freethefly

Does this not move into an area of concern for the Tenth Amendment being violated? "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

Why? Could it be out of concern for the safety of your children and others? If the person was not exhibiting signs that he/she is not in the right frame of mind and is coherent in speech and docile, then there would be no reason to suspect that the person may cause injury or death to another. On the other-hand, if the same person arrives to the park someday and is acting strangely out of place (gibbering, shows signs of discontent, lashing out...), then action is required before the situation spirals to the point of bloodshed. This is what I mean by erring on the side of safety. http://www.odmhsas.org/eda/advancedquery/smi.htm As per the guideline, "serious mental illness" is the proper term. Define "threatened" and explain why your safety warrants trampling on the rights of a gun owner based solely on your "feelings." I assume you do realize that your "feelings" have no basis in a court of law. The case in the op is not based on feelings. The man has a history of relapse that spirals into delusions. Loughner exhibited the majority of the criteria. He had no right to own and posses a gun. Not so. Simply removing firearms from those who meet the criteria as defined in the definition does not imply that everyone is a danger. It would do more to promote greater gun safety in general as not allowing those who meet the criteria to not have guns. If and when they can show that they no longer fall into that category, sure, they should be given back. "Rights" may not be taken away, however, they can be balanced against the rights of others. I, and others, have a right to be secure. This has to be balanced against the right of gun ownership, in some cases. Such being the rights of those who meet the criteria in the definition of serious mental illness. In such cases it may be better to err on the side of the general safety of the public and the person in question. It is not a slippery slope. It is common sense. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

Are you fine with people driving drunk? I mean, there are people who drive drunk daily and never hurt anyone! Should we only be concern after they kill someone? I am a gun lover. I have always owned a gun since my first Mossberg 20ga. in 1970. My dad gave it to me for Christmas. I was ten years old. I have no problem with a person who may be mentally ill owning a gun, providing that that person can be shown to be rational as mental illness has many levels. I know this from my own personal experience with depression and attempts at suicide. My gun was taken from me by the St. Charles, MO. police, after I was found with my wrist slit. They returned it to me a week later. My family took it when they learned that I had it. I was going to shoot myself. I ended up trying to gas myself after. My neighbor found me unconscious in my Bronco. Today, I am grateful that I did not have my gun. I got the help that I needed from Dr. Gaioni, he was the psychologist at the St. Louis V.A. during that time. I owe him for helping me see past my depression. I'll be forever grateful. I am grateful that some decided that it was better to err on the side of safety than to suffer the consequence. It had nothing to do with my right to own a gun and everything to do with my safety and the safety of others. Was I mad when they took my gun? Damn right I was. However, at that time, I was not thinking clearly, therefore, I had no business having a gun at reach. Much the same that a drunk person should not be behind the wheel of a running automobile. Not even close to the issue. Unless, we are discussing a person who is exhibiting out of the norm behavior that would raise concern for his/her safety and the safety of others. From the article: After a brief hearing, in which Mr. French’s lengthy history of relapses never came up, he walked out with an order reinstating his right to possess firearms. I hope he is better and does not go off into the deepest end. His history, however, suggest otherwise. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

Reagan did use a teleprompter. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-4848259-503544.html From the text: Ronald Reagan was the same way. He was more at ease in reading his speech off the dual screens of a teleprompter than looking up and down at a speech text on his lectern. Also, http://origin-www.congress.org/news/2011/01/11/eisenhower_first_used_teleprompter "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

Note that the tentative word "may" is in the context of a hypotheses and not a predictive. Answer this. Would you be comfortable with a person whom is known to have a severe mental illness sit on the porch next door to you with a gun in his hand while your children play in his presence? Would you be comfortable with a person with a known severe mental illness be on a playground, in the presence of small children, with a knife strapped to his belt, all the while gibbering incoherently? In both scenarios, I would be deeply concerned with the safety of the children and would want the persons weapon taken from him/her. Is it not better to err on the side of safety than to suffer the consequences of not doing so? "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

He wasn't a killer until he pulled the trigger. Yet, all of the signs were there that indicated that he had the propensity to do so. Had his guns been taken from him a 9 year old girl would still be alive today. I do not equate all with mental illness to the likes of Loughner. The issue is identifying those with mental problems that would more likely spiral to the depths that Loughner spiraled to. In his case, all of the signs were in the spotlight and ignored until two laid dead and the rest injured. If a person is demonstrating that their intent is to infect people, then yes, they should be dealt with before they infect others. (That really was a lame attempt to rile me, you have to admit.) Loughner had, in fact, demonstrated that he had intent to harm others and he was not dealt with until he did what he did. All of the signs were there. All of the signs were ignored. As for the subject in the OP? His own family is in fear of what he may do. They fear for him as well as others. The court refused to look at the signs and gave him back his guns. If he does decide to shoot one of those "bears", which may be a child, family member, or police officer, then who is to blame? This should not be about his rights, but about his safety and the safety of others. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

Legal or not, tax dollars are being used for other than living expenses. That is a slap to the face of the taxpayer. Why should Joe Taxpayer support those who would rather drink all day? The same goes for people who rather use drugs. Tax dollars should not support addictions to alcohol, drugs, food... Tax dollars should be used to screen recipients and then to treat those who are able to get well enough to go back to work. Simply dumping people who have substance abuse/mental health problems onto the streets will create a greater problem for the agencies (namely, the police departments) that will, ultimately, have to address the problem. They will need a bigger budget in order to do so. We all know how Reagan's policy to dump the mentally ill onto the streets went. Increase in crime, overworked police, clogged courts, and overcrowding in the prison system. It's a good idea if used to treat the problems that got them there in the first place. It's a bad idea if all it does is put people out onto the street. The government should not support those who flat out refuse to work. There will always be that small section in society that prefer skid row. On the other-hand, we, as a people, have a responsibility to support those who cannot work, or who want to work, but have problems that are barriers. Again, I am for the testing if the results are used to identify the barriers and to get over those barriers. I am against any program that will push a problem off on another department. There is no cost savings in doing such. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

Could you say that to Gabby Giffords and Mark Kelly? "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

How can anyone believe that people like Jared Loughner has a right to own guns? Could anyone who believe that the mentally ill, such as Loughner, has a right to own firearms stand before Mark Kelly and state such? Could you stand before the parents/loved ones of those murdered and injured during Loughner's rampage and support gun ownership for the mentally ill? If so, then you are part of the problem. What about the rights of the 9 year old girl whose life was ended by Loughner? Did her right to be secure come second to Loughner's right to own a firearm? I don't think that this should be made into a 2nd amendment issue, but a public safety issue. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

Once again you need reminded....consumption of alcohol is not illegal for those who are no longer considered a minor. If you don't believe me you can check for yourself. So... you are fine with alcoholics drinking away welfare checks because alcohol is legal? By the way, I do not drink nor do I smoke pot. As I have stated, I am fine with the program if it is implemented in the manor that the U of M suggest that it be used. It would be wrong and costly, overall, to solely screen and create a far greater problem putting those with mental, alcohol (two greater problems not being addressed), and drug addiction (the lesser problem) out on the street homeless. Sooner or later the growing homeless population will have to addressed at a greater cost to the taxpayer. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

Alcoholism appears to be a greater problem amongst long term recipients. Treating the problem would do far greater good than simply dumping the problem off on skid row. Yes, they did. Under Reagan's administration they closed treatment facilities and dumped severely ill/alcoholics/drug addicts on the streets. Many ended up in prisons, skid row, and/or potters field. It created a even greater problem for law enforcement and the general safety for the people in the communities that the homeless typically gravitate towards. It was also a boom in profits for the prison industry. All of which is paid for by the taxpayers at an even greater cost than welfare and treatment would had cost. You can't break a leg and then hop around on the good leg hoping that the bad leg will never be a problem. Dumping people with severe problems on the street will eventually cost more than the original problem. If no fix is in the plan then solely testing and dumping will do nothing but put a poorly made bandage on a broken leg. Eventually, society will have to address the greater problem that has been created. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

I really have no problem with the test as long as it is used in the manner that the University of Michigan suggest that it should be used. As their study has shown mental illness is a more prominent problem. It should be used to screen and treat. It should not be used to screen and boot people out onto the street creating an even more serious problem, such as mentally ill homeless people wandering the streets aimlessly. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

Dude, you are barking up a tall tree to those on this board who vehemently oppose unions. They are convinced that union people are lazy, uneducated commies not worth what they are paid. They are convinced that unions are the downfall of failing companies. Pick any woe in society and they contribute the problem to unions. I've work for a good number of years as a union welder in a factory. Every person in that plant worked for the dollars they earned. Being lazy didn't cut it. If you didn't do your job has described, you were gone. The union would not back a person who refused to do his/her job. Hussmann fought the union for years, until they realized that the union was on both sides. Without the company, the employee did not have a job. Without the employee, the company did not produce a product. Sadly for more than 1000 employees (myself included) when Ingersoll Rand (they pay no taxes to the U.S. government) bought out Hussmann they lost their jobs. Jobs were sent to Mexico and China. There was nothing that the union could do to stop the exportation of American jobs. Hussmann was doing over 1 billion dollars in sales, so it had nothing to do with keeping the company from failing. Hussmann is the largest commercial refrigeration company in the world. They operate on a global scale. It was the employees and the union that made them such. It was the greed that is Ingersoll Rand that put so many out of a job. How American of them. Guys like Lawrocket, Marc Rush, and others here will never understand the need for unions. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

This coming from someone who has stated he has an extreme hatred for the courts (read into that, hence the law!) Learn to comprehend what another states. I said nothing about "giving" money to welfare recipients. Oh, and yes, I am real freaking smart! My GPA in high school was 4.0. In college, it was 3.92. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

Smoking and drinking and eating are legal. Doing something about the welfare problem is better than sitting and watching it happen. This probably isn't the best way of dealing with it, but it's a start. Tobacco, alcohol, and obesity problems far exceed any problems associated with illicit drug use amongst welfare recipients (namely marijuana.) So, you're fine with tax dollars paying for obese alcoholics puffing away on cigarettes all day because these 3 biggest killers are legal? Yet, you balk about someone on welfare who might smoke a joint? (Note that marijuana has never killed anyone.) I find it hard to believe that the high-end drugs such as cocaine is prevalent amongst welfare recipients. From what I've gathered, alcohol is the drug of choice and is the cause of a host of problems associated with mental illness. Resources would be put to better use to screen for those who may be using alcohol and for those with mental illness. They should also reduce the amount that an obese person on welfare can receive for food. The saving should then be put towards a program to promote a more healthy lifestyle. A more sensible approach would be to not directly deposit funds into a persons account, but to make direct payments to landlords, utilities, as well as other expenses. If a person drives an automobile, issue a gas card. If not, issue a bus pass. This has been done with the food stamp program it can be done in other programs as well. If the concern is that welfare recipients are using the money for other than living expenses, take the cash out of their hands and use electronic transfers. Implement programs that promotes healthy eating. No fast foods, alcohol, and tobacco. Taking the cash out of their hands would do far greater good to put them on the road to being self-reliant. Solely testing for drugs, which I suspect would pop more for marijuana than any other substance, will do very little. It would more likely create more homeless. It would do nothing to address the mental health problems that keep a large number of welfare recipients from getting gainful employment. It is more of a "Look at me! I'm tough on welfare abuse!" It does nothing to address the more visible problems of mental illness, alcohol abuse, and obesity amongst those who are long term welfare recipients. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

Studies have shown that in the long run testing does very little as illicit drug use is not an overall problem. Alcohol abuse and mental health is a far more serious problem than the person who smokes the occasional joint. Marijuana is the more prevalent illicit drug of choice. Alcohol is the more common drug amongst welfare recipients. Mental health is the more common barrier to work. http://www.fordschool.umich.edu/research/pdf/drugtest.pdf http://www.npc.umich.edu/publications/policy_briefs/brief02/ The cost to implement, more likely, will exceed the benefit. Greater focus on mental health, alcohol abuse, education, and transportation would greatly reduce welfare recipients than screening solely for illicit drugs. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

+++1 I agree, Wolf is the BEST DZO I have ever met. He is the definition of a "class act." I only wish that I could get down there more. Hats off to Wolf for being what every DZO should be. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

http://www.onevoicemovement.org/ "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

Truthfully, my views have been tweaked by the views of others on this and other boards. I try to respond the way that I would like like others to respond to me. I do appreciate it when someone points out my shortcoming, so that I may apologize for not being civil. Other times, I have to just walk away as I catch myself being a jerk. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

This link has a breakdown of recipients. http://www.nps.gov/partnerships/fundraising_individuals_statistics.htm $100.95b went to religious charity organizations. Church charities are big throughout the bible belt, if not the entire country. I've had to rely on the food pantry at St. Suzanne's Catholic Church from time to time. They are extremely good people. I do not know exactly what my motivation in the past was when I gave to charities. Most likely it was to counter feeling bad for all of the bad things that I did. Since the diagnosis of in '95, I have received help from the most well meaning people, when I needed such. In times since, I know the reason why I was willing to help. It is better to give than to receive, true, but if you need to receive it is good that someone cared enough to give. This ties in: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTmCylm9TsU "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

actually, I think Freethefly has be trying, lately Maybe, but his last post to me did not reflect that..... It was curt. I apologize. I actually do agree with you on a number of topics. I am far from being a complete liberal. I consider myself to liberal-conservative. As it is today, my vote may go to the Republican candidate, Ron Paul. Although, I'm on the fence concerning some of his views. As for my subject line. I fully agree that it is over the top. As I have pointed out, I think that the vast majority of humans are very good people. Yet, when you look at who is more willing to step up to the plate, it is those with the least amount to give. When I was at my last two jobs (I am returning to one of them, soon) I cleared above 50k. I was very much into giving. When I lived in St. Charles, MO., I spent several hours a day at the Salvation Army Center doing repair work, making runs to the stores that would donate food items and sundries. The others there were folks like myself and folks less fortunate. I never saw one millionaire on the soup line. My sister and I often would stop and buy burgers and such for a person standing with a sign seeking help (will work for food.) I like to believe that they were good people, only down on their luck. I think that very few people would wish to live in an alley or a car. True, not everyone needs the same, but the necessities need to be. We should apply the golden rule when we view others. In the future, I'll try to remember this when posting. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

Maybe you can start by realizing that just maybe, what Marc said was true for his area of the country instead of just slamming him for having the audacity to disagree with you. Conrad, IA has an unemployment rate of 4.3%. Iowa, overall, has a 6.1% unemployment rate. The county in which Conrad resides has a 6.8% unemployment rate. This is an increase of .2% over last years 6.6%. It is, not by far, the best in the State. However, it is not the worst. http://iwin.iwd.state.ia.us/pubs/etables/unemploymentrates.pdf Conrad had a population in July 2009 of 1,003. Population change since 2000: -4.9% Racial demographic stands at: 897 white (98.9%), 5 Asians (0.6%), and 2 people who are of mixed race (0.6%) http://www.city-data.com/city/Conrad-Iowa.html The Grundy Register shows slightly different figures. http://thegrundyregister.com/clients/thegrundyregister/GRFeb17th2011Section1.pdf If Marc wishes to not be called out on his statements, he should cite his source. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

You, more often than not, typically have good input to any given subject. I would like to hear your thoughts. I admit that the thread title was designed to provoke response. Are not most titles designed to do so? As for party leaning? I do not hold any political party close. My choice, as of today, for the next President is a Republican. That could change. My last choice was a Democrat. I am 49% on him at this point in time. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

I respectfully disagree. Bill Gates does, as does Warren Buffett. I am sure that there are others at their level that does. However, $222 Billion (the low figure of the expected 2010 donations) is shameful when 400 individuals are worth far above that. http://www.forbes.com/wealth/forbes-400/list The net worth of the Forbes 400 is above one trillion dollars. http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/22/news/companies/forbes_400/index.htm There has to be something horribly wrong with a system when the top 1% holds more than 40% of the countries wealth. http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html It is equally shameful when lower class individuals are more willing to donate to charity than the top 1% (Gates and Buffett excluded) This is a part of my point. The division is amazing when the overall goal is similar. Every person should be enjoying what is good about America. No child should ever go to bed hungry (or in a cardboard box.) Nor, should any person suffer when there is healthcare that should be within reach. The hate extends into the parties even amongst their own members. It is insane and part of the reason that nothing is getting done. Typical Marc Rush response. Nothing intelligent to add to any thread. For the record, Mr. Rush, I live in the same country that you do. However, I do not reside in the world that exist only in your head. It seems to me, within the head of Marc Rush, all are living the American dream. As for you not caring what others think of America? That is part of the problem, also. Diverborg has provided some good ideas. Let's hear more positive input and let's leave the hate at the door. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

If you think that is a comprehensive test course, I have some cones to setup and some slow speed courses for you to try. Before gaining the extensive training and the last two years of professional experience, I *thought* I was a good rider as well. An MSF instructor I'll call "Safety Steve" came out to a monthly training day a while back. He wanted to try our courses and commented they looked easy, that as an experienced rider and an instructor he can do slow speed maneuvers. After dropping his bike 3 times on our warm up course, he quit riding and just watched for a while. The point is civilian rider training is a joke. Most of the riders on the roadway, included the ones who have been riding for many years, have no ability to safely handle a motorcycle (unless they are traveling at least 30mph and going in a straight line, so the bike balances them). My State, MO., does the slow course. The highway patrol officer sets the pace. It is very slow. Under 5mph. I just got my MC endorsement last year, although I've been riding on the street since '76 (I have more time on a motorcycle than I do in a car.) I passed the test 100%. She did say that very few people ever pass the slow course. Most try it on a big bike. I did it on my Fatboy. I see people trying to maneuver at slow speed the same they would at higher speeds. They make the mistake of leaning into the turn, rather than countering. I think that the 11 years of riding dirt (part of that motocross) from age 5 to 16 helped me to transition to street fairly easy. The other problem I have seen is fairly new riders (or guys who may had rode a few years when they were young, but now older) buying bikes that are way to big or fast or both for their level of experience. People should get it out of their head that there is nothing wrong with learning the basics on a bike that they might actually be able to handle in a bad situation. Or, be sure to sign the back of their DL if not. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young