petep
Legend
Posts: 23,121
|
Post by petep on May 16, 2022 18:02:39 GMT
|
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 17,362
|
Post by thor on May 16, 2022 18:16:09 GMT
Archie bores us with tales of shooting stationary targets not firing back. Note Bene: Archie failed to show up for a war he supported where he would have had the opportunity to volunteer for: Infantry, Combat, Vietnam. Wassmatta, Arch? Why the No-Show? I did not have to go. The one time I was drafted, I was deferred. Why? Because without me doing what I was doing, the military might be short of ammunition. No, I wasn’t making ammunition. I was building the machines that made the ammunition. How many of you here can also machine every part of that machine and put it together and it works. We made more than six of those machines. M1 rifle ammunition. And my shooting sports train me to do it right. And after a thousand times, it is all just an automatic few seconds to get done right. So far, I have not had to do it to save mine or someone else’s life. I hope I never have to. But it would be so automatic it would be done even before I knew it. Somehow you think you were the only soldier. I have quite a few that are friends that also ride motorcycles. They don’t talk much about what they had to do. No you didn't. But you could have...after all, the war is in keeping with your stated ideology Cupcake. You failed to show up. And your excuse is bullshit. Men were occasionally deferred in larger wars for working in the defense industry, but they could, like my dad did, volunteer. Like a Snowflake, you kept a cushy job that required MINIMAL skills, that is, you were quite easily replaceable, and someone went in your place.*** Face it. You chickened out. And we both know it. ***M-1 Rifle ammo? LMFAO! |
|
Fiddler
Legend
Wasted again ..
Posts: 13,738
|
Post by Fiddler on May 16, 2022 18:39:22 GMT
It’s literally what he wrote. People who are locked down like animals in cages and told they can’t have social contact or purpose will often have screws go loose. It’s why solitary confinement is considered the worst non-lethal legal punishment government can give to a person. You're saying that his thought process was .. "Damn this lockdown sucks . I'm bored. I think I'll become a racist and murder some Black folk.."
I understand that "lockdowns" are are you personal bugaboo, but the reference to Covid boredom does not mean lockdown .. Yet in that 180 page manifesto there are page after page of gunfucking à la petep and diatribes about websites dedicated to racist beliefs..
|
|
petep
Legend
Posts: 23,121
|
Post by petep on May 16, 2022 18:49:15 GMT
It’s literally what he wrote. People who are locked down like animals in cages and told they can’t have social contact or purpose will often have screws go loose. It’s why solitary confinement is considered the worst non-lethal legal punishment government can give to a person. You're saying that his thought process was .. "Damn this lockdown sucks . I'm bored. I think I'll become a racist and murder some Black folk.."
I understand that "lockdowns" are are you personal bugaboo, but the reference to Covid boredom does not mean lockdown .. Yet in that 180 page manifesto there are page after page of gunfucking à la petep and diatribes about websites dedicated to racist beliefs..
How do you suppose one becomes a wack job murderer...does it happen over night...is it physiological...some crossed wires... or more environmental - no role models, no attention at home in a caring environment...a series of bad experiences...feeling a connection or being paid attention to by someone online and you move in a certain direction? I attended a presentation once by a guy who worked for the feds, at busting white supremacist groups. but used to be number 2 at national white supremacy group...his story was he grew up in newark, before bussing..no mom around, alcoholic dad...then they started bussing and he went from a calm environment at school to getting the crap beat out of him daily by blacks who were bussed in...he started getting protection from older whites and over time he became a white supremacist... |
|
|
|
Post by Running Deer on May 16, 2022 18:50:47 GMT
You can't talk about the Constitution without talking about the culture that produced it. The Founders were terrified that one of them was going to rile up people, centralize power in the United States and away from the states, and replace the republic with a despotic monarchy. At the time of the Constitution, there was no federal armed forces; the military power of the United States was concentrated in the militias of the several states themselves.
There was a lot of concern that a member of the elite would create a federal army, then use it to destroy the state militias and install himself as King. So the Second Amendment reaffirmed the right of the people to keep and bear arms so that no tyrant could overthrow the state militias en route to crowning himself King. The Second Amendment's wording is famously bizarre, but the purpose was clear: keep the federal government mostly reliable on state militias for military power.
That failed almost immediately. State militias are good as self-defense, but they're terrible at conquest. Americans wanted to conquer North America, and they would need to kill a lot of Indians to do it. The state militias were really bad at it, so the federal government got involved. The first federal army was created in 1791: the Legion of the United States.
Today, the state militias are basically dead. The federal armed forces are massive and, so far, no one has used them to crown himself King. The reason for its existence never came to pass. The Second Amendment was never about duck hunting or crime control or individual rights. It was about the distribution of American military power.
For this reason, I don't think firearm ownership (or tank ownership or battleship ownership or howitzer ownership...) counts as a fundamental individual right under the Constitution. This was the law for most of American history.
However, even if firearm ownership is a fundamental right, fundamental rights can be regulated/infringed by the government under the "strict scrutiny" standard. That is, the government can violate a fundamental right if the violation is "narrowly tailored" to a "compelling state interest". When courts apply this standard, they almost always strike the law down, which I think is mostly right, assuming judicial review is good.
But protection of the public is the fundamental compelling state interest. It is the reason governments are formed, according to Declaration of Independence and the Preamble to the Constitution. When 10,000+ people are being gunned down a year, whether through stochastic terrorist attacks like Buffalo or gang turf wars, the state has a compelling interest to protect the public, and under U.S. law, it should be able to pass gun control to do that.
Unfortunately, given the staggering number of guns already out there and the near-religious devotion to them by conservatives, I am skeptical that the U.S. could enact actually-effective gun control. We could ban things like the AR-15, but that accounts for a small number of murders. Most are committed with handguns, which as that old song says, are made for killing and ain't no good for nothing else. Trying to get rid of them would be a nightmare.
|
|
Fiddler
Legend
Wasted again ..
Posts: 13,738
|
Post by Fiddler on May 16, 2022 19:04:16 GMT
You can't talk about the Constitution without talking about the culture that produced it. The Founders were terrified that one of them was going to rile up people, centralize power in the United States and away from the states, and replace the republic with a despotic monarchy. At the time of the Constitution, there was no federal armed forces; the military power of the United States was concentrated in the militias of the several states themselves. There was a lot of concern that a member of the elite would create a federal army, then use it to destroy the state militias and install himself as King. So the Second Amendment reaffirmed the right of the people to keep and bear arms so that no tyrant could overthrow the state militias en route to crowning himself King. The Second Amendment's wording is famously bizarre, but the purpose was clear: keep the federal government mostly reliable on state militias for military power. That failed almost immediately. State militias are good as self-defense, but they're terrible at conquest. Americans wanted to conquer North America, and they would need to kill a lot of Indians to do it. The state militias were really bad at it, so the federal government got involved. The first federal army was created in 1791: the Legion of the United States. Today, the state militias are basically dead. The federal armed forces are massive and, so far, no one has used them to crown himself King. The reason for its existence never came to pass. The Second Amendment was never about duck hunting or crime control or individual rights. It was about the distribution of American military power. For this reason, I don't think firearm ownership (or tank ownership or battleship ownership or howitzer ownership...) counts as a fundamental individual right under the Constitution. This was the law for most of American history. However, even if firearm ownership is a fundamental right, fundamental rights can be regulated/infringed by the government under the "strict scrutiny" standard. That is, the government can violate a fundamental right if the violation is "narrowly tailored" to a "compelling state interest". When courts apply this standard, they almost always strike the law down, which I think is mostly right, assuming judicial review is good. But protection of the public is the fundamental compelling state interest. It is the reason governments are formed, according to Declaration of Independence and the Preamble to the Constitution. When 10,000+ people are being gunned down a year, whether through stochastic terrorist attacks like Buffalo or gang turf wars, the state has a compelling interest to protect the public, and under U.S. law, it should be able to pass gun control to do that. Unfortunately, given the staggering number of guns already out there and the near-religious devotion to them by conservatives, I am skeptical that the U.S. could enact actually-effective gun control. We could ban things like the AR-15, but that accounts for a small number of murders. Most are committed with handguns, which as that old song says, are made for killing and ain't no good for nothing else. Trying to get rid of them would be a nightmare.
Excellent. Please post more often.
|
|
|
|
Post by Monster Man on May 16, 2022 19:42:34 GMT
It’s literally what he wrote. People who are locked down like animals in cages and told they can’t have social contact or purpose will often have screws go loose. It’s why solitary confinement is considered the worst non-lethal legal punishment government can give to a person. You're saying that his thought process was .. "Damn this lockdown sucks . I'm bored. I think I'll become a racist and murder some Black folk.."
I understand that "lockdowns" are are you personal bugaboo, but the reference to Covid boredom does not mean lockdown .. Yet in that 180 page manifesto there are page after page of gunfucking à la petep and diatribes about websites dedicated to racist beliefs..
It is no more idiotic than your trying to argue that, damn this Conservative person is talking about race replacement theory, I better grab a gun and go shoot some random folks in a grocery store. |
|
petep
Legend
Posts: 23,121
|
Post by petep on May 16, 2022 19:57:15 GMT
You can't talk about the Constitution without talking about the culture that produced it. The Founders were terrified that one of them was going to rile up people, centralize power in the United States and away from the states, and replace the republic with a despotic monarchy. At the time of the Constitution, there was no federal armed forces; the military power of the United States was concentrated in the militias of the several states themselves. There was a lot of concern that a member of the elite would create a federal army, then use it to destroy the state militias and install himself as King. So the Second Amendment reaffirmed the right of the people to keep and bear arms so that no tyrant could overthrow the state militias en route to crowning himself King. The Second Amendment's wording is famously bizarre, but the purpose was clear: keep the federal government mostly reliable on state militias for military power. That failed almost immediately. State militias are good as self-defense, but they're terrible at conquest. Americans wanted to conquer North America, and they would need to kill a lot of Indians to do it. The state militias were really bad at it, so the federal government got involved. The first federal army was created in 1791: the Legion of the United States. Today, the state militias are basically dead. The federal armed forces are massive and, so far, no one has used them to crown himself King. The reason for its existence never came to pass. The Second Amendment was never about duck hunting or crime control or individual rights. It was about the distribution of American military power. For this reason, I don't think firearm ownership (or tank ownership or battleship ownership or howitzer ownership...) counts as a fundamental individual right under the Constitution. This was the law for most of American history. However, even if firearm ownership is a fundamental right, fundamental rights can be regulated/infringed by the government under the "strict scrutiny" standard. That is, the government can violate a fundamental right if the violation is "narrowly tailored" to a "compelling state interest". When courts apply this standard, they almost always strike the law down, which I think is mostly right, assuming judicial review is good. But protection of the public is the fundamental compelling state interest. It is the reason governments are formed, according to Declaration of Independence and the Preamble to the Constitution. When 10,000+ people are being gunned down a year, whether through stochastic terrorist attacks like Buffalo or gang turf wars, the state has a compelling interest to protect the public, and under U.S. law, it should be able to pass gun control to do that. Unfortunately, given the staggering number of guns already out there and the near-religious devotion to them by conservatives, I am skeptical that the U.S. could enact actually-effective gun control. We could ban things like the AR-15, but that accounts for a small number of murders. Most are committed with handguns, which as that old song says, are made for killing and ain't no good for nothing else. Trying to get rid of them would be a nightmare. good post - the only thing I'd add is the authors wrote extensively about self defense being a natural right...and others like mason spoke about this in the context of the second amendment... I suppose when the world can go say 25 years without a govt abusing its populace, and here in the states say 10 years without a violent crime committed against another we could start a common sense conversation about no need for individuals to own a firearm for defense |
|
|
|
Post by Running Deer on May 16, 2022 20:07:08 GMT
I agree that they believed self-defense was a natural right. I disagree that this means the Second Amendment guarantees a personal right in the same exact vein as speech, reasonable search, right to confront accusers, right to trial by jury, etc. If that's what they meant, I would expect the Second Amendment to read something like:
Congress shall make no law infringing the right to keep and bear arms.
Nevertheless, even if that was the Second Amendment, the state would be able to pass gun control under the "strict scrutiny" standard of constitutional interpretation.
|
|
Fiddler
Legend
Wasted again ..
Posts: 13,738
|
Post by Fiddler on May 16, 2022 20:29:21 GMT
You're saying that his thought process was .. "Damn this lockdown sucks . I'm bored. I think I'll become a racist and murder some Black folk.."
I understand that "lockdowns" are are you personal bugaboo, but the reference to Covid boredom does not mean lockdown .. Yet in that 180 page manifesto there are page after page of gunfucking à la petep and diatribes about websites dedicated to racist beliefs..
damn this Conservative person is talking about race replacement theory, I better grab a gun and go shoot some random folks in a grocery store. "and go shoot some random Black folks in a grocery store." FIFY ..
Nothing idiotic about it.. That's what the shooter said. ..
Tucker Carlson has ranted about the 'Great Replacement Theory" hundreds of times on his program .. he's one of dozens of pundits and GOP leadership that have embraced this stupidity.. It is now a mainstream Republican talking point.. yet, surprisingly, you believe this 18 year old came up with it on his own in a vacuum..
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,179
|
Post by Paleocon on May 16, 2022 20:42:08 GMT
I agree that they believed self-defense was a natural right. I disagree that this means the Second Amendment guarantees a personal right in the same exact vein as speech, reasonable search, right to confront accusers, right to trial by jury, etc. If that's what they meant, I would expect the Second Amendment to read something like: Congress shall make no law infringing the right to keep and bear arms. Nevertheless, even if that was the Second Amendment, the state would be able to pass gun control under the "strict scrutiny" standard of constitutional interpretation. You missed the fact that the Second Amendment is broader than just laws that Congress might pass. By the language of the amendment, it applies across the board to federal, state and local governments. It acknowledged the right of the people to keep and bear arms, this outlawing interference from the Congress, states and local entities.
THAT'S how important this right is and was to the Founders. It was the acknowledgement of a natural right that the British tried to take away during the Revolutionary War. The British incursion that led to the confrontations at Lexington and Concord was intended to seize arms and munitions, and it was the militia armed with their own personal weapons that drove the British back to Boston.
And yet you actually think that the people who experienced this British terrorism did not intend that citizens have the full right to own and carry modern firearms?
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,179
|
Post by Paleocon on May 16, 2022 20:58:03 GMT
You can't talk about the Constitution without talking about the culture that produced it. The Founders were terrified that one of them was going to rile up people, centralize power in the United States and away from the states, and replace the republic with a despotic monarchy. At the time of the Constitution, there was no federal armed forces; the military power of the United States was concentrated in the militias of the several states themselves. There was a lot of concern that a member of the elite would create a federal army, then use it to destroy the state militias and install himself as King. So the Second Amendment reaffirmed the right of the people to keep and bear arms so that no tyrant could overthrow the state militias en route to crowning himself King. The Second Amendment's wording is famously bizarre, but the purpose was clear: keep the federal government mostly reliable on state militias for military power. That failed almost immediately. State militias are good as self-defense, but they're terrible at conquest. Americans wanted to conquer North America, and they would need to kill a lot of Indians to do it. The state militias were really bad at it, so the federal government got involved. The first federal army was created in 1791: the Legion of the United States. Today, the state militias are basically dead. The federal armed forces are massive and, so far, no one has used them to crown himself King. The reason for its existence never came to pass. The Second Amendment was never about duck hunting or crime control or individual rights. It was about the distribution of American military power. For this reason, I don't think firearm ownership (or tank ownership or battleship ownership or howitzer ownership...) counts as a fundamental individual right under the Constitution. This was the law for most of American history. However, even if firearm ownership is a fundamental right, fundamental rights can be regulated/infringed by the government under the "strict scrutiny" standard. That is, the government can violate a fundamental right if the violation is "narrowly tailored" to a "compelling state interest". When courts apply this standard, they almost always strike the law down, which I think is mostly right, assuming judicial review is good. But protection of the public is the fundamental compelling state interest. It is the reason governments are formed, according to Declaration of Independence and the Preamble to the Constitution. When 10,000+ people are being gunned down a year, whether through stochastic terrorist attacks like Buffalo or gang turf wars, the state has a compelling interest to protect the public, and under U.S. law, it should be able to pass gun control to do that. Unfortunately, given the staggering number of guns already out there and the near-religious devotion to them by conservatives, I am skeptical that the U.S. could enact actually-effective gun control. We could ban things like the AR-15, but that accounts for a small number of murders. Most are committed with handguns, which as that old song says, are made for killing and ain't no good for nothing else. Trying to get rid of them would be a nightmare. Revisionism at its worst. No wonder little boy Fiddler likes it. The Founders despised standing armies in peacetime, not the individual militia. And the small force created in 1791 was simply for border/Indian defense, while the militias were the heart and soul of the peacetime force until the War Between the States.
And it's beyond fiction to claim that the Second Amendment was somehow created to "distribute military power"; it was intended to be a check against the possibility of a tyrannical government like the one that the colonists had just defeated. As far as using today's massive military to "crown himself King", we've given up our rights without a fight and we now have tyrants running the show.
But rights aren't negated because the government got bigger and stronger. That's when our rights are most important. How likely is it that the massive military would turn on its own citizens when the places being bombed are the soldier's hometowns? Armed citizens still keep such tyranny in check because the cost and chaos would be too penalizing.
But you seem content to punish all for the crimes of a few. The tragic event in Buffalo is exceedingly rare. Would you give up other rights for an isolated event? If someone said something nasty, does that mean that we all have our speech rights restricted, just in case?
Next time, think it through. You didn't this time. The Constitution is clear no matter how much you try to muddy the issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by Monster Man on May 16, 2022 21:08:24 GMT
damn this Conservative person is talking about race replacement theory, I better grab a gun and go shoot some random folks in a grocery store. "and go shoot some random Black folks in a grocery store." FIFY ..
Nothing idiotic about it.. That's what the shooter said. ..
Tucker Carlson has ranted about the 'Great Replacement Theory" hundreds of times on his program .. he's one of dozens of pundits and GOP leadership that have embraced this stupidity.. It is now a mainstream Republican talking point.. yet, surprisingly, you believe this 18 year old came up with it on his own in a vacuum..
No, I believe you are ignorantly trying to link talk about something to violent actions. Tucker Carlson didn’t tell anyone to go buy a gun and shoot random people. You do so purely for partisan gain and ignore it when convenient. |
|
|
|
Post by Running Deer on May 16, 2022 23:03:09 GMT
Not sure how you can be a "paleo"con and not know the history of your own country. lol oh well
|
|
|
|
Post by Monster Man on May 17, 2022 2:35:30 GMT
The Second Amendment was never about duck hunting or crime control or individual rights. It was about the distribution of American military power. For this reason, I don't think firearm ownership (or tank ownership or battleship ownership or howitzer ownership...) counts as a fundamental individual right under the Constitution. This was the law for most of American history. Except, this was not the law for most of American history. Individual gun ownership was the norm when Constitution was written, part of state Constitutions, and individual gun ownership has remained part of our nation ever since. Individuals owned cannons. Only small fringe minorities argue an absolute right here, we have many firearms laws and regulations on the books right now. Some gun control can be passed, and where Democrats have enough power, they certainly pass a lot of it. What they can't do is completely eliminate gun ownership. What is "actually-effective" gun control? Killing is not in itself bad. Killing in self-defense is good. |
|
|
|
Post by johnnybgood on May 17, 2022 4:19:32 GMT
Im not against doing something about certain types of guns I guess. But if you notice, many of these stories have mental issues or hate being noticed before the person committed the crime. Maybe we should pay more attention to these clues. I agree that we need to give more attention to the mental health issues, which, as you say, seem to be prevalent in so many of these cases.
And since you mentioned "certain types of guns", I took that as an opening to share a few facts for those tempted to start peddling gun control as a solution:
1) Statistically, rifles (of all types) are used less often than bare fists, knives or blunt objects to commit murder each year.
2) There are 10 million+ AR-15 style rifles in the U.S. and and an extremely small number are used to kill someone.
3) Handguns are the primary tool of murderers.
4) 50% of all murders are committed by young to middle aged black males who make up 2-3% of the population.
An old classic political cartoon tells the truth about homicide weapons:
Yes, that is correct. However, knives, blunt objects, hands, feet, and fists aren't used in these mass murders. That's the issue where gun laws a brought up the most. Some Children getting killed in a gang gunfight does not get brought up. Mass murders like this one are. I'm not a big "take away guns" person, but removing certain guns I don't think violates any rights. 18 Mass shootings could be prevented. Just like if 5 out of 100,000 illegal immigrants commit murder, 5 murders could have been prevented. Prevent what we can. Mass Murders get way more attention. One gang member could kill just as many in a month that died in Buffalo in 1min. However, nobody cares. If he had a handgun, maybe 3 would have died. Mass murders are committed by the mentally ill getting ahold of these guns. Even if it was racial, it's a mental issue. You have to have something wrong with you to be that racist. Some of the most racist people are just ignorant, but not mentally ill to kill. |
|
|
|
Post by johnnybgood on May 17, 2022 4:27:10 GMT
But if you notice, many of these stories have mental issues or hate being noticed before the person committed the crime. Maybe we should pay more attention to these clues.
The Buffalo shooter was no more mentally ill than the insurrectionists that attacked the capitol on Jan. 6th. He (as they) isn't mentally ill.. he was radicalized.
Radicalized by the unprecedented availability and access of pure racist hate. Comments taken from the shooter's "Great Replacement" manifesto read as though they could have been written by Tucker Carlson or Steve Bannon. The perverted White Supremacist theory is now mainstream with almost half of Republicans believing that there is a concerted effort to replace White people. The Republican National Committee is fundraising on the lie..
This gullible fuck is exactly what one should expect when racist lies, resentment and hatred are allowed unfettered access to public platforms.
Thats mentally ill. You commit mass murder and you're not mentally ill? Being racist takes away mental illness? Come on Fiddler. I know you like white on minority racism like this for political support, but you're not that dumb. There's people more racist radical then him, but won't murder over it. Mentally ill. You've called people here racist radicals. Are you suspecting they might go commit mass murder? The capital attackers are idiots/ignorant. Maybe some were mentally ill I guess, but not all mental illness causes you to murder. The real deep inside Fiddler that steps away from politics knows that. |
|
|
|
Post by johnnybgood on May 17, 2022 4:29:29 GMT
The Buffalo shooter was no more mentally ill than the insurrectionists that attacked the capitol on Jan. 6th. He (as they) isn't mentally ill.. he was radicalized.
Radicalized by the unprecedented availability and access of pure racist hate. Comments taken from the shooter's "Great Replacement" manifesto read as though they could have been written by Tucker Carlson or Steve Bannon. The perverted White Supremacist theory is now mainstream with almost half of Republicans believing that there is a concerted effort to replace White people. The Republican National Committee is fundraising on the lie..
This gullible fuck is exactly what one should expect when racist lies, resentment and hatred are allowed unfettered access to public platforms.
Is ABC news fake news then?
Is that your argument?
The revelation raised questions about whether his encounter with police and the mental health system was yet another missed opportunity ...
He's speaking for political gain. He's not serious. |
|
|
|
Post by johnnybgood on May 17, 2022 4:32:31 GMT
Is ABC news fake news then?
Is that your argument?
The revelation raised questions about whether his encounter with police and the mental health system was yet another missed opportunity ...
He wasn't found to be mentally ill .. He HAS demonstrated the he was radicalized and racist.
Unless you're saying that the mentally ill can easily buy assault weapons..
An upstate gun store owner said Sunday he recently sold an assault weapon to accused Buffalo shooter Payton Gendron — and that he feels “terrible” about the teen’s alleged crime.
Robert Donald of Vintage Firearms in Endicott, NY, told the New York Times he learned from federal agents Saturday night that he had recently sold the 18-year-old suspect a Bushmaster assault weapon.
“I knew nothing about it until I got the call from them,” Donald told the outlet. “I couldn’t believe it.”
The shop’s background check on Gendron had not turned up any red flags, Donald said.
“He didn’t stand out,” he said of the teen. “Because if he did, I would’ve never sold him the gun.
Mental illnesses are health conditions involving changes in emotion, thinking or behavior (or a combination of these). |
|
|
|
Post by johnnybgood on May 17, 2022 4:42:09 GMT
Is ABC news fake news then?
Is that your argument?
The revelation raised questions about whether his encounter with police and the mental health system was yet another missed opportunity ...
He wasn't found to be mentally ill .. He HAS demonstrated the he was radicalized and racist.
Unless you're saying that the mentally ill can easily buy assault weapons..
Ok, what if he is saying? I guess its true. There is something wrong with you to commit a mass murder. You can place Chris Watts here- Mental illnesses are health conditions involving changes in emotion, thinking or behavior (or a combination of these). Mental illnesses are associated with distress and/or problems functioning in social, work or family activities. |
|
