Who's crazy? What defines mental illness?

Okay, *sigh* another gun thread. AAARRRGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!

But I didn't see a discussion on this and I was curious.


So sue me.

So Obama's "executive orders" are stressing background checks, HIPAA violations, and mental disorders.

I mean, we don't want a crazy person owning a gun!

So where's the line?

Is being a conspiracy theorist a mental disorder?
ADD/ADHD? www.abovetopsecret.com...
(A current thread)
Being a Constitutionalist?
How about a vet with PTSD?
A vet with a TBI?
Alcoholism?
Drug dependency?
Paranoia?
Bi-polar?
Post-partum depression?
A fear of heights?
Shyness?
Eating disorders?

I had my left leg rebuilt. That started a love-affair between me and a certain painkiller that I am clean from and avoid now. But it's in my records! Am I unqualified now?



My final thought on the subject. . . . .
The government won't ban guns, they will just create a system where no-one will be eligible to own one.

This is totally scary, So because I have a medical record, and see I had depression as a teen, they can deny my purchase of a firearm? That is kind of what this whole thing sounds like.

What defines a mental illness?

At least mostly everyone I know.


Fear of heights, well that just counts me out.

What's funny, I checked myself into a mental hospital and they kicked me out the next day. They told my dad I wasn't mental enough. I wonder if that will show up on my mental jacket.

The moment it comes to denying someone their rights i'd imagine that the supreme court would be involved and even after they had made their judgement there would be a grey area as mental health aint like a broken bone where its either broken or not so there would be plenty of taking bans to higher courts and room for judgements to lay down some serious validity to the law

reply to post by beezzer


I think that to help us all understand this better...we need to take a look at the (Hippa-Oath) in 2003.

Link: www.mspp.net...

What did the (Hippa Oath) say then; and what will happen now.

reply to post by beezzer


I am glad you can see the writing on the wall Beezer!

I would think that a diagnosis by a Doctor that is following the guidelines established by the DSM would be a fair answer and yes some of the things you listed are in the DSM.

That being said your having a past addiction to a pain killer from a knee surgery which is no longer active would be hard pressed to be diagnosed as anything.

I also feel your pain. First shift of a hockey game 2 seasons ago I got hit from behind and ruptured my ACL and tore my MCL. I now wander around with a cadaver ligament which when I watch the Walking Dead creeps me out a bit.

reply to post by beezzer


I love me some painkillers.....On them now actually! So I must be insane and can't own a gun......

Backround check.....That's a freaking laugh......How is that going to distinguish the normal people who snap?

Backround check on Mr. John Wayne Gacy.......
You sir have a weird clown mask on, which is a bit weird but you seem okay....
Yep, backround check complete.....You look good, here is your gun!

Come on people, don't fall for this administration and their stupid talks like this will change a damn thing! Other than remove rights given to you from our forefathers....

This is not allowed, and every state should stand up against this purely on principle....This is your RIGHT? How are you going to let this happen?

More importantly, and the one thing I see no one really talking about or complaining about is this. Just as judges cannot legislate from the bench, Obama cannot legislate through EO's. Here is what I mean, let me explain.

After the Affordable Care Act became law, they discovered, much to their chagrin, they had made a fatal flaw in the law. Yes, all 2200 pages, and they messed up. If a state opts out of creating their own exchange, they, nor the employers, nor the single person, can be fined for not having insurance. Oops!

Now, this may seem off topic, but hear me out. They can't just go back and scribble in the margins, this law, as it stands, has been passed.

It was even announced last week that the IRS has "threatened" that if people refuse to pay thefine, the IRS will come after them. Well, let them. The law, as it stands, defends them. They have to go back, introduce new law, and go through it ALL AGAIN! How do you think that will go? Exactly...

Now, how does that affect the gun EO's? Simple. He is trying to do basically the same thing, and scribble in the margins of the healthcare law. He is legislating from the bench, so to speak. It isn't legal, and won't have standing.


It violates too many rights for exactly what you said, and amounts to illegal search of private records. HIPAA already covers this, and that law cannot just be thrown aside.

Originally posted by opethPA
I would think that a diagnosis by a Doctor that is following the guidelines established by the DSM would be a fair answer and yes some of the things you listed are in the DSM.

Would you want to go to a pro-gun doc vs an anti-gun doc for a diagnosis?

That being said your having a past addiction to a pain killer from a knee surgery which is no longer active would be hard pressed to be diagnosed as anything.

Many could interpret an addiction as a chronic mental condition.

I also feel your pain. First shift of a hockey game 2 seasons ago I got hit from behind and ruptured my ACL and tore my MCL. I now wander around with a cadaver ligament which when I watch the Walking Dead creeps me out a bit.

Mine was jumping out of a perfectly good airplane at 8500 feet. I've got so much metal in my leg that TSA agents take pictures when I fly.

Who's crazy?? Whomever they want to be considering the DSM covers just about everything, including being too happy or not quite happy enough. Its in the eye of the beholder. They pass psychiatric drugs out like candy and determine youre unfit if they want. You wait till this illegal CDC nonsense gets rolling concerning mental health...in our leader's executive actions. Not just a war on scary guns.. but a war on all of us.

Beezer, I want you to read a book called "The Psychopath Test" by Jon Ronson to see a little of this and just how the entries in the DSM are put in and then seen as golden fact. There are other books specifically on the entry protocol of what constitutes a mental illness and ts symptoms, but this one really shines a nice light on the insanity of these "tests" and "checklists" and how they are used... plus some great interviews with "psychopaths" as defined by the checklist we use today and the DSM.

reply to post by beezzer


Did you even read it?

In the bill quite clearly defines who is to alert the government if they feel a gun owner is a danger to himself or others.

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by beezzer

 

Did you even read it?

In the bill quite clearly defines who is to alert the government if they feel a gun owner is a danger to himself or others.

Yes, I read it. And wouldn't it also be up to the interpretation of the doc as to what constitutes a "danger"?

reply to post by beezzer


It is what ever the Govt says it is. DUH!!!!!!!
The same Govt that we have to defend ourselves from as per the 2nd Amendment.


Yeah, this is going to get crazy over the next little bit.

It is impossible to draw a line, of course. The intent is to make the determination as subjective as possible, so that the decision-makers can't be questioned.

Even scarier, is that this information will go into yet another database. So, whatever the next issue is after gun control, they can share your medical information with ease.

"Crazy" is a combination of characteristics and behaviors that are far outside the normal as defined by standards established by professionals in the medical and psychiatric community, as well as how well a person is able to function in society. It's an ephemeral kind of thing, because nobody can see what another person is perceiving, and it's all continuously shifting like clouds. You can take the same psychological diagnostic test in the morning and afternoon, and they'll have different results.

In general, if you don't perceive the world like most people, and the way you perceive the world and react to your perceptions makes you a persistent danger to yourself or others, then you're crazy. And you probably shouldn't be packing heat.

Originally posted by beezzer
Would you want to go to a pro-gun doc vs an anti-gun doc for a diagnosis?

I go to my Doctor and I do not care to know if he is for or against guns. As long as he follows the established guidelines then I could care less what he is doing outside of his practice. I could probably investigate and find a doctor that would just give me pills or a doctor that loves his guns or a doctor that thinks everything is wonderful in the world. I have never done that because until something happens otherwise I go to the doctors that give me solid medical care.

Many could interpret an addiction as a chronic mental condition.

We could argue semantics on this one but I don't imagine its going to get anywhere.

Mine was jumping out of a perfectly good airplane at 8500 feet. I've got so much metal in my leg that TSA agents take pictures when I fly.

Ouch.. that had to suck. Given how severe the damage done to my knee and the recovery , I still dont feel 100% , I can't even begin to imagine what you had to deal with ..best of luck with all that.

Just curious,
Does his law also apply to him, Federal, State and Local Law Enforcement? Or are they excluded in the EO? Now that would be interesting.

reply to post by beezzer


It is a trained professional. Someone who wouldnt make a claim like this without SOLID justification.

Otherwise they could be sued.

isnt this obvious? Are you being intentionaly obtuse?

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by beezzer

 

The it is a trained professional. Someone who wouldnt make a claim like this without SOLID justification.

Otherwise they could be sued.

Its this obvious? Are you being intentionaly obtuse?

Not at all. I'm a developmental neurobiologist. You get 5 docs in a room and you'll end up with 37 opinions on any given subject. A persons ability to function would fall under that heading.

A note to ponder, these horrific attacks, were the FIRST indication of violence for many. So they may have been diagnosed as stable but with issues, then snapped later.

No-one can read the future.

Even docs.