It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

BREAKING: House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, multiple aides shot at Congressional baseball practice

page: 48
112
<< 45  46  47    49  50  51 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 02:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: face23785
Just saw the video, and I gotta say, another danger that's become prevalent in our society today is all these idiots that put their lives in danger for youtube hits and maybe getting a 5 minute slot on Good Morning America. This woman could've been hit by a stray bullet any minute, she doesn't know exactly what's going on and where all the guns are, what direction they're firing. Very stupid to stand in your doorway like that.



I think the person who filmed that was a man.



We're both bigots for assuming gender based on the voice.

Whatever it is, it wasn't thinking straight.



Sounded like John C. Reilly! Maybe it was!




posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

What video were you watching? The one I saw was somebody in a park, not a doorway.



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I think some of them asked in private session this morning if they could hire security details. Others are asking for the right to carry themselves.



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 02:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: LogicalGraphitti

Don't know, but I worry less because it wasn't the leftists in Congress who were targeted and are in power. Doesn't mean the Republicans won't screw it up somehow, but I worry less.


I would agree with you except they're all cut from the same cloth. They're politicians first. Party hacks, second.
edit on 6-14-2017 by LogicalGraphitti because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 02:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: proximo




Who gets to label who is mentally ill? If someone like Obama is in charge what is to stop him from saying a tea party member is mentally ill?


the group of psychiatrists that evaluate you....
I am left, and I don't really think that it's right to take the guns away from all of those who are known to be mentally ill... for some, some time at the gun range or out in the woods hunting critters with their buddies might serve to be good therapy... but this shooter?? after his long list of criminal acts of violence... well, he should have had his taken away, sorry!!! so, unless there's at least a couple of psychiatrists that have evaluated the person and determined that there is a violent nature, an inability to understand that shooting a person dead is actually shooting a person dead, or something like that.... well, why??




I can agree with this. This person had a history of violence. I don't think one barfight should get your 2nd amendment right taken away from you, but there was more than that with this guy. It was a pattern. But it wasn't all properly pursued and entered in the background check system. No matter how "universal" you make the system, it's useless if there's no documentation in the database.



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 02:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: face23785

What video were you watching? The one I saw was somebody in a park, not a doorway.


I saw one that appeared to be someone recording from the front door of their house. It was on CNN.



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

Ah okay. I was like wtf door is this guy talking about lol. Haven't seen anything other than the one posted a page or so back. Thanks for clearing it up



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 02:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: face23785

What video were you watching? The one I saw was somebody in a park, not a doorway.


I saw one that appeared to be someone recording from the front door of their house. It was on CNN.


OK -- I thought that was the BACK door facing toward an ally. All you can hear is people talking and the gun shots, right?



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 02:22 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko




I think some of them asked in private session this morning if they could hire security details. Others are asking for the right to carry themselves.


Do they not have that right as a public servant?



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 02:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I think some of them asked in private session this morning if they could hire security details. Others are asking for the right to carry themselves.


I know legislators can be armed to the teeth in their own offices, and I don't think it takes much to be allowed to CC outside Capital grounds, but I'm sure they can't carry on the House or Senate grounds.
edit on 14-6-2017 by SBMcG because: Correction

edit on 14-6-2017 by SBMcG because: Correction 2



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 02:24 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

probably not....
have we identified even half of the people who are walking around with some sort of mental illness???
I doubt it....
are we ever gonna see a healthcare system where anyone and everyone who is ill, regardless of weather it's a mental illness of other, will be able to get the healthcare they need? heck no!! so what the heck, why are we asking these stupid questions...



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 02:24 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

No. Diagnostic criteria are not heavily influenced by politics. If they were you'd be seeing a new edition of the DSM every time the White House changes parties. The diagnoses are based off of decades of research. The DSM was most recently updated in 2013. Before that the previous edition came out in 1994. And even then there's not much change in diagnoses. The update was primarily focused on dealing with insurance billing issues.

Even then, unless you are proven in a court of law to be a threat to yourself or others, you cannot be involuntarily diagnosed with a mental condition.



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 02:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: SBMcG

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: face23785

What video were you watching? The one I saw was somebody in a park, not a doorway.


I saw one that appeared to be someone recording from the front door of their house. It was on CNN.


OK -- I thought that was the BACK door facing toward an ally. All you can hear is people talking and the gun shots, right?


Yeah I think we're talking about the same one. Probably more likely back door now that you mention it.

Either way she was endangering herself.
edit on 14 6 17 by face23785 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 02:27 PM
link   
Saying two victims of shooting are in critical condition, one with multiple gunshot wounds.?



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 02:28 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

If it's the same gun he was shooting back in March that caused police to show up at his house then yes. He did own it legally.



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 02:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

The history of mental illness diagnoses is fascinating.

I hate post modernism, but one of its founders, Michelle Foucault wrote his first book on the history of mental illness, and how those in power shifted that definition to fit their agenda.

Today we see questions surrounding gender dysphoria, and rather or not it is a mental condition. We also have seen a rise in mental diagnoses in children, particularly boys, for acting out in schools.

Both of these discussions are heavily influenced by politics.



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 02:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I think some of them asked in private session this morning if they could hire security details. Others are asking for the right to carry themselves.


I think they should have that right.



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 02:29 PM
link   
Trynig to get caught up on the thread (I'm on page 34), but being busy at work takes away from that.

Not sure if it's been posted yet, but heavy has an article up already and this one quote kind of stuck out to me:


Walls (a childhood friend of the shooter) said, “It took me by surprise to hear what happened. I want people to know he wasn’t evil.”
(italicized portion added by me for clarity)

Now, I don't know about anyone else, but I would think that the kind of person who could plan and then execute an event of this type would qualify as evil to me. Is the childhood friend trying to make it seem as this is just a regular guy who went a little too far or what?

He sure perpetrated some evil acts for a guy who, "wasn't evil."



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 02:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: ketsuko

probably not....
have we identified even half of the people who are walking around with some sort of mental illness???
I doubt it....
are we ever gonna see a healthcare system where anyone and everyone who is ill, regardless of weather it's a mental illness of other, will be able to get the healthcare they need? heck no!! so what the heck, why are we asking these stupid questions...



Ronald Reagan GUTTED mental health in the 80's?




posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 02:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: veracity

I will point out that the "valid" definitions can be heavily impacted by politics. Look at how homosexual activists lobbied to have that definition changed.

Since there are very few "hard" diagnoses that can be made for mental illnesses like you can make by isolating a disease vector, mental illness is a bit more fluid.
According to this, half the population has a mental disorder. What a dream for the gun control lobby!


yes I agree that the term "mental illness" is thrown out there way too much but there is a difference between lets say someone calling all liberals mentally ill and actually being evaluated by a professional and having the tag of psychopath or neurosis. Then comes the toll of deciding which disorders are dangerous enough to not allow guns while which ones are ok.

Yes, there would be a very tedious and probably sometimes unfair process to decipher who does not get a gun and who does, but there easily COULD BE guidelines to this.


edit on 14-6-2017 by veracity because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
112
<< 45  46  47    49  50  51 >>

log in

join