Skip to comments.Who is Mentally Ill?
Posted on 02/14/2013 4:00:25 PM PST by imardmd1
The current push toward gun control is being presented in a particularly dangerous and dishonest manner. It is being framed in terms of mental health and packaged in a way that almost guarantees victory for the advocates of control. The debating point proffered is, How do we keep guns away from the mentally ill?
Thus far, President Obamas answer has been vague and administrative enough to avoid the need for Congressional approval.
State-controlled psychiatry is a terrifying weapon, especially when it is used to determine who has rights.
Every individual should be able to be eccentric, different, and even self-destructive. As long as the behavior harms no one else, it is no business of authority. To screen people for potentially dangerous behavior is a form of pre-crime diligence that gives government an almost unlimited power over anyone it targets. It is a tool of social control, not safety.
(Excerpt) Read more at fff.org ...
... keeping and bearing ...
The author is correct. We should all heed her warning.
So by definition, if we're not like them, we're mentally ill and they can relieve us of our arms.
If they dare try...
If you read about some the most brilliant and successful people in America, most would not fall under the group “normal”. I would also would not fall under the group “normal”. I guess that makes me brilliant and successful!
But then today normal isn’t normal anymore.
There was an interesting discussion on the mental health aspects. What was said is that there are a huge number of people, some with significant mental health issues who are not violent either toward themselves or others. There was fear that this concern is just going to marginalize many people with mental health problems even more.
What was interesting was some admission by the public health doctors that when (1) mental there are severe mental health problems coupled with substance abuse (alcohol, legal drugs, or illegal drugs) there are reasons to medically intervene, and (2) when people with severe mental health problems and a propensity to violence encounter a life-changing event (loss of job, death of loved one, loss of mental health services, no longer able to take medications, etc.) they can become violent.
Personally, I too would urge that any mental health informaton used for firearms background checks be treated carefully as the stigma of mental illness is a real problem for some.
While there are states like Illinois who bar firearm ownership to anyone who has been in a mental hospital, including those for drug or alcohol abuse, the federal restriction is for those who have been committed as a danger to themselves or others, in almost all cases involuntarily. This doesn't marginalize the mentally ill who voluntarily seek treatment, and could well encourage voluntary treatment rather than commitment.
IMO laws like Illinois' which deters treatment for all disorders is a much bigger problem, and an issue I've never heard addressed by the mental health community. When someone has reached the point of commitment as a danger to self and others, they're pretty far down the mental illness road. It's a shame the mental health community deliberately confuses the issue.
BTW, I don't necessarily agree with a lifetime ban, mental illness can be cured, nor the ban on non violent felons. But those are dead issues.
Note my post 7. The federal bar is rather steep, danger to self and others in most cases involuntary comitment. No one has talked about mental testing. The question is whether states should cooperate with the federal government and provide the names of involuntary comitments.
Oops, post 8
Time for an old Cold War joke:
American: I hear you put political dissidents in mental hospitals. Is that true?
Soviet: What else should we do with them? It’s clear a person MUST be crazy if he is a dissident in the USSR.
Yup. Catch-22. If I want a gun, I'm too abnormal to be permitted to have one; but if I don't and have no interest, then its OK for me to have the option. Gaaaah!
That’s some catch that catch 22. It’s the best there is
Who’s mentally ill?
Anyone who says they are not. The mentally ill are paranoid and lie.
Anyone who thinks Obama and his ilk are beyond that is nuts.
"If they dare try"...
<Doctor nods, smiles, and writes on notepad>:>
"The patient appears to be highly agitated and has made a menacing threat to commit act(s) of physical violence against others and/or himself. This behavior, which is very often found in this particular demographic, is symptomatic of Anti-Social Personality Disorder.
Recommending immediate enlistment on gun ownership ban list, and intensive therapy in a State Mental Healthcare Facility.
(Note to self, need to download and print more blank firearm ownership ban list forms... just ran out... again)"
No, he’s not beyond that.
Don't let the left confuse the issue. Note my post 8, the standard is clear and decades old. And already in the public record, since virtually all cases involve court (or other authority) ordered commitment. The only issue is whether the states are willing to provide the information ot the NICS system.
According to communists, anyone opposing communism.
And you have just declared yourself mentally ill and too dangerous to have a gun - any non-PC tendencies are a clear demonstration of anti-social behavior and must be modified.
I can almost believe that those who began this PC BS so many years ago had it in their minds that they would someday be able to use it as a standard to declare those who didn't buy into it as mentally ill and a threat to society with gun control and other enslavement plans in mind.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.