Some With Histories of Mental Illness Petition to Get Their Gun Rights Back
By
quade, in Speakers Corner
SkyDekker 1,465
QuoteBecause when all people are entitled to certain rights, then they are called "human rights.". When something is not entitled to these rights, it therefore must not be human.
Guns are a human right?
JohnRich 4
QuoteGuns are a human right?
Quote:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..."You can't have the right to "life" without the right to self-defense. For if there is no right to defend your life from attack, then there is no means to preserve your right to life. And guns just happen to be the most effective tool for that self-defense. So the possession of guns is essential to the preservation of the right to life, as well as to liberty. And that's why we have a 2nd Amendment - the Founding Fathers recognized that guns were essential to maintain such freedoms.
QuoteQuoteBecause when all people are entitled to certain rights, then they are called "human rights.". When something is not entitled to these rights, it therefore must not be human.
Guns are a human right?
In the US - yep. The right to bear arms is a right under the Second Amendment of the Constitution. Since the Constitution has never been found to apply to dogs, rats, rocks, trees, algae, fungi, etc., it can be fairly stated that it applies to people.
The right is limited. And a person who abuses that right can have it abrogated. The problem I have is that plenty of highly educated and intelligent people think that even though a person has NEVER abused his or her right to bear arms that the person should somehow have that right taken away in an arbitrary and capricious manner.
I'd much rather see them just amend the Constitution to remove the right to bears. Instead, they are arguing that a class of people - for no other reason than illness - do not deserve the right guaranteed to all people.
They compare a schizophrenic to a murderer. I can make the case that it isn't schizonphrenics in Chicago who are causing such a high death rate. Rather, they are sane people who are merley assholes.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
JohnRich 4
Update:
"Gun Rights and Mental Illness: Answering Readers’ Questions"Full story: http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/05/gun-rights-and-mental-illness-answering-readers-questions/
By MICHAEL LUO
"In an article in The New York Times on Sunday, Michael Luo examined how states across the country were increasingly allowing people who lost their firearm rights because of mental illness to petition to have those rights restored.
"In this post, Mr. Luo is answering questions submitted by readers about the restoration of gun rights for people with a history of mental illness..."
billvon 3,118
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>She's saying that even in a State Mental Hospital she is not going to force
>medications on a nutter if the nutter doesn't want them. UNLESS that
>nutter is a danger to herself or others.
Or unless (per her own words) they do not have "the capacity to make and understand health care decisions." Or if they are "unable to provide the basic necessities of life such as food, clothing, shelter etc."
Yes, there are several reasons that someone can lose their rights. Rights apply to sane people with functioning minds. The degree to which someone loses their rights depends on the degree of loss of sanity. They can range to just losing the right to own a gun, or losing a driver's license, to losing your right to self-determination, your right to freedom, your right to avoid searches etc etc.
As both of you have stated, doctors (and by extension the police) can indeed remove these rights in emergent situations. Courts can (and should) back up those decisions by providing a mechanism to either make the decision permanent or reverse it.
>medications on a nutter if the nutter doesn't want them. UNLESS that
>nutter is a danger to herself or others.
Or unless (per her own words) they do not have "the capacity to make and understand health care decisions." Or if they are "unable to provide the basic necessities of life such as food, clothing, shelter etc."
Yes, there are several reasons that someone can lose their rights. Rights apply to sane people with functioning minds. The degree to which someone loses their rights depends on the degree of loss of sanity. They can range to just losing the right to own a gun, or losing a driver's license, to losing your right to self-determination, your right to freedom, your right to avoid searches etc etc.
As both of you have stated, doctors (and by extension the police) can indeed remove these rights in emergent situations. Courts can (and should) back up those decisions by providing a mechanism to either make the decision permanent or reverse it.
ChrisL 2
Quote
As both of you have stated, doctors (and by extension the police) can indeed remove these rights in emergent situations. Courts can (and should) back up those decisions by providing a mechanism to either make the decision permanent or reverse it.
The criminal justice system is supposed to operate on the presumption of innocence. Better 10 guilty men go free than one innocent go to prison.
When mental health, rights, and the law are concerned we are frequently presumed nuts unless proven sane. Better that 10 sane people lose their rights than allow one nut job access to firearms (with which he may or may not commit a violent act)
A lot of people would support this idea until they are one of the 10 that lost their rights
__
My mighty steed
My mighty steed
billvon 3,118
>The criminal justice system is supposed to operate on the presumption of
>innocence. Better 10 guilty men go free than one innocent go to prison.
Agreed. But police do not. They can arrest you on mere suspicion of a crime and remove your rights for quite a long time, until a court decides the issue once and for all.
Likewise, doctors and the police can remove some of your rights for mental health reasons even if they suspect you may be (for example) uncontrollably violent. Again, a court can (and should) make the final determination.
>innocence. Better 10 guilty men go free than one innocent go to prison.
Agreed. But police do not. They can arrest you on mere suspicion of a crime and remove your rights for quite a long time, until a court decides the issue once and for all.
Likewise, doctors and the police can remove some of your rights for mental health reasons even if they suspect you may be (for example) uncontrollably violent. Again, a court can (and should) make the final determination.
ChrisL 2
Quote
Again, a court can (and should) make the final determination.
Experts on mental health should make the final determination. Not ER doctors or the courts and definitely not the police. None of them are qualified to judge a persons sanity.
Medical doctors, courts, and police should be limited to imposing temporary
restrictions for emergent situations, until those more qualified make a more through assessment.
The courts only involvement should be to make a legal ruling based on the findings of those mental health experts.
Any legal disabilities imposed without the benefit of that expert assessment
should have a built-in expiration date.
__
My mighty steed
My mighty steed
billvon 3,118
>Experts on mental health should make the final determination.
Well, I _sort_ of agree there. The courts provide the structure, hopefully using the guidance of mental health experts.
>Not ER doctors or the courts and definitely not the police. None of
>them are qualified to judge a persons sanity.
In the long term, I agree. Decisions made by such people should apply to temporary situations only.
Well, I _sort_ of agree there. The courts provide the structure, hopefully using the guidance of mental health experts.
>Not ER doctors or the courts and definitely not the police. None of
>them are qualified to judge a persons sanity.
In the long term, I agree. Decisions made by such people should apply to temporary situations only.
QuoteThe criminal justice system is supposed to operate on the presumption of innocence. Better 10 guilty men go free than one innocent go to prison.
"Supposed to" is the operative phrase.
That's all well and good....until your mindset conflicts with my mindset and I have the power to say otherwise.
Welcome to America! Home to Many Great Myths!
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
ChrisL 2
Quote
"Supposed to" is the operative phrase.
Yep. I chose that word intentionally. Nobody would be foolish enough to think that it actually works that way all the time
Still, the attempt by some to operate according to that principal probably does prevent some injustices from happening.
A similar sentiment should be adhered to in any situation where we contemplate depriving a person of their rights. ANY of them.
__
My mighty steed
My mighty steed
quade 4
QuoteWelcome to America! Home to Many Great Myths!
No kiddin'! Of course, this falls under the heading of "You can't handle the truth," but FFS the mythology starts right on July 4, 1776 with "all men are created equal."
The people that signed that owned slaves ffs! WTF?!?
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
QuoteAgreed. But police do not. They can arrest you on mere suspicion of a crime and remove your rights for quite a long time, until a court decides the issue once and for all.
Likewise, doctors and the police can remove some of your rights for mental health reasons even if they suspect you may be (for example) uncontrollably violent. Again, a court can (and should) make the final determination.
So why not call call it like it is...prior restraint.
Sounds great until it's YOU who gets "restrained" by some suspicious bozo. Hell, it doesn't even have to be a suspicious bozo...it could be your loving relatives or some such other bozo...Google "Baker Act" (Florida) or "involuntary psychiatric hold" (several other states).
Wait a minute!
Brain Flash!
Why couldn't we "Baker Act" Obama!!!!
It would get him out of our hair for 72 hours at least!
He's obviously a threat to others.
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
kallend 2,148
QuoteQuote
As both of you have stated, doctors (and by extension the police) can indeed remove these rights in emergent situations. Courts can (and should) back up those decisions by providing a mechanism to either make the decision permanent or reverse it.
The criminal justice system is supposed to operate on the presumption of innocence. Better 10 guilty men go free than one innocent go to prison.
When mental health, rights, and the law are concerned we are frequently presumed nuts unless proven sane. Better that 10 sane people lose their rights than allow one nut job access to firearms (with which he may or may not commit a violent act)
A lot of people would support this idea until they are one of the 10 that lost their rights
The dozens that were killed by Cho and Loughner might disagree - if they hadn't been shot dead and silenced by nutters.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
ChrisL 2
Quote
The dozens that were killed by Cho and Loughner might disagree - if they hadn't been shot dead and silenced by nutters.
I'm certain thats true, but most of them would probably hold opinions that are driven by fear and/or anger.
I would not expect victims of violent crimes to hold objective, rational opinions on issues that directly relate to the crimes committed against them.
Would you?
__
My mighty steed
My mighty steed
Keep in mind that the same people who are afraid of those who talk to bears are the same ones who think a gun can leap off a table and go on a killing spree. 
Quotea gun can leap off a table and go on a killing spree.
Geez..I just hate when that happens.
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
QuoteThe dozens that were killed by Cho and Loughner might disagree - if they hadn't been shot dead and silenced by nutters.
A good indicator of some who must lead sad, sad lives being so fearful that they would gladly relinquish their rights so easily.
I wonder how many would be singing the same tune if they were the ones being victimized by the fearful.
For example, John, someone may decide that YOU are a danger to others and have you incarcerated for however long a period of time at the end of which you find that some of your constitutionally-provided rights have been taken away. The basis for their decision? You don't conform to what they think is "normal".
But we've been down this road before and for the life pf me I can't understand why I insist on repeating it to you. I'm a bozo. Lock me up. A keyboard is dangerous in my hands.
![[:/]](/uploads/emoticons/dry.png "[:/]"){kind=small}
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
QuoteQuotea gun can leap off a table and go on a killing spree.
Geez..I just hate when that happens.
Well, that's why you need to keep them locked up.
You know, John, I do understand the desire to prevent a bloodbath. I do understand the thought of "what could be done to prevent this?" I also understand that things get heated - hence the cowardly and just-plain-wrong-political-bullshit displayed by those who initially blamed Palina dn the Tea Partirrs. People want to find not just someone to blame but find a group to blame.
And when things are really bad, they want to find a characteristic and say, "people who share this trait should be neutralized."
To save the possibly one, ten, or fifty people that may be killed or injured by a lone nutter, it gets proposed that hundreds of thousands or even millions have rights trampled in the name of security, safety, or orderly society.
John - you've mentioned your problems with people being wrongly convicted. What are your thoughts on wrongful seizure? Let's call it wrongful non-conviction..
My wife is hotter than your wife.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites