It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by skitzspiricy
It's a very fine line really. Not everyone with Mental Health Disorders are Violent. Not every Schziophrenic in the throws of Psychosis will harm another person, the same with Manic and Depressive episodes. There is however more of a probability that some of these people could turn a gun on themselves to end their pain.
There are so many varying degrees of Mentall Illness, two people with the same disorder can be incredibly different. One could lead a normal life, the other it could consume their whole lives. Each person diagnosed needs to be treated as an individual.
You mention "Sure someone with mental illness could snap and go on a killing spree, but these things happen".
I personally believe even the strongest of people under the right set of circumstances could snap and go on killling sprees.
edit on 23-1-2013 by skitzspiricy because: (no reason given)
While we layer all these protections we suck down greasy hamburgers and cigarettes like manna from heaven.
Originally posted by Logarock
Originally posted by Observor
If you want to own a gun in order to prevent a government tyranny, you are paranoid and hence mentally ill and hence unfit to own a gun, any gun.
And this is really the only reason weapons in the hands of the people is protected under the 2nd amendment.....the only reason its mentioned.
First of all, if what you say is true (which it's not-- about people who feel the need to protect against tyranny being mentally ill) then that would make the framers of our constitution ill.
As the other member points out, they used "mental illness" as an excuse to single out dissenters in the communist countries. It's a very old tactic.
Second, you don't need a "semi auto" for personal protection? OR hunting? Do you even have any clue what a "semi auto" is? And if you do (doubtful from your comment) please do explain why you wouldn't need one for either activity? When you're finished I'll let you know why you would.
And why mention "(duck) hunting"? This one's not all that important, but I'm curious at this point. Hunting a deer isn't sane? Are you one of those easily-emotionally-manipulatable people who thinks hunting killing one type of animal (birds) is acceptable, while killing fuzzy cute mammals is evil? Or were you just trying to give an example? Just curious. And maybe trying to get a gauge for your...er... mental state.
The govt does not have the right to subject people to psych testing at their will.
Originally posted by Krazysh0t
Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by Krazysh0t
What is wrong with doctors? They are experts whose testimony will stand up in the court of law. Who do you think should be declaring whether someone is mentally sound and not a danger to him or herself and the community at large? Should that be the governments call? The persons mother? Their peers? The community? Doctors are the professionals we trust with these judgements and recommendations. This is common sense at the bottom of it.
A jury of your peers after having been arrested and tried for committing a felony are the people who can take away your rights. Just because a doctor can provide expert testimony in court doesn't mean we should give them the power to strip our rights. A doctor may be biased, he may have graduated from some quack medical school. How would you feel if the doctor who said you are unfit to own a gun was someone like Doctor Nick from the Simpsons? Now I know this is an extreme example, but trusting one person's opinion on a matter no matter how qualified they are to make it is a bad road to follow.
A doctor is hired to help you get well when you are sick or help you heal when you are hurt. Their job mandate does not include restricting rights from Americans because the person they are treating may or may not be a threat to others.
Originally posted by Krazysh0t
To start with here is a link to the 23 EO's that Obama recently signed without congressional approval:
Normally, in order to lose the right to bear arms you have to become a convicted felon. wikipedia However with these recent EO's that Obama signed, it allows him to circumvent this procedure. In order to become a felon, one has to be arrested for a felony offense, tried in a court of law, allowed to be have adequate legal defense, and found guilty by a jury of your peers. In effect Obama is giving ALL of this power to a psychiatrist or doctor. This is a severe violation of our civil rights.
A doctor will be allowed to pronounce you mentally unfit to own a gun. Thereby denying you the right to bear arms. So basically all you need to do is go to school for about eight years, get a phd in medical science, and start a medical practice; and you have the same power as a jury and court of law to strip rights. Why are we allowing Obama to empower certain professions to do this? We need to stand up and say that this isn't ok. You shouldn't be able to take my rights away unless I broke a law. This whole preventive law nonsense is a slippery slope. Where does it all end?
Also what constitutes being mentally unfit to own a gun? Schizophrenia? Bi-polar? Depression? Alcoholism? There are many Americans in this country right now who have been diagnosed with these mental illnesses and are fully functioning with or without drugs. I have ADD, does that mean I cannot own a gun either? To make matters worse, what if you get a crappy doctor who doesn't know the proper symptoms and diagnoses you with an illness that you don't know? Or what if the doctor is having a bad day and just throws some pills at you, fills out a preliminary diagnoses, and gets rid of you?
Anyways if this must be done, how about starting with Sociopaths and Psychopaths, and we all know that sociopaths and psychopaths gravitate towards positions of power and control. Give these politicians a taste of their own medicine. Of course we all know that they aren't talking about themselves. No matter what legislation is passed, they will be exempt despite being indirectly and directly responsible for killing many civilians around the world without batting an eye.
Sure someone with mental illness could snap and go on a killing spree, but these things happen. I don't want to sound callous, but everyone dies. They haven't found a way to make us immortal yet. Sure it sucks when a parent has to bury their children or someone dies before their time, but these things have been happening since life began on this planet. Life can get scary sometimes, but in the end we are all worm food anyways. Why do we have to make some demographics of people miserable so we can feel safer when they haven't done anything wrong? Look deep down in yourself and ask yourself if you think this is fair for these people.