, right? And her being on one Dean's List doesn't make her any more of a doctor than me being on the Dean's List makes me an astronaut.

I'm not understanding how you're able to question my common sense when you're just so far out of the realm, dude.

Your word play was education at its best not common sense. Someone with a high level of book smarts thinks they have common sense, but you can not just type out some well written paragraph and say "hey I have common sense."

She didn't quit she just didn't want to further her education in medicine. I'm sure it was physiology giving her mom is a school consular and that's what she wanted to be as well. You said you were apart of the deans list so I pointed out so was she but I'm still able to run circles around her when arguing.(verbally) people without common sense can be convinced their wrong even when they're right. I do it all the time. You also started off wrong... "I think I have common sense" the difference between me and you is "I know" I have common sense. I'm able to keep up with people as educated as y'all and I didn't even graduate high school due to going to jail.

If you haven't noticed what I'm doing ill clarify. Your stating that someone with a piece of paper stating they know something holds merit correct ?

Who would you trust to work on your car?

A guy who has 30 years plus in automotive mechanics or a young guy straight out of school for automotive mechanics ? The kicker; the first guy doesn't poses papers stating he's graduated from any school at all. So do you go with the kid? His papers stated that he knows what he's doing.

What many of you do is judge me by my lack of ability to place words correctly while arguing and use it to your advantage to re word it to sounds as if I'm just a pompous idiot. Giving y'all know I'm at work and typing fast responses on my phone. No I do not poses any type of degree, but that doesn't make me any less intelligent then any of you.


Sent from my mind

[Echonova]

I believe the children are our future
Teach them well and let them lead the way
Show them all the beauty they possess inside
Give them a sense of pride to make it easier
Let the children's laughter remind us how we used to be

Everybody's searching for a hero
People need someone to look up to
I never found anyone who fulfilled my needs
A lonely place to be
And so I learned to depend on me

[Chorus:]
I decided long ago, never to walk in anyone's shadows
If I fail, if I succeed
At least I'll live as I believe
No matter what they take from me
They can't take away my dignity
Because the greatest love of all
Is happening to me
I found the greatest love of all
Inside of me
The greatest love of all
Is easy to achieve
Learning to love yourself
It is the greatest love of all

I believe the children are our future
Teach them well and let them lead the way
Show them all the beauty they possess inside
Give them a sense of pride to make it easier
Let the children's laughter remind us how we used to be

[Chorus]

And if, by chance, that special place
That you've been dreaming of
Leads you to a lonely place
Find your strength in love

[E36slide]

I believe the children are our future
Teach them well and let them lead the way
Show them all the beauty they possess inside
Give them a sense of pride to make it easier
Let the children's laughter remind us how we used to be

Everybody's searching for a hero
People need someone to look up to
I never found anyone who fulfilled my needs
A lonely place to be
And so I learned to depend on me

[Chorus:]
I decided long ago, never to walk in anyone's shadows
If I fail, if I succeed
At least I'll live as I believe
No matter what they take from me
They can't take away my dignity
Because the greatest love of all
Is happening to me
I found the greatest love of all
Inside of me
The greatest love of all
Is easy to achieve
Learning to love yourself
It is the greatest love of all

I believe the children are our future
Teach them well and let them lead the way
Show them all the beauty they possess inside
Give them a sense of pride to make it easier
Let the children's laughter remind us how we used to be

[Chorus]

And if, by chance, that special place
That you've been dreaming of
Leads you to a lonely place
Find your strength in love

What song is this ? Lol


Sent from my mind

[Echonova]

What song is this ? Lol


Sent from my mind
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYzlVDlE72w

[bu villain]

No I do not poses any type of degree, but that doesn't make me any less intelligent then any of you.

And this is how most threads in this section devolve. There is some actual debate on the topic at hand and it quickly becomes a contest about who is smarter than who. The last three or four pages are mostly about how much E36 knows about prison life and whether his girlfriend has a degree or not. How does that relate to gun/car regulation? I know not.

[E36slide]

And this is how most threads in this section devolve. There is some actual debate on the topic at hand and it quickly becomes a contest about who is smarter than who. The last three or four pages are mostly about how much E36 knows about prison life and whether his girlfriend has a degree or not. How does that relate to gun/car regulation? I know not.

Actually their topic has been derailed before I even entered the thread.


Sent from my mind

[David88vert]

It was established from jump street that:

A) E36's girlfriend is about as legitimately degreed as Manti Te'o's girlfriend

And B) E36s creamy white Aloe Vera soft ass would last as long in Atlanta State Prison as the Falcons lasted in the post season.

OMG - it is the end of the world. I actually 'liked" one of your posts....

[David88vert]

Did I say his toxicology report was released? Please quote me where I did, otherwise, you're talking out of your ass again

No. No they havent.

What are you getting at here?

Ms Jackson is a journalist and an activist. Not a Dr.

Autism is not a contributing factor. Dr. Harold Koplewicz would disagree with your generalization.

One is not a doctor, the other confirmed everything I said. So yes, the one doctor is worth his salt.

Your exact quote was "the common thread between all these incidents was a mental illness" I pointed out with 100% accuracy that one of the four incidents you referenced had a legitimate clinically defined mental illness.

You say a personality disorder is a mental disorder; professional psychologists, and myself, have said differently. I guess it's "po-Tay-toe po-tah-toe", only in you're case it's potato-turtles.

Done talking out of your ass yet? Or should I school you some more? At this rate I should start charging tuition.

I typed up a long response on my phone, then it dumped. You get the short version this time. Sorry, deal with it.

I never claimed that you stated that the toxicology report was released. Once again, you make assumptions and incorrect statements trying to state that someone is implying something when they are not. You have done that a lot in this thread.
The ME has already stated that he does not expect to see the toxicology report give us any new information; however, he is still waiting on it. That's a fact.

Dr. Harold Koplewicz is one who has been supporting the initial reports of mental issues with Adam Lanza. You say he is worth his salt, but you believe that you know better than him on this specific case?

Nancy Jackson is not a doctor, that is correct. She is much more involved with autistic individuals than you are though, and is recognized as a more dependable source regarding such than you are. How many news outlets or law enforcement organizations sought your opinion on Adam Lanza?

BTW - You stated one time that you were a scientist, and now you claim education in psychology. Which is it? Are you a scientist, or a psychologist, or neither? Do you have your doctorate in any field? Do you even have a job, or are you still a student?
You definitely wasted a lot of money paying tuition, as you have shown that you are unable to read, comprehend, research, or draw logical conclusions. Perhaps you are suited to be a politician.

[E36slide]

OMG - it is the end of the world. I actually 'liked" one of your posts....

That's cute maybe y'all should hold hands.


Sent from my mind

[Echonova]

You say a personality disorder is a mental disorder; professional psychologists, and myself, have said differently.

BTW - You stated one time that you were a scientist, and now you claim education in psychology. Which is it? Are you a scientist, or a psychologist, or neither? Do you have your doctorate in any field? Do you even have a job, or are you still a student?
You definitely wasted a lot of money paying tuition, as you have shown that you are unable to read, comprehend, research, or draw logical conclusions. Perhaps you are suited to be a politician.Oh lawd... ~Awaiting parsing of words Bill Clinton style in blank's response.~


That being said, I don't see where he said he was a psychologist or educated in psychology (at least in that post, if it was elsewhere I retract my statement) just merely giving his opinion.


But I heard he did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

[quickdodge®]

HOLY HELL, DUDE!!!!! I hope that was your last bullet because you have now run out of feet to shoot.............


She gave up on med school because of how much it cost but in the field of medicine she's very smart.

But............but.......but............huh?


She didn't quit she just didn't want to further her education in medicine.

I don't know if I can keep up, man. I'm guessing you're forgetting what you type the second you hit the ENTER key?




Your word play was education at its best not common sense. Someone with a high level of book smarts thinks they have common sense, but you can not just type out some well written paragraph and say "hey I have common sense."

But didn't you say you were an "honors gifted" student? Therefore, by your own theory, you lack common sense as well.


Your stating that someone with a piece of paper stating they know something holds merit correct ?

Who would you trust to work on your car?

A guy who has 30 years plus in automotive mechanics or a young guy straight out of school for automotive mechanics ? The kicker; the first guy doesn't poses papers stating he's graduated from any school at all. So do you go with the kid? His papers stated that he knows what he's doing.

Apple, I'd like you to meet my very good friend, Orange.


What many of you do is judge me by my lack of ability to place words correctly while arguing and use it to your advantage to re word it to sounds as if I'm just a pompous idiot.

I'm not judging you at all. I've not once insulted you, nor will I.

Physiology, huh?

[E36slide]

HOLY HELL, DUDE!!!!! I hope that was your last bullet because you have now run out of feet to shoot.............



But............but.......but............huh?



I don't know if I can keep up, man. I'm guessing you're forgetting what you type the second you hit the ENTER key?





But didn't you say you were an "honors gifted" student? Therefore, by your own theory, you lack common sense as well.



Apple, I'd like you to meet my very good friend, Orange.



I'm not judging you at all. I've not once insulted you, nor will I.

Physiology, huh?

Last time I write this out. She went to med school got a degree decided she didn't want a phd so she decided to go another route. How was that, is that better now.

I was a honors gifted student just to prove a point that I didn't have a learning disability. I was pointing out that you wrote this elaborate paragraph then said you have common sense. You didn't at all show any common sense. Common sense says "don't reply to the stupid troll."


Y'all honestly will argue with anyone. I got on here not knowing shit and made y'all argue for the fuck of it. Some would say I have a mental illness, but that's just because y'all don't understand me. I use the forum as away to let off steam or just to fuck with people. I wouldn't honestly try me hardest to argue with y'all guys giving I know half of you are nothing but book smarts. Shit half of you are a walking google page. I have learned quite a lot though, so thank you!


Sent from my mind

[David88vert]

Oh lawd... ~Awaiting parsing of words Bill Clinton style in blank's response.~


That being said, I don't see where he said he was a psychologist or educated in psychology (at least in that post, if it was elsewhere I retract my statement) just merely giving his opinion.


But I heard he did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

He did not claim to be a psychologist. He did refer to himself as someone studying in the field of psychology and later referred to the the scientific world and used the word we for it to imply that he was part of that community as well.
I am not aware of him being employed as either a scientist or a

[quickdodge®]

Last time I write this out. She went to med school got a degree decided she didn't want a phd so she decided to go another route. How was that, is that better now.

Ok, thank you. Just leave it at one story next time, dude.


I was a honors gifted student just to prove a point that I didn't have a learning disability. I was pointing out that you wrote this elaborate paragraph then said you have common sense. You didn't at all show any common sense. Common sense says "don't reply to the stupid troll."

You've made me a believer.



I wouldn't honestly try me hardest to argue....

Funny part is that I've been at home drugged up with the flu all day. Pretty rough to try too hard when you've got Tylenol Nite time in your system and feeling the way I am, lolol.

Unlike yourself, I won't judge you, man. I don't know you beyond this keyboard so I don't know if you have common sense or not. The thing is, is I am proud of myself and my education and have no problem speaking or typing as such. I don't post "gangsta" or shorten my words into syllables or numbers, not because I think it's stupid, but because that's just not me.

I halfway thought you were making all this up to see where it would go. It started to set in when the comment was made about this thread being a joke from the get go.

[Echonova]

He did not claim to be a psychologist. He did refer to himself as someone studying in the field of psychology and later referred to the the scientific world and used the word we for it to imply that he was part of that community as well.
I am not aware of him being employed as either a scientist or aOr a what???


DON'T LEAVE ME ON A CLIFFHANGER!!!!!!!!

LOL But seriously, I'm on your side.

[E36slide]

Ok, thank you. Just leave it at one story next time, dude.



You've made me a believer.




Funny part is that I've been at home drugged up with the flu all day. Pretty rough to try too hard when you've got Tylenol Nite time in your system and feeling the way I am, lolol.

Unlike yourself, I won't judge you, man. I don't know you beyond this keyboard so I don't know if you have common sense or not. The thing is, is I am proud of myself and my education and have no problem speaking or typing as such. I don't post "gangsta" or shorten my words into syllables or numbers, not because I think it's stupid, but because that's just not me.

I halfway thought you were making all this up to see where it would go. It started to set in when the comment was made about this thread being a joke from the get go.

I'm trying to further my typing skills but its harder to do so when your always at work. I'm not judging any of you either. I know people joke and what not y'all just happen to be a lot more educated then most so I'm not used to the jokes just yet.

I'm glad I don't get sick, but NyQuil does make me sleep a whole lot better. Lol


Sent from my mind

[Echonova]

The last time I took NyQuil, I dreamed about having sex with my ex-wife.






































Needless to say, I'm never taking it again.

[.blank cd]

He did not claim to be a psychologist. He did refer to himself as someone studying in the field of psychology and later referred to the the scientific world and used the word we for it to imply that he was part of that community as well.
I am not aware of him being employed as either a scientist or a
Are psychology and science separate somehow now? Guess I missed that memo.

[E36slide]

Are psychology and science separate somehow now? Guess I missed that memo.

That's weird because I could have swore I sent that memo out to everyone who gave a fuck.


Sent from my mind

[.blank cd]

Guess that's why I missed it

[David88vert]

Are psychology and science separate somehow now? Guess I missed that memo.

Always avoiding giving an honest answer... or answering any questions posed directly to you....

In the past, you attempted to present yourself as an expert in biology. Now, it psychology. What field do you actually have a degree in? What field are you actually employed in?

[.blank cd]

Always avoiding giving an honest answer... or answering any questions posed directly to you....

In the past, you attempted to present yourself as an expert in biology. Now, it psychology. What field do you actually have a degree in? What field are you actually employed in?I don't think I've ever presented myself as an expert in biology, or psychology for that matter, ever. I did say I was studying psychology. Psychology is a science. You acted as if they were somehow mutually exclusive.

[Echonova]

I have a PHD in vaginaolgy.

[David88vert]

I don't think I've ever presented myself as an expert in biology, or psychology for that matter, ever. I did say I was studying psychology. Psychology is a science. You acted as if they were somehow mutually exclusive.

Do you have a degree in psychology or are you employed as a scientist?

As for psychology being science, most scientists from hard science such as biology disagree with sociologists and psychologists.
Psychology does not meet the five requirements for a field to be considered scientically rigorous. It does not have clearly defined terminology, quantifibility, higly controlled experimental conditions, reproducibility, or predictability and testability.
Psychology is not able to meet the standards of science.

[Echonova]

So this wasn't science?

Real 'Sybil' Admits Multiple Personalities Were Fake : NPR (http://www.npr.org/2011/10/20/141514464/real-sybil-admits-multiple-personalities-were-fake)

[David88vert]

So this wasn't science?

Real 'Sybil' Admits Multiple Personalities Were Fake : NPR (http://www.npr.org/2011/10/20/141514464/real-sybil-admits-multiple-personalities-were-fake)

Not sure why you asked this, but it appears to be an illness that was faked?

[.blank cd]

Do you have a degree in psychology or are you employed as a scientist?Im not a doctor of psychology and Im employed in an applied science.


As for psychology being science, most scientists from hard science such as biology disagree with sociologists and psychologists.
Psychology does not meet the five requirements for a field to be considered scientically rigorous. It does not have clearly defined terminology, quantifibility, higly controlled experimental conditions, reproducibility, or predictability and testability.
Psychology is not able to meet the standards of science.Pretty hard to tell if you're serious here. But I'll tell you like I told E36, your opinion of psychological science is starkly different from reality. LOL.

[Echonova]

Not sure why you asked this, but it appears to be an illness that was faked?It was an illness that was faked, and the basis on which MPD (Multiple Personality Disorder) was diagnosed and treated for years. Sally Fields even starred in a movie about her. Setting back any true advancement in MPD research for decades.

Science is based on things that are repeatable, one may not know why gravity makes the apple fall... But it does so every time.

Psychology does not = Science in a broad term. That's all I was getting at.

[Sinfix_15]

This may very well be the stupidest thread ever made in this section.

Calling me stupid when im actually doing an Obama impression, is a compliment. Thank you sir.

[Sinfix_15]

I'm trying to further my typing skills but its harder to do so when your always at work. I'm not judging any of you either. I know people joke and what not y'all just happen to be a lot more educated then most so I'm not used to the jokes just yet.

I'm glad I don't get sick, but NyQuil does make me sleep a whole lot better. Lol


Sent from my mind

i love how you and Nelson keep commenting on people's literary skills. The challenge you feel during these types of exchanges where you feel like you're struggling to keep up..... that's you being stupid. Let go and embrace reality.

[Sinfix_15]

The impression i got in psychology was that a lot of things are left open to interpretation. It was hardly an exact science.

[Sinfix_15]

Obama Asks Military Leaders If They Will (http://www.teaparty.org/obama-asks-military-leaders-if-they-will-fire-on-us-citizens-19039/)

[.blank cd]

Science is based on things that are repeatable, one may not know why gravity makes the apple fall... But it does so every time.

Psychology does not = Science in a broad term. That's all I was getting at.I can see where a case like that is confusing. Psychology as a whole is definitely a science and is definitely based on a quantitative and qualitative set of data. Its kind of hard to think up an analogy that would explain why her case doesn't really disqualify psychology as a science.

Everytime you drop an apple on the ground, it'll fall, but I can fake zero gravity by taking you up in an airplane and doing some zero G maneuvers. Then when you drop the apple, it'll appear to float. Does that mean that there's a flaw in gravitation and relativity?

[.blank cd]

The impression i got in psychology was that a lot of things are left open to interpretation. It was hardly an exact science.
You don't strike me as someone who appreciates a challenge to your belief system, so this isn't much of a surprise.

[Sinfix_15]

You don't strike me as someone who appreciates a challenge to your belief system, so this isn't much of a surprise.

You make this assumption based on me not favoring your King or the fictional liberal utopia you wish to create. I'm curious as to how my "belief system" would be defined?

[Sinfix_15]

also... feel free to offer the liberal twist on that last article i posted on the previous page.

[.blank cd]

Obama Asks Military Leaders If They Will (http://www.teaparty.org/obama-asks-military-leaders-if-they-will-fire-on-us-citizens-19039/)

Tea Party.org references prisonplanet.com, with "impeach Obama now" not even a quarter way down the page. I'm no expert, but is say whatever bullshit they're spewing is dubious.

[.blank cd]

You make this assumption based on me not favoring your King or the fictional liberal utopia you wish to create. I'm curious as to how my "belief system" would be defined?

I make that assumption because you're trying to pass off information from prisonplanet.com as genuine journalism.

Still not sure of what liberal utopia you're referring to

[Sinfix_15]

Tea Party.org references prisonplanet.com, with "impeach Obama now" not even a quarter way down the page. I'm no expert, but is say whatever bullshit they're spewing is dubious.

Doesnt surprise me... you're not someone who appreciates a challenge to your belief system. That's about the 50th time you've discredited something based on the webpage it was on. If John Smith says something in the news and every news organization prints it, me chosing to post the Foxnews link doesnt make it false.

The page prints the testimony of Jim Garrow. Are you questioning the validity of their quotation?

[Sinfix_15]

here you go, pick whichever news source that tickles your fancy and then offer an opinion on the content rather than the blanket denial you usually apply to anything that shines a negative light on King Obama.

Shock claim: Obama only wants military leaders who 'will fire on U.S. citizens' - Virginia Beach Conservative | Examiner.com (http://www.examiner.com/article/shock-claim-obama-only-wants-military-leaders-who-will-fire-on-u-s-citizens)

Jim Garrow: Inside Source Claims That Obama Only Wants Military Leaders Who (http://theintelhub.com/2013/01/22/jim-garrow-inside-source-claims-that-obama-only-wants-military-leaders-who-will-fire-on-u-s-citizens/)

Shocking Warning Dr. Jim Garrow: Obama Only Wants Military Leaders Who 'Will Fire On U.S. Citizens' | Obama (http://beforeitsnews.com/obama/2013/01/shocking-warning-dr-jim-garrow-obama-only-wants-military-leaders-who-will-fire-on-u-s-citizens-2447140.html)

» Nobel Peace Prize Nominee: Obama Asks Military Leaders If They Will “Fire On US Citizens” Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind! (http://www.infowars.com/nobel-peace-prize-nominee-obama-asks-military-leaders-if-they-will-fire-on-us-citizens/)

Nobel Peace Prize Nominee: Obama Asks Military Leaders If They Will (http://www.dailypaul.com/271465/nobel)

Humanitarian Jim Garrow Claims Obama Only Wants Military Leaders Who Will Fire On US CitizensL|LAmerican Live Wire (http://americanlivewire.com/jim-garrow-claims-obama/)

Obama asking military leaders to fire on Americans, says Nobel Prize nominee (http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?2437253-Obama-asking-military-leaders-to-fire-on-Americans-says-Nobel-Prize-nominee)

[Sinfix_15]

I make that assumption because you're trying to pass off information from prisonplanet.com as genuine journalism.

Still not sure of what liberal utopia you're referring to

you know... the liberal utopia where we print money, make trillion dollar coins and the sky bursts open and rains food stamps for everyone. Where you're always as safe as a baby in the womb as long as big brother government is watching your back.

[.blank cd]

Doesnt surprise me... you're not someone who appreciates a challenge to your belief system. That's about the 50th time you've discredited something based on the webpage it was on.I love a challenge to my belief system, that's why I study a science, because I enjoy learning.


The page prints the testimony of Jim Garrow. Are you questioning the validity of their quotation?Im questioning the validity of Jim Garrows claims.

[Sinfix_15]

I love a challenge to my belief system, that's why I study a science, because I enjoy learning.

Im questioning the validity of Jim Garrows claims.

Why? does the shoe not fit?

[.blank cd]

No. The shoe hasn't been made yet.

[Sinfix_15]

No. The shoe hasn't been made yet.

Denial is a coping mechanism.


If this is true, how do you feel about it?

Keep in mind.... we're talking about a president who let black panther thugs off the hook, allowed fast and furious to happen, made it legal to permanently detain american citizens without trial, allowed a US ambassador to be murdered and then possibly had something to do with covering it up, allow drone strikes on us citizens that havnt stood trial and even has the blood of us citizens on his hands already.... and gun control.

[Sinfix_15]

Obama’s Not a “Liberal” – He’s a Communist « Nice Deb (http://nicedeb.wordpress.com/2013/01/22/obamas-not-a-liberal-hes-a-communist/)

[David88vert]

I can see where a case like that is confusing. Psychology as a whole is definitely a science and is definitely based on a quantitative and qualitative set of data. Its kind of hard to think up an analogy that would explain why her case doesn't really disqualify psychology as a science.

Everytime you drop an apple on the ground, it'll fall, but I can fake zero gravity by taking you up in an airplane and doing some zero G maneuvers. Then when you drop the apple, it'll appear to float. Does that mean that there's a flaw in gravitation and relativity?

Since you are not educated in the field of psychology, and have very limited life experience, what qualifies you to know more about these specific cases than professional psychologists? I do not see where your opinion is any better than a hobos.

There are lots of applied sciences that do not meet the litmus test of science. And to be equated to be the same as geology, biology, physics, etc is not reasonable. I work in a field that is an applied science as well, but I do not falsely claim to be a scientist.

I'll give you something to contemplate.
Three days ago, a new psychological study was released on which countries are the happiest. The top three are Norway, Sweden, and Australia. The US was number 12.
Happiness is not defined the same between individuals or cultures. There is no way to measure happiness - no rulers or scales, just an arbitrary number. This means that it does not have clear terminology and is not quantifiable. It does not pass scientific rigor. In this case, psychology is not providing an empirical analysis of the natural word, and it is unable to present a defined secular truth.

As for the apple/zero gravity example, the answer is no, there is no flaw. It is a controlled experiment that is repeatable, predictable, and testable.
You don't seem to grasp the most basic structure of science.

Psychology is valuable and useful, but you cannot sell it as being the same as biology, physics, etc. To do so is to attempt to redefine science. This is why real scientists experience intellectual frustration. If you allow anything with statistical analysis to be a science, then any field is a science, and you demean the value of those who actually work in fields that adhere to the structure of scientific dedcution and discover real truths.

[SPOOLIN]

just read post 1. Go back to sleep hippie.

USA automotive related death rate is a lot lower than most other countries. We can not rely on Public transportation because we are either very concentrated or we are VERY spread out and also that would mean relying on the GOVERNMENT to get you where you need to go.

are you sure your signature graphic is not a mistake?

[Sinfix_15]

just read post 1. Go back to sleep hippie.

USA automotive related death rate is a lot lower than most other countries. We can not rely on Public transportation because we are either very concentrated or we are VERY spread out and also that would mean relying on the GOVERNMENT to get you where you need to go.

are you sure your signature graphic is not a mistake?

We can rely on government for transportation the same way as we rely on them for protection. The police and fire stations deal with the same obstacles and do it without issue. Our military polices the entire world. Complete reliance on government transportation is not the only option on the table. Cars can be limited to 40mph and 1000 pounds.

No, i am 100% positive that my graphic is accurate.

[SPOOLIN]

all i can say is HOLY SHIT.

and also, Most crashes occur with vehicles either traveling slower than the average speed or higher than....so going slower doesn't help shit. You really need to get the fuck out of this AUTOMOTIVE FORUM.

[.blank cd]

just read post 1. Go back to sleep hippie.

USA automotive related death rate is a lot lower than most other countries. We can not rely on Public transportation because we are either very concentrated or we are VERY spread out and also that would mean relying on the GOVERNMENT to get you where you need to go.

are you sure your signature graphic is not a mistake?

I think there's something wrong with both of his signature graphics...

[Sinfix_15]

all i can say is HOLY SHIT.

and also, Most crashes occur with vehicles either traveling slower than the average speed or higher than....so going slower doesn't help shit. You really need to get the fuck out of this AUTOMOTIVE FORUM.

Drunk drivers kill 10s of thousands of people a year. Children are having their lives stripped away by the car culture in america that allows people the freedom to abuse drugs and alcohol while operating a vehicle. A car culture that builds corvettes that exceed 150mph and for no purpose. Insuring the safety of our citizens is more important than your ability to roam the streets as you please. Driving a car is a privilege, not a right.

Would you not rely on government transportation if it saved lives? do you not trust that the government could provide you with adequate transportation to meet all of your needs?

[Sinfix_15]

I think there's something wrong with both of his signature graphics...

I thought you bowed out of this one in defeat, what brings you back?

[.blank cd]

I thought you bowed out of this one in defeat, what brings you back?

Defeat? Where did that happen? David88 shared his uneducated opinion on the science of psychology, which, as an American, he's entitled to have. I chose not to dignify it with a response. If he wanted to be a little more educated about his stance, maybe sit in on some lectures, write a couple theses, I could take him a little more seriously. But simply saying he doesn't believe psychology is a science because he doesn't think it deals with analyticals, and quantifiable data, and repeatably conclusive research, despite the opposite being true, makes him look ignorant. He's only here to try and win an argument he knows he's on the loosing side of. I'm not gonna be a party to it. It's more fun, for me to let him bask in his ignorance.

[Sinfix_15]

Defeat? Where did that happen? David88 shared his uneducated opinion on the science of psychology, which, as an American, he's entitled to have. I chose not to dignify it with a response. If he wanted to be a little more educated about his stance, maybe sit in on some lectures, write a couple theses, I could take him a little more seriously. But simply saying he doesn't believe psychology is a science because he doesn't think it deals with analyticals, and quantifiable data, and repeatably conclusive research, despite the opposite being true, makes him look ignorant. He's only here to try and win an argument he knows he's on the loosing side of. I'm not gonna be a party to it. It's more fun, for me to let him bask in his ignorance.

It's easy to convince yourself that you're right, the challenge lies in proving it to your opposition.

[.blank cd]

It's easy to convince yourself that you're right, the challenge lies in proving it to your opposition.

Convince myself that I'm right? Lol. When I type on this iPhone, I don't have to convince myself that its real. David88 is trying to convince himself that iPhones don't exist.

[Sinfix_15]

Convince myself that I'm right? Lol. When I type on this iPhone, I don't have to convince myself that its real. David88 is trying to convince himself that iPhones don't exist.

Psychology is an exact science that can produce predictable and measurable results?

[.blank cd]

Psychology is an exact science that can produce predictable and measurable results?

Do iPhones exist?

[Sinfix_15]

Do iPhones exist?

I cant say i agree with you... but i offer submission in advance as i'm not willing to study the topic enough to offer a counter argument.

[Echonova]

Do iPhones exist?http://i704.photobucket.com/albums/ww42/sonialastrega/science.gif

[.blank cd]

Psychology is an exact science that can produce predictable and measurable results?

Ask yourself this, do you think it's not because you don't see psychologists and psychiatrists in fancy lab coats and swirling around graduated cylinders and beakers full of special brightly colored chemicals? Or is it because you don't really understand what kind of quantifiable data a psychologist is looking for, and what that data actually means?

What do you think a predictable and measurable result actually means?

[Sinfix_15]

Ask yourself this, do you think it's not because you don't see psychologists and psychiatrists in fancy lab coats and swirling around graduated cylinders and beakers full of special brightly colored chemicals? Or is it because you don't really understand what kind of quantifiable data a psychologist is looking for, and what that data actually means?

What do you think a predictable and measurable result actually means?

I suppose it would be because i do not understand the information they are looking for and would not validate any information that was left up to interpretation. I also come to this conclusion based on how often i see psychologist in disagreement with each other. It's my opinion that a lot is left to interpretation of events.

If i pour gas on fire, 100 times out of 100, the same result will happen. I dont feel psychology works with the same precision. Also, how can you measure the ability to fake? seems like that would be a variable in every equation. I can fake every emotion. How does psychology overcome that obstacle with any level of certainty?

[.blank cd]

If i pour gas on fire, 100 times out of 100, the same result will happen. I dont feel psychology works with the same precision. Also, how can you measure the ability to fake? seems like that would be a variable in every equation. I can fake every emotion. How does psychology overcome that obstacle with any level of certainty?
There is a degree of interpretation and a degree of uncertainty in every facet of science. That's what makes science science.

So if you pour gas on a fire 100 times, and it the gas puts the fire out 30 times, how would you interpret that?

How do you know for sure that the universe WASNT designed by some supreme entity?

There are physiological responses that determine the validity of emotions.

[Sinfix_15]

There is a degree of interpretation and a degree of uncertainty in every facet of science. That's what makes science science.

So if you pour gas on a fire 100 times, and it the gas puts the fire out 30 times, how would you interpret that?

How do you know for sure that the universe WASNT designed by some supreme entity?

There are physiological responses that determine the validity of emotions.

My argument isnt that psychology is invalid, simply that it's far behind what we commonly recognize as science. The degree of uncertainty and interpretation is much greater in psychology.

It wouldnt. I know precisely how fire/gas works and can predict and measure every result.

I dont. Which leads me to another question, how does psychology account for belief systems? whats true to you might not be true to me.

And you can determine the validity of emotions to what percentage of accuracy?

[.blank cd]

My argument isnt that psychology is invalid, simply that it's far behind what we commonly recognize as science. The degree of uncertainty and interpretation is much greater in psychology.A chemist, something you probably commonly associate with science, and a research psychologist/psychiatrists are using the same scientific method and under the same degree of scientific scrutiny.


It wouldnt. I know precisely how fire/gas works and can predict and measure every result.The liquid gas is pretty much inflammable. If you set it on fire, you're seeing a thin surface layer of vapor on fire with the correct lambda ratio. I can stick a lit match in a cup of gas and put it out every time. Baking flour and coffee mate can be just as flammable as gas.


I dont. Which leads me to another question, how does psychology account for belief systems? whats true to you might not be true to me.You take belief out of the equation.


And you can determine the validity of emotions to what percentage of accuracy?As accurate as any in home pregnancy tests

[SPOOLIN]

then you are trusting a bus driver to not kill 50 people at a time. You are living in a dream world...the statistics would probably be the same.

[Sinfix_15]

A chemist, something you probably commonly associate with science, and a research psychologist/psychiatrists are using the same scientific method and under the same degree of scientific scrutiny.

The liquid gas is pretty much inflammable. If you set it on fire, you're seeing a thin surface layer of vapor on fire with the correct lambda ratio. I can stick a lit match in a cup of gas and put it out every time. Baking flour and coffee mate can be just as flammable as gas.

You take belief out of the equation.

As accurate as any in home pregnancy tests


Everything that happens with fire is predictable, measurable, can be calculated and duplicated on command. Every result can be explained and measured. Yes, baking flour can ignite almost exactly the same as gas... when properly mixed with oxygen, just like gas. A pile of flour wont explode, a mixture of flour and oxygen will. A predictable, measurable result that can be duplicated with certainty. A flour mill has to follow government regulations on combustible dust, they have regulated equipment that they have to use and even have monitoring devices that measure the PPM of dust in the air. The temperature in which something ignites is measurable, predictable and can be duplicated. That is an example of science at work..... compare that to say..... the mental exam a police officer would get after discharging his firearm or someone being diagnosed with depression.

Give me an example of psychology being used with any degree of measurable certainty. You can diagnose depression with the accuracy of a home pregnancy test?

[Sinfix_15]

then you are trusting a bus driver to not kill 50 people at a time. You are living in a dream world...the statistics would probably be the same.

Not simply a bus driver.... that bus driver would be a government employee, someone that we could trust with our safety. We're already aware of the government's ability to protect us via our police force and military, there's no reason not to offer them the same trust with our transportation.

[Echonova]

You can diagnose depression with the accuracy of a home pregnancy test?With the males on the other end of that phone call...









Yes.

[Sinfix_15]

With the males on the other end of that phone call...









Yes.
lol

[SPOOLIN]

holy dear god, im frightened you are the same age as me. You are obscenely blind to the world, did you grow up under a rock? We're you home schooled? did you grow up in a cult camp? I would not care if thousands of lives were saved by following your ideas because the world as we know it would completely collapse into a depression of great magnitude. Having to rely on either a horse and carriage or govt controlled transportation to get somewhere would cause a calamity, no real on demand travel...tons of time wasted in life waiting. So in the end here, you are just plain STUPID and are not thinking about the BIG PICTURE. PEOPLE DIE, GET OVER IT.

100's of millions > thousands

NO ONE is forced to get in a car and drive. Its ASSUMED risk.

[nelson9995]

holy dear god, im frightened you are the same age as me. You are obscenely blind to the world, did you grow up under a rock? We're you home schooled? did you grow up in a cult camp? I would not care if thousands of lives were saved by following your ideas because the world as we know it would completely collapse into a depression of great magnitude. Having to rely on either a horse and carriage or govt controlled transportation to get somewhere would cause a calamity, no real on demand travel...tons of time wasted in life waiting. So in the end here, you are just plain STUPID and are not thinking about the BIG PICTURE. PEOPLE DIE, GET OVER IT.

100's of millions > thousands

NO ONE is forced to get in a car and drive. Its ASSUMED risk.

He is being 100% sarcastic. Don't pay attention to his gun hugging self.

[Sinfix_15]

holy dear god, im frightened you are the same age as me. You are obscenely blind to the world, did you grow up under a rock? We're you home schooled? did you grow up in a cult camp? I would not care if thousands of lives were saved by following your ideas because the world as we know it would completely collapse into a depression of great magnitude. Having to rely on either a horse and carriage or govt controlled transportation to get somewhere would cause a calamity, no real on demand travel...tons of time wasted in life waiting. So in the end here, you are just plain STUPID and are not thinking about the BIG PICTURE. PEOPLE DIE, GET OVER IT.

100's of millions > thousands

NO ONE is forced to get in a car and drive. Its ASSUMED risk.

So because i make a proposal that saves lives, you insult me and get angry? You're so obsessed with car culture that you disregard human life? Have you ever been checked for a mental illness? It scares me to think someone with no regard for human life is riding around sharing the highway with children and families. You getting to the mall 15 minutes faster is more important than the lives of children? Yes, driving a car is a risk... a risk that can be minimized. There is no need for anyone to have a performance car like a corvette. People use the highways to travel and they should be able to do so safely without the added risk of people who are obsessed with their cars driving vehicles that far exceed the definition of transportation. People like you who have no regard for human life and put owning a car above it should be diagnosed with mental illness.


two questions...

How would you feel if your government presented you with the argument that i have?

How would you respond if they forced this measure through with executive order even though the majority of americans voted against it?

[David88vert]

Defeat? Where did that happen? David88 shared his uneducated opinion on the science of psychology, which, as an American, he's entitled to have. I chose not to dignify it with a response. If he wanted to be a little more educated about his stance, maybe sit in on some lectures, write a couple theses, I could take him a little more seriously. But simply saying he doesn't believe psychology is a science because he doesn't think it deals with analyticals, and quantifiable data, and repeatably conclusive research, despite the opposite being true, makes him look ignorant. He's only here to try and win an argument he knows he's on the loosing side of. I'm not gonna be a party to it. It's more fun, for me to let him bask in his ignorance.

Once again, you refuse to answer any question or address any facts. You have a tendency to ignore anything concrete, and only answer with your unsubstantiated opinions - or you just try to pretend that you answer with some unrelated question.

I actually did not offer my uneduacted opinion on psychology, I gave you the opinion of Professor Peter Rickman. He actually does have a degree and was at the City University of London.
Do you have a degree in Psychology, or any degree at all? Answer that question.
What is your official job title - you know, what you would actually list on your resume.

Define how happiness could be researched globaly.
Explain how human behavior can be accurately predicted. Here's a hint:
"Human behavior is complex, and it is not possible to conduct experiments to test all aspects of what people do or why." - Professor (of Psychology) Timothy D. Wilson - University of Virginia

I was in lectures when you were in diapers, if you are really only 22.




Convince myself that I'm right? Lol. When I type on this iPhone, I don't have to convince myself that its real. David88 is trying to convince himself that iPhones don't exist.

This is an outright lie from you. I never said such a thing. Once again, you make up whatever you want, and expect us to just accept it as truth.


Do iPhones exist?

Again, you do not answer the question posted to you. You reply with an unrelated question that has no bearing on the discussion.

iPhones exist - Physics can utilize all of the basic principle of science to verify that the molecules that make up the phone exist.. Physics is a science.


Ask yourself this, do you think it's not because you don't see psychologists and psychiatrists in fancy lab coats and swirling around graduated cylinders and beakers full of special brightly colored chemicals? Or is it because you don't really understand what kind of quantifiable data a psychologist is looking for, and what that data actually means?

What do you think a predictable and measurable result actually means?

[insert black_cd type of response]How is political science a science? [/insert black_cd type of response]

Science - The systematic study of the nature and behaviour of the material and physical universe, based on observation, experiment, and measurement, and the formulation of laws to describe these facts in general terms.

Show me a thought in physical form. Don't give random comments back - show me the molecules involved.

[David88vert]

There is a degree of interpretation and a degree of uncertainty in every facet of science. That's what makes science science.
So if you pour gas on a fire 100 times, and it the gas puts the fire out 30 times, how would you interpret that?
How do you know for sure that the universe WASNT designed by some supreme entity?
There are physiological responses that determine the validity of emotions.

"There is a degree of interpretation and a degree of uncertainty in every facet of science." - only partially correct

"That's what makes science science." - No, not true. Review the definition of science - "the systematic study of the nature and behaviour of the material and physical universe, based on observation, experiment, and measurement, and the formulation of laws to describe these facts in general terms." Following the structure of science in testing the physical world, and discovering secular truths, that is what make science science.

"So if you pour gas on a fire 100 times, and it the gas puts the fire out 30 times, how would you interpret that?" - It would be an experiment that was not repeated exactly the same way 30 times - a flawed experiment. Think before you type.

"How do you know for sure that the universe WASNT designed by some supreme entity?" - Religion is not science. Why you added this random comment is not clear.


A chemist, something you probably commonly associate with science, and a research psychologist/psychiatrists are using the same scientific method and under the same degree of scientific scrutiny.
The liquid gas is pretty much inflammable. If you set it on fire, you're seeing a thin surface layer of vapor on fire with the correct lambda ratio. I can stick a lit match in a cup of gas and put it out every time. Baking flour and coffee mate can be just as flammable as gas.
You take belief out of the equation.
As accurate as any in home pregnancy tests

"A chemist, something you probably commonly associate with science, and a research psychologist/psychiatrists are using the same scientific method and under the same degree of scientific scrutiny" - Psychologists that are in the lab are practicing CHEMISTRY - a science that actually is dealing with the physical world. Of course their chemical tests should follow the same scrutiny - it's chemistry.

"The liquid gas is pretty much inflammable. If you set it on fire, you're seeing a thin surface layer of vapor on fire with the correct lambda ratio. I can stick a lit match in a cup of gas and put it out every time. Baking flour and coffee mate can be just as flammable as gas." - Correct. It's chemistry, and not psychology. How does this chemistry experiment prove that psychology is a science? You still have offered nothing more than your uneduated, personal opinion on the matter.

"You take belief out of the equation" - Again, religion is not science, and does not help your case.

"As accurate as any in home pregnancy tests" - Home pregnancy tests are based on chemistry, not psychology.

[.blank cd]

Ok. You're right. I'm wrong. Do you feel better?

[Sinfix_15]

Ok. You're right. I'm wrong. Do you feel better?

You're right..............


























































in admitting that you're wrong.

[Echonova]

I just look at geologic hydro-dynamics for a living, but as someone that believes in God I cannot be trusted in my judgements about scientific things.


Because the they are to totally different subjects that cannot be separated by a zealot like me.

[Sinfix_15]

I just look at geologic hydro-dynamics for a living, but as someone that believes in God I cannot be trusted in my judgements about scientific things.


Because the they are to totally different subjects that cannot be separated by a zealot like me.

How do you weigh that morally when everything you know, goes against everything you know?

[.blank cd]

You're right..............

in admitting that you're wrong.

Lol.

[Sinfix_15]

Lol.

I personally dont feel the studies of psychology are that conclusive, however... i will say this one is winning me over.

http://mikerowse.com/wp-content/uploads/a-liberal_brain16.jpg

[Sinfix_15]

Blank, can you offer some psychological input on a subject that troubles my mind?

[Echonova]

How do you weigh that morally when everything you know, goes against everything you know?Because... scientifically speaking, water has no morals. It's the dirty whore of the environmental world. It goes where it wants and does unspeakable things with whoever it finds.


8lb 6oz baby Jesus hates water. Because she's a dirty slut. Therefore I always find dirty water that needs to be cleansed.



It's a win-win for me.

[SPOOLIN]

Why can't I have admin rights so I can ban this communist degenerate


www.MSSRACING.com

[Sinfix_15]

Why can't I have admin rights so I can ban this communist degenerate


Matt Stover Racing - Home (http://www.MSSRACING.com)

Answer the question please.


How would you feel if your government presented you with the argument that i have?

How would you respond if they forced this measure through with executive order even though the majority of americans voted against it?



Putting faith in the government to protect you provide you with what you need makes you a communist?

[David88vert]

Ok. You're right. I'm wrong. Do you feel better?

Actually, I just wanted you to answer the questions posed; however, it appears that you do not wish to divulge that information, and that is your choice.
As you stated earlier, as an American, you are entitled to your opinion and have the right to state it - just don't be surprised if it gets called into question (and I'm not saying that you were surprised).

[David88vert]

I just look at geologic hydro-dynamics for a living, but as someone that believes in God I cannot be trusted in my judgements about scientific things.


Because the they are to totally different subjects that cannot be separated by a zealot like me.

You're definitely going to hell....

[David88vert]

Blank, can you offer some psychological input on a subject that troubles my mind?

I think that he will need to run some tests on your first. Here: Drink this.....

[David88vert]

Because... scientifically speaking, water has no morals. It's the dirty whore of the environmental world. It goes where it wants and does unspeakable things with whoever it finds.


8lb 6oz baby Jesus hates water. Because she's a dirty slut. Therefore I always find dirty water that needs to be cleansed.



It's a win-win for me.

It's actually the saviour. Water filters and cleans all of the pollution. Double saviours for the win.

[David88vert]

Why can't I have admin rights so I can ban this communist degenerate


Matt Stover Racing - Home (http://www.MSSRACING.com)

You still haven't figured out that this thread was started sarcastically?
Everyone on here is a car guy - no one really wants to ban cars.

[David88vert]

Putting faith in the government to protect you provide you with what you need makes you a communist?

No, it makes you a sucker.

[Sinfix_15]

You still haven't figured out that this thread was started sarcastically?
Everyone on here is a car guy - no one really wants to ban cars.

This.

I would also like to add that i enjoyed being met with such hostility when pretty much all i did was read some Obama dialog and add the word "cars"

[David88vert]

This.

I would also like to add that i enjoyed being met with such hostility when pretty much all i did was read some Obama dialog and add the word "cars"

To be fair and balanced (see what I did there), Obama never stated that he wants a ban on guns. He has stated that he supports the 2nd Amendment, and his plans ranged from criminal background checks on all gun sales, to a reinstatement of the assault weapons ban, to a 10-round limit on all ammunition magazines.
The list:

1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.
2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.
3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.
4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.
5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.
6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.
7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.
8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).
9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.
10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.
11. Nominate an ATF director.
12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.
13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.
14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.
15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies
16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.
17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.
18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.
19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.
20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.
21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.
22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.
23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.

[Sinfix_15]

To be fair and balanced (see what I did there), Obama never stated that he wants a ban on guns. He has stated that he supports the 2nd Amendment, and his plans ranged from criminal background checks on all gun sales, to a reinstatement of the assault weapons ban, to a 10-round limit on all ammunition magazines.
The list:

1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.
2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.
3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.
4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.
5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.
6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.
7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.
8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).
9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.
10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.
11. Nominate an ATF director.
12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.
13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.
14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.
15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies
16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.
17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.
18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.
19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.
20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.
21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.
22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.
23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.

Obama not banning guns is the same as this dog not biting you. The only reason he his walking his desire back is because of political pressure.Bill Clinton had to tell him to tone it down a notch. He will strike when the iron is hot..... just so happens it wasnt hot enough this time. Assault weapon ban is not acceptable. 10 round clip limit is not acceptable. Being left with my 12 gauge doesnt confirm that "Obama aint tryin to take your guns away". If you believe Obama supports the constitution, then i may i have overestimated your intelligence.

Obama has voiced many issues with the constitution, he "tests the water" with critiques and is slowly crafting his argument against it..... if i had to single out Obama's biggest beef with the constitution.... would probably be that it's not written in pencil or that he cant wipe his ass with it.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-b-A8gEPsCmo/Te1NjooBNVI/AAAAAAAAAdk/28S27iEdGAo/s1600/pitbull-attack.jpeg

[David88vert]

Obama not banning guns is the same as this dog not biting you. The only reason he his walking his desire back is because of political pressure.Bill Clinton had to tell him to tone it down a notch. He will strike when the iron is hot..... just so happens it wasnt hot enough this time. Assault weapon ban is not acceptable. 10 round clip limit is not acceptable. Being left with my 12 gauge doesnt confirm that "Obama aint tryin to take your guns away". If you believe Obama supports the constitution, then i may i have overestimated your intelligence.

Obama has voiced many issues with the constitution, he "tests the water" with critiques and is slowly crafting his argument against it..... if i had to single out Obama's biggest beef with the constitution.... would probably be that it's not written in pencil or that he cant wipe his ass with it.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-b-A8gEPsCmo/Te1NjooBNVI/AAAAAAAAAdk/28S27iEdGAo/s1600/pitbull-attack.jpeg


What are you unable to do with a 10 round clip vs a 15 round clip?
What are you unable to shoot with a rifle or shotgun, that you can with an assault style weapon?
Just saying it's unacceptable doesn't really convince people that you know what the discussion is about, when the executive orders do not prohibit any firearms.

BTW - If you really wanted to own an assault weapon, you could apply to get a Class 3 dealer license and FFL and have pretty much anything you want.

[Sinfix_15]

What are you unable to do with a 10 round clip vs a 15 round clip?
What are you unable to shoot with a rifle or shotgun, that you can with an assault style weapon?
Just saying it's unacceptable doesn't really convince people that you know what the discussion is about, when the executive orders do not prohibit any firearms.

BTW - If you really wanted to own an assault weapon, you could apply to get a Class 3 dealer license and FFL and have pretty much anything you want.

I cant shoot 11 things with a 10 round clip. Them picking 10 is no accident, theyre more than aware the percentage of guns that would be effected by that. It's clearly a strategy of lets impose the most restriction possible while still trying to gift wrap it in a manner that it appears acceptable and ultimately the end result is a gun free america.

Give me clarification on what distinguishes a rifle from an assault rifle.

I already own "assault weapons". I am a law abiding citizen with no criminal record. What is the problem with it?

Also, i dont like this description..... let's pick a title more accurate to their purpose. "anti-assault weapons"

[bu villain]

How would you respond if they forced this measure through with executive order even though the majority of americans voted against it?

But they didn't so why bother with such hypotheticals? Let's stick to what Obama and congress are actually doing, not what you think is their secret master plan. David posted the executive orders. Which ones do you have a problem with specifically?


I would also like to add that i enjoyed being met with such hostility when pretty much all i did was read some Obama dialog and add the word "cars"

When you take someone's words and apply it to a completely different topic, you are going to get push back from some. Personally, I see a lot of corallaries when thinking about regulation for both cars and guns but that doesn't mean I think they should be regulated the same either. Most people intuitively understand the differences so they react rather than articulating how they are different.

[Sinfix_15]

But they didn't so why bother with such hypotheticals? Let's stick to what Obama and congress are actually doing, not what you think is their secret master plan. David posted the executive orders. Which ones do you have a problem with specifically?



When you take someone's words and apply it to a completely different topic, you are going to get push back from some. Personally, I see a lot of corallaries when thinking about regulation for both cars and guns but that doesn't mean I think they should be regulated the same either. Most people intuitively understand the differences so they react rather than articulating how they are different.

Theoretically speaking, step 1 of any "secret master plan" would be to not reveal the "secret master plan". So saying " he hasnt actually done it yet " doesnt really carry much weight.

I guarantee that Obama seeks an assault weapons ban.

What do i have a problem with specifically? Banning anything under false pretenses.

What purpose does the UN arms treaty serve? What purpose does UN healthcare serve? why is gun control linked to healthcare in any way? During a financial crisis, why are we talking about gun magazines?

Certainly looks like this to me.......

http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/452158/452158,1249058186,1/stock-photo-ice-cream-garnished-with-multicolored-pills-34797835.jpg

[David88vert]

I cant shoot 11 things with a 10 round clip. Them picking 10 is no accident, theyre more than aware the percentage of guns that would be effected by that. It's clearly a strategy of lets impose the most restriction possible while still trying to gift wrap it in a manner that it appears acceptable and ultimately the end result is a gun free america.

Give me clarification on what distinguishes a rifle from an assault rifle.

I already own "assault weapons". I am a law abiding citizen with no criminal record. What is the problem with it?

Also, i dont like this description..... let's pick a title more accurate to their purpose. "anti-assault weapons"

You can shoot 11 rounds with a 10 round clip. You just have to reload the clip. It would simply take slightly more time.
I'm not sure how you figure than only having 10 rounds per clip with no limit on the amount of clips that you can have, nor a limit on guns suddenly makes America "gun free".

The difference between the assault style rifles and hunting rifles is simple:
Semi-automatic firearm models by name (e.g., Colt AR-15, TEC-9, non-select-fire AK-47s produced by three manufacturers, and Uzis) and other semi-automatic firearms because they possess a minimum set of cosmetic features from the following list of features:
Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following: Folding or telescoping stock, Pistol grip, Bayonet mount, Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one, Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally).

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 amended Section 921(a) of title 18 of the United States Code to define semiautomatic assault weapons and specifically named the following nineteen (19) semi-automatic firearm models and/or model types, as well as any copies or duplicates of these firearms, in any caliber, as assault weapons.
Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies AK-47 (all models)
Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI
Action Arms Israeli Military Industries Galil
Beretta AR-70 and
SC-70
Colt AR-15
Fabriqué National FN FAL
FN LAR and
FNC
MAC-type handguns, including MAC-10
MAC-11
MAC 11/9 and
MAC-12
Steyr AUG
INTRATEC TEC-9
TEC-DC9 and
TEC-22
Revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12.

[David88vert]

Theoretically speaking, step 1 of any "secret master plan" would be to not reveal the "secret master plan". So saying " he hasnt actually done it yet " doesnt really carry much weight.


http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/452158/452158,1249058186,1/stock-photo-ice-cream-garnished-with-multicolored-pills-34797835.jpg

Step 1: Collect the underpants.

Ummm... sprinkles......

[Sinfix_15]

You can shoot 11 rounds with a 10 round clip. You just have to reload the clip. It would simply take slightly more time.
I'm not sure how you figure than only having 10 rounds per clip with no limit on the amount of clips that you can have, nor a limit on guns suddenly makes America "gun free".

The difference between the assault style rifles and hunting rifles is simple:
Semi-automatic firearm models by name (e.g., Colt AR-15, TEC-9, non-select-fire AK-47s produced by three manufacturers, and Uzis) and other semi-automatic firearms because they possess a minimum set of cosmetic features from the following list of features:
Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following: Folding or telescoping stock, Pistol grip, Bayonet mount, Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one, Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally).

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 amended Section 921(a) of title 18 of the United States Code to define semiautomatic assault weapons and specifically named the following nineteen (19) semi-automatic firearm models and/or model types, as well as any copies or duplicates of these firearms, in any caliber, as assault weapons.
Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies AK-47 (all models)
Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI
Action Arms Israeli Military Industries Galil
Beretta AR-70 and
SC-70
Colt AR-15
Fabriqué National FN FAL
FN LAR and
FNC
MAC-type handguns, including MAC-10
MAC-11
MAC 11/9 and
MAC-12
Steyr AUG
INTRATEC TEC-9
TEC-DC9 and
TEC-22
Revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12.

just because they dont take your freedom in 1 swoop does not mean theyre not trying to take it. You said it.... clip ban accomplishes nothing.... so why do it? A: because its a foot in the door. theyre not seeking the weapons that are most likely to put citizens in danger, theyre seeking the weapons most likely to put THEM in danger. The government should fear its people, not the other way around. Point to any example in history where handing over complete power to a government ever worked out for it's citizens? My guard is rightfully up because im being lied to by the most dishonest, secretive and sketchy president our country has ever known.

[Sinfix_15]

is this an assault rifle?
http://media.liveauctiongroup.net/i/11554/11872466_1.jpg?v=8CEBDD4E2084D90

this? can you tell me which ones are and are not assault rifles and why?
http://www.mcsports.com/sites/default/files/images/product-photos/1261678-MODEL-795-SEMIAUTO-RIFLE.jpg

http://cdn2.armslist.com/sites/armslist/uploads/posts/2012/10/24/625883_02_22_semi_auto_rifle_remington_5_640.jpg

http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff134/deathon2legs2002/AA9122.gif

http://www.impactguns.com/data/default/images/catalog/535/cia_rpk.jpg

http://www.slickguns.com/sites/default/files/6175_5_2520romanian_2520ak47_2520wasr10_25207_62x3 9_25201501126.jpg

http://762precision.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/ssr-25-stock-on-308-ar-long-range-rifle.jpg

http://i448.photobucket.com/albums/qq206/rawlins1087/ar30.jpg

[Sinfix_15]

i mean come on... is this an assault rifle too? (lol)
http://www.damngeeky.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Ultimate-AR-15-Mall-Tactical-Zombie-Destroyer-assult-rifle-zombie-gun.jpg

[David88vert]

I gave you the list above. Its pretty clear in definition.
Since they already passed it once, and for 10 years - did it lead to a complete ban as you feared?

[Echonova]

http://i1084.photobucket.com/albums/j402/Echonova2/397377_516830565027670_1951701233_n_zps50f34176.jp g

[Sinfix_15]

I gave you the list above. Its pretty clear in definition.
Since they already passed it once, and for 10 years - did it lead to a complete ban as you feared?

The modern day liberal is much worse than any who have sought to ban guns before them. King Obama has emboldened them. Feinsteins proposals are the biggest assault on the 2nd amendment in history and it has absolutely nothing to do with mass shootings or safety. This isnt "business as usual". This is the left making their run at the finish line. Liberals believe americans should be disarmed, the same way this president believes, despite what his teleprompter says.

[David88vert]

The modern day liberal is much worse than any who have sought to ban guns before them. King Obama has emboldened them. Feinsteins proposals are the biggest assault on the 2nd amendment in history and it has absolutely nothing to do with mass shootings or safety. This isnt "business as usual". This is the left making their run at the finish line. Liberals believe americans should be disarmed, the same way this president believes, despite what his teleprompter says.

I want you to re-read this statement and re-think it.

Feinstein was the author of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban which expired in 2004. Same liberal, so far, same legislation. I'm no fan of Feinstein or Pelosi, the facts do not agree with your speculation.

Obama has publically stated that he does not want to ban all guns. What evidence do you have to the contrary?

I personally do not want the ban on assault style weapons, but I do not believe that it is a complete ban on firearms. Registration of all firearms is a more slippery slope than assault style weapons.

[David88vert]

I have a question for you that is really a discussion that needs to be broken out from the rest of this, so I have created it's own post.

When you say that assault style weapons protect us from the government, what do you envision as their purpose in a conflict with the government?
Do you think that having a rifle that will fire more than 30 rounds without reloading suddenly empowers the people to fight against the US Army?

The Taliban fought the Soviet Army for 10 years, and collected a huge supply of weapons, including millions of AK's. They had 20 years to establish themselves with communications, infrastructure, planning, etc. None of that was a match for our Army. Repeatedly, their fully automatic AK's have been outclassed by our Army's armor and training. Our Army does not have to match them on a man-to-man basis. The battlefield is not level.
The people in the US do not have the leadership structure, communications, etc, to even match the Taliban's efforts. Do you think that Columbus metro area civilians, population approximately 180K, is a match for Ft Benning's armor and infantry (population approx 120K, with half of it Army)?

No one is going to stand up and play Rambo with an assault style rifle. IF there was a conflict, the only way that the US citizens could fight back against the Army is through guerilla warfare - against their own people (Army). If they succeeded, the US would be crippled politically and ecomically, and would be in danger of falling prey to other nations.

What holds back the government from being able to lock down the people is the leaders of our Armed Forces, as traditionally, they have not generally favored ordering troops to fire on US citizens. assault style rifles are no match for tanks and trained troops.

[Sinfix_15]

I want you to re-read this statement and re-think it.

Feinstein was the author of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban which expired in 2004. Same liberal, so far, same legislation. I'm no fan of Feinstein or Pelosi, the facts do not agree with your speculation.

Obama has publically stated that he does not want to ban all guns. What evidence do you have to the contrary?

I personally do not want the ban on assault style weapons, but I do not believe that it is a complete ban on firearms. Registration of all firearms is a more slippery slope than assault style weapons.

you keep saying "Obama publicly stated"...... what weight do you think this carries? Obama saying one thing should only lead you to expect the opposite. You're gonna need to pull your head out of the sand if this conversation is going to get anywhere.

[.blank cd]

you keep saying "Obama publicly stated"...... what weight do you think this carries? Obama saying one thing should only lead you to expect the opposite. You're gonna need to pull your head out of the sand if this conversation is going to get anywhere.

So when you say "Obama is a socialist communist tyrant bent on circumventing the constitution to collect America's guns", I should expect the opposite? What weight does what you say carry?

If we've got to rely on evidence, how many guns has Obama forcibly collected so far?

[Sinfix_15]

I have a question for you that is really a discussion that needs to be broken out from the rest of this, so I have created it's own post.

When you say that assault style weapons protect us from the government, what do you envision as their purpose in a conflict with the government?
Do you think that having a rifle that will fire more than 30 rounds without reloading suddenly empowers the people to fight against the US Army?

The Taliban fought the Soviet Army for 10 years, and collected a huge supply of weapons, including millions of AK's. They had 20 years to establish themselves with communications, infrastructure, planning, etc. None of that was a match for our Army. Repeatedly, their fully automatic AK's have been outclassed by our Army's armor and training. Our Army does not have to match them on a man-to-man basis. The battlefield is not level.
The people in the US do not have the leadership structure, communications, etc, to even match the Taliban's efforts. Do you think that Columbus metro area civilians, population approximately 180K, is a match for Ft Benning's armor and infantry (population approx 120K, with half of it Army)?

No one is going to stand up and play Rambo with an assault style rifle. IF there was a conflict, the only way that the US citizens could fight back against the Army is through guerilla warfare - against their own people (Army). If they succeeded, the US would be crippled politically and ecomically, and would be in danger of falling prey to other nations.

What holds back the government from being able to lock down the people is the leaders of our Armed Forces, as traditionally, they have not generally favored ordering troops to fire on US citizens. assault style rifles are no match for tanks and trained troops.

Why do people always interpret it as a US Army vs People pick up game..... like we're gonna break off and pick sides... and Neighborhood C is gonna square off against FT Bennings armory or something. People have the right to be prepared for anything. It's not as cut and dry as "if the gobberment steps out of line we round the troops and march on the white house".....

Just to entertain your curiosity of a scenario in which something more than a 12gauge would be needed.

If someone ever attacked us on our own soil. Things would probably be pretty grim prior to this ever happening to begin with and it would no doubt follow some type of economic collapse. Police/military would be overwhelmed and would probably not be able to adequately maintain their normal duties. Anytime in history that the police are "distracted" or incapacitated in any measure, criminals take advantage. In the event pillagers were roaming around taking advantage of it, i want more than a revolver and shotgun to defend my house.

California is supposedly one of our most prosperous states and it's on the verge of being bankrupt. We already heard about all government employees having their pay reduced to min wage. In this circumstance, those employees were good enough to continue doing their work while protesting it... but what if they went on strike? Same thing as i said before.... hell, our police cant control a city like Chicago when theyre actually trying to.... you think things would control themselves in the absence of police?

If the dollar collapsed or there was any shortage or rationing of supplies. Really, we're conditioned to believe this isnt possible and our world is perfectly unbreakable... the same way any other supreme power from the past felt about themselves, but the reality is... other countries control this fate. If China dumped it's US treasuries that would trigger economic chaos. Something as simple as gas prices could cripple the world as we know it. What if oil import stopped tomorrow. How many things would that effect? farmers, grocery stores, cars, police, fire trucks, hospitals.... ect ect... people arent going to sit around and go hungry, you house is going to turn into a grocery store. If you think in that scenario people are going to unite and help each other.... well, then jesus bless your little heart.



We live in a country that has already gone to war with itself. That once allowed us to own other people....... yet i keep hearing that things like this are impossible. If you want examples of why anyone would want arms, all you have to do is flip through a history book. People who defend the 2nd amendment arent just defending it for tomorrow's "fight", they preserving it for 50 years from now, 100 years from now... 200 years from now. You cant predict what the future brings and you have no right to restrict anyone's ability to adequately defend themselves.

Not to mention, this request comes with no merit. Rifles are the gun used the LEAST in crime and the MOST in sport. Taking them away serves no purpose other than to prove you can take them away. A government that deserved to be trusted would not seek to take them away. Keep saying it will never happen...... good, i hope youre right. But in the event of chaos im not going to sit in and my living room and wonder where David88vert or BlankCD is so that i can say "i told you so". That's the kicker of being prepared for the worst...... if you're right and it never happens.... we're both happy and i have a really expensive paper weight collection. What happens if you're wrong?


Irony.... a country that has constant reminders of why it needs to protect itself, seems so prepared to forfeit that ability.
http://momentchannel.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/jesus_on_cross_crucifixion-full.jpg
http://images.fanpop.com/images/image_uploads/-The-Civil-War-united-states-of-america-758088_640_462.jpg
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ4fn2RsTknGBsMuxdyyWhClSm7su4Z7 DR5kyxPZU1QADAqxoP9
http://www.thehammer.ca/content/2005/0218/riot.jpg
http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2012/11/30/ap110411040600_custom-a89d935530075e8944aec7a9533a0c6cf44d67af-s6-c10.jpg

[Sinfix_15]

So when you say "Obama is a socialist communist tyrant bent on circumventing the constitution to collect America's guns", I should expect the opposite? What weight does what you say carry?

If we've got to rely on evidence, how many guns has Obama forcibly collected so far?

You can expect whatever you want from your King.

[Sinfix_15]

Blank, you avoided answering how you feel if this accusation is confirmed.

» Nobel Peace Prize Nominee: Obama Asks Military Leaders If They Will “Fire On US Citizens” Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind! (http://www.infowars.com/nobel-peace-prize-nominee-obama-asks-military-leaders-if-they-will-fire-on-us-citizens/)

[Sinfix_15]

The only reasonable objection im getting about the ability to own assault rifles is basically...

"you dont stand a chance, so why bother"....

You may be right....... but refusing to accept this is why we're not france, it's why you dont have a brittish accent right now... it's why we're not bowing to a king..... it's why im not building someone's castle.... its why there are no shackles on my feet....

The threat is equally as important as a victory. Knowing you will have to be conquered, can prevent someone from attempting to conquer you.

[.blank cd]

Blank, you avoided answering how you feel if this accusation is confirmed.

» Nobel Peace Prize Nominee: Obama Asks Military Leaders If They Will “Fire On US Citizens” Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind! (http://www.infowars.com/nobel-peace-prize-nominee-obama-asks-military-leaders-if-they-will-fire-on-us-citizens/)

Because I refuse to lend any credibility to conspiracy theories and unfounded claims

[.blank cd]

You can expect whatever you want from your King.

Who's my king? Lol.

[David88vert]

you keep saying "Obama publicly stated"...... what weight do you think this carries? Obama saying one thing should only lead you to expect the opposite. You're gonna need to pull your head out of the sand if this conversation is going to get anywhere.

Your random speculation with no basis in fact trumps what is publically stated by the person multiple times?
Your beliefs do not dictate his actions, so you need to produce evidence if you wish for your argument to be taken seriously, and not as a truther.

Your head is not in the sand - it's somewhere else.

[David88vert]

Why do people always interpret it as a US Army vs People pick up game..... like we're gonna break off and pick sides... and Neighborhood C is gonna square off against FT Bennings armory or something. People have the right to be prepared for anything. It's not as cut and dry as "if the gobberment steps out of line we round the troops and march on the white house".....

Just to entertain your curiosity of a scenario in which something more than a 12gauge would be needed.

If someone ever attacked us on our own soil. Things would probably be pretty grim prior to this ever happening to begin with and it would no doubt follow some type of economic collapse. Police/military would be overwhelmed and would probably not be able to adequately maintain their normal duties. Anytime in history that the police are "distracted" or incapacitated in any measure, criminals take advantage. In the event pillagers were roaming around taking advantage of it, i want more than a revolver and shotgun to defend my house.

California is supposedly one of our most prosperous states and it's on the verge of being bankrupt. We already heard about all government employees having their pay reduced to min wage. In this circumstance, those employees were good enough to continue doing their work while protesting it... but what if they went on strike? Same thing as i said before.... hell, our police cant control a city like Chicago when theyre actually trying to.... you think things would control themselves in the absence of police?

If the dollar collapsed or there was any shortage or rationing of supplies. Really, we're conditioned to believe this isnt possible and our world is perfectly unbreakable... the same way any other supreme power from the past felt about themselves, but the reality is... other countries control this fate. If China dumped it's US treasuries that would trigger economic chaos. Something as simple as gas prices could cripple the world as we know it. What if oil import stopped tomorrow. How many things would that effect? farmers, grocery stores, cars, police, fire trucks, hospitals.... ect ect... people arent going to sit around and go hungry, you house is going to turn into a grocery store. If you think in that scenario people are going to unite and help each other.... well, then jesus bless your little heart.



We live in a country that has already gone to war with itself. That once allowed us to own other people....... yet i keep hearing that things like this are impossible. If you want examples of why anyone would want arms, all you have to do is flip through a history book. People who defend the 2nd amendment arent just defending it for tomorrow's "fight", they preserving it for 50 years from now, 100 years from now... 200 years from now. You cant predict what the future brings and you have no right to restrict anyone's ability to adequately defend themselves.

Not to mention, this request comes with no merit. Rifles are the gun used the LEAST in crime and the MOST in sport. Taking them away serves no purpose other than to prove you can take them away. A government that deserved to be trusted would not seek to take them away. Keep saying it will never happen...... good, i hope youre right. But in the event of chaos im not going to sit in and my living room and wonder where David88vert or BlankCD is so that i can say "i told you so". That's the kicker of being prepared for the worst...... if you're right and it never happens.... we're both happy and i have a really expensive paper weight collection. What happens if you're wrong?


So first, you said that we need assault style rifles to defend us from our government. When I proceeded to dig into that, you now want to say its to defend ourselves from ourselves in the event of a social and economic collapse - perhaps brought on by a foreign government attack.

Currently, there is no nation even close to prepared to attempt to launch an invasion of the US.

As for China dumping debt, in reality it works the opposite. China has tied its economy to ours, just as many other countries have. IF the US economy failed, then China will face the same economic collapse. Their owning of our debt would be lost revenue to them, and their economic projections would tank.


As for civil unrest, we've seen that in New Orleans after Katrina and in LA during the riots. While assault style rifles make things easy, are you saying that you would be unable to defend yourself with non-assault style weapons in these situations? Are you even in an area like that? Here's some food for thought:
All of these riots and civil unrest where looting and muggins take place appear to be in the cities. Rural areas, such as the Columbus area, historically find people looking to work together to solve issues, such as food, water, etc. YOUR area is not in any danger in the unlikely event, so why do you need an assault rifle? The answer is: You don't need one. You simply want one. Should everyone just have whatever they want?

[David88vert]

Who's my king? Lol.



King Obama with his executive orders (decrees). You didn't get the memo?

[David88vert]

Because I refuse to lend any credibility to conspiracy theories and unfounded claims

I have to agree on this. No one has corroborated the story, and no named sources were given. More information is necessary to substantiate it.

[Sinfix_15]

Your random speculation with no basis in fact trumps what is publically stated by the person multiple times?
Your beliefs do not dictate his actions, so you need to produce evidence if you wish for your argument to be taken seriously, and not as a truther.

Your head is not in the sand - it's somewhere else.

Not going to wait until a gun ban goes through to believe a gun ban can go through.

[Sinfix_15]

So first, you said that we need assault style rifles to defend us from our government. When I proceeded to dig into that, you now want to say its to defend ourselves from ourselves in the event of a social and economic collapse - perhaps brought on by a foreign government attack.

Currently, there is no nation even close to prepared to attempt to launch an invasion of the US.

As for China dumping debt, in reality it works the opposite. China has tied its economy to ours, just as many other countries have. IF the US economy failed, then China will face the same economic collapse. Their owning of our debt would be lost revenue to them, and their economic projections would tank.


As for civil unrest, we've seen that in New Orleans after Katrina and in LA during the riots. While assault style rifles make things easy, are you saying that you would be unable to defend yourself with non-assault style weapons in these situations? Are you even in an area like that? Here's some food for thought:
All of these riots and civil unrest where looting and muggins take place appear to be in the cities. Rural areas, such as the Columbus area, historically find people looking to work together to solve issues, such as food, water, etc. YOUR area is not in any danger in the unlikely event, so why do you need an assault rifle? The answer is: You don't need one. You simply want one. Should everyone just have whatever they want?

Yes. It's called freedom. You can not produce an argument that justifies the banning of assault rifles. They are the VERY LEAST gun used in criminal activity and the MOST used gun in sport.

What history are you basing your opinion of columbus on????????? Columbus is a crime infested shit hole. People carry weapons when they go walking..... You might want to go recheck your history on that one..... here's a hint for you... extend your radius about 20 miles and see if anything interesting pops up on your radar.