cabiness42

I saw that when it was on. I didn't have any idea what he was quoting, but I could tell there was something going on.

I actually think my state government functions rather well.

Good. You're answering your own questions, so now we don't really need to pay attention to you anymore.

I'm supporting a family of four on a government income. Shutdown would be catastrophic for me.

Churches don't generally have endowments, but if they do, then sure.

How about this? Federal excise tax on all gun purchases, with the money going directly to mental health care??

You brought me right back to my original point. If people were more worried about mental health than gun control, then more lobbying dollars would be spent on mental health issues than gun issues, and in turn Congress would be less inclined to cut mental health services. So if people really want to get the government to do something about mental health, then just shut the f*** up about guns for a while.

Not really that contradictory. There is plenty of wasteful spending, especially at the Federal level, that could be re-routed to mental health services.

Well, I don't live in Illinois, so I don't have all the same issues you are facing. If it costs me $200 more per year in taxes in order to have a mental health system that prevents or at least greatly reduces what are now semi-annual mass killings by crazy people, then yes, that's worth it. I understand that there is a larger picture of where the rest of our tax money is going, but if a $200/year tax increase directly improves our mental health system that much, then it's by far worth it.

A few posts ago you said $200/person. If that's all it takes, then yes.

Fixed.

What it has to do with guns is that better mental health care will do more to reduce mass gun shootings than gun laws.

He likes to pretend Danks is a righty.

Nearly every movie set in actual locations does this to some extent. There are many scenes in Rudy where Rudy sees a building or a person at a building from another building on campus when such a sight line was impossible.

My point was not to argue the merits of the second amendment or even the merits of gun control. My original comment was in response to somebody who suggested taking rights that currently exist away from a large number of people as an alternative to taking away rights from a small number of people and the irony in that particular statement. Regardless of whether or not those rights are a good idea, the fact that they exist right now is what is germane to that particular comment. My point is that fixing the mental health system will do more to prevent mass gun tragedies than more gun laws. If you want to respond to that specific comment, I'd be happy to continue debating with you. Otherwise, I'm finished with you in this thread.

Shooters at Washington Navy Yard, Sandy Hook CT school, Aurora CO movie theater, Tucson AZ Congressional Town hall, and Virginia Tech.

Based on current laws, those rights exist and that was the comparison I'm making.

That seems obvious to me. Did it really need to go to a Federal appeals court?

First of all, what exactly is a "vast minority"? 49.99 percent? No system is going to be perfect, but clearly we are tipped too far in the direction of having people who need to be under some sort of mental health care that aren't getting it. All I'm trying to say is that I don't think institutionalization is the answer for every person with mental health issues. Maybe the problem is that right now institutionalization is our only option so we shy away from getting help for people because of that stigma. I have no problem with having things like waiting periods, but no amount of gun laws is going to change criminals abilities to get them. Better mental health will change (some) people's desires to commit criminal acts in the first place.

So we're going to take away the rights of all Americans in order to avoid taking rights away from a small percentage of Americans? Gotta love that logic.

Most people don't need to be institutionalized long term. Most just need to be admitted somewhere to get diagnosed, get initial treatment, and then get on regular medication. It's not like we need to have a million people living in mental hospitals long term in order to help the problem.

Mental illness. Aaron Alexis, Adam Lanza, James Holmes, Jared Loughner and Seung-Hui Cho are/were all mentally ill. Fixing the mental health system will go much farther in stopping these tragedies than any gun laws. Of course, the pro- and anti- gun lobbies contribute far more to political campaigns than the mental health lobbies, so politicians on both sides will continue to ignore the real problem and continue to make every tragedy as much about guns as possible since that's what rakes in the cash.

Tonight's Braves @ Nats game postponed due to proximity to the Navy Yard shooting.

My Dad perfected the art of recording a game, beginning to watch it from the beginning about an hour after it started, and catch up to live action right at the end of the game. Skip the commercials and still know the result of the game as it happens.