rushmc 23 #551 January 12, 2011 QuoteQuoteI know that pisses off the lawyers who see that as a threat to their revenue stream ... god forbid the shrinks should get all that money instead of the lawyers after some jackwagon shoots 20 or more people. Amazon, If simply by your rants that I have observed over time, here, would cause me any concern of a "jackwagon" who would shoot em up at the dz, I would have to dispatch the paddy wagon to your door, hold you down, and give you a good dose of Haldol decanoate. Between your angst for others who you disagree, your piss poor knowledge of anything about mental health (keep in mind, I am licensed in 4 states, and have worked at three state forensic institutions, one state hospital and 7 prisons, treating the worst of the worst, that no one else wants to treat) and your rants and ramblings, I suspect that there are a few screws that can be tightened in your own brain. This, however, does not, thankfully, for you, give me justification to lock you up, take away your guns, knives, plastic sporks, and nail clippers, and start forcing you into treatment. You have as much right to be as nutty as you are as the rest of us. Even as a psychiatrist, I can no more predict who will blow than you can. Forcing treatment in a blanket fashion because someone "may blow" is not appropriate. Although, if someday, on dz.com, it's announced that Amazon took out a few jumpers at the dz, it wouldn't surprise me. Wow +1 But now the issue will become (if you take away the ability to remove guns from nutters as kallend likes to post) the guns themselves. Not much wiggle room here it apears huh kallend"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #552 January 12, 2011 Quote Quote Quote I know that pisses off the lawyers who see that as a threat to their revenue stream ... god forbid the shrinks should get all that money instead of the lawyers after some jackwagon shoots 20 or more people. Amazon, If simply by your rants that I have observed over time, here, would cause me any concern of a "jackwagon" who would shoot em up at the dz, I would have to dispatch the paddy wagon to your door, hold you down, and give you a good dose of Haldol decanoate. Between your angst for others who you disagree, your piss poor knowledge of anything about mental health (keep in mind, I am licensed in 4 states, and have worked at three state forensic institutions, one state hospital and 7 prisons, treating the worst of the worst, that no one else wants to treat) and your rants and ramblings, I suspect that there are a few screws that can be tightened in your own brain. This, however, does not, thankfully, for you, give me justification to lock you up, take away your guns, knives, plastic sporks, and nail clippers, and start forcing you into treatment. You have as much right to be as nutty as you are as the rest of us. Even as a psychiatrist, I can no more predict who will blow than you can. Forcing treatment in a blanket fashion because someone "may blow" is not appropriate. Although, if someday, on dz.com, it's announced that Amazon took out a few jumpers at the dz, it wouldn't surprise me. Wow... just WowYou know.. if I said anything like that to you I would be banned permanently.. Heal thyself doc. A PA?? Get a grip girl He used a very good example from a perspective that few here have The same could be posted about any of us from a professional view point as this poster seems to have What really upsets you is the nailed it right on the head And since you can not counter it YOU whine and complain His point was sharp Best we all think about it"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DFWAJG 4 #553 January 12, 2011 QuoteBut its far more fun when you go off on a rant and totally nutup So you have driven home one of my points: Why the mentally ill are so misunderstood. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #554 January 12, 2011 Quote Quote A two-word nastygram and then a pm lock-out? I don't get it. Because I appreciate somebody with some practical knowledge posting? There was no intent to hammer on you from me. OK, then. So be it. Quote Finally! Somebody with some level-headed knowledge and expertise! Thanks be to you That post????... as the next post to that vile stinking pile of garbage....passed off as a "professional" opinionyeah... Yes. That post. I was only addressing my appreciation for the post from a person that works in the mental health field. For the record, DFWAJG's post would have been much more "professional" had she not included the vitriol directed towards you. It was unnecessary and uncalled for. She should apologize for the attack.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #555 January 12, 2011 I don't think anyone here disagrees with the idea that those deemed a danger to themselves or others should not have access to weapons of any sort. That's not the issue as far as I can tell. The issue, IMO, is how one goes about determining that they are, indeed, a danger to themselves or others. I'll leave that to the pros. What I'm disagreeing with here is the idea that everyone should have to be subjected to mental health screening trying to determine who "might" have problems prior to there being any indication of problems. There is no way in hell, as far as I know, that anyone can accurately predict who is going to get pissed off, buy a gun and go on a rampage...no way. Anybody could do that at any time. I think getting people to prove they are sane enough to buy a weapon by "passing" a mental health exam is a wrong approach to minimizing the occurrences of rampages of murder. We're ALL crazy until proven sane doesn't work for me. Maybe that's 'cause I'm crazy...I dunno. Hell, if you wanna do dat, make up a mental health test for politicians....oh wait...who then would pass all the laws that screw us?My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #556 January 12, 2011 QuoteWhat I'm disagreeing with here is the idea that everyone should have to be subjected to mental health screening trying to determine who "might" have problems prior to there being any indication of problems. Bingo. But it goes even further. It's prior to not only an "indication of problems" but prior to any "problem" at all. We've got criminal minds who roam free because they haven't done anything yet and we don't do prophylactic imprisonment. Gotta keep guns away from "nutters" but not from the evil. Put the nutters away before they can do anything but give the sane sociopaths chance after chance after chance... QuoteThere is no way in hell, as far as I know, that anyone can accurately predict who is going to get pissed off, buy a gun and go on a rampage...no way. Anybody could do that at any time. Yep. It's exactly what DFWAJG was saying. There's no way any mental health professional can predict who will blow and how they will blow. And people with no history can blow it. What's the difference between evil and insane? And what's a practical example of the problems we have with any system of identification? Marvin Gaye's father. He had an undiagnosed brain tumor that made him blow and shoot his own son with a pistol that Marvin gave him. Who knew? Who could have predicted it? Nobody. Not even MArvin Gaye's dad. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #557 January 12, 2011 I heard a very old highly respected psychiatrist that talked about how much more difficult it is lately to have a person involuntarily committed. Can you address that issue? Is it because of the reforms under Reagan? Do you think reform was needed but went too far? Please let us know what you think about the changes and what you'd like to see from an insider's perspective. You claim to have a high threshold for when you want to do this, but even if someone meets that standard, is it hard to make it happen (forced treatment/involuntary commitment)?People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Falcon1 0 #558 January 12, 2011 News Update: Jared Loughner’s friend says suspect ‘Did not watch TV … disliked the news’ This morning on “Good Morning America,” ABC’s Ashleigh Banfield sat down with Zach Osler, a high school friend of Jared Loughner, the suspect in the Tucson massacre. Osler says his friend wasn’t shooting at people, “he was shooting at the world.” Regarding the high-pitched talk radio and cable news political rhetoric, Osler says his friend didn’t even watch the news. He did not watch TV. He disliked the news. He didn’t listen to political radio. He didn’t take sides. He wasn’t on the left. He wasn’t on the right. http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/jared-loughners-friend-says-suspect-did-not-watch-tv-disliked-the-news_b48040 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lefty 0 #559 January 12, 2011 And from NPR: Unclear Whether Shooter's Motivation Was PoliticalProvoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,990 #560 January 12, 2011 Your one warning. Cut it out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TankBuster 0 #561 January 13, 2011 Interesting that this gets turned into a gun thread. Fact is, bad things happen every single day. You can't prevent it, you can't predict it. But the liberals take every opportunity to convince us we can - "if you will only give us a little more money, if we can only take a few more freedoms, if only.... " Same shit, different tragedy. But, like Rahm says, never let a crisis go to waste.The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #562 January 13, 2011 QuoteQuoteJUSTICE Scalia (along with a majority of the Supremes) doesn't seem to have a problem with limiting certain rights. I think the opinion of SCOTUS carries more weight than your "the sky will fall" opinion, even if you are a lawyer. What Justice Scalia thinks doesn't control, Kallend. Unless, of course, he is in the majority. Since you seem to have forgotten, Counselor, Justice Scalia WROTE for the majority in Heller.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,990 #563 January 13, 2011 >Same shit, different tragedy. But, like Rahm says, never let a crisis go to waste. Exactly. Heck, the Tea Partyers used it to raise money. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TankBuster 0 #564 January 13, 2011 Quote>Same shit, different tragedy. But, like Rahm says, never let a crisis go to waste. Exactly. Heck, the Tea Partyers used it to raise money. specifics?The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,990 #565 January 13, 2011 >specifics? =========================== From the Tea Party Express letter: This weekend we all were horrified to hear the news of the violent shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and several others in Arizona. One thing that surprised us was how many in the news media and liberal political figures and organizations immediately launched into an attack on the tea party movement - assigning blame for the shooting to our grass roots, Constitutionalist movement in general, and Gov. Sarah Palin in particular. Friends, this is outrageous. It is quite clear that liberals are trying to exploit this shooting for their own political benefit, and they used deception and dishonesty to try and smear all of us and our beliefs. . . . We ask you to please stand with the Tea Party Express and show your support for our efforts. You can make a contribution online right now to the Tea Party Express - CLICK HERE TO CONTRIBUTE. ================== Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #566 January 13, 2011 Funny how you cite a specific situation to demonstrate the general rule that I described. Not exactly doctoral level knowledge required for that, but my 6 year old is understanding it now. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #567 January 13, 2011 Quote>Same shit, different tragedy. But, like Rahm says, never let a crisis go to waste. Exactly. Heck, the Tea Partyers used it to raise money. So did the Dems...and Sanders.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TankBuster 0 #568 January 13, 2011 Sounds more like they were exploiting the dem reaction to the the tragedy rather than the tragedy itself. In any case it's an appeal to a voluntary contrubution. The reaction of the progressives to something like this is to create social programs, grow fedzilla, tax, and chop away at rights. We can fix this. With enough tax dollars and subjugation, we can fix it! Then one day we wake up in the USSR. You might be on the Nutcase Determination Board, drawing a fat govt check but be careful. If you piss off somebody in the Politburo, you end up the next one to be committed.The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #569 January 13, 2011 Looks like a templated letter rather that one trying to take advantage of a situation. Every letter I get all the way from the NRA to Consumer Reports, Checkbook Magazine etc. asks for donations in every mailer. This is nothing, nor do I think it was sent out to try and make money on anybody's emotions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #570 January 13, 2011 QuoteFunny how you cite a specific situation to demonstrate the general rule that I described. Not exactly doctoral level knowledge required for that, but my 6 year old is understanding it now. Citing relevant cases is still acceptable in courts of justice, counselor. Heller is relevant to the scope of the rights we are discussing, and Scalia did write the opinion.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #571 January 13, 2011 QuoteQuoteFunny how you cite a specific situation to demonstrate the general rule that I described. Not exactly doctoral level knowledge required for that, but my 6 year old is understanding it now. Citing relevant cases is still acceptable in courts of justice, counselor. Heller is relevant to the scope of the rights we are discussing, and Scalia did write the opinion. Keeping and bearing arms is still a right in the United States of America, professor."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #572 January 13, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteFunny how you cite a specific situation to demonstrate the general rule that I described. Not exactly doctoral level knowledge required for that, but my 6 year old is understanding it now. Citing relevant cases is still acceptable in courts of justice, counselor. Heller is relevant to the scope of the rights we are discussing, and Scalia did write the opinion. Keeping and bearing arms is still a right in the United States of America, professor. Read Heller and learn something.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #573 January 13, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteFunny how you cite a specific situation to demonstrate the general rule that I described. Not exactly doctoral level knowledge required for that, but my 6 year old is understanding it now. Citing relevant cases is still acceptable in courts of justice, counselor. Heller is relevant to the scope of the rights we are discussing, and Scalia did write the opinion. Keeping and bearing arms is still a right in the United States of America, professor. Read Heller and learn something. You already made this comment. Do you not remember my response? Read the United States Constitution ..."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 798 #574 January 13, 2011 The first time I read it I learned something. That I don't live in DC. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #575 January 13, 2011 QuoteQuoteFunny how you cite a specific situation to demonstrate the general rule that I described. Not exactly doctoral level knowledge required for that, but my 6 year old is understanding it now. Citing relevant cases is still acceptable in courts of justice, counselor. Heller is relevant to the scope of the rights we are discussing, and Scalia did write the opinion. Yes, it's relevant because Heller contained dictum that the holding does not affect the banning of firearms possessions by the metally ill or by felons. However, such a holding is a red herring in this discussion, because the point addressed is, "How does one keep firearms from the vast numbers of those who are undiagnosed mentally ill?" Before pne can deprive a person of a right, there has to be some adjudicated disqualification. It's pretty easy to do with felons - they aren't felons until they are adjudicated as such. So, in another sense, it's back to the question - "How could the government Constitutionally have kept Loughner from getting a gun?" Tell me your solution, John. I haven't heard one from you yet. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
