JoeWeber

Do you believe the agenda you want is good for America? Clearly, Trumps agenda harms many of your fellow citizens, in particular those in the LGBT community. I would include the increasing numbers of americans unable to afford health care. There are more, of course. Is that simply acceptable collateral damage or are those folks simply expendable types according to the natural order? To the point, what is it in your agenda that makes harm to other americans acceptable? Given that you think Trump is an idiot and a tool for whom you have little respect, is it the case that our standing on the world stage is not part of your agenda?

Poor bastard. Fired on Dropzone.com. And here I thought Tillerson got it the hard way.

Wendy, Jerry's question is not only legit, it's the question that begs an answer most hours of the day and night lately. Parsing out the relative value of a non-vote vs. a vote for or against or any shade of a vote doesn't much matter, I think, especially given the philosophical nature of the conversation. The same applies to the actual value of anyones vote in our awful electoral college system. I personally think it's very fair, over a year into this embarressing clusterfuck of a presidency, to ask everyone to answer that question.

In the highly unlikely event that I ever feel the need of a firearm for home defense, it will be a 12 gauge shotgun. Couldn't agree more. You don't have to aim particularly accurately, there's less chance of ammunition overpenetrating and, in the case of a pump action, just the sound of racking the slide attracts people's undivided attention. Bolding mine. I hope you don't really believe that. Or maybe I do. Inside a typical dwelling, a shotgun pattern opens up only an inch or two. The myth that a shotgun has to "only be pointed in the general direction" of the target is a load of garbage. You are mostly right. That's why I switched from a Wingmaster with a 28" Barrel and a Modified Choke to an Automatic with a 20" Barrel and a Cylinder Bore . You still need to aim if for no other reason then so you don't shoot yourself. And if you don't you just sent 9 .32 caliber pieces of buckshot down the hallway with 9 more close behind. I reckon if it's the middle of the night and I'm slightly befuddled that'll cover more than an inch or two.

In the highly unlikely event that I ever feel the need of a firearm for home defense, it will be a 12 gauge shotgun. Couldn't agree more. You don't have to aim particularly accurately, there's less chance of ammunition overpenetrating and, in the case of a pump action, just the sound of racking the slide attracts people's undivided attention. I've mentioned it here before, but I upgraded to a Beretta 1301 tactical for the home. Nothing say's do not come through the door like the sound of a 12 guage receiver closing with with a loud snap.

Now that's a fine dollop of woo-woo. How about conflict will always exist when the other motherfucker refuses to agree? Referring to your worthy opponent as a motherfucker is probably not the best way to begin dialogue. The exception is union/management negotiations. He's not a motherfucker until he refuses to agree. Until then he's just a chump.

Now that's a fine dollop of woo-woo. How about conflict will always exist when the other motherfucker refuses to agree?

Someone, anyone, please tell me about when your high capacity magazine saved your ass in civilian life. If you own an AR-15 please tell me how, where or when you expect to use the thing. Look, unlike some gun grabbers who want a lot more regulation-and I am and do-I'm a gun guy. I get it. But only a tool hunts with a .223 and only a loser needs an automatic to kill critters. Seriously, I hunted ducks for years with a single shot. I know for a fact my deer and elk score is way better than most and it was all with a lever action Savage .300 or a bolt action something including a Springfield in 30-40 Krag. In my mind war looking weapons and high capacity mags are pointless. Again, someone, anyone, get me right if I'm wrong. The stories are out there. There's one where a woman saved her family with an AR-15 fired more than 11 shots at home Invaders. It just didn't go posted in the media because it doesn't fit the narrative. And you won't see any of the anti-gunners posted here because it doesn't fit their narrative. I said someone not sometroll. Until you learn the courteous art of substantiating your assertions with attributions, bug off.

Someone, anyone, please tell me about when your high capacity magazine saved your ass in civilian life. If you own an AR-15 please tell me how, where or when you expect to use the thing. Look, unlike some gun grabbers who want a lot more regulation-and I am and do-I'm a gun guy. I get it. But only a tool hunts with a .223 and only a loser needs an automatic to kill critters. Seriously, I hunted ducks for years with a single shot. I know for a fact my deer and elk score is way better than most and it was all with a lever action Savage .300 or a bolt action something including a Springfield in 30-40 Krag. In my mind war looking weapons and high capacity mags are pointless. Again, someone, anyone, get me right if I'm wrong.

That's the point. Compared to total number, the rate, i.e., the number of gun deaths per 100K, is the more meaningful metric, allowing use to make meaningful, objective comparisons among locations of different population sizes. No shit. Did you read the whole thing or just the part you wanted to throw rocks at? Fantasies... it was a tongue-in-cheek comment, hence the emoji. Stop sitting in the corner ready to pounce on any little thing. I've been on the liberal side of this issue for days. Try to keep up. Keith, In fairness it's hard to keep up with each persons position on this one. We have hard core believers at both ends of the conversation, a few gun toting pinko's like me stalking the center and a fair amount of movement on some issues, too. Could you clarify which positions place you on the liberal side of the issue? Joe Also, I need a firing pin and a spring for my CZ BRNO RV85 if anyone has a connection.

Sorry, I agree with 99%. Derek V No worries. Posters here don't know that I know and admire you outside of our disagreements here. I do sort of wish you weren't a 1%er though.

Derek, To be clear, you are on board with "Restrict the availability of weapons that allow mass shootings." If so, I've misunderstood your position.

And a 10 shot clip would help you how? You would still only be able to get off a single shot. What you would likely do is drop your weapon, raise your hands, and hand over what ever the nice robbers wanted. Unless you are just plain stupid. And suppose the nice robbers decide to off you anyway. It happens. But hey, if you're ready to die without a fight... I CC one personal weapon to give me a chance against armed robbery. . Why do you live in such a nasty, hostile, crime infested neighborhood? It is for when I go into the lowland cities, or FL. Bull. You pack it everyday, you've previously said. Just like putting on your undies in the morning, it's part of your dress routine.

Bravo, take a bow. Don't act alarmed but "Nothing Burger" is an anagram of Bring Other Gun. Probably means nothing....

Hey now! I resemble that remark. You know, maybe we need us a moderator moderator, if you'll pardon the Rushism.

Sold by assassinbug-usa. 100% positive feedback.

The post made me Google it and read the Wikipedia article. By the way, it's Krytron, not Kryton. Apparently a common error. I want one of those too. I love America. https://www.ebay.com/p/High-Power-Krytron-Laser-Trigger-Pulse-Nuclear-Switching-Tube-KN6B-EG-G-Optics/1726693591

Derek, for this reply I'd like to agree to disagree on what constitutes a constitutional right to own firearms. Also, I'd rather it was a minimum 21 years of age for both with no exceptions. That said, I am with you on the age minimum for firearms as a stand alone issue. Beyond that, if we were cutting a deal I'd expect to move in your direction for the give. Keith took a shot at the problem but his poll was too binary and offered little beyond an opportunity for others to offer concessions. Just because I'm a damn bleeding heart liberal does not mean I'm giving up my guns. But I'd give up a lot to get the word "regulated" back into the second amendment, that's a fact.

What do you think should be done with us? Exactly what many here are so painstakingly attempting to do: wise your stubborn Christian ass up. You slay me, man. You're all goody two shoes about providing free mental health services to needy vets but hate socialism. You do it for free and then rely on the kindness of strangers for your plate of beans. You want any weapon you personally deem necessary for your own protection without providing a scintilla of evidence for the need. And that's good enough to trump any one else's concerns about gun proliferation. And then, by the by, ya'll don't forget that you are my enemies if, unfortunately, my fellow Americans while we're having this chat. Ron, you have very weird views.

Grand idea! Let's attack the second amendment with logic bombs. Might not help but sometimes you just gotta do something even if it's wrong.

My response is my opinion based on my experience and pragmatic observations. The main reason, not the only one, that people tend to avoid seeking professional counseling is ego. They refuse to see and/or accept their mental flaws. Those that can afford therapy, note the difference from counseling, tend to seek psychiatric help. Their egos stand a better chance of being reinforced and they are given Rx medication to feel better about themselves and their lives. I have been exposed to two paths of national healthcare. My primary exposure was my field of emplyment and the other the VA system. In my field we operated primarily on two national and state level health care systems. That is, at first clients were provided Medicare because they had Social Security Disability and lastly Medicaid. The latter being federally funded state care. Both systems had only marginal results. With Medicare funding the patient or client was given sixty days treatment per year. Alcoholics and addicts would simply take a break and get cleaned up. Actual mental health patients would seek help generally because they quit taking their Rx meds and started experiencing symptoms again. Once the Medicare treatment ended around 1990, the poor were left with Medicaid. That system is based solely on numbers. That is, what is best for the average number of patients seen and what is the cheapest answer to the symptomatic problem. Both the civilian and the VA systems rely on psychotropic and mood altering medications. The side effects of these drugs are unpleasant and are frequently discontinued. I don't believe Americans are prone to seek volunteer admission to mental health counseling, even it is free. We have a very strong American spirit and pride. I hope I addressed your question. I began writing before church and now expecting company. Let me know if I can do better. Yes, you can do better. The question was: "The question I posed was regarding the UK where they have a national health care system. If a health care professional notices a troubled kid and suggests an appointment with a counselor, and there is no cost to a poor parent, are they likely to take the appointment?" Not adults, not ego's, not a comparison to some flakey, half assed US based system like SSD which is to a for realsie national health care system as a fart is to a turd. I'm limiting it to rifleman's outstanding question. Is there a relationship between national health care and social violence? The reason I am thinking that if money wasn't an issue for a parent, on advice, to seek mental health care for their kid is owing to a question my Dad asked me decades ago. "Boy", he asked. "You know what all old assholes have in common?" "Nope", say's I. Say's he: "They were all young assholes. Keep it in mind." I do not know about the UK. The only thing I believe is that when a child is forced to go to counseling they are more likely than not to be rebellious. Thus they need to be medicated and have their spirit broken. The root of their problem is in their home life. If that cannot be changed then medicate the kid so that he will cope. I worked with adults. Counseling in that area is more successful when the client has to pay for the time. In other words, if you don't invest something, you don't expect much in return. Regarding your asshole comment, that is a personality disorder, an Axis II diagnosis. As such they are not treatable. Individuals have to have a desire and motivation to change their own character flaws. That is where the battle with the ego lies. The old adage, how many counselors does it take to change a light bulb? Only one, but the light bulb has to want to change. Again,: "If a health care professional notices a troubled kid and suggests an appointment with a counselor, and there is no cost to a poor parent, are they likely to take the appointment?" And: "I'm limiting it to rifleman's outstanding question. Is there a relationship between national health care and social violence?" Whatever your belief system requires you to believe there are other factors besides poor parenting that create troubled children.

My response is my opinion based on my experience and pragmatic observations. The main reason, not the only one, that people tend to avoid seeking professional counseling is ego. They refuse to see and/or accept their mental flaws. Those that can afford therapy, note the difference from counseling, tend to seek psychiatric help. Their egos stand a better chance of being reinforced and they are given Rx medication to feel better about themselves and their lives. I have been exposed to two paths of national healthcare. My primary exposure was my field of emplyment and the other the VA system. In my field we operated primarily on two national and state level health care systems. That is, at first clients were provided Medicare because they had Social Security Disability and lastly Medicaid. The latter being federally funded state care. Both systems had only marginal results. With Medicare funding the patient or client was given sixty days treatment per year. Alcoholics and addicts would simply take a break and get cleaned up. Actual mental health patients would seek help generally because they quit taking their Rx meds and started experiencing symptoms again. Once the Medicare treatment ended around 1990, the poor were left with Medicaid. That system is based solely on numbers. That is, what is best for the average number of patients seen and what is the cheapest answer to the symptomatic problem. Both the civilian and the VA systems rely on psychotropic and mood altering medications. The side effects of these drugs are unpleasant and are frequently discontinued. I don't believe Americans are prone to seek volunteer admission to mental health counseling, even it is free. We have a very strong American spirit and pride. I hope I addressed your question. I began writing before church and now expecting company. Let me know if I can do better. Yes, you can do better. The question was: "The question I posed was regarding the UK where they have a national health care system. If a health care professional notices a troubled kid and suggests an appointment with a counselor, and there is no cost to a poor parent, are they likely to take the appointment?" Not adults, not ego's, not a comparison to some flakey, half assed US based system like SSD which is to a for realsie national health care system as a fart is to a turd. I'm limiting it to rifleman's outstanding question. Is there a relationship between national health care and social violence? The reason I am thinking that if money wasn't an issue for a parent, on advice, to seek mental health care for their kid is owing to a question my Dad asked me decades ago. "Boy", he asked. "You know what all old assholes have in common?" "Nope", say's I. Say's he: "They were all young assholes. Keep it in mind."

Hey Joe - I think that's a fundamental misunderstanding of mental illness, particularly depression. Unfortunately I've had far too much exposure to this in my friends - and I have lived in countries with socialised health care nearly all my life. The cost aspect has never been a factor. I don't totally understand - I don't think you can unless you suffer from it yourself -but it's not so much a matter of not wanting help, often its more that you don't think you are worthy of it. Stumpy, That bit was for Ron in particular. I totally get it that there are too many variables to offer simplistic solutions. I was targeting Rifleman's excellent question about a possible relationship between national health care systems where cost isn't a determinant and social violence. The idea being that a parent who brings a troubled child for a regular check-up, for example, might be advised by the health care provider that in addition to that day's treatment it might benefit little johnny jet shoes to speak with a counselor about his obvious behavior issues. Here in America that won't float if there isn't insurance or deep pockets. But in the UK or other first world countries with national health care maybe it does. Hell, I don't know if it's fewer guns or more health care that causes less gun deaths everywhere else. I'm thinking it's fewer guns but the question is worth a thought.

I was thinking of the UK. They've had national health care for long enough that maybe parents are less afraid of asking for help or taking advice from a health professional. I have been involved in crisis intervention since 1973. My experience has been that few seek intervention on their own initiative. Generally, someone makes a referral for the individual in distress. In my later years it was the court system or directly from law enforcement. It is difficult to earn a living in this field. Right now I am volunteering my service to veterans. What I have found is that this work is rewarded indirectly and thus my financial needs are covered through others, many unrelated to the crisis. I operate on faith. It is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen, Hebrews 11:1. It works for me. Ron, I have deep respect for what you do regardless of your motivation. Please know that. To your point that few seek intervention on their own initiative, the question is why? A strong component must be money. The question I posed was regarding the UK where they have a national health care system. If a health care professional notices a troubled kid and suggests an appointment with a counselor, and there is no cost to a poor parent, are they likely to take the appointment? I think Rifleman asked a damn fine question and for all we know there is a relationship between national health care and social violence. If there is, and it is demonstrable, would you as a professional counselor then be in favor of a national health care system in America?

I was thinking of the UK. They've had national health care for long enough that maybe parents are less afraid of asking for help or taking advice from a health professional.