Some With Histories of Mental Illness Petition to Get Their Gun Rights Back

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Do you think all Christians and people of other Faiths should have their gun rights taken away?

I would have thought by now anyone paying attention would know better than to ask me an absolutist question.

I guess I can put you down in the set of folks that don't pay attention.

Explain the difference between talking to a bear and hearing voices and talking to an "invisible friend".
Put me down as someone who wants to see you wiggle out of this question.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Does you country have a Bill of Rights, or some similar instrument, that specifically says something along the lines of citizens having "a right to bear arms...."?

Quote

You mean like your 2nd Amendment? No. That's not included in our basic rights.

I'm pretty sure you knew that, right?

And now to your next question/conclusion .... ?

Yeah, I knew that. Just checking to make sure that I really do understand the foundation for your viewpoint on weapon possession. Quite different than ours.

The obvious conclusion is that arguments of position based on differing hard-nosed foundations seldom proceed to resolution.

Can I have my gun rights back now?

On the American scale, I'm only a slight looney.
On the German scale, I just may be a total looney.

No more questions, your honor.

Side note for humorous interlude:
I took a baking arts course one time. I bailed out in the middle of the course. Does that make me only half-baked?

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

I took a baking arts course one time. I bailed out in the middle of the course. Does that make me only half-baked?

Depends...how much did you leave for the brownies?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Coreece 190]

Quote

Explain the difference between talking to a bear and hearing voices and talking to an "invisible friend".

In this particular instance, talking to a bear and hearing voices were the symptons of bipolar depression. Prayer is not.

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[lawrocket 3]

Bill:

Can you think of any other times in our history when an entire group of people had their rights trampled in the name of public safety and security?

I take it that you applaud the internment of the Japanese during WWII. After all, it was:
(1) Necessary. This was a war and we could take no chances;
(2) Constitutional. The Constitution did not apply to slant-eyed Nips;
(3) Satisfying. All with Jap heritage should suffer regardless of whether they had anything to do with anti-American activities.
(4) Self-proving. Any Jap who objected to internment was anti-American.
(5) A human rights triumph. They got food, shelter and free healthcare.
(6) They had no guns! Those were taken from them.

Bill - let's just inter the mentally ill. Like we did before the SCOTUS declared unanimously in the 70's that even mentally ill have rights. Perhaps we should re-examine the wisdom of Dr. Walter Freeman.
He wrote that "it is safer to operate than wait" and the operations should be performed if a person with a mental health problem has not been cured after six months of conservative treatment.

Of course, the operation was a lobotomy. And Freeman should know - he performed thousands of them, traveling the country in his "lobotomobile." I shit you not.

The "mentally ill" that were given these lobotomies? Sucked for the psychos like Rosemary Kennedy that they were just done. As Bill and Paul have written, it shouldn't have mattered whether Rosemary did not want the lobotomy or did not consent because she was mentally ill, possibly retarded, and did not know that life as a vegetable was better for her and, more importantly, much much better for society. All those people with the lobotomies did not have the right to say no. Society was much safer and much betyter served by summarily neutralizing them.

Bill - you've written that they don't have the capacity to exercise certain rights. This country's fairly recent history is of flagrant abuse of indicidual rights because of the "good of society." Jim Crow was a particular mindset by those who honestly thought it was best for society to keep the Negro separate, the Japanese who were so abused during WWII? Yes, there were people who honestly though that it was necessary. And there were lots of people who thought that lobotomies were great. Not the people who had them done, but what do they know?

So I ask you, bill and paul - what are your thoughts on resuming lobotomies for anyone with a mental health diagnosis that lasts longer than six months? Both of you have argued that the mentally ill have no right to decline a medical procedure and have no right to own a firearm or even be free from unwarranted search and seizure.

Should we be getting the police to go round up the mentally ill and lobotomize them? It would remove the threat of violence.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,120]

>Can you think of any other times in our history when an entire group of people had
>their rights trampled in the name of public safety and security?

Removing the rights of 18 year olds to buy alcohol comes to mind.

>So I ask you, bill and paul - what are your thoughts on resuming lobotomies for
>anyone with a mental health diagnosis that lasts longer than six months?

Too wussy. They all, of course, should be executed. Just like Hitler did.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Explain the difference between talking to a bear and hearing voices and talking to an "invisible friend".

In this particular instance, talking to a bear and hearing voices were the symptons of bipolar depression. Prayer is not.

Some think it is.

[billvon 3,120]

>>Prayer is not.

>Some think it is.

Doesn't matter what "some" think. What matters are the opinions of doctors and the courts.

[mnealtx 0]

The NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 appears to have paved the way to automate state/federal agency notification of adjudication and commitments to the NICS system. It also provides for clearance of the NICS ban once the adjudication/commitment is set aside or expunged.

For the lawyers: Is it possible that the judge had this information in-hand at the time of the hearing as part of the documentation for the hearing?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>Can you think of any other times in our history when an entire group of people had
>their rights trampled in the name of public safety and security?

Removing the rights of 18 year olds to buy alcohol comes to mind.

>So I ask you, bill and paul - what are your thoughts on resuming lobotomies for
>anyone with a mental health diagnosis that lasts longer than six months?

Too wussy. They all, of course, should be executed. Just like Hitler did.

You may have stepped off the plate here

But is was still a strike

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>>Prayer is not.

>Some think it is.

Doesn't matter what "some" think. What matters are the opinions of doctors and the courts.

Exactly, and in this case the doctors, the court and even the prosecutor didn't oppose him getting his rights back. But some, who think they know better, seem to think differently.

[ChrisL 2]

Quote

The NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 appears to have paved the way to automate state/federal agency notification of adjudication and commitments to the NICS system. It also provides for clearance of the NICS ban once the adjudication/commitment is set aside or expunged.

Unfortunately some states have their own instant check systems. PA is one. Here we have PICS, and in PA you can lose your rights for things that the Federal regs do not approve of.

so, in PA a 72 hour commitment (with no due process) gets you added to the PICS database system immediately and your rights are gone. Any existing firearms in your possession must be forfeited or transferred, and you can no longer buy any.

This is permanent unless you have thousands of dollars to fight it in court.

The Federal regs to not recognise the validity of a legal disability imposed as a result of a 72 hour commitment because there is no due process involved
in the revocation of rights.

This was fortunate for me because I only had to fight the state. I was never barred from ownership at a federal level.

In this case the Feds have it right, the state screwed up the process.

__

My mighty steed

[mnealtx 0]

Ouch - glad you were able to get things straightened out.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Amazon 7]

Quote

>Can you think of any other times in our history when an entire group of people had
>their rights trampled in the name of public safety and security?

Removing the rights of 18 year olds to buy alcohol comes to mind.

>So I ask you, bill and paul - what are your thoughts on resuming lobotomies for
>anyone with a mental health diagnosis that lasts longer than six months?

Too wussy. They all, of course, should be executed. Just like Hitler did.

Bill ts much better to follow the way the conservatives have made sure they have the rights to own guns..... but millions of them who are living on the streets after removing any healthcare, cant afford a gun, cant afford to eat many days, and cant afford a home... but they do have their rights to the guns.... just not any right to any healthcare, a right to a place to live, or a right to a meal.

[ChrisL 2]

Quote

Ouch - glad you were able to get things straightened out.

Took several years and almost seven thousand dollars. Could have been faster but I didnt have the money.

I think the powers that be like that the cost of fighting for your rights will prevent most people from ever trying

__

My mighty steed

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

>Can you think of any other times in our history when an entire group of people had
>their rights trampled in the name of public safety and security?

Removing the rights of 18 year olds to buy alcohol comes to mind.

There is no Constitutional Right to buy alcohol. States and counties are free to allow it or disallow it under their "police powers." Hence there are dry counties in places. And there are "Blue Laws" that prohibit the sale of alcohol on Sundays in many states. Until 1979, home brewing was illegal in the US.

You aren't talking about a Constitutional Right. Frankly, I find Constitutional Rights a bit more important than allowances, licenses, and privileges.

Quote

>So I ask you, bill and paul - what are your thoughts on resuming lobotomies for
>anyone with a mental health diagnosis that lasts longer than six months?

Too wussy. They all, of course, should be executed. Just like Hitler did.

You are being flippant, bill. Of course, as was I.

Nevertheless, lobomoties WERE effective. The inventor of the procedure won a fuckin Nobel Prize for it. The PROBLEM was that it was generally seen as the mentally ill havin no rights. They could not refuse the treatment.

Failure to recognize rights INEVITABLY leads to abuse. Finding reasons to deny rights INEVITABLY leads to abuse. The Patriot Act was passed and signed because safetu and security were said to be more important than rights and freedom. This means warrantless wiretapping because we need protection.

The lobotomies were being done because it was felt that they benefitted these people and society to do them. Without court order. Without due process. Without informed and free consent of the patient.

The exclusion of Japanese was held Constitutional at that time, because the SCOTUS held in Korematsu that the need to protect the US against espionage was more important that the individual rights of Japanese descendants. Note - the US government did NOT have to demonstrate ANY DISLOYALTY TO THE US WHATSOEVER in order to inter everybody of Japanese descent. Koremastu committed no crime, was not accused of a crime, and had nothing against him but the perception of possible harm that resulted from the stigma and whim of the government.

Korematsu, it was said, could not be trusted to use his freedoms responsibly. Therefore, his freedoms were stripped without due process. Without the need for government to prove a threat.

This is EXACTLY what is being suggested with the mentally ill. It was an abomination then. And it's an abomination now.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

....

On the American scale, I'm only a slight looney.
On the German scale, I just may be a total looney.

Loony? Why that? No, surely not on my scale.

Even -

(You yanks are no more are fighting against redskins, horse thieves, turf wars, wolves, bisons, sometimes there is a (talking) bear .....)

We just shake heads considering that weapons still are such a huge part of American course of life

You guys insist on your rights to own weapons, we do not need weapons. Not in the streets, not in schools and at the very end, not in the hands of loonies.

Quote

Side note for humorous interlude:
I took a baking arts course one time. I bailed out in the middle of the course. Does that make me only half-baked?

Yep. But hey, be happy to be half-baked. For us, that's an old term for a teenie, so just have a look in the mirror, it will tell you

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[lawrocket 3]

Jeanne - a few months ago I presented the history of the release of the mentally ill from custodial institutions. It has also been explained and reiterated that care is available to those who want it. The problem is that there are many who do not want mental health care.

Yes, thousands of the mentally ill were released from institutions in the 70's and 80's because they were being held indefinitely - for years and even decades - even though they were stable and presented no present threat. The SCOTUS said this is not right. I happen to agree that imprisonment of non-criminals with no way to get out was a bad thing.

As I have written, this creates a different problem that custodial institutionalization solved - what can we do with them?

You advance the idea that they:
[Quote]they do have their rights to the guns.... just not any right to any healthcare, a right to a place to live, or a right to a meal

Do you think they should not have the right to a gun?

Right to healthcare? Yes. It turns out that they also have the right to REFUSE healthcare. Some schizophrenic living on the streets who is not demonstrating the threat of death or great bodily harm to himself or others cannot be forced into an institution. Even with an immediate threat, once stabilized, the person must be released. The person does, however, have the right to go to a hospital and get admitted for treatment.

Your solution seems to be "round them up and put them in institutions." Again, that's what they used to do until the SCOTUS held unanimously that even the mentally ill have the right to due process and other rights guaranteed. The Constitution prevents forcing them into treatment. And that's what it takes - forcing them into treatment. How would you feel about being forced into treatment? Under your system nothing would prevent it.

Right to housing? Where does it say that anywhere? You know people can get kicked out of public housing? Indeed - ever see public housing? The streets of Chicago have been safer than the housing projects.

Right to a meal? Where's it say that?

Do you know the difference between a "right" and a "handout?" A "right" usually comes at no cost to another. Your right to free speech doesn't require another person to shut up. The right to bear arms doesn't mean another person has to buy you one. A person can choose to exercise a right. Rights - by their nature - implicate a freedom from interference. In the US, it's freedom from government interference.

Thus, you may have the right to bear arms. But if you are coming to my house you better not. You have the right to receive healthcare but also the right to refuse it. Forcing healthcare on people seems ridiculous. "Jeanne - take these antipsychotics. Nope. This is not an option."

This is what you advocate. The metally ill shall be forced into institutions where they will be forced to get shelter. Force feed them, too. (Those prisoners in Pelican Bay? Force feed them before they starve. Cesar Chavez on a hunger strike - in America nobody should go hungry!)

I understand I'm writing to a wall, but I cannot just agree with rounding up the mentally ill to force treatment.

No - I do not have a solution to the problem that protects the rights of the mentally ill. Freedom has a cost and this is one of those costs.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

That's nice that you don't need a gun. I haven't "needed" a gun, either. Hence I don't have one. Turns out that "need" isn't the basis for a right. I don't need to vote but I have the right to vote if I choose to exercise it.

I understand that Europe has a higher degree of trust in government. Americans don't. I personally cannot understand how a place like Europe - where genocide and dictatorships are parts of the recent history - trusts the government. How can any citizen trust German government? Spain? Ask the Basques. Potugal? I just have a hard time looking at Europe with deference toward human rights. It was the FAULURE to stand for rights that caused that shit. In the US, the rights aren't there to protect the majority.

The rights are there to protect the lowest, the sickest, the worst and the most unpopular and hated. The rights of the People are a serious downer for a despot. Only by relaxing the enforcement of those rights can a despot rise in power. And if it starts with a vastly unpopular right that that for guns, then it still has started.

Whther something should or should not be a right is a different discussion. The right is there and should be enforced. Amending the Constitution is the system set up to deal with it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

The mentally ill are not criminals.

You're right. Usually because the courts recognize they have diminshed mental abilities and did not know what they were doing.

Hence, would you be in favour of removing that level of protection for the mentally ill?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

>While you're at it, are there any other groups of people to whom you would like to
>deny rights? Like maybe Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses,
>communists, and persons of foreign blood?

Nope. Criminals, children and the insane are an adequate list.

And monkeys too! Don't forget the monkeys!
"Monkey shoots AK-47 at crowd"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HmDUxaAkO0&feature=youtu.be

[Amazon 7]

Sounds good in right wing theory... the REALITY for many of those people who are homeless and have little or nothing to eat and no healthcare... that you SAY is available.... just does not exist. How often have we heard from the right.... how well they want to deal with those who need a handout..

I find it ironic that all these good conservative "christians" can talk a good game about how the indigent ( many of whom are mentally challenged at best)... but when it comes to actions they FAIL completely and utterly... they should be judged rather harshly by THEIR GOD when the time comes because that whole " society is judged by how the least of its citizens are treated" is a huge fail in this supposedly "christian" society.

[lawrocket 3]

And the compassionate ones like you will handcuff them, sedate them, restrain them and drag them kicking and screaming to hospitals with one-way entrances because that it compassion.

Pelican Bay is your utopia?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,120]

>And the compassionate ones like you will handcuff them, sedate them, restrain
>them and drag them kicking and screaming to hospitals with one-way entrances
>because that it compassion.

[strawman mode]
And you'll be standing outside the mental hospital handing loaded guns to people who have been judged not responsible for their own actions.
[/strawman mode]

[lawrocket 3]

Bill - what is the solution? How do we get the mentally ill to obtain treatment WITHOUT violating their rights?

I had a serious issue in there, Jeanne went off. I responded.

Quote

And you'll be standing outside the mental hospital handing loaded guns to people who have been judged not responsible for their own actions.

There isn't any judging going on in the initial post. I don't like that you and others are equating those judged to be dangerous with those who haven 't been adjudged as anything because they HAVEN'T been before a court - except to get their guns back.

My wife is hotter than your wife.