DFWAJG 4
Some With Histories of Mental Illness Petition to Get Their Gun Rights Back
By
quade, in Speakers Corner
QuoteQuoteBut mentally ill don't deserve human rights. They are subhuman.
In a court of law, do judges allow you to make such wild leaps?
You've used the term several times in this thread, but to my knowledge, nobody else has suggested they're "subhuman."
What's that called? Leading a witness?
Because when all people are entitled to certain rights, then they are called "human rights.". When something is not entitled to these rights, it therefore must not be human.
All people are guaranteed rights under the Constituition. For you or anyone else to argue that they shouldn't receive those rights means that they are subhuman. "They aren't people.".
I'm hearing the same said of mentally ill as was said about blacks throughout history. "Can't have a nigger running around! He might kill a white woman."
"What about his Constitutional rights?"
"He's a nigger. He can't exercise his rights responsibly."
My wife is hotter than your wife.
DFWAJG 4
And another thing Quade...In the original article regarding Mr. Bear-talking-man, he was evaluated by a psychiatrist who considered his symptoms controlled with treatment. The judge took into consideration the direction of the psychiatrist. I know plenty of Bipolar patients who hold very high profile jobs making very high profile decisions and life and death decisions, when under treatment and taking their medications. I know many a surgeon with bipolar disorder, doing very well and delivering quality care to their patients, while in treatment.
quade 4
QuoteQuoteQuoteBut mentally ill don't deserve human rights. They are subhuman.
In a court of law, do judges allow you to make such wild leaps?
You've used the term several times in this thread, but to my knowledge, nobody else has suggested they're "subhuman."
What's that called? Leading a witness?
Because when all people are entitled to certain rights, then they are called "human rights.". When something is not entitled to these rights, it therefore must not be human.
All people are guaranteed rights under the Constituition. For you or anyone else to argue that they shouldn't receive those rights means that they are subhuman. "They aren't people.".
I'm hearing the same said of mentally ill as was said about blacks throughout history. "Can't have a nigger running around! He might kill a white woman."
"What about his Constitutional rights?"
"He's a nigger. He can't exercise his rights responsibly."
Nonsense and as a lawyer you should know better. Shame on you.
A person under suspicion of murder can easily be taken into jail where I'm nearly certain he'll have quite a few rights except one in particular; the right to have a gun.
That doesn't mean he's "subhuman." It means that under certain circumstances people do, in fact, lose that right.
If convicted, he further loses his right to own a gun forever, whether or not he's kept in jail or paroled.
If paroled and without the right to a gun, does THAT make him "subhuman"? Nonsense.
Or am I wrong?
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
Quote
On the whole it seems that a loonie with a gun is slightly more of an immediate risk to society than a loonie with a vote.
How many people did our last President kill? Our current one? How many did loonies kill?
Paul - the guy is deprived of his gun after establishing probable cause that he committed a crime. Didn't happen with bear guy. No crime was even alleged.
what happens if the defendant is found not guilty? Oh. That's right! He gets his gun back. If a person is found to have not committed a crime, that person gets all rights.
You suggest that the person who isn't even charged with a crime be equated with a person found guilty. What crime did the guy in your original post commit? And what on earth did a gun have to do with anything that guy was accused of doing?
Committed no crime and did not use a weapon in whatever he did. And he got his gun back. For that you are outraged.
Yep. Policy by stigma... When discussing wild leaps - see your initial post.
Ps - a person who was paroled was in prison. That means felony. Convicted of a felony. It's pretty well established that felons and weapons don't go together. The mentally ill - who have committed no crime - do not deserve this treatment, do they? You make the leap between paroled felon and mentally ill person who committed no crime? What's this about "leaps?"
Pps - paroled means released with conditions. The release is subject to conditions, such as a waiver of fourth amendment protections against unwarranted searches, you equate a mentally ill person with a convicyed felon who agreed to a waiver of rihts as a condition of release from prison? What's this about leaps?
Finally - the person arrested for a felony has been arraigned. Due process, yes? Yep. He has the opportunity to argue before a judge BEFORE his weapons are seized. The mentally ill guy who wasn't even before a judge before his weapons were seized?
I love how you rquate mental illness with felony. It proves my point. "We do it to felons after judicial process. We should just do it to the mentally ill without judicial process."
How about equating the mentally ill with a diabetic? You've got a closer fit.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
what happens if the defendant is found not guilty? Oh. That's right! He gets his gun back. If a person is found to have not committed a crime, that person gets all rights.
You suggest that the person who isn't even charged with a crime be equated with a person found guilty. What crime did the guy in your original post commit? And what on earth did a gun have to do with anything that guy was accused of doing?
Committed no crime and did not use a weapon in whatever he did. And he got his gun back. For that you are outraged.
Yep. Policy by stigma... When discussing wild leaps - see your initial post.
Ps - a person who was paroled was in prison. That means felony. Convicted of a felony. It's pretty well established that felons and weapons don't go together. The mentally ill - who have committed no crime - do not deserve this treatment, do they? You make the leap between paroled felon and mentally ill person who committed no crime? What's this about "leaps?"
Pps - paroled means released with conditions. The release is subject to conditions, such as a waiver of fourth amendment protections against unwarranted searches, you equate a mentally ill person with a convicyed felon who agreed to a waiver of rihts as a condition of release from prison? What's this about leaps?
Finally - the person arrested for a felony has been arraigned. Due process, yes? Yep. He has the opportunity to argue before a judge BEFORE his weapons are seized. The mentally ill guy who wasn't even before a judge before his weapons were seized?
I love how you rquate mental illness with felony. It proves my point. "We do it to felons after judicial process. We should just do it to the mentally ill without judicial process."
How about equating the mentally ill with a diabetic? You've got a closer fit.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
billvon 3,008
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>Wrong. The constitution does not apply to only "sane" people.
Many parts of it do indeed only apply to sane people. That's why there is a mechanism to remove some of the rights of insane people.
>I can only take away those rights if they are "a danger to others, a danger
> to him/her self, or unable to provide the basic necessities of life such as
>?food, clothing, shelter or capacity to make and understand health care
> decisions.
WHAT? You want to deny someone who has trouble eating the right to LIFE? What are you going to do, tell them they can't live out their lives unless they eat what you want them to?
But again, seriously, I know you understand this and are just arguing to argue. You've just said the same thing that I was saying above. Indeed, you're a bit more restrictive than I am; you would take away their rights if they simply cannot understand health care decisions, which is a much larger set than the set of people who threaten violence or cannot understand right and wrong.
>Just because my patient was hearing voices, did not mean that that
>patient was not capable of making decisions for himself.
Of course. But if he told you "I was told by God to get my gun and kill my crazy bitch of a wife, and then kill myself" I have a feeling you wouldn't say "well, nothing more I can do here; you're free to go."
Many parts of it do indeed only apply to sane people. That's why there is a mechanism to remove some of the rights of insane people.
>I can only take away those rights if they are "a danger to others, a danger
> to him/her self, or unable to provide the basic necessities of life such as
>?food, clothing, shelter or capacity to make and understand health care
> decisions.
WHAT? You want to deny someone who has trouble eating the right to LIFE? What are you going to do, tell them they can't live out their lives unless they eat what you want them to?
But again, seriously, I know you understand this and are just arguing to argue. You've just said the same thing that I was saying above. Indeed, you're a bit more restrictive than I am; you would take away their rights if they simply cannot understand health care decisions, which is a much larger set than the set of people who threaten violence or cannot understand right and wrong.
>Just because my patient was hearing voices, did not mean that that
>patient was not capable of making decisions for himself.
Of course. But if he told you "I was told by God to get my gun and kill my crazy bitch of a wife, and then kill myself" I have a feeling you wouldn't say "well, nothing more I can do here; you're free to go."
quade 4
QuoteI love how you rquate mental illness with felony. It proves my point. "We do it to felons after judicial process . . ."
Wrong again counselor, we do it as part of the process before we even make the ultimate determination of guilt.
Once it's determined a person isn't a threat, rights are restored.
The original article points out that in the case of the mentally ill, the determination process is messed up.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
ChrisL 2
Quote
Once it's determined a person isn't a threat, rights are restored.
The original article points out that in the case of the mentally ill, the determination process is messed up.
As is the restoration of rights that are erroneously revoked.
__
My mighty steed
My mighty steed
Wrong. The constitution does not apply to only "sane" people. The constitution protects us all: Black, white, yellow, tall, small, married, divorced, gay, straight, diabetics, HIV, cardiovascular patients, smokers, drinkers, bipolar disordered people and schizophrenics. I am not comfortable with taking away someone's rights because he/she has a mental illness. While there have been times where I have had to admit someone involuntarily, or medicate them involuntarily, I have not done so simply because they are "insane." I can only take away those rights if they are "a danger to others, a danger to him/her self, or unable to provide the basic necessities of life such as food, clothing, shelter or capacity to make and understand health care decisions.
One can be "crazy" but still understand his health care decisions, or be functional in society. I have had plenty of psychotic individuals, who have chosen not to take medications for their illness because of side-effects, etc and they have had legitimate concerns over long term side-effects. Just because my patient was hearing voices, did not mean that that patient was not capable of making decisions for himself.
For Billvon and Quade, I suggest you read The Quiet Room by Lori Schiller and Amanda Bennett so that you can gain a little insight towards the life of a schizophrenic patient. Neither of you have any empathy nor any understanding of severe mental illnesses. Do yourself a favor and educate yourself. NAMI is another good resource for the two of you. I am appalled by your ignorance.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites