|
11279. judithathome - 9/17/2013 4:55:47 PM How about we stop selling guns to crazy people? And to BLIND people? One state recently passed a law allowing that...can you honestly say that is what the framers had in mind?
They were dealing with MUSKETS, for cripes' sake! I'd be all for selling people, even crazy and blind ones, muskets but assault weapons? Get real. 11280. judithathome - 9/17/2013 6:00:50 PM Didn't mean to sound so crazed...I'm just sick of the whole thing. 11281. iiibbb - 9/17/2013 10:28:29 PM In the news today he didn't have an "assault rifle". Shotgun and 2 pistols. 11282. robertjayb - 9/18/2013 1:27:52 AM tv said he went to Virginia a few days ago and bought (after clearing a government-required background check) a Remington 870 12-guage pump-action (not automatic, not semi-automatic) shotgun and two boxes (not cases) of ammo. Been a long time but IIRC a box of shotgun shells was 20, 25 cartridges. The piece said he took a handgun off a security person he shot.
Now this is a guy who was batshit crazy, and like other rampage shooters, probably knew he was nuts. He apparently glanced off the mental health establishment a couple of times without effect. Reassuring, is it not?
11283. judithathome - 9/18/2013 4:11:43 AM In the news today he didn't have an "assault rifle".
I used the term assault weapon to compare what the framers wrote the second amendment for...muskets...to what we have to deal with today...I didn't mean that man had one, but I'm relatively sure had he wanted one, he'd have been able to legally purchase it.
Regardless, I think it is crazy to assume the men who crafted that amendment could have foretold the horror that is going on daily in this country with regard to guns. 11284. judithathome - 9/18/2013 4:48:14 AM Well, well...it seems the only thing stopping that loon yesterday from actually HAVING an assault weapon are the laws in Virginia prohibiting the sale of such to persons not a resident of that state...seems he tried to purchase one a week ago and was refused. 11285. alistairconnor - 9/18/2013 10:58:53 PM Interesting that this guy was able to enter a Navy installation (where he was a lowly IT contractor) with a shotgun. 11286. robertjayb - 9/19/2013 12:40:00 AM Seems it was broken down and carried in a backpack to a restroom where he put it together. Gazillion dollar weapon systems but no metal detectors?
To enter my podunk county courthouse in Texas I have to surrender my deadly mini-buck pocket knife with a 1 1/8th inch blade. 11287. robertjayb - 9/19/2013 3:09:40 AM lifted from www.treatment advocacycenter.org
Exactly 50 years next month, President John Kennedy signed the Community Mental Health Centers Act, effectively federalizing what had been until then, a state responsibility. It turned out to have been the most well-meaning but misguided act of the Kennedy administration. The consequences are now everywhere visible among our homeless, among the mentally ill in jails and prisons, and in these mass killings. I have detailed this history in American Psychosis: How the Federal Government Destroyed the Mental Illness Treatment System being published by Oxford University Press next month.
E. Fuller Torrey, MD, is founder of the Treatment Advocacy Center
This article originally appeared in the National Review Online, September 17, 2013.
11288. judithathome - 9/19/2013 7:26:16 PM I thought the reason was see so many mentally ill walking around was because of something Reagan did....shutting off funds to mental institutions or something like that... 11289. judithathome - 9/19/2013 7:29:22 PM Clearly, the Republicans are on a kamikaze mission to lose votes...voting to drastically cut food stamps today...and you just know it's going to pass because, gee, we have to save money somewhere and why NOT take food out of the mouths of children...they can't vote.
11290. Jenerator - 9/24/2013 7:37:43 PM I thought the reason was see so many mentally ill walking around was because of something Reagan did....shutting off funds to mental institutions or something like that..."
No. It's because being mentally ill isn't a crime. You have to be a danger to yourself or others before steps can be taken, and obviously there are good and bad aspects to this. 11291. judithathome - 9/24/2013 8:45:23 PM Jen, perhaps I am wrong but I distinctly recall Reagan doing "something" that caused a lot of problems for the mentally ill.
Of course, that was his right as President; he's in charge and what he says goes...whch seems to be perfectly fine for Presidents that have an "R" after their names but seems to be a crime for one with a "D"... 11292. arkymalarky - 9/24/2013 10:29:38 PM no, Judith is right. Reagan shut down the state mental hospitals, and so poor people and people with health insurance that did not cover mental health have been SOL ever since. Most insurance policies cover mental health inadequately or not at all. 11293. arkymalarky - 9/24/2013 10:31:00 PM mental health care in this country is in general a disgrace. People with diabetes aren't criminals either, but they get hospitalized when they need it. 11294. Jenerator - 9/25/2013 6:55:21 PM It is not criminal to be insane. 11295. Jenerator - 9/25/2013 6:59:59 PM I think we are taking past each other. I agree that we need mental health reform, and that not enough is being done about people who have serious needs.
That said, we can't force people to be institutionalized unless there is a danger present. We can't make people take their medicine. And it's not a crime to be crazy.
11296. arkymalarky - 9/25/2013 10:13:11 PM Who said it was? we're talking past each other because I'm busy trying to step over and around your strawman. when people need help, being institutionalized or medicated or whatever else they need, under the system as it's been they don't get it. And mental illness has a different regulatory process then diabetes because people by definition are not able in cases of extreme mental illness to make decisions for themselves. 11297. iiibbb - 9/28/2013 12:22:19 PM I was under the impression that I didn't live in a country of retards. My mistake. 11298. thoughtful - 9/28/2013 4:36:36 PM It is a difficult situation...people with psychological issues may not be criminal, but when off their meds, they can do criminal things. On their meds, they tend to exhibit less criminal behavior, but taking meds can be so expensive and with such bad side effects that they often stop. So what do you do? Do you wait until they behave criminally and victimize someone or do you try to fix it preemptively?
No less difficult than saying it's not criminal to be old, but older people cause a lot of accidents and injuries when they drive due to infirmities and drugs. But do you take their license away in advance? Or do you wait until they kill someone?
In either case the individual may not be the best judge of what is best for themselves and others. The system is very broken, doesn't deal well with it, and people suffer as a result.
|
