Will we/they create a witch hunt?

Status
Not open for further replies.
In Arizona and Connecticut, it was parents knowing there was something wrong with their kids and not doing right.
 
Presuming mentally ill persons are violent is a mistake. The only reasonably reliable criteria for predicting future violent behavior is previous violent behavior, whether a mental illness is manifested or not.
 
For the love of the constitution. Removing someone's rights without going to court is denying someone DUE PROCESS. These threads keep popping up and in my humble opinion if you want to take away someone's rights you should have to take them to court otherwise you are violating the 14th and the 20th Amendment period.
 
First of all:

With so many kids being "diagnosed" as having ADD/ADHD nowadays, many are getting classed as "mental" because of that. They may find it hard to get guns later because of this insidious diagnosis.
Click to expand...

The ADD/ADHD thing came to a head in the 1990s, and while still overdiagnosed, is no longer the cop-out du jour. These days it's all about Austism spectrum disorders, including Aspergers. ADD/ADHD targeted the kids with behavioral issues.
The Autism spectrum is scarier because basically any socially awkward kid gets tagged with it.
Having known kids with both real ADD and real Austism, I can tell you they are both very much real disorders. There is no question.
BUT, the overdiagnosis is also very real. Also, with the new DSM V coming out next month expect major changes because now that we are moving to a spectrum style of diagnosis/classifications (a much better system when used correctly), you'll see that someone can be tagged as having elements of X disorder without the full complement of symptoms. If used incorrectly, i fear this may be used to find that any one of us could be classified as nuts if we display any of the symptoms of a disorder.

We all have our quirks. Any neurotic thing you do could label you with components of Anxiety disorder (you clean the gun EVERY time you shoot it? Whoa. OCD here we come baby!). Ever have a day when you're just "down?" BAM, elements of depression.

I'm oversimplifying it, but you get the drift. We are indeed traveling down a dangerous path.
 
Axel Larson said:
For the love of the constitution. Removing someone's rights without going to court is denying someone DUE PROCESS. These threads keep popping up and in my humble opinion if you want to take away someone's rights you should have to take them to court otherwise you are violating the 14th and the 20th Amendment period.
Click to expand...
The 20th amendment? What does the 20th amendment have to do with due process?
 
I have a mental issue that I feel prevents me from having a handgun nearby. I had a car wreck and have had a severe TBI. There is no medical method for testing this type of mental illness. None. I am extremely intelligent 75% of the time but there are times that I am confused. I can buy "arms" but should never carry them. I have several but these are kept by my father. I am a witch but have no desire to again hunt.

1. Lord Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren told the defense in the Fincher trial the words "second amendment" could not be used. BAD *
2. Lord Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren decided that schools could not require children to get parental permission to check out "Harry Potter" books from the library. GOOD Free Speech.... IMO
3. Lord Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren invalidated the Visual Artists Rights Act from 1990 by deciding "online" was exempted.
Neeley v NameMedia Inc et al, (5:09-cv-5151) BAD Free Speech
3a. Lord Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren repealed an act of congress. BAD​
3b. Curtis J Neeley Jr told Lord Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren these current rulings were indications of senility or of mental deterioration on Dec 9, 2010 face to face. OOPs *​
4. Lord Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren dismissed Neeley Jr v FCC et al, (12-cv-5208)(13-1506) involving Google Inc and Microsoft Corporation bypassing adult filtration to show naked photos to children as was allowed by the malfeasant FCC. BAD
4a. Lord Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren compared this to
Neeley v NameMedia Inc et al, (5:09-cv-5151) inappropriately. BAD *
4b. Lord Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren admitted senior status
Dec. 31, 2012 about six years after becoming eligible. GOOD
​


1* There is a fundamental right to keep and bear arms but this fundamental right can be limited a great deal. Automatic weapons were never included although "assault weapons" of the day were. Magazine capacities can be argued well for either side. Fincher should have been able to tell the jury that his understanding was that the 2nd amendment included automatic weapons as was incorrect. This might could have mitigated his sentencing not by insanity but by mental defect?

3b* This was perhaps one of my less intelligent claims. Senior status judge Lord Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren may be culturally irrelevant today and will be a corpse due to age long before me. I will be telling how idiotic and presumptive he was long after his death. Painting a bulls-eye on myself by calling Lord Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren senile or displaying mental deterioration was ignorant and did not need to be said at the time and was "Fincher-esque". This is how history will record Lord Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren but there should not be another generation to remember anyway given Israel's re-establishment in 1948.

4b* Donate via PayPal to fund the Eighth Circuit appeal if not allowed IFP.
 
The truth is we're all insane!

That's the problem with the idea of mental illness, the human brain is naturally eccentric. The only believer in a society of atheists would be seen as mad, just as the only atheist in a society of believers would be seen as mad. But once a few hundred thousand people feel the same way it ceases to be madness and becomes a worldview.

Sanity is not statistical, just because it is the norm doesn't mean its right. I'm not saying psychiatry and mental illness are bunk, I'm just saying when we talk about the mentally ill, we need to make sure we mean the dangerous deranged mentally ill and not the eccentric/somewhat unsettled person that we all know because to someone else, that person is you.
 
Everyone that has applied for social security or veterans disability will be on the "no guns" list. During the application process if you are not anxious and a little paranoid there is really something wrong with you.
 
What, exactly, are we talking about here, Curtis?
Click to expand...
The fact that mental disabilities are difficult to diagnose SHOULD still preclude arms ownership if detectable. There should be a jury type process for precluding arms ownership that can be invoked just as incompetence is done or another jury type process. One doctor's opinion is just that. One opinion.

Lord Jimm Larry Hendren was right sometimes even though Lord Jimm Larry Hendren was very wrong sometimes. Lord Jimm Larry Hendren was right sometimes but was right in ways that are offensive. Calling the sitting judge senile to his face was ignorant even if true.

"THEY" will turn ANY abuse of "arms" into whatever "witch" they decide to hunt. Its perpetually open season on witches. Ha.
 
The witch hunt is already in-progress and some on this very forum support it. (There's a big, locked thread at the top of this forum tagged "Mental Health is the Issue, Not Guns and Armed Guards in Schools is not the Solution" in which the author, a Moderator here at THR, espouses the idea that: )

Back in the 1980s we (as a society) decided that treating the mentally ill by institutionalizing them was cruel and inhumane. And it was expensive. States closed most of their mental hospitals and sanitariums. Advocacy groups pushed an agenda of mainstreaming the mentally ill.
Click to expand...

And then goes even further to say that:

Suddenly we were having a "homeless" problem...
Click to expand...

Would fixing our mental health system stop all mass shootings? No, of course not. But I think it would lower the risk tremendously and have the other positive effect of dealing with the homeless problem and the jail overcrowding problem. The benefits to society would be worth the cost.
Click to expand...

He never flat out says "I want more people institutionalized!" but the implication is clear. He sees the "mentally ill" not being held in institutions for their entire natural lifespans as offensive. He wants to return to the past when that was the case and that somehow, magically, this would prevent mass shootings.

Nevermind that there were Numerous mass killings prior to the 1980s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers:_Americas), the most notorious and recent of which is probably the UTexas-Austin Belltower sniper, Charles Whitman: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman

Nevermind that in some cases prior to the actual shooting there was never Any indication of mental illness on the part of the shooter.

Nevermind that in the grand majority of cases the mentally ill are actually less violent and more passive than the average person. (Source: http://depts.washington.edu/mhreport/facts_violence.php , (that's not where I originally read that fact, but it does contain the same information))

My obvious point being, (And I will tell you this, rather than just implying it, as the author of the quotes above does), that throwing a massive segment of society under the bus to supposedly save future victims from mass killings is a pipe dream. No One is made safer when the mentally ill are stigmatized even further. And No One benefits from this ongoing witch hunt.
 
SleazyRider said:
Straight from the Center for Disease Control's website: http://www.cdc.gov/mentalhealthsurveillance/ . I'm thinkin' 25% is about right, though on some days I swear it's hovering around 90%! :D

I'm unaware of the existence of a "psychiatric lobby," but I suppose anything's possible in the lobbying world.
Click to expand...

SleazyRider,
I don't deny you read it. But don't ya think that someone (or a group) is behind the 25% number? Maybe someone with a financial stake in finding and labeling more and more persons as being mentally ill? See the URL below and the quote from it. It is just one of many that I found.

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/05/14/be-wary-american-psychiatric-association

The labels in the DSM-V (like the Diagnostic and Statistical Manuals that came before it) have really become little more than the roadmap by which psychiatrists chase both insurance reimbursement and applause from special interest groups who lobby—sometimes very effectively—for one diagnosis to be included, or another to be removed.
Click to expand...

chuck
 
Last edited:
He never flat out says "I want more people institutionalized!" but the implication is clear. He sees the "mentally ill" not being held in institutions for their entire natural lifespans as offensive. He wants to return to the past when that was the case and that somehow, magically, this would prevent mass shootings.
Click to expand...

I deal with a lot of what are politely referred to as mental health consumers in my job and my belief is that there is a happier medium somewhere in between the 1960s style commit-&-throw-away-the-key approach and our current system where patients are discharged from mental health facilities as fast as the paperwork can get written, even when there is allegedly a 72 hour hold or court paperwork supporting inpatient evaluation and care. Most people with mental illness, even some of the pretty bizarre ones out there, probably don't need involuntary inpatient care for the long term, but the reality is that those who do -- and who present red flag after red flag for violent behavior -- do need it and they don't get it very effectively under our current system.
 
steelerdude99 said:
SleazyRider,
I don't deny you read it. But don't ya think that someone (or a group) is behind the 25% number? Maybe someone with a financial stake in finding and labeling more and more persons as being mentally ill? See the URL below and the quote from it. It is just one of many that I found.

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/05/14/be-wary-american-psychiatric-association



chuck
Click to expand...
You might be on to something there, Steelerdude; I mean, look at the all the labels education has placed on kids over the decades, that has kept many a teacher employed. Seems that an inordinate amount are "classified" as in need special services these days.
I'm an old guy---they didn't make excuses for my poor behavior back in the day. I'm glad I didn't wear a label that excused me from straightening up and flying right.
 
Those that want to include all mental illness need to be reminded that being a homosexual was considered a mental illness not too long ago. Pretty sure the mentally ill are not capable of consenting to any sort of contract, including marriage. They are setting themselves up for issues further down the road.
Click to expand...

And coming soon to a state near you, not completely accepting and embracing the complete normalization of the homosexual lifestyle will be seen as a form of mental illness. Utter a viewpoint that said community does not like, and perhaps your gun will be confiscated.

Mental illness (as a whole) is a spectrum disorder. Everyone has it just like everyone has some physical ailment. I expect that the antis will find one condition after another with which to disqualify people.
 
I'm thinking Curtis might be posting during the 25% of the time he is confused. Either that or it is contagious.
Click to expand...

He is probably someone else that created another account to demonstrate a crazy line of thought to support thier beliefs of greater restrictions through reverse psychology. By pretending to be against it and demonstrating he is crazy and actually who you probably don't want to have firearms.
 
Oh well that explains things better. Thanks for that.

Reminds me to be more fortunate of my current condition.


It reminds me of something else though. Those who are determined incompotent in handling thier own affairs already lose thier firearm rights under current law if I recall.
Right?
Being treated more as a child under the law.
Presumably that would also be reversible if they were determined to actually be competent at a later date? Unlike a felony or involuntary commitment that are permanent?
 
Last edited:
Presumably that would also be reversible if they were determined to actually be competent at a later date? Unlike a felony or involuntary commitment that are permanent?
Click to expand...

That may depend. Does the law ask "have you been adjudicated?" or does it ask, "Have you ever been adjudicated?"
 
There are procedures on the books for getting firearms rights reinstated but my understanding is that the system for that is just about utterly broken and non-functional at this point.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top