Perfect Union banner
1 - 12 of 12 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
75 Posts
I foresee the next thrust of the anti gun crowd to be at those "who might do harm to themselves or others" and should not own guns. Only ***** in the armor of Dr. Malcolm's well reasoned explanation of the 2A.

Who will decide what "harm to others" encompasses.
Here come the thought police.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
8,460 Posts
I foresee the next thrust of the anti gun crowd to be at those "who might do harm to themselves or others" and should not own guns. Only ***** in the armor of Dr. Malcolm's well reasoned explanation of the 2A.

Who will decide what "harm to others" encompasses.
Here come the thought police.
+1

Traditionally that was the invocation of "magic words" by a qualified doctor that allowed the state to lock someone up in an institution after completing the correct legal paperwork from a magistrate to make sure it wasn't being abused.

Problem now is that everything is on an "outpatient" basis, so it is way more prone to abuse. Who gets to make that determination and what rights does the "patient" have? Is the diagnosis subject to appeal or is the subject just plain hosed for life?

That's one reason I favor the return to the old system of institutionalization, at least for the most serious cases. Since it costs the state money to lock 'em up and give 'em treatment they won't want to do it often and hopefully they won't be able to use the psych establishment the way the old Soviet Union did, locking up as "crazy" anyone who opposed the state.

Best part about institutionalization is that if we go back to that system, then by default anyone not locked up is by definition sane enough to possess guns; i.e. you only let 'em go if you decide that they really are not a danger to themselves or others. That's a nice clear cut distinction that does not lend itself to abuse. I would like that same distinction to be applied to criminals too; let 'em out when we're reasonably sure they won't re-offend then treat 'em like everyone else. The really dangerous criminals that can never be reformed? Hang 'em, just like Judge Parker used to do.....

Best,
Grumpy
 

· Registered
Joined
·
75 Posts
thats all you took from that? she was pretty kick ass for a mellow lady
Agreed, she kicked ass. I was looking at the interview from a Libs view point of "How can we get around this 2A thing. She made so much sense that others might listen to her, rather than our BS. Let's try this harm to others route".

Grumpy - That's the point. When enough Libs can muster power to establish that you are "crazy" and would harm other by just owning X amount of guns.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,462 Posts
Starting in the early 1970's it was decided that being mentally ill was not an unlawful act. (no criminal intent) Therefore by the end of the 1970's all the institutions were emptied and those folks were released back on the public with no plans for people who needed mental health help to get it.

The liberals were happy becuase these folks got the civil rights returned to them. The republicans were happy becuase they could use this money formally spent on mental health issues for tax relief. Every one was happy (mostly politicians) except for those of us who had to deal with the mentally ill and we had NO resources to get the mentally ill help and us relief from dangerous mentally ill individuals. As you can see, our opinion does not count.

The result is mental illness is treated like a civil right. How can we institutionalize somone and still respect their civil rights? Even if they are so ill they cannot function on their own or they are dangerous to themselves and to innocent people. The hard truth is it's very difficult. It cannot be done without legislation. Legislation costs money. We have no money. Our governments have spent it all or are currently spending it all.

I have no answers. I just gave you some history. It's up to our politicians to make the next move. Don't hold your breath. kwg
 

· Registered
Joined
·
75 Posts

· Premium Member
Joined
·
3,450 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
I found it on calguns.net . I liked how matter of fact she was. Unemotional. Both sides of the battle usually come across very passionate about their opinions. I think the ways she puts it would make it easier for antigunners to swallow. ...yeh I know.. keep dreaming
 

· Registered
Joined
·
8,460 Posts
Starting in the early 1970's it was decided that being mentally ill was not an unlawful act. (no criminal intent) Therefore by the end of the 1970's all the institutions were emptied and those folks were released back on the public with no plans for people who needed mental health help to get it.

The liberals were happy becuase these folks got the civil rights returned to them. The republicans were happy becuase they could use this money formally spent on mental health issues for tax relief. Every one was happy (mostly politicians) except for those of us who had to deal with the mentally ill and we had NO resources to get the mentally ill help and us relief from dangerous mentally ill individuals. As you can see, our opinion does not count.

The result is mental illness is treated like a civil right. How can we institutionalize somone and still respect their civil rights? Even if they are so ill they cannot function on their own or they are dangerous to themselves and to innocent people. The hard truth is it's very difficult. It cannot be done without legislation. Legislation costs money. We have no money. Our governments have spent it all or are currently spending it all.

I have no answers. I just gave you some history. It's up to our politicians to make the next move. Don't hold your breath. kwg
Hi kwg;

Thanks for the rundown on the history; I was already aware of SCOTUS decision in Donaldson v O'Connor in 1975, but that still permitted confinement in the cases of patients who are adjudged to:
a) be dangerous to themselves or others and /or
b) incapable of providing for their basic physical needs and /or
c) unable to make responsible decisions about hospitalization and
d) in need of treatment or care in a hospital.
so I honestly think we can return maybe part way without going against any court decisions. Not the full institutionalization for every mental illness which was excessive, but the four specific cases outlined above would go a long way to fixing part of what's broken in our society today.

As you point out the problem is the politicians, and I think you are spot on correct about their motivations.

A friend of mine worked that beat years ago and I used to listen to him talk about having to cut people loose who couldn't take care of themselves. Then years later when I was in Japan for a while I noticed something was missing - none of the street people who are generally there in the background in the US were present on Japanese streets. I was disheartened when I went back a couple years ago to find out that they are now doing the same thing as the US did in the '70's - they're just 20 or 30 years or so behind us - and now they have seriously disturbed people living on the street. Pretty heartbreaking seeing Japan make our mistakes - and pay the consequences. They've had a series of people randomly pushed in front of trains (my wife always pulls me far away from the edge any time we're at a train station in Japan because she's afraid some nut will push the old gaijin over!) and some high profile mass killings too.

Anyway, I didn't want my post to sound callous; truly mentally ill people who need care and aren't getting it must be going through hell, and most of 'em are not harmful. But if they can't take care of themselves, how in the world can a society square the idea that we should just dump them on the streets and not give them proper care? And out of that group there is a tiny fraction who really are dangerous, for real. They really need to be locked up.

Yep, its not going to happen, and the truly mentally ill will not get the treatment they need. The left sees it as a civil rights thing and the right sees it as a cost cutter.

You're right, its not going to happen. But I still get to write what I would like to see happen, even if it won't. Just wish I could offer a better suggestion.

Best,
Grumpy
 

· Registered
Joined
·
666 Posts
I would not count on any gun ban failing to pass constitutional muster when you see that at least four on the SCOTUS can't read English! Article 1 on the practice of religion: "or the free exercise thereof". Article 2 "shall not be infringed" .They don't care what the US Constitution says. They have an agenda they were assigned to push.
 

· ANTI anti-gun activist
Joined
·
1,287 Posts
We are all mental because we own guns according to most of them.... ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top