If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Bloomberg)   State seizes weapons from homes of mentally ill. Judging by the derp in the comments section, the mentally ill have a problem with this   (bloomberg.com) divider line 438
    More: Stupid, California, registered owner, Vice President Joe Biden, probable cause, assault weapons  
•       •       •

11842 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Mar 2013 at 3:48 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



438 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-13 04:09:34 PM

chapman: You think that's funny.  But this is a great way to dissuade people with mental health issues from getting care.


Oh shut up.
 
2013-03-13 04:10:08 PM
Chapman: You think that's funny.  But this is a great way to dissuade people with mental health issues from getting care.

THIS!

Plus, the government will s-l-o-w-l-y stretch out the definition of crazy (cray-cray??) until they can disarm anybody they want, at any time, like troulemaking political opponents.....
 
2013-03-13 04:10:35 PM

iheartscotch: Yeaaaahh; registration can't ever ever ever come back and bite you in the butt!


No, it can't.
The Constitution says they can't just come and take your shiat.  I get a trial and a lawyer and stuff, right?  The police can't just come and take my stuff and trash it, right?  Right?  Guys?  Guys?

Article the fourth..... A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Article the sixth ...... The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Article the seventh .. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Article the eleventh .... The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
 
2013-03-13 04:10:44 PM
Four dead after shootings in up state New York

Six people have been shot in two separate incidents in Herkimer County, four of whom have been confirmed dead. It seems that police are looking for one suspect for both incidents. Two people were shot and killed at Gaffey's Car Wash on Mohawk Street in the Village of Herkimer. Four people were shot at John's Barber Shop on Main Street in Mohawk. Two were killed and two were injured.


They did not see the sign on the door prohibiting guns. If only they had read the sign. /s
 
2013-03-13 04:10:53 PM

iheartscotch: Yeaaaahh; registration can't ever ever ever come back and bite you in the butt!

If they let him go after 2 days; then they couldn't legally keep him anymore. So, he might be unstable; but, not enough to be confined to the mental hospital.

I do see the other side; it's damn hard to get someone committed who doesn't want to go onto the cart.

/ he did the responsible thing and surrendered his guns


Might not be unstable enough to be confined, or just might not have good enough insurance to pay for the bed.
 
2013-03-13 04:10:59 PM
I have no problem with responsible gun ownership. I was going to buy one, but then I remembered that I'm not a pussy.
 
2013-03-13 04:11:09 PM
Why is this a problem again?

Oh right, the NRA and the batshiat crazy brigade.
 
2013-03-13 04:11:42 PM

timujin: A friend of a friend's brother (yeah, I know, but still...) was recently convicted of a felony.  They didn't seize his guns, just told him he had to get rid of them or turn them in, so he "sold" them to his brother.


TEH POUTRAGE OF IT ALL
 
2013-03-13 04:11:48 PM

Gosling: Law abiding citizens apparently = not actively shooting up a playground


I think you'll find that those who are not using their guns to commit crimes are in fact law abiding citizens (however much certain hysterical people would like to scapegoat, say, NRA members as the greatest threat to America).

so what's the problem you pinko commie.

Speaking of communists, didn't they use the charge of "mental illness" to marginalize political opposition? God knows that many on the modern Left like to define practically every conservative viewpoint nowadays as "fringe", "extreme", the result of some "phobia" or "-ism" or deficiency of intellect or character, etc. Psychiatric diagnoses are not, despite popular opinion, founded in objective science, but are merely convenient guidelines capable of being manipulated for political purposes -- and if the right to gun ownership is made dependent upon a clean bill of mental health, the definition of who is mentally healthy will end up being greatly narrowed in the interests of gun control.
 
2013-03-13 04:11:50 PM

chapman: this is a great way to dissuade people with mental health issues from getting care.


This.
Plus, how do the cops get notified without violation of HEPA, patient/client privilege, etc?

Take his guns.
Why?
He's nuts, certified.

They have a need to know?
They have certification on that?
 
2013-03-13 04:11:58 PM

mark12A: Chapman: You think that's funny.  But this is a great way to dissuade people with mental health issues from getting care.

THIS!

Plus, the government will s-l-o-w-l-y stretch out the definition of crazy (cray-cray??) until they can disarm anybody they want, at any time, like troulemaking political opponents.....


And then and only then will the government be able to oppress us.

I'll bet you think Red Dawn was a documentary.
 
2013-03-13 04:11:59 PM

Benjamin Orr: Don't be silly. Those are the only three types of guns that exist these days.


Yep.
It's just that the first two mentioned are model numbers and the latter is a brand name.

I guess you could refer to "Glocks" by their model names with G17, G19, G26, G34 being the ultra-mega scary 9mm versions.
 
2013-03-13 04:12:04 PM

chapman: Ionessa: As a gun owner who does suffer from depression I'm somewhat torn on the issue. I understand wanting to disarm possibly dangerous people, but not everyone with a mental illness is going to go on a shooting spree.
Heck, of I was going to hurt myself, or someone else, my gun doesn't even come to mind (not that I would anyways.) But then again, that could be because of the way I was brought up, respecting guns.

/just don't group me in with the crazies.
//please?

Having the State AG order confiscation isn't the answer.  There should be at least some sort of due process.  We are trying to stop dangerous crazy, not "I had a bad 48 hours" crazy or "I have the sort of temporary depression that millions of perfectly safe normal people have" crazy


Cheron: Ionessa: As a gun owner who does suffer from depression I'm somewhat torn on the issue. I understand wanting to disarm possibly dangerous people, but not everyone with a mental illness is going to go on a shooting spree.
Heck, of I was going to hurt myself, or someone else, my gun doesn't even come to mind (not that I would anyways.) But then again, that could be because of the way I was brought up, respecting guns.

/just don't group me in with the crazies.
//please?

In the name of gun safety people like you should not have their guns taken or even be an issue.  Mental health care should be more accessible and if people are afraid that by getting help they stand to have their taken they won't seek help.

/some one should write a song about this


Exactly my point. They should at least expand on whom they deem to be "crazy" enough to have their guns taken away. At this point it sounds like they're just saying, "Well, you went to the hospital for a few days, let's take care of those guns for you, regardless of if you're actually mentally stable or not."
 
2013-03-13 04:12:28 PM

Happy Hours: monoski: Sounds like a good program. The mentally ill and felons should not have guns.

Define "mentally ill" for us, please.


People involuntarily committed is a no brainer. Theres already a process for getting that in Cali I believe its not easy.
 
2013-03-13 04:12:43 PM
This should scare you:


They had better luck in nearby Upland, where they seized three guns from the home of Lynette Phillips, 48, who'd been hospitalized for mental illness, and her husband, David. One gun was registered to her, two to him.

"The prohibited person can't have access to a firearm," regardless of who the registered owner is, said Michelle Gregory, a spokeswoman for the attorney general's office.

 You live with someone who is mentally ill, you lose your rights.  Sorry.

Actually, that's probably unconstitutional.  This case is from a different federal district than California, but I can't imagine the Supreme Court striking down this reasoning:

The Court finds that the Indictment fails to set forth an offense under 18 U.S.C. § 2. 
Furthermore, under Heller, and its progeny, the Second Amendment protects defendant Huet‟s 
right to possess the firearm the government seeks to criminalize through the use of sections 2 and 
922(g)(1). To hold otherwise would be to ignore Heller: defendant Huet, not being a felon, 
insane, or otherwise disabled from possessing a gun, is entitled to possess a lawful firearm in her 
home, a place which is recognized as sacrosanct for purposes of Second Amendment analysis.

USA v. Huet

Melissa Huet owned an SKS rifle, and her boyfriend Marvin Hall was a convicted felon.  He was charged with constructive possession of her rifle, and she was charged with aiding and abetting his possession of a firearm.
 
2013-03-13 04:13:10 PM

StrikitRich: So if you legally bought the firearm and it was confiscated due to a restraining order or medical records do you get remunerated by the State?  What happens when the restraining order expires, do you get the firearm back?

Seems there should be a lawsuit if not.


If they take your car away from you because you've been driving it dangerously do you get your money back? Even if it's because of a medical disorder?

I know the knee-jerk response is going to be "but you actually broke the law in that case", but the fundamental reasoning behind both actions remains exactly the same: that you're potentially dangerous even if you didn't actually hurt anybody yet and the state has an interest to protect the public that, because of the circumstances, outweighs your interest in your property in this particular case.

So, yes, you can be "technically correct" if you want (being the best kind of correct, of course), but the only purpose it could really serve would be to avoid the real issue by punting on the technical rules which have already been changed in this situation anyway.
 
2013-03-13 04:14:49 PM

vudukungfu: chapman: this is a great way to dissuade people with mental health issues from getting care.

This.
Plus, how do the cops get notified without violation of HEPA, patient/client privilege, etc?

Take his guns.
Why?
He's nuts, certified.

They have a need to know?
They have certification on that?


Ignorance is always a good counter argument. Maybe you could google some of these things, starting with HIPAA.
 
2013-03-13 04:14:50 PM

RenownedCurator: kiwimoogle84: At the lowest point in my life my family considered me a suicide risk. And I probably was. They both made me promise not to do anything stupid AND took the guns out of the house. I have mixed feelings about it but personally, it was the right thing to do.

I can't say as far as other people go, but it's a step in the right direction probably. Recognizing that the mental instability in people is more of a problem than the guns themselves- but I do kind of feel bad for the loss of money in that case. If the gov came into my house and took my firearms, I'd be half tempted to yell after them "That wasn't a stock grip you know! That cost me an extra $175! I'll be sending you a bill!"

/late hubby was the gun owner, not me
//didn't die by gunshot wound
/not that anyone cares

Yeah, I thought about that, especially with the bit about restraining orders. Not that most of them aren't legit, but considering how many DV restraining orders are the standard opening salvo (so to speak) in a divorce, it seems unfair that there's no compensation or way to get them back if it's lifted, as the article said they'd be destroyed.



That's terrible. Some of those guns, if they're antiques or limited editions, can cost a pretty penny. There should be some sort of program where you can turn them in and get either a tax break or a refund or something. But of course, that would be REASONABLE, and this is the gov, so *shrug*

 

cardex: kiwimoogle84: At the lowest point in my life my family considered me a suicide risk. And I probably was. They both made me promise not to do anything stupid AND took the guns out of the house. I have mixed feelings about it but personally, it was the right thing to do.

I can't say as far as other people go, but it's a step in the right direction probably. Recognizing that the mental instability in people is more of a problem than the guns themselves- but I do kind of feel bad for the loss of money in that case. If the gov came into my house and took my firearms, I'd be half tempted to yell after them "That wasn't a stock grip you know! That cost me an extra $175! I'll be sending you a bill!"

/late hubby was the gun owner, not me
//didn't die by gunshot wound
/not that anyone cares

Did you nag him to death ?

/don't care


It usually takes years for a successful wife to nag her husband to death. I was SO GOOD, I did it in six weeks. I deserve an award or something. This is MAJOR. I could teach lessons.
 
2013-03-13 04:15:33 PM
I'm all for having weapons removed from the hands of those deemed mentally ill, but in reality the whole system needs to be reworked.  Currently in California, the belief of a single health professional, be it a nurse, a psychiatrist, whatever, is enough for a person to be deemed a hazard to other people and lose their rights to own a weapon.  In other words, THEY HAVE NO DUE PROCESS before having their rights revoked.  If this situation were unique to California, it would be easy to chalk it up to another stupid California ordinance but in reality, it is like this in most states.

What needs to happen is that if a person is believed to be dangerous, there needs to have a hearing before a judge where that person has a chance to refute the claims.  As it stands, there have been way too many people involuntarily committed simply for being "slightly depressed" because a mental health professional doesn't want to be liable if that person goes out and harms themselves or someone else.  Having a judge actually make the call solves the problem of due process as well as relieves the burden of liability from the mental health professional.
 
2013-03-13 04:15:56 PM

dittybopper: This should scare you:


They had better luck in nearby Upland, where they seized three guns from the home of Lynette Phillips, 48, who'd been hospitalized for mental illness, and her husband, David. One gun was registered to her, two to him.

"The prohibited person can't have access to a firearm," regardless of who the registered owner is, said Michelle Gregory, a spokeswoman for the attorney general's office.
 You live with someone who is mentally ill, you lose your rights.  Sorry.

Actually, that's probably unconstitutional.  This case is from a different federal district than California, but I can't imagine the Supreme Court striking down this reasoning:

The Court finds that the Indictment fails to set forth an offense under 18 U.S.C. § 2. 
Furthermore, under Heller, and its progeny, the Second Amendment protects defendant Huet‟s 
right to possess the firearm the government seeks to criminalize through the use of sections 2 and 
922(g)(1). To hold otherwise would be to ignore Heller: defendant Huet, not being a felon, 
insane, or otherwise disabled from possessing a gun, is entitled to possess a lawful firearm in her 
home, a place which is recognized as sacrosanct for purposes of Second Amendment analysis.
USA v. Huet

Melissa Huet owned an SKS rifle, and her boyfriend Marvin Hall was a convicted felon.  He was charged with constructive possession of her rifle, and she was charged with aiding and abetting his possession of a firearm.


Yes, this
 
2013-03-13 04:16:54 PM
83 Yr. Old Woman Uses Gun To Scare Off Burglar, But Is Then Shot & Killed By Police in Her Backyard

An 83 year old woman in VA allegedly used a handgun to fire a warning shot to scare off a burglar late at night. The woman, Delma Towler, also called police to report the break in.
Before police arrived, Towler fired the warning shot and then tried to make her way across her backyard to her nearby sister's house, while still holding her gun.
When police arrived on the scene they saw the armed woman in the backyard and at some point shot and killed her.


When seconds count the police are just going to kill you.
 
2013-03-13 04:17:10 PM

mark12A: Plus, the government will s-l-o-w-l-y stretch out the definition of crazy (cray-cray??) until they can disarm anybody they want, at any time, like troulemaking political opponents...


40 years ago the APA called homosexuality a mental illness.  As important and valuable as mental health services are, we still need to recognize that the organizations are run by people who might be clouded by political opinion and bias.
 
2013-03-13 04:17:46 PM

Happy Hours: monoski: Sounds like a good program. The mentally ill and felons should not have guns.

Define "mentally ill" for us, please.


That is defined by the states, not me. I would likely be a bit more aggressive than the state definitions.
 
2013-03-13 04:17:50 PM
This is why I will never register my guns.

Ever.
 
2013-03-13 04:18:04 PM

insano: Ionessa: As a gun owner who does suffer from depression I'm somewhat torn on the issue. I understand wanting to disarm possibly dangerous people, but not everyone with a mental illness is going to go on a shooting spree.
Heck, of I was going to hurt myself, or someone else, my gun doesn't even come to mind (not that I would anyways.) But then again, that could be because of the way I was brought up, respecting guns.

/just don't group me in with the crazies.
//please?

The article says the law only applies to those who were  involuntarily committed, so you should be fine.


Guns of Law -Aiding husband confiscated after wife's single VOLUNTARY mental health visit.

So tell me, which one is correct?

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/12/calif-gun-owner-who-says- sh e-admitted-herself-to-mental-hospital-for-medication-adjustment-has-gu ns-confiscated/
 
2013-03-13 04:18:13 PM
well how am i supposed to defend myself against the aliens without my gun? this tin foil only stops the mind rays....
 
2013-03-13 04:18:54 PM

timujin: A friend of a friend's brother (yeah, I know, but still...) was recently convicted of a felony.  They didn't seize his guns, just told him he had to get rid of them or turn them in, so he "sold" them to his brother.


and when he gets caught he can expect a good 10 years of taking it in the keister
 
2013-03-13 04:18:57 PM
So did this person whose guns were confiscated receive due process of law as required by the 5th amendment?
 
2013-03-13 04:19:35 PM
If your too crazy to own a gun your too crazy to be on the street. Make mental health care available to those who need and get mentally unstable people the help they need. If your a danger to yourself or others you should be locked up in a mental health ward getting the treatment and help you need. If you aren't a danger to yourself or others than there is no reason to deprive you of your rights.
 
2013-03-13 04:19:49 PM

Satanic_Hamster: That's a whole lot of stupid in those comments.  So there's people who actually disagree with removing firearms from crazy people?


Crazy by whose standards? Yours, mine, I mean really I cab think of several people I khow who I consider crazy, however I do not consider them dangerous.  I understand what they are trying to do, but what are the guidlines for claiming someone is "crazy".  Is that for anyone who has had a bout with depression? someone who is bipolar?

And what's to prevent someone with mental health issues from lying about it when they go and purchase a gun.  Do  you honestly think that I would tell that I had an issue with depression?  Oh hell no.

And as far as I'm concerned, why do we keep felons from voting and having guns?  I think that if you pay for your crime your rights should be restored. Fully restored.  It's like making them pay over and over for something that they paid for by being in prison.

/not a felon.
/and only slightly crazy.
 
2013-03-13 04:19:59 PM

trey101: So tell me, which one is correct?


Considering you're linking to Glenn Beck's blog I'm going to go with "whatever is the opposite of what the page says"...
 
2013-03-13 04:20:46 PM

Sniper061: I'm all for having weapons removed from the hands of those deemed mentally ill, but in reality the whole system needs to be reworked.  Currently in California, the belief of a single health professional, be it a nurse, a psychiatrist, whatever, is enough for a person to be deemed a hazard to other people and lose their rights to own a weapon.  In other words, THEY HAVE NO DUE PROCESS before having their rights revoked.  If this situation were unique to California, it would be easy to chalk it up to another stupid California ordinance but in reality, it is like this in most states.

What needs to happen is that if a person is believed to be dangerous, there needs to have a hearing before a judge where that person has a chance to refute the claims.  As it stands, there have been way too many people involuntarily committed simply for being "slightly depressed" because a mental health professional doesn't want to be liable if that person goes out and harms themselves or someone else.  Having a judge actually make the call solves the problem of due process as well as relieves the burden of liability from the mental health professional.


That's pretty smart actually. I myself had depression medication thrown at me several times by therapists, which is kind of BS because they didn't want to work through the problem with me, they just want to cover it up with happy pills. I wasn't one of those people who was miserable for no discernable reason though- I had emotional trauma to work through (see previous dead husband six weeks after wedding thing). I didn't want drugs, I wanted help.

Many "mental health" professionals might have seen my refusal to take medication as rejecting help and possibly tried to get ME locked up, but luckily I found a good psych guy who didn't just want to write me an rx and send me on my way. I just wonder about the repercussions of what would have happened had one therapist decide I was a risk just because I didn't want to take the easy route to solve my issues and acted on it. That could have been bad.
 
2013-03-13 04:21:06 PM

trey101: insano: Ionessa: As a gun owner who does suffer from depression I'm somewhat torn on the issue. I understand wanting to disarm possibly dangerous people, but not everyone with a mental illness is going to go on a shooting spree.
Heck, of I was going to hurt myself, or someone else, my gun doesn't even come to mind (not that I would anyways.) But then again, that could be because of the way I was brought up, respecting guns.

/just don't group me in with the crazies.
//please?

The article says the law only applies to those who were  involuntarily committed, so you should be fine.

Guns of Law -Aiding husband confiscated after wife's single VOLUNTARY mental health visit.

So tell me, which one is correct?

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/12/calif-gun-owner-who-says- sh e-admitted-herself-to-mental-hospital-for-medication-adjustment-has-gu ns-confiscated/


The willingly gave away the guns. The could have told the cops at the door to fark off or just waved in the window at them and not answered and the cops couldn't have done a thing.

/america throwing away their rights
//not many left
 
2013-03-13 04:21:24 PM

mark12A: Plus, the government will s-l-o-w-l-y stretch out the definition of crazy (cray-cray??) until they can disarm anybody they want, at any time, like troulemaking political opponents.....


 THIS. My problem is how they define mentally ill.

 Already a buddies roommate discovered he had lost his ability to own firearms after applying  for a new handgun permit. He had a totally clean criminal record and no mental health issues or even a history of any care, so he pushed back and requested to know why they were taking his guns. They referred him to an incident decades ago in college where he drank too much and spent the night in a drunk tank and was then later released without charge. They can now consider that as an 'involuntary committal due to mental state' when regarding firearms ownership and >poof<, no right to own firearms.
 Another friend was told his application was denied due to a 'history of violence and contact with the police'. He fought it, and won, as when his lawyer finally forced them to release the report the incident in question was reporting a bully (violence) to the school resource officer in 8th grade (contact with police).

 They lost that one, but its clear places like New York are taking the position to deny and seize first and let the few who get lawyers go broke dragging it through court.
 
2013-03-13 04:22:07 PM
You might not believe it but I've been found to be 100% sane.  I even have paperwork to prove it.  The broad that insisted I be tested turned out to be nuts.
 
2013-03-13 04:22:57 PM

onyxruby: If your too crazy to own a gun your too crazy to be on the street. Make mental health care available to those who need and get mentally unstable people the help they need. If your a danger to yourself or others you should be locked up in a mental health ward getting the treatment and help you need. If you aren't a danger to yourself or others than there is no reason to deprive you of your rights.


But that will cost money!!!

Money that can be spent on more guns.

Sadly, this is SOP for the GOP.  Cut domestic programs, spend more on defense programs, wonder why we have issues at home that other first world countries have dealt with better(not necessarily resolved, just they don't cause as much of a problem for them), then deflect with "Bbbbut American Exceptionalism!!!!!" when some one brings up that would could also do better.
 
2013-03-13 04:23:21 PM

jigger: So did this person whose guns were confiscated receive due process of law as required by the 5th amendment?


Don't be silly. The Constitution was written by white male slaveowners, so it's of no importance.
 
2013-03-13 04:23:28 PM

Mirrorz: Amphipath: //puddle ice is way cooler to discuss.

That's crazy talk. You should be committed.

Ice is only bought in bags at convenience stores and grows in my refrigerator.
I've never seen that stuff outside.


Hey, I'm not kidding. This was a lot of ice. I mean, I've smashed some ice in my day, but this took some time...

i.imgur.com
 
2013-03-13 04:23:35 PM

treesloth: Cymbal: I don't know what their fark handles are though, but I'm pretty sure one of them is tenpoundsofcheese

Isn't that considered to be "calling out"?


No, and stop being a pussy.
 
2013-03-13 04:24:17 PM

jigger: So did this person whose guns were confiscated receive due process of law as required by the 5th amendment?


Maybe you should try reading and comprehending the article before you post things that make no sense within its context.
 
2013-03-13 04:24:44 PM

Amphipath: I was late to work today because I stopped to smash all the thin, delicate ice that formed above a massive puddle on my walk in. I love breaking it. I could do it for hours, and I'm no spring chicken. Just brings the kid out in me. What do you guys think about smashing ice on puddles?

/fark the boring gun topic.
//puddle ice is way cooler to discuss.


I thought you were letting us know to take your guns away.
 
2013-03-13 04:25:52 PM

EvilRacistNaziFascist: peaking of communists, didn't they use the charge of "mental illness" to marginalize political opposition? God knows that many on the modern Left like to define practically every conservative viewpoint nowadays as "fringe", "extreme", the result of some "phobia" or "-ism" or deficiency of intellect or character, etc. Psychiatric diagnoses are not, despite popular opinion, founded in objective science, but are merely convenient guidelines capable of being manipulated for political purposes -- and if the right to gun ownership is made dependent upon a clean bill of mental health, the definition of who is mentally healthy will end up being greatly narrowed in the interests of gun control.


heroes.ph

You sound paranoid. And like you have no idea what you're talking about.
 
2013-03-13 04:27:13 PM

kiwimoogle84: Sniper061: I'm all for having weapons removed from the hands of those deemed mentally ill, but in reality the whole system needs to be reworked.  Currently in California, the belief of a single health professional, be it a nurse, a psychiatrist, whatever, is enough for a person to be deemed a hazard to other people and lose their rights to own a weapon.  In other words, THEY HAVE NO DUE PROCESS before having their rights revoked.  If this situation were unique to California, it would be easy to chalk it up to another stupid California ordinance but in reality, it is like this in most states.

What needs to happen is that if a person is believed to be dangerous, there needs to have a hearing before a judge where that person has a chance to refute the claims.  As it stands, there have been way too many people involuntarily committed simply for being "slightly depressed" because a mental health professional doesn't want to be liable if that person goes out and harms themselves or someone else.  Having a judge actually make the call solves the problem of due process as well as relieves the burden of liability from the mental health professional.

That's pretty smart actually. I myself had depression medication thrown at me several times by therapists, which is kind of BS because they didn't want to work through the problem with me, they just want to cover it up with happy pills. I wasn't one of those people who was miserable for no discernable reason though- I had emotional trauma to work through (see previous dead husband six weeks after wedding thing). I didn't want drugs, I wanted help.

Many "mental health" professionals might have seen my refusal to take medication as rejecting help and possibly tried to get ME locked up, but luckily I found a good psych guy who didn't just want to write me an rx and send me on my way. I just wonder about the repercussions of what would have happened had one therapist decide I was a risk just because I didn't want to take the easy ...


you know, there are some days I come to fark and I just want to hug people.
 
2013-03-13 04:27:17 PM

Lehk: timujin: A friend of a friend's brother (yeah, I know, but still...) was recently convicted of a felony.  They didn't seize his guns, just told him he had to get rid of them or turn them in, so he "sold" them to his brother.

and when he gets caught he can expect a good 10 years of taking it in the keister


Caught doing what?  If he's allowed to sell them, what would keep him from selling them to his brother?
 
2013-03-13 04:27:28 PM

monoski: Sounds like a good program. The mentally ill and felons should not have guns.


Of course they shouldn't....but to legislate this is to not have any known guns in their hands. It would not address the fact that they will have them.

It isn't a matter of making guns illegal for felons (a friend is a convicted felon, for bank fraud; dangerous guy, there) or mentally ill. It's a matter of getting rid of the ones who shoot people. It won't stop the crazy, but if every crime committed with a firearm had a death penalty, there would be less chance of the shootings...at least, the second one.
 
2013-03-13 04:27:30 PM

Happy Hours: monoski: Sounds like a good program. The mentally ill and felons should not have guns.

Define "mentally ill" for us, please.


That's easy.... Anyone that doesn't agree with ME!
 
2013-03-13 04:27:32 PM
Getting dizzy from the movement of the goalposts.
 
2013-03-13 04:27:47 PM

skozlaw: jigger: So did this person whose guns were confiscated receive due process of law as required by the 5th amendment?

Maybe you should try reading and comprehending the article before you post things that make no sense within its context.


This person was deprived of property by the state. According to the 5th amendment, this requires due process of law. Did this person receive it? I'd like to know if what happened is considered due process.
 
2013-03-13 04:28:14 PM

Bastard Toadflax: I'll bet you think Red Dawn was a documentary.


The original was actually quite well made.  It was well researched, mostly consistent internally, and it was actually a fairly realistic assessment:  Teens and young adults used to hunting and camping in a particular area would probably have a pretty good record against second and third-string occupation troops, but would get slaughtered pretty quickly when they bring in the professionals.

Remember, they all die except for 2 of them (Danny and Erica), and it doesn't take all that long, either:

September:  Soviets invade.
October:  Group is still hiding in the woods.
November: The "Wolverines" start taking action instead of just hiding.
January: The Spetznaz arrive.
March:  They're all dead except for the two who run away.

Plus, the "bad guys" are often shown in a rather sympathetic light, with one exception.
 
2013-03-13 04:28:34 PM

EvilRacistNaziFascist: Don't be silly. The Constitution was written by white male slaveowners, so it's of no importance.


Well, if a random New York Times op-ed writer speaks for the left in your mind, you don't get the right to marginalize any member of the GOP media brigade when they say something stupid.

Q.E.D. Todd Akin now represents the mainstream Republican party.
 
Displayed 50 of 438 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report