Remember the thread awhile back about schizophrenic gun owners?

[virgin-burner 1]

since i covered iraq in my previous post, here are some more on afghanistan:

http://www.counterpunch.org/2002/09/17/the-illegalities-of-bush-s-war-on-afghanistan/

http://www.alternet.org/world/93473/afghanistan:_the_other_illegal_war/

maybe not as credible as the others, but since everyone seemed to lick america's ass at the time, couldnt find more on google's first page; that would probably look different if it happened today.

“Some may never live, but the crazy never die.”
-Hunter S. Thompson
"No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try."
-Yoda

[freethefly 6]

Quote

The therapist I went to tried to convince me that I must be bi-polar. Yes, she said...."you are a skydiver, this certainly must indicate mania. Why else would you risk your life like that"

My experience was the complete opposite of yours.
After being diagnosed with HIV in 1995, I went into a deep depression. After a suicide attempts, I was hospitalized. Not once, but twice. My doctor was Dr. Giaonni. He diagnosed me with clinical depression. After learning that I owned a gun, he checked with my family to be sure that I did not have it in my possession. He also had them remove certain items and keep an eye on me. He also knew that I have done some skydiving and wanted to do some more. He suggested that I waited until he was sure that I was well enough to not be a danger to myself. I trusted the guy and did wait until the summer of 97 before going back. All the while he had me focus on reaching the goal of getting back the things I loved doing. He was the best thing I could have had at that time in my life. Definitely, no quack. Shame you didn't have a doctor like him. I remained under his care until late 97.
If you don't mind me asking, why didn't you get a second opinion?

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[kelpdiver 2]

to reiterate: "I have yet to see Bush/Clinton/Bush charged and hung for their crimes." Statements that the 'war was wrong' isn't really the same thing now. Certainly doesn't equate with genocide.

But if you want to rehash this over again, why not start a thread rather than hijack a cause you and Quade are badly losing on. (I noticed after his initial attack, the crickets took over)

[jclalor 12]

Funny and yet so true.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIpLd0WQKCY

[jclalor 12]

Quote

Quote

to reiterate: "I have yet to see Bush/Clinton/Bush charged and hung for their crimes."

Dubya don't seem to be travelling overseas much these days.


http://www.alternet.org/world/149855/george_bush_can't_travel_overseas_for_fear_of_arrest_and_prosecution

• Quote

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia

would you really want a person with such symptoms to bear even a nailclipper!?

me, i like to have them on another continent with a ton of water between us. thank god!

Typical VB response.
*whooooosh*
read the post again.
*rolling eyes icon here*

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

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

wow, Steve brings up exactly the concern I have with where some want this to go.

If we get to a point where seeing a shrink means getting marked down in the super database as mentally deficient, costing you rights, your job, etc, then people won't go when they're just having a hard time of it.

As far as I'm concerned, we reached that point years and years ago. I wouldn't go to a "therapist" of any kind unless I was bound, gagged and dragged....for just those reasons mentioned.

Put my future into the hands of somebody that turns out to be a total quack????? YOU can roll the dice. I choose not to bet.

Not on YOUR life.

If I had to, it would by paying cash under a fake name. "Paul Quade" or "Virtual Bozo" would work for that purpose.

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

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

to reiterate: "I have yet to see Bush/Clinton/Bush charged and hung for their crimes."

Dubya don't seem to be travelling overseas much these days.


http://www.alternet.org/world/149855/george_bush_can't_travel_overseas_for_fear_of_arrest_and_prosecution

As some like to say, typical for Texans, no?

But I see this story and others are claiming this is the reason for the cancellation, but not exactly proof yet. (And given how the Swiss handled our attempt to extradite a runaway, child rapist, I think Bush would have made out fine)

• Quote

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

to reiterate: "I have yet to see Bush/Clinton/Bush charged and hung for their crimes."

Dubya don't seem to be travelling overseas much these days.


http://www.alternet.org/world/149855/george_bush_can't_travel_overseas_for_fear_of_arrest_and_prosecution

hmmmm

alternet

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

• Quote

[steve1 5]

Quote

.
If you don't mind me asking, why didn't you get a second opinion?

There are a lot of wonderful mental health therapists out there. I don't mean to say they are all quacks. The problem is that it is really hard to find a good one, in my opinion.

I think most everyone could benefit by seeing the right therapist. The only big draw back would be spending thousands of dollars in that process. Even with really good insurance you can lay out a lot of cash.

I'm glad you got the help you needed, and are not ashamed to talk about it. We all get a little crazy at times. Some of us went through a real shit storm growing up. It's not easy forgetting all that....Therapy can help.

I just hope the government doesn't start thinking they have the right to get their fat nose into confidential records. Who would ever go to therapy, if that was the case? The problem with mentally unstable people, getting guns, would get worse...

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

So, um, yeah . . . can I talk to the guys that said it was ok for them to have access to guns?

Well, most of us said we don't think you should be allowed to take away a persons right without due process.... Something you seemed then, and still, have a problem understanding.

The CGA of 1968 made it illegal for a person who was 'insane' to own a weapon.

You seem to think that pretty much anyone should be allowed to declare a person unfit, while I tend to think it should be a Dr.

You seem to think a person should have to prove he is not insane, while not providing that same level of scrutiny to any other freedom in the Constitution BTW, while I tend to think it is the responsibility of the State to prove he is not capable.

A subtle difference where some of us think a person has a right TILL they have been through a process to remove that right, while you want to make a person prove they are capable BEFORE they can exercise that right.

While your position is not unusual, it is strange that it only seems to apply to guns and not any other freedom in the Constitution.

[quade 4]

Quote

You seem to think that pretty much anyone should be allowed to declare a person unfit, while I tend to think it should be a Dr.

Have no clue where you ever got that impression. Go ahead and search for any quote from me even coming close to suggesting that.

I'll wait.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Steve brings up exactly the concern I have with where some want this to go.

Bingo. I think people have the rights in the Constitution till they prove they should not have the right.

The bad part is those that advocate that a person have to go to a therapist before they can own a gun (and some try to claim every few years to prove they should be allowed to keep it) would NEVER suggest that a person have to go to a therapist before being allowed to vote, or get a drivers license.

Some military therapist just automatically assume that you have a condition after certain events. That is just total BS. Some therapists see skydiving as proof of insanity.

I don't want someone with a bias like some on here have being in charge of my freedoms.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

You seem to think that pretty much anyone should be allowed to declare a person unfit, while I tend to think it should be a Dr.

Have no clue where you ever got that impression. Go ahead and search for any quote from me even coming close to suggesting that.

I'll wait.

oh, look, he's back, but he's only responding to a tiny aspect of the thread.

[billvon 3,119]

>Some military therapist just automatically assume that you have a condition after certain events.

Psychiatrists might indeed decide that with good cause. Someone who, for example, has a history of going into uncontrollable rages on the battlefield might well have a condition that makes them unfit to be able to carry weapons in public. A doctor is a good person to make that call on an emergent basis.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

>Some military therapist just automatically assume that you have a condition after certain events.

Psychiatrists might indeed decide that with good cause. Someone who, for example, has a history of going into uncontrollable rages on the battlefield might well have a condition that makes them unfit to be able to carry weapons in public. A doctor is a good person to make that call on an emergent basis.

A single doctor should not have the power to unilaterally deny a patient their constitutional rights. If they want to initiate something like that, they should have to prove it in a court of law, where the accused has the opportunity to defend themself and provide contrary evidence. There are plenty of whacko doctors out there who would love to abuse such power to enforce their own personal political agendas. Just look at the controversy in Florida where a law was passed prohibiting doctors from asking their patients about guns in their homes.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Have no clue where you ever got that impression.

From your posts and your posts on this subject in particular.

[billvon 3,119]

>A single doctor should not have the power to unilaterally deny a patient their
>constitutional rights.

They should indeed, but only on a temporary basis. A court should make the final determination.

A police officer can unilaterally deny your rights by arresting you on suspicion of murder. They then must make a case (and prove it) or release you.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Psychiatrists might indeed decide that with good cause.

Or they might just assume something like "Skydivers are suicidal".

Quote

Someone who, for example, has a history of going into uncontrollable rages on the battlefield might well have a condition that makes them unfit to be able to carry weapons in public.

And someone that has seen a person get shot does not automatically become depressed and need meds.... Yet, I have seen docs try to make that claim.

Quote

A doctor is a good person to make that call on an emergent basis.

Yet, we have seen Dr's be wrong. The difference between us is that I am willing to protect the individuals freedom when not sure where you seem to be willing to remove it when not sure.

The sad thing is you seem to only hold this position when it comes to guns.

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

Have no clue where you ever got that impression.

From your posts and your posts on this subject in particular.

You mean this one where I specifically state I think it ought to be a review board made up of three psychiatrists; none of whom are involved with the day-to-day treatment of the patient?

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4147962#4147878

Whew! Yeah, that sure does sound like just anybody to me too. My apologies!

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

You mean this one where I specifically state I think it ought to be a review board made up of three psychiatrists; none of whom are involved with the day-to-day treatment of the patient?

When you think that when it comes to guns and guns alone it is fine to require a person to submit to testing BEFORE they have done anything wrong, but would be up in arms if that same standard was applied to any other right.... Yes, you are showing a double standard.

[Southern_Man 0]

All these arguments should not matter. According to the article in the original post this man had been through a committment proceeding and held in psychiatric care. Ergo, according to the law he should not have been legally able to get a gun. The article does not tell us but it is likely that either

1) he was not put on the ineligible list due to an oversight of some kind or
2) he was put on that list but acquired firearms by other means.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[rushmc 23]

This also is from the link you provided

Quote

The burden of proof should be on the *state* to prove they are a danger, not on the individual to prove they are not.

You would force others to prove themselves NOT to be a danger, for no other reason than you think that is the way it should be.

Should freedom of speech be treated the same?

By your reasoning a person should stand in front of that same board before they can give a speech in public to make sure they would not incite anything

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

[rushmc 23]

Quote

All these arguments should not matter. According to the article in the original post this man had been through a committment proceeding and held in psychiatric care. Ergo, according to the law he should not have been legally able to get a gun. The article does not tell us but it is likely that either

1) he was not put on the ineligible list due to an oversight of some kind or
2) he was put on that list but acquired firearms by other means.

This situation is created by those who cry foul when they feel medical privacy needs to be enforced to protect those getting procedures like an abortion

The liberal types have created this catch 22

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

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

All these arguments should not matter. According to the article in the original post this man had been through a committment proceeding and held in psychiatric care. Ergo, according to the law he should not have been legally able to get a gun. The article does not tell us but it is likely that either

1) he was not put on the ineligible list due to an oversight of some kind or
2) he was put on that list but acquired firearms by other means.

This situation is created by those who cry foul when they feel medical privacy needs to be enforced to protect those getting procedures like an abortion

The liberal types have created this catch 22

uh, no, this situation can be caused by the people who believe that rights matter. Not just the right to speech or the bear arms, but the right to medical privacy.

Or it could simply be a failure in data records, as seemed to be the case with Cho in Virginia.

If privacy rights means a few aren't prevented from buying guns and causing trouble, well that's a price of freedom. Just as gun rights have costs too.