It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Mental Illness and your right to bear arms

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 03:25 PM
Explanation: I reserve and extend the right to be shot and or killed by anybody for any reasons and for them to face a jury of their peers in a speedy and fair trial and for them to possibly face the death penalty if found guilty!

Having extended that right to all others I can MORALLY claim such a right for myself as it isn't hypocritical.

Personal Disclosure: All rights ARE INALIENABLE and are for EVERYBODY amd can NOT be touched or removed ... unlike a priviledge.

They existed at the big bang of creation and will exist eternally after the last human being has died ok.

We can be removed from them but they can never be removed from us or existence.

posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 03:41 PM
This worries me and pisses me off. I was diagnosed as Bi –polar 6 years ago and I was grateful for the diagnoses the doctors I had up until then thought I was depressed and put me on antidepressants which is a big no-go for those who are bi-polar because they can make you 10 times worse. Anyway once I stopped taking anti-depressants and they got out of my system I have been fine. I have served my country for over a decade but now they are going to say I am unfit to own a gun. They better take care writing these bills because just because I had problems in the past does not make me a problem.

One thing I found with the mental health system is that it is hard to access the system. That is what they need to fix his is just another way to strip people of their rights without addressing the problem. Fixing the mental health system takes money but I don’t see them funding better programs.

posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 06:50 PM

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)

I think that's an exemplary analysis of the OP's topic.

So many people these days make these sweeping generalizations about people and their supposed "instability" or "conditions"; let alone if you have a "diagnosis" then forget about it, you're often fodder to the gossiping retards of this world.

It just goes to show you that people just want to live and enjoy life, and if one feels threatened, you do something that is preventative. The question is, what is a legitimate prevention, where are the lines, and who draws them?

With regards to drawing the lines, it seems to me that more and more individuals are being placed in the "of arbitrary opinion" category simply because they are perceived as potentially unstable due to vague circumstances regarding their varying mental conditions/diagnoses, and of course, combined with the ownership of a firearm. It's the whole "we're the establishment, we know what's best for you" big brother kind of crap.

It can be a horrendous way to decapitate a person's ability to have self-esteem or respect from others when the people in "power" start asserting agendas that are largely reactionary to localized, and often rare events, whereby many of the non-thinkers begin blindly aligning themselves with these political movements, and treat anyone that even questions that political movement as a practical psychopath/genocidal maniac with no heart. Reminds me of those that question 9/11, reminds me of all the times there is an agenda asserted by politicians, which is of course threaded-in by the media, and so many people lap it up like it's their daily cheeseburger and fries.

Tangential for a moment:

Take away guns? Take away nukes...

"Well, you were born with a brain and arms and legs. Those all have the potential to cause"

I guess it comes down to the statistical or legitimate probability that each individual may cause harm to another, or them selves, with or without a fire arm or weapon of some kind (a weapon that causes physical harm/death can literally be almost anything).

Furthermore, in regard to "mental illness," a diagnosis is not necessarily indicative of greatly increased chance that a person will inflict harm, and no diagnosis is not necessarily indicative of a greatly decreased chance...if you can't understand this then you don't understand the complexity of humans. We are not so easily categorizable, controllable, or predictable as so many yearn to believe, regardless of the various and unique mental states and conditions, of which are dynamic in most people.

We should just ban everything and say that everyone is mentally unfit for life...I am willing to guarantee that many people would be wrong in their assessment of others, namely their assessment of the probability that others will cause physical's just a bunch of paranoid bull# that has got it's grip on a whole hell of a lot of people these days.

Don't even get me started on psychical harm...most people are guilty of it every day and aren't even very aware of it.

posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 09:06 PM

While we layer all these protections we suck down greasy hamburgers and cigarettes like manna from heaven.

What's up with that? Why you gotta bring hamburgers into this? Leave my burger alone!...mmmmmmm, hamburgers....Ok, You were saying?

edit on 1/24/1313 by foodstamp because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 09:07 PM
reply to post by Grimpachi

All you need bud is a little Bob Marley in your life... And I'm not just talking about the music....

posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 11:26 PM

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.

Doesn't matter why it is mentioned. What matters is how it is interpreted today by those in power.

Obama mentioned only 3 things when he says he supports the second amendment.

1. Self-defence
2. Hunting
3. Sports

posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 11:49 PM
reply to post by iwilliam

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.

While that would be true by implication, no one has to actually say that since the framers of the constitution are long dead and gone and cannot be subjected to a psychiatric evaluation today.

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.

Sure it is an old tactic, but also never failed. Proven tactics, however old they may be, are useful for achieving ends. That is why it will be employed.

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.

It is not me that anyone needs to convince, it is the government. The Obama administration seems to know what a sem-auto is and is completely convinced it is not needed for self-defence, hunting or sports.

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 mental state.

Your determination of my mental state is of no consequence whatsoever. Obama believes the second amendment exists to protect hunting (in addition to self-defence and sports), so I mentioned it. I added (duck) in deference to Alex Jones (on Piers Morgan show) who vehementaly denied that, duck hunting, was not the purpose of the second amendment.

The govt does not have the right to subject people to psych testing at their will.

Oh! They do. They have procedures that limit the ability of the individual LEOs to do so, but they can always alter their own procedures if it serves their goals.

My post you were responding to was nothing about how I feel about what is likely to happen and about how I see these recent EOs being used to achieve the government's goal of removing high power weapons from the hands of private citizens.

The government is extremely clever, devious and determined. They will get their way. Is there anything you can do about it other than passing judgements on internet posters pointing out the obvious? Guess not

posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 01:20 AM
reply to post by OmegaLogos

So, how many guns do you own?

posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 04:35 AM
Well no worries now. Joe Biden just said yesterday in regards to assault weapon...."Get yourself a shootgun". Well ok dad. Joey also said that most people that have assault weapons dont know how to use them and even folks that do could still hurt themsleves.

How about we vote all the mental cases out of office. They are a danger to themselves and others.

posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 12:11 PM
reply to post by ProperlyErrant

I like the way you are headed with this. Personally, I believe it is normal to have a mental condition. If everyone thought the same way, then we'd be an extremely boring race. The government realizes this and is trying to exploit it. With enough psychiatric visits I'm sure that a psychiatrist can find a mental illness for you and if not they can always invent one. Its not like the psychiatry medical profession is an old and established profession. Psychiatry as we know it only dates back a hundred years or so and most of the things we do know about it only a few decades.

posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 01:26 AM

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.

All true but it's not trusting one persons word but doctors are usually extremely credible witnesses who have sworn an oath. I don't get your avatar...what's going on there? LOL

posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 04:45 AM
I have paranoid schizophrenia and I own guns. I'm 36 years old and been hunting and using firearms since I was 13. Yeah I'll admit I'm a bit crazy but I'm not stupid nor am I a murderer. At the time of my last psychosis 16 years ago my home had plenty of unlocked firearms in it. It never crossed my mind to hurt anyone. I know right from wrong.
edit on 27-1-2013 by wantsome because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 12:12 PM
reply to post by newcovenant

But a doctor is still one person. One person can make a mistake, plus in a court room there are procedures to present a case. In a doctor's office he just kind of asks whatever questions he feels like asking. In the end it would be your word against his.

p.s.: The person in the avatar is Chris Hansen from Dateline to Catch a Predator. To get the "Why don't you have a seat?" joke you have to watch the South Park episode where Cartman pretends to have Tourette's Syndrome.

posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 12:43 PM

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

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.

In the sick and twisted minds of leftists, anyone who does not agree with them, or submit to them with docility, is "mentally ill".

Leftists throughout the 20th century used the "mentally ill" gambit to eliminate those who oppose them.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3   >>

log in