Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Mental Illness and your right to bear arms

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by WaterBottle
 
I agree with your first part of your post but the second does have a flaw, for yes you do need to be 21 to buy a side arm but then you can 17 with parental consent to join the armed services and learn how to kill. Some one just thought "oh ya lets make this a law no one under 21 should be able to bu a side arm", and so it was and is, why not make it 21 to join the armed forces?




posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock
So blind people cant drive. Whats that have to do with the other 300mill + americans that still can and do? Nothing.

If your not mental then your right to keep and bear isnt effected. Real simple.




What a stupid and ignorant comment. And you obviously didn't read the entire OP, or otherwise didn't think too hard about it, or otherwise didn't understand it.

Define "mental" for me, please. What is "mental" and what will the government consider "mental?"

Do you consider someone with ADD to be "mental?"

What about someone with "social anxiety".. the kind of person who gets nervous talking to strangers, pretty girls, someone who is shy in social situations. Is that "mental?" Because that is considered a psychiatric disorder. So tell me, since you seem to have it all figured out-- what is mental? And are you certain that the govt's definition will match yours?



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 



Originally posted by Krazysh0t
To start with here is a link to the 23 EO's that Obama recently signed without congressional approval:
23 EO's


To start with, those are NOT executive orders.
Secondly, which action are you complaining about? Because not one of them supports your rant.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by luciddream
 


You are right, the easiness to obtain the gun is a key factor in their decision. However its not like after you take the gun away, these people aren't going to suddenly drop the desire to kill a bunch of people. They will pursue other options and in the end a large number of people will be dead. All you are doing is taking the tool away from the worker. The worker can just get a different type of tool and do the same or more with the new tool.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by luciddream
 





these laws would only limit the extremist... that are known to disrupt the neighbourhood, got into altercations many times involving law or police, abuse, many drunken driving problems... very highly unstable people can be easily noticed... very highly unstable person would have trouble performing simple things, it sometimes would be hard for them to be in one place for a while, not very patience


The people you speak of above don't need these laws to limit them, many altercations with the law or police means that a doc doesn't need to mention them, the police already know about them and the legal system can limit them. Which makes these laws unnecessary for them, so who are these laws really for?



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by bekod
 


I think it should be 21 to join the army. No 17-19 year old should be sent off to war. It's just not right...they are kids.


In 2004 the Director of Military Personnel Policy for the US Army acknowledged in a letter to Human Rights Watch that nearly 60 17-year old US soldiers had been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan in 2003 and 2004.[67] The Department of Defense subsequently stated that “the situations were immediately rectified and action taken to prevent recurrence”.[68] Human Rights Watch sent written requests in April and August 2007 for updated information regarding possible deployment of 17-year-old US troops to Iraq or Afghanistan, but as of October 2007 had not received a response.[


en.wikipedia.org...




why not make it 21 to join the armed forces?


Greed. Wars for profits.
edit on 23-1-2013 by WaterBottle because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


So what are they? Certainly says Executive Orders at the top of the link when you click on it.

Here is a few of the ones I'm concerned about that can be interpreted how I said:

1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.
4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.
16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.
21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.
22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.


These are just a few that stand out to me. Most of them are vague enough that it is hard to get a clear idea what Obama is talking about with them. They can be interpreted in many different ways, which is very dangerous.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 





So what are they? Certainly says Executive Orders at the top of the link when you click on it.


They aren't executive orders, they are executive actions. The actual document...

I think executive action is just a PR term to make it sound less domineering though.

edit on 23-1-2013 by WaterBottle because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by luciddream
Damn, i didn't know it was so simple to be a doctor, have you even tried to get into a med school? easy isn't it?

.....

You can always get a 2nd, 3rd, 4th doctor's verification. Cost should not matter, i mean look how easy is it to become a doctor according to you.






#1 is a disingenuous /. irrelevant point. You do not have to be a doctor to have a diagnosis put on your record. Someone with a degree in psych (which is fear easier to attain than med school) is able to put something like this on your record.

#2 Not only can everyone not afford to go shrink-shopping due to financial reasons, but in some areas there are a limited number able to see someone. If you've ever tried to get psych help in a rural or busy city area, you might know this. Furthermore, and maybe more importantly, you can not have the opinion of one person stricken from your record if the diagnosis is severe enough.

Further, a new psych would likely obtain your old record, and it is highly likely their opinion would be biased because of what was already on your record from the first doc. See the Rosenhan Experiment below. Also, This is not diagnosed the same way as a medical condition, where the doc takes your word for it. You are scrutinized with suspicion, making getting a differing "second opinion" nearly impossible if your record is seen. Also, It would take a pretty heavy second opinion. Many psych disorders are not considered "curable" but only "treatable" and will follow a person around for the rest of their life.

Do keep in mind that these people can make mistakes. And Despite what the govt might want you to believe, psychiatry is FAR from an exact science.


Are you familiar with The Rosenhan Experiment???


Rosenhan's study was done in two parts. The first part involved the use of healthy associates or "pseudopatients" (three women and five men) who briefly simulated auditory hallucinations in an attempt to gain admission to 12 different psychiatric hospitals in five different States in various locations in the United States. All were admitted and diagnosed with psychiatric disorders. After admission, the pseudopatients acted normally and told staff that they felt fine and had not experienced any more hallucinations. All were forced to admit to having a mental illness and agree to take antipsychotic drugs as a condition of their release. The average time that the patients spent in the hospital was 19 days. All but one were diagnosed with schizophrenia "in remission" before their release. The second part of his study involved an offended hospital challenging Rosenhan to send pseudopatients to its facility, whom its staff would then detect. Rosenhan agreed and in the following weeks out of 193 new patients the staff identified 41 as potential pseudopatients, with 19 of these receiving suspicion from at least 1 psychiatrist and 1 other staff member. In fact Rosenhan had sent no one to the hospital.

The study concluded "it is clear that we cannot distinguish the sane from the insane in psychiatric hospitals" and also illustrated the dangers of dehumanization and labeling in psychiatric institutions.


Emphasis Added.

en.wikipedia.org...


Keep in mind that simple, short-term auditory hallucinations can be a result of sleep deprivation.


I agree that truly "dangerous" people shouldn't have weapons. And I am certain most everyone could agree that someone like a severe schizophrenic should not own a gun. But we don't know that that is where they would draw the line. This very well COULD include people suffering from simple forms of anxiety (highly common) or other very common, non-threatening disorders. If you know for a fact that this is not the case, please provide us with source information. Otherwise please understand that this could be more far-reaching than you currently believe.

IMO with the vague wording I've seen, it probably will be far reaching. When sandy hook happened, some people were saying "look out-- they're coming for the guns.. they will pass new laws." And people like you were calling them crazy-- saying it wasn't going to happen-- and look where we are now.

I really hope it won't be as draconian as I fear. I truly hope to soon admit I was wrong. I fear I won't get that opportunity.



edit on 23-1-2013 by iwilliam because: (no reason given)
edit on 23-1-2013 by iwilliam because: (no reason given)
edit on 23-1-2013 by iwilliam because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Krazysh0t
reply to post by Logarock
 


There is a big difference from being blind and being mentally ill. A blind person is physically incapable of actually driving because the act of driving primarily requires your eyesight. Meanwhile the act of owning a gun requires so much more than being able to think normally. A mentally ill person may have trouble doing normal things or go about it differently than the rest of us, but can still process that killing people is wrong and demonstrate proper gun use.


My point was that if the blind cant drive maybe a mentally ill person shouldnt own a gun.

But on your point how are they going to make a cut off point as to what is or isnt a case of mental illness where gun ownership should be restricted?
edit on 23-1-2013 by Logarock because: n



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by WaterBottle
 


Ok then I stand corrected on the wordage, but that doesn't discredit my argument any. Instead of talking about Executive Orders, we are talking about Executive Actions. They are still trying to infringe on our rights by circumventing the course of proper law.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 

Hi,
I wonder;
All of our military heroes (less than 100% of their former selves) returning from securing our freedom, (suffering from PTSD, Etc.) will they be deemed unfit to own a gun too?



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 12:52 PM
link   
I can see a Catch 22 in the future. IF you own or want to buy a gun then you are deemed to be "Mentally Ill" and if you are "mentally ill" then you cant have a gun. It makes my head hurt.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Logarock
 


the Constitution doesn't guarantee the right to drive a vehicle by the way. It DOES guarantee the right to own a firearm. Another big difference between your two comparisons. As to your second point, that is EXACTLY what I am getting at. Where does the government draw the line? Two people with the same mental illness can act completely different and there is no way to tell if they will snap with a gun or not. This is why this is a dangerous route that the government is taking. Mental illness shouldn't be a reason to have your rights taken away.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


It's been going on since the first president so...



www.presidency.ucsb.edu...
edit on 23-1-2013 by WaterBottle because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by WaterBottle
 


Are you suggesting I am calling into account the legality of EOs? Because that is a topic for another thread. My thread is about the content of what Obama signed on January 16th. You are focusing on the wrong part of my thread.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by WaterBottle
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


It's been going on since the first president so...





These have to be renewed and dont have the power of law. Show me one order still in effect for a former executive that hasnt been renewed by the current POTUS.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Krazysh0t
reply to post by Logarock
 


the Constitution doesn't guarantee the right to drive a vehicle by the way. It DOES guarantee the right to own a firearm. Another big difference between your two comparisons. As to your second point, that is EXACTLY what I am getting at. Where does the government draw the line? Two people with the same mental illness can act completely different and there is no way to tell if they will snap with a gun or not. This is why this is a dangerous route that the government is taking. Mental illness shouldn't be a reason to have your rights taken away.


Are you also suggesting that definitions will be expanded to drag even more into the net?



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 01:09 PM
link   
A full on "Gun-Ban" isn't needed to fulfill the "obvious." In all it's simplicity, we've been doing this for years.

"Diagnose a Sick Nation." In other words, "Disarming the public by deeming you unfit for carry." It's highly plausible and could be accomplished within several generations, producing a similar result to what the government wants. All made possible through, "ADD, ADHD, BiPolar, and lets not forget the adorable ODD", all, in a neat package prepped, "JUST FOR YOU", with a pretty pink bow and a cupcake.

With that aside, the "Worries" about sick people with guns is "fairly laughable." Come off it. Somebody diagnosed with a severe case of "Bi-Polar" will have a bad day, pile into a motor vehicle and paint the sidewalk red. Answer? Ban people with "Bi-Polar" from driving. Isn't that uh...That.....um...How you do it? I mean...Now'adays? Familiar...Right?

Look. Whether it be by some psycho, an ex, or by some disgruntled everyday employee that wasn't thinking at the moment, people are going to die. I'm going to die. My family at some point in time, is going to die. You will die. Your dog, "Will Die", and you can incorporate laws into a society to PREVENT tragedies, news flash. Go invest in "Human Cryogenic Freezing", so you can live dreamland for the next 50 years, wake up? Ain'Sh*t changed. Whilst you "ban guns", you're putting someone else in business to "Sell them illegally."

Just as there is good, there is a wrong. The balance of life, which applies to everything. To seek perfection, is to seek deception. Guess you're just promoting "Safety by disorder."

I....I....I suppose I'll...Just... stop going outside... fearing lead projectiles fired into the air will pierce my cranium on the way down...I'll....well...sell the place...It's near a road...Some "person who had a bad day"...w...will wan't to run my kids over....

Tragedy exists in the dictionary, for a reason. Even before our time in cosmic imagery.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Logarock
 


You should read iwilliam's post a few posts up this page. Its hard to miss since it takes up a lot of space. It brings to light many of the same fears I have about these actions that are being taken. Over the years the government does what it wants to get what it wants. Right now the government has its eyes on the 2nd amendment. Obama has discovered a very dastardly way of going about stripping our rights that is far easier than coming door to door to confiscate all the guns in American. Just say you aren't mental able to own a gun. Bam! Instantly stripped of the 2nd amendment right and no recourse around it in a court of law. Your best bet is to try to get a second opinion, but like iwilliam pointed out the next psychiatrist could be biased towards the initial diagnosis or may just throw a few more of them onto your record (without telling you of course).





new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join