View Full Version : Marcus Lutrell's suprising stance on Obama's Executive Actions
Watch CNN interview Marcus Lutrell on the issue of Obama's recent gun control EOs. Either Marcus Lutrell did not fully understand the questions asked of him, or he actually supports one or more of the measures Obama pushed for at the Townhall meeting. Decide for yourself.
http://www.cnn.com/video/api/embed.html#/video/politics/2016/01/09/lone-survivor-marcus-luttrell-obama-executive-action-guns.cnn
Saw this elsewhere. I disagree with this position obviously, but he has more than earned the right to his opinion.
KalashniKEV
01-29-16, 18:30
You can't give a weapon to a person who has mental issues, right?
Seems like common sense to me...
last I checked, the vast majority of mentally ill have the same rights as everyone else...
KalashniKEV
01-29-16, 18:36
last I checked, the vast majority of mentally ill have the same rights as everyone else...
That's right, I forgot... you're in favor of arming the mentally ill.
To me that seems a bit... CRAZY.
lol
That's right, I forgot... you're in favor of arming the mentally ill.
To me that seems a bit... CRAZY.
lol
I simply believe due process must take place before we go all Donald Trump.
KalashniKEV
01-29-16, 18:45
I simply believe due process must take place before we go all Donald Trump.
I'm with you on that- only a judge can take away your rights in this country.
That being said, a whole lot of folks are walking the streets all whacked out on SSRIs and other, worse stuff that effects their brain chemistry. We need to put these folks in front of the judge and have him adjudicate them as mentally defective, or good to go. It should be a part of the process.
I'm not interested in becoming target practice for a psych case because he thinks I'm bullying him or something, and I wouldn't want anything like that to happen to the ones I love.
mkmckinley
01-29-16, 18:49
A lot of super cool people have some super jacked up views on things. I don't think any part of Luttrel's training likely addressed the philosophical basis of our constitution or the ethical considerations behind withholding rights from a marginalized segment of the population. "Commons sense" is subjective and varies from person to person and what's good for the many might come at the expense of what's good for the few. That's why it's important to have due process, rule of law, and checks and balances in our government. Once you go all executive action you pave the way for tyranny of the majority and totalitarianism. What Obama did with his executive actions is undermine the republic and push us further toward autocracy just like his administration has done with surveillance, punishing whistle-blowers, gutting dissenting opinion in the armed forces etc. In any case "we the people" are supposed to be fighting people like Obama tooth and nail over every right for every citizen. Luttrell, for all he's done, undermines that by supporting executive orders if that's indeed what he meant in the interview. His service record, while admirable, doesn't change that.
I don't think crazy people should have a gun either.
However, this is a rabbit hole to hell. The people pushing for this know it. It starts here, where does it end?
I know of a guy that got horse effed in the biggest way ever. His now ex wife lied, said he beat and threatened her. He gets tossed in the clink. Doesn't fight it because he wanted to spend xmas with his kids. They figure out she lied. But no big deal. However he gets the loving treatment from the justice system. Plus temporarily losing his rights. Just, because, she said so.
What if it ends up just having verbal disagreement can cause you to lose any right, let alone 2A. Plus, once judges get to Peter pan style hop and skip inside of HIPPA, then nothing on earth will be sacred anymore.
If the judge mental test happened, half of the OIF, OEF, and Nam vets I know would lose their rights.
It's not worth it. I'm all for a way to fix it, but, I've yet to see a way to do this without unintended consequences from hell.
So a special mental court. Yeah, that'll be good. If not them, then who? Gov? LE? New agency?
Then before you know it, we're living the minority report.
FromMyColdDeadHand
01-29-16, 19:43
Anybody else think Mr. Luttrell seemed a bit off in the interview? I just watched it again, but when this came out awhile ago my first thought when he starts talking was that he seemed different. Maybe he is just a lot more comfortable in front of the camera now, but I just watched some older interviews and he has a different demeanor. He seemed agitated and uncomfortable in this one. I've never seen him interrupt an interviewer like he did in that clip.
SilverBullet432
01-29-16, 19:45
With all the hell he's been through... I don't blame him if he seemed odd. The crazies don't need guns obviously.
I'm willing to allow those few crazies that might do something criminal have guns, if it protects the rights of the crazies that will never do anything criminal. I love my friends and family, but sometimes that's the price we pay for freedom.
One only needs to look back at the last century to our hidden history of eugenics and the forced sterilization of tens of thousands of Americans to realize that being ruled "unfit" by a court judge might not be the wisest thing for a free people to endorse.
If the current rate of criminal use of firearms does not increase in this country, I am comfortable with the status quo if my rights do not get further eroded.
Anybody else think Mr. Luttrell seemed a bit off in the interview? I just watched it again, but when this came out awhile ago my first thought when he starts talking was that he seemed different. Maybe he is just a lot more comfortable in front of the camera now, but I just watched some older interviews and he has a different demeanor. He seemed agitated and uncomfortable in this one. I've never seen him interrupt an interviewer like he did in that clip.
No It looked to me like there was an issue with his audio AND the way this vid was edited, it may be that we missed the setup. IOW, it doesn't look like he interupted him... it looks like maybe they had covered that or touched on it and he was revisiting it.
Also he went down the road of the psych eval and was questioning how things would work. So I think he was saying if you are found to crazy then you shouldn't have a gun.
I don;t think anything was wrong with him but it looked like some disconnect between him and the guy he was talking to.
He was pretty clear though.... EVERYONE needs to come together and have a majority agreement rule but his opinion is what the hell, get a background check and no crazy people need apply.
But I think he was having some delayed audio or something... and hell.. he might very likely have some hearing loss too.
Remember the bottom line though... he said.... it not a decision for one man to make. I think his point was he doesn't have a problem with a BG check but it all needs to be talked out.. .it's not for one man to decide.
Anyway.. .that's what it looked like to me. He didn't look or act strange as far as I could tell.
Guy going through a rough patch and is voluntarily seeking help should keep his guns. He may just need a little Seroquel and a friendly ear.
Guy getting hauled off to the booby hatch needs to see a judge.
All of this is irrelevant because a genuinely crazy and homicidal person will acquire a weapon some kind of a way.
The Sandy Hook guy didn't purchase any of the guns used.
A semi-thinking person will just burglarize and murder a relative to arm themselves. Does this mean that just knowing a crazy person disqualifies you? Because you may end up inadvertently arming them?
Lots of broad brushes and slippery slopes here.
Shit, we got a guy who smoked dope and snorted coke in college with access to Minuteman nukes and executive orders. Who signed off on his background check?
No right thinking person is gonna say "Sure, arm the insane!"
But at the same token having a problem doesn't make you incompetent or unaccountable.
There are LOTS of current and former military and police on this forum. It may not ne spoken if, but I'm certain more than a few people have had some dark times, but saw it through and were dangerous to no one.
I think people are seeing what they want to see on this one.
I think Marcus was put on the spot, maybe a bit nervous, who knows, but his answer presupposes a lot of things (see below).
Seems like common sense to me...
The way the CNN puppet presented it, sure it sounds totally reasonable. The problem is that it contains a lot of implicit assumptions, which often turn out to be completely baseless.
These include (but are not limited to) assuming:
1) that mental illness can be objectively defined
2) that mental illness means one is violent and dangerous
3) the government is able to properly determine who is mentally ill
4) the government will not unintentionally incorrectly classify people as mentally ill and thus deprive them of their Constitutional rights
5) the government will not intentionally incorrectly classify people as mentally ill and thus deprive them of their Constitutional rights
6) members of the government itself are somehow immune from mental illness (I submit Feinstein, Pelosi, Hitlery, Cuomo, Bloomberg, Holder and Hussein Obama as examples)
That's right, I forgot... you're in favor of arming the mentally ill.
To me that seems a bit... CRAZY.
lol
This is like arguing that being in favor of due process means that one is in favor of letting rapists and murderers go free.
I'm with you on that- only a judge can take away your rights in this country.
That being said, a whole lot of folks are walking the streets all whacked out on SSRIs and other, worse stuff that effects their brain chemistry. We need to put these folks in front of the judge and have him adjudicate them as mentally defective, or good to go. It should be a part of the process.
I'm not interested in becoming target practice for a psych case because he thinks I'm bullying him or something, and I wouldn't want anything like that to happen to the ones I love.
Sure. Except when one looks at judges, how they're appointed, how crazy some of them are, one sees that a judge is not only a human, but a politically entangled, very corruptible one.
Sure, put a person in front of honorable people like Sonia (La Raza) Sotomayor, or Hussein (the Saboteur-In-Chief) Obama (when Hitlery appoints him to the SCOTUS) or any one of the other "living document"/race extremists sitting on the bench, and bow down to their divine edicts.
That's right, I forgot... you're in favor of arming the mentally ill.
To me that seems a bit... CRAZY.
lol
I am of the belief that if you're crazy enough to have your rights stripped cause you present a danger to yourself or others you should not be allowed to vote, express your opinion freely or for that matter walk around freely among our children. If you're not willing to go down the rabbit hole of suspending other rights of crazy people then why are you willing to throw the second down that rabbit hole.
If you are deemed a danger to yourself or others by a jury or judge and have access to due process (not some BS administrative decision) the you have no business being out circulating among our children. If someone claims you're cured then you're cured and are no longer a danger; so why do your rights no longer exist?
Lutrell is like every American. He has a right to his opinion and we have a right to ignore him. If he want to offer advice on how to be a SEAL or other military matters I'll give him more credence as he's been there. Anything else he's just like everyone else.
That's right, I forgot... you're in favor of arming the mentally ill.
To me that seems a bit... CRAZY.
lol
Problem is who decides who is mentally ill. Is PTSD and automatic qualifier? Should everyone who is on medication for PTSD or in counseling for PTSD lose their rights?
Problem is who decides who is mentally ill. Is PTSD and automatic qualifier? Should everyone who is on medication for PTSD or in counseling for PTSD lose their rights?
Easy answer. Democrats/Progresives get to decide.
Yes, PTSD = no guns for you.
Also, being a Tea Partier = mental illness.
Welcome to "common sense".
Mentally ill is a huge net. I have a friend who is manic-depressive. He went a little loopy through a rough patch, volunterilly went into a facility, got straight, and is good now. Should he lose his rights?
I'm with you on that- only a judge can take away your rights in this country.
That being said, a whole lot of folks are walking the streets all whacked out on SSRIs and other, worse stuff that effects their brain chemistry. We need to put these folks in front of the judge and have him adjudicate them as mentally defective, or good to go. It should be a part of the process.
I'm not interested in becoming target practice for a psych case because he thinks I'm bullying him or something, and I wouldn't want anything like that to happen to the ones I love.
"Take away your RIGHTS."
Interesting concept. One I will never be able to wrap my head around.
Rights just ain't what they used to be- to most at least.
So what is a right if it isn't a "right" Kev?
Mental illness. It comes in so many flavors. Careful what you wish for- you might just find yourself on the wrong end of your argument one day.
titsonritz
01-30-16, 00:21
Define "crazy" and who makes that determination. There has to be due process. To listen to me x-wife I'm crazy, but she is a lying cunt, so...
Mentally ill is a huge net. I have a friend who is manic-depressive. He went a little loopy through a rough patch, volunterilly went into a facility, got straight, and is good now. Should he lose his rights?
No one should ever lose a "right" and be out in the world.
If people cannot be trusted with "rights" they cannot be trusted to live amongst us in society. This shouldn't be any and everyone- only those who REALLY can't exist within our basi social construct- those who violently lash out against others in any form.
Either it's a right or it isn't. Everything else is a permission. Too may of us have forgotten what a right really is.
With all the hell he's been through... I don't blame him if he seemed odd. The crazies don't need guns obviously.
One mans crazy is another mans normal.
Sanity is relative. Sanity is insane to an insane person.
Insanity can quite easily be considered sane- by the insane.
Who can truly be trusted to judge such things?
Moose-Knuckle
01-30-16, 02:03
You know it wasn't that long ago that in this country homosexuals were diagnosed as mentally ill . . .
I guess I forgot to start caring what Marcus Lutrell thinks about executive actions.
#Trump2016
You know it wasn't that long ago that in this country homosexuals were diagnosed as mentally ill . . .
And it won't be long before being a white (but non-Muslim) male will likewise be diagnosed as such.
And it won't be much longer after that that homosexuals will be diagnosed as mentally ill, and hanged/stoned to death - under Sharia law of course.
The circle of life or something.
.46caliber
01-30-16, 07:39
We need to put these folks in front of the judge and have him adjudicate them as mentally defective, or good to go. It should be a part of the process.
Question, not necessarily aimed at you KEV, but the whole class.
What about the judges that want to curtail or strike the 2A? Do we really want to hand them the ability to decide who gets this right in the hopes that we'll be able to maybe prevent unforseen tragedy at the hands of some dangerous mentally ill?
FromMyColdDeadHand
01-30-16, 07:54
Question, not necessarily aimed at you KEV, but the whole class.
What about the judges that want to curtail or strike the 2A? Do we really want to hand them the ability to decide who gets this right in the hopes that we'll be able to maybe prevent unforseen tragedy at the hands of some dangerous mentally ill?
Bad judges can take away your rights pretty easily. Everything has to be appealable, that's the safety valve. You can't just not do something because a judge might misuse their authority. I'm sure that there are some judges that would say that anyone with the 'arsenals' that most M4 members have is a sign that you are mentally ill. Look at Honolulu where Kaiser docs won't sign off on mental competency to get a handgun permit. You could get mental health professionals that won't with sign off on people as OK, or say that everyone is a risk- all because the liability risk to them. Better to not approve anyone than to let one crazy get a gun.
The NRA needs to get ahead of this thing. Learn from the Progressives. Get govt money to study the problem and then put out a solution that is not detrimental to our side. The NRA likes to play defense because it makes people afraid and brings in money and power.
.46caliber
01-30-16, 08:11
Bad judges can take away your rights pretty easily. Everything has to be appealable, that's the safety valve.
That's very true. I'd hate to be the guy scrambling for the safety valve that shouldn't have had the right taken away in the first place.
The risk/reward analysis is where this solution really sticks in my craw.
The risk of having anti-2A judges with this ability outweighs the reward of maybe stopping dangerous mentally ill from purchasing a firearm in my scales. It wouldn't stop them from grabbing dad's guns out of the safe or crashing a car into a crowd. I just don't see the value.
Everyone has a right to their opinion, true. But it comes down to the fact that if you are not a danger to walk around in public you should have your right to own a firearm. PERIOD!
If you are that much of a threat then lock them up......we kind of did that to crazy people and the retarded back in the day and did not have these problems. Just because a judge declares you crazy, can't you get a car and drive over a bunch of people in Las Vegas? If they are crazy enough to kill with a gun then they will will kill with an axe, baseball bat, poison, car, scissors, you name it.
What we really need to do is start to test people to see if they are crazy and take away their right to vote. Voting has caused more problems and killed more people in the last seven plus years than guns.
What we really need to do is start to test people to see if they are crazy and take away their right to vote. Voting has caused more problems and killed more people in the last seven plus years than guns.
This. I sorta see why poll taxes and literacy tests existed now.
FromMyColdDeadHand
01-30-16, 10:54
That's very true. I'd hate to be the guy scrambling for the safety valve that shouldn't have had the right taken away in the first place.
The risk/reward analysis is where this solution really sticks in my craw.
The risk of having anti-2A judges with this ability outweighs the reward of maybe stopping dangerous mentally ill from purchasing a firearm in my scales. It wouldn't stop them from grabbing dad's guns out of the safe or crashing a car into a crowd. I just don't see the value.
And that is why I wish the NRA would get out ahead of this issue so that it isn't that the NRAwant crazy people to have guns. Otherwise the other side sets the agenda and writes the crappy, ineffective laws
Outlander Systems
01-30-16, 11:07
The only thing I want this dude's opinion on is how to slice pies, stack up, and how to get my o2 levels higher.
Everything else? Zero ****s given what a celebrity/Rock Star's opinion is.
Everyone has a right to their opinion, true. But it comes down to the fact that if you are not a danger to walk around in public you should have your right to own a firearm. PERIOD!
If you are that much of a threat then lock them up......we kind of did that to crazy people and the retarded back in the day and did not have these problems. Just because a judge declares you crazy, can't you get a car and drive over a bunch of people in Las Vegas? If they are crazy enough to kill with a gun then they will will kill with an axe, baseball bat, poison, car, scissors, you name it.
What we really need to do is start to test people to see if they are crazy and take away their right to vote. Voting has caused more problems and killed more people in the last seven plus years than guns.
A crazy test uh?
If only it were that simple.
Here is the problem, most of the people on this forum know very little about mental illness and the same goes for the people we elect to make and execute policy.
I spend about 10% of the day dealing with the most severe mental illnesses and I'll probably sign 3 or 4 involuntary commitment orders during my next shift today. This experience has led be to the following conclusions. Most people with mental illnesses are very high functioning. We interact with them daily. They make our food, serve in our military, and some probably moderate this forum. Even the ones with severe illnesses spend much of their lives as happy, functional people since the nature of their disease is characterized by acute exacerbations of a chronic illness. Thus, you simply can't lock up people for the rest of their lives because 10% of the time they are decompensated.
In addition, it might be wise for people who know nothing about pharmacology to stop taking about antidepressants, mood stabilizers, and antipsychotics like they prescribe them. Hundreds of thousands of people take SSRIs for problems ranging from depression to irritable bowel syndrome. If dosed properly, hardly any of these people wander around stoned or whacked out. You see them all the time and have no idea that they are taking them. Are you prepared to lock these people up? Are you ready to take away their voting and gun rights. If so, you might want to consider buy property in North Korea or Cuba.
Finally, this is one of those problems that will never get "fixed." There is simply not enough money to monitor all people with a history of mental illnesses 24/7 to make sure that they are not becoming imbalanced. At the same time, we are not a society that preemptively strips freedom and liberty from segments of the population who have a medical problem that temporarily impairs them. Right now, we probably have the best balance of monitoring vs liberty and further attempts to favor the former will only come at a very steep price to the latter. So, before you start disenfranchising whole segments of the population, understand that you would probably fail the crazy test if it were designed by the people currently in power.
I'm with you on that- only a judge can take away your rights in this country.
That being said, a whole lot of folks are walking the streets all whacked out on SSRIs and other, worse stuff that effects their brain chemistry. We need to put these folks in front of the judge and have him adjudicate them as mentally defective, or good to go. It should be a part of the process.
I'm not interested in becoming target practice for a psych case because he thinks I'm bullying him or something, and I wouldn't want anything like that to happen to the ones I love.
Such as vets who benefit from those drugs? SSRIs do not produce "whacked out" people, but whacked out people often prescribed SSRIs, hence why your current crop of whacked jobs usually on SSRIs. SSRIs have their legit medical/clinical uses, and do benefit many, and unless you understand the difference in the various SSRIs, their mechanism of action, etc, it's bad mojo to comment, like a person telling us "no one should have military grade weapons" when they don't know anything about them. It's like that. I promise you this: members on this forum who you'd be happy to clank beers with are on SSRIs.
There's some data to suggest (but far from conclusive at this time) that in a very small subset of people, SSRIs may have the what's referred to as an idiosyncratic response, making things worse vs better, a phenomenon found with many drugs.
"Ah ha!" you might say. Back to the gun analogy:
Anti guns types will say "guns kill X number of people per year" as proof of why they should be banned. The critical thinker looks at the number of people killed with firearms during criminal acts and adds to that the number of people saved, crimes avoided, etc for the net effects.
If 2% of SSRI users (and recall not at all a well supported effect) have some idiosyncratic response and get more depressed and kill themselves, or decide to act on a violent urge, etc, and 98% SSRI users have improved mood, less depression, less likely to hurt themselves or others around them, more productive, etc, what's the net benefit to society?
Gun analogy, anyone who says "well if even one mass shooting is avoided by not giving anyone SSRIs no matter how weak the connection" is a straight up hypocrite as that's the same BS excuse for pushing gun control on us.
The fact is however, although SSRIs have clinical value, SSRIs are way over prescribed and used in place of proper mental health care modalities, and that's one of the key problems here, but another issue for another day. Giving children who are hyper active, dogs (yes, there are doggy SSRIS!) and people who clearly exhibit or indicate a need for intensive mental health services vs being handed an SSRI and shuffled out the door is BS and part of the problem.
SSRIs themselves however, are not the problem here. The problem, per usual, is the human factor.
People who continue to mention and or place cause/effect blame on mass shootings, etc are out of their lane and need to look elsewhere for blame and realize some facts and realities of these drugs.
Outlander Systems
01-30-16, 12:40
You forgot to mention Politicial figures with delusions of grandeur, extreme narcissism, sociopathy, etc.
Seriously, though, thanks for the perspective.
So, my question is, at what point does a "crazy" test start becoming a tool of political oppression. I'm convinced liberalism is, in essence, "crazy", but I'm not exactly advocating stripping liberals of their constitutional rights. I have no doubts, that they wouldn't be kind enough to return the favor.
Once you go down that road you start opening up Pandora's box...
Right now, I'd echo your statement that we have a pretty decent balance.
A crazy test uh?
If only it were that simple.
Here is the problem, most of the people on this forum know very little about mental illness and the same goes for the people we elect to make and execute policy.
I spend about 10% of the day dealing with the most severe mental illnesses and I'll probably sign 3 or 4 involuntary commitment orders during my next shift today. This experience has led be to the following conclusions. Most people with mental illnesses are very high functioning. We interact with them daily. They make our food, serve in our military, and some probably moderate this forum. Even the ones with severe illnesses spend much of their lives as happy, functional people since the nature of their disease is characterized by acute exacerbations of a chronic illness. Thus, you simply can't lock up people for the rest of their lives because 10% of the time they are decompensated.
In addition, it might be wise for people who know nothing about pharmacology to stop taking about antidepressants, mood stabilizers, and antipsychotics like they prescribe them. Hundreds of thousands of people take SSRIs for problems ranging from depression to irritable bowel syndrome. If dosed properly, hardly any of these people wander around stoned or whacked out. You see them all the time and have no idea that they are taking them. Are you prepared to lock these people up? Are you ready to take away their voting and gun rights. If so, you might want to consider buy property in North Korea or Cuba.
Finally, this is one of those problems that will never get "fixed." There is simply not enough money to monitor all people with a history of mental illnesses 24/7 to make sure that they are not becoming imbalanced. At the same time, we are not a society that preemptively strips freedom and liberty from segments of the population who have a medical problem that temporarily impairs them. Right now, we probably have the best balance of monitoring vs liberty and further attempts to favor the former will only come at a very steep price to the latter. So, before you start disenfranchising whole segments of the population, understand that you would probably fail the crazy test if it were designed by the people currently in power.
You forgot to mention Politicial figures with delusions of grandeur, extreme narcissism, sociopathy, etc.
Seriously, though, thanks for the perspective.
So, my question is, at what point does a "crazy" test start becoming a tool of political oppression. I'm convinced liberalism is, in essence, "crazy", but I'm not exactly advocating stripping liberals of their constitutional rights. I have no doubts, that they wouldn't be kind enough to return the favor.
Once you go down that road you start opening up Pandora's box...
Right now, I'd echo your statement that we have a pretty decent balance.
As with most of life, the definition of crazy (i.e. diagnostic criteria for various mental illnesses) changes every decade or so. For example, we are now on the fifth iteration of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manuel of Mental Disorders. Keep in mind there is no "test" for any of the most severe mental illnesses; diagnoses depends on meeting a set of rather subjective criteria in most cases. Thus, I have very little tolerance for the absurd notion that we can come up with a test (be it written, breathalyzer, or some other method) that lets the government know when to start stripping rights.
MountainRaven
01-30-16, 13:26
Everyone has a right to their opinion, true. But it comes down to the fact that if you are not a danger to walk around in public you should have your right to own a firearm. PERIOD!
If you are that much of a threat then lock them up......we kind of did that to crazy people and the retarded back in the day and did not have these problems. Just because a judge declares you crazy, can't you get a car and drive over a bunch of people in Las Vegas? If they are crazy enough to kill with a gun then they will will kill with an axe, baseball bat, poison, car, scissors, you name it.
What we really need to do is start to test people to see if they are crazy and take away their right to vote. Voting has caused more problems and killed more people in the last seven plus years than guns.
If I were crazy (and the voices assure me that we're not) and determined to kill a bunch of people, I'd probably use explosives. Guns are for amateurs: Shootings happen everyday, when there's a "mass shooting" or firefight in Iraq, you don't hear about it, but when somebody blows something up in Baghdad, everybody hears about it. Plus one could simply walk right into a government building and, since the idea seems to be a high collateral damage suicide, yell out my name and some expletives and then touch off the bomb. Maybe leave an anti-government, pro-Sharia-law rambling amalgamation of jihad and militia patriotism with no purpose but to confuse and beguile the news media (and investigators, but mostly the news) for weeks or months after I've replaced my person and everything near by with a smoking crater.
But as I mentioned, I'm not crazy.
And we haven't exactly required that people pass sanity tests to buy box cutters, airplane tickets, rental trucks, fertilizer, or Qur'ans or Bibles....
Moose-Knuckle
01-30-16, 14:24
This is an issue that is not going to go away and I honestly see the disarmament crowd using "mental health/illness" as a tactic in the near future.
At the end of the day what would give you piece of mind about you and or your family's personal safety . . . a judge with a piece of paper or a quality firearm with premium ammunition?
This is an issue that is not going to go away and I honestly see the disarmament crowd using "mental health/illness" as a tactic in the near future.
Near future? Tactic is already being used. It's part of the bulldozer named 'common sense'.
If you don't have 'common sense certainly you must be suspected of being crazy, deficient or at the very least, someone who should not be paid any attention in matters of government.
Ironically The Constitution was based on "Common Sense"(Thomas Paine) and now those that oppose it wish to disable it through common sense...... now that's crazy for you.
A crazy test uh?
If only it were that simple.
Here is the problem, most of the people on this forum know very little about mental illness and the same goes for the people we elect to make and execute policy.
I spend about 10% of the day dealing with the most severe mental illnesses and I'll probably sign 3 or 4 involuntary commitment orders during my next shift today. This experience has led be to the following conclusions. Most people with mental illnesses are very high functioning. We interact with them daily. They make our food, serve in our military, and some probably moderate this forum. Even the ones with severe illnesses spend much of their lives as happy, functional people since the nature of their disease is characterized by acute exacerbations of a chronic illness. Thus, you simply can't lock up people for the rest of their lives because 10% of the time they are decompensated.
In addition, it might be wise for people who know nothing about pharmacology to stop taking about antidepressants, mood stabilizers, and antipsychotics like they prescribe them. Hundreds of thousands of people take SSRIs for problems ranging from depression to irritable bowel syndrome. If dosed properly, hardly any of these people wander around stoned or whacked out. You see them all the time and have no idea that they are taking them. Are you prepared to lock these people up? Are you ready to take away their voting and gun rights. If so, you might want to consider buy property in North Korea or Cuba.
Finally, this is one of those problems that will never get "fixed." There is simply not enough money to monitor all people with a history of mental illnesses 24/7 to make sure that they are not becoming imbalanced. At the same time, we are not a society that preemptively strips freedom and liberty from segments of the population who have a medical problem that temporarily impairs them. Right now, we probably have the best balance of monitoring vs liberty and further attempts to favor the former will only come at a very steep price to the latter. So, before you start disenfranchising whole segments of the population, understand that you would probably fail the crazy test if it were designed by the people currently in power.
Well said. And the frequent banter about SSRIs being a causative factor is quite tiring. Akin to listening to Jenny McCarthy discuss autism.
Such as vets who benefit from those drugs? SSRIs do not produce "whacked out" people, but whacked out people often prescribed SSRIs, hence why your current crop of whacked jobs usually on SSRIs. SSRIs have their legit medical/clinical uses, and do benefit many, and unless you understand the difference in the various SSRIs, their mechanism of action, etc, it's bad mojo to comment, like a person telling us "no one should have military grade weapons" when they don't know anything about them. It's like that. I promise you this: members on this forum who you'd be happy to clank beers with are on SSRIs.
There's some data to suggest (but far from conclusive at this time) that in a very small subset of people, SSRIs may have the what's referred to as an idiosyncratic response, making things worse vs better, a phenomenon found with many drugs.
"Ah ha!" you might say. Back to the gun analogy:
Anti guns types will say "guns kill X number of people per year" as proof of why they should be banned. The critical thinker looks at the number of people killed with firearms during criminal acts and adds to that the number of people saved, crimes avoided, etc for the net effects.
If 2% of SSRI users (and recall not at all a well supported effect) have some idiosyncratic response and get more depressed and kill themselves, or decide to act on a violent urge, etc, and 98% SSRI users have improved mood, less depression, less likely to hurt themselves or others around them, more productive, etc, what's the net benefit to society?
Gun analogy, anyone who says "well if even one mass shooting is avoided by not giving anyone SSRIs no matter how weak the connection" is a straight up hypocrite as that's the same BS excuse for pushing gun control on us.
The fact is however, although SSRIs have clinical value, SSRIs are way over prescribed and used in place of proper mental health care modalities, and that's one of the key problems here, but another issue for another day. Giving children who are hyper active, dogs (yes, there are doggy SSRIS!) and people who clearly exhibit or indicate a need for intensive mental health services vs being handed an SSRI and shuffled out the door is BS and part of the problem.
SSRIs themselves however, are not the problem here. The problem, per usual, is the human factor.
People who continue to mention and or place cause/effect blame on mass shootings, etc are out of their lane and need to look elsewhere for blame and realize some facts and realities of these drugs.
Also well said.
I'm with you on that- only a judge can take away your rights in this country.
That being said, a whole lot of folks are walking the streets all whacked out on SSRIs and other, worse stuff that effects their brain chemistry. We need to put these folks in front of the judge and have him adjudicate them as mentally defective, or good to go. It should be a part of the process.
I'm not interested in becoming target practice for a psych case because he thinks I'm bullying him or something, and I wouldn't want anything like that to happen to the ones I love.
Judges are now health care providers?
Outlander Systems
01-30-16, 19:00
Excellent points.
I don't think a lack of articulable evidence is going to stop anyone in "officialdom" from calling whatever thinking is contrarian to the status quo as "bonkers".
Hell, mistrust of government might be labeled as "crazy". It's pretty much at that that point anyway.
Mention corruption and collusion, and the first response someone throws out is "derp derp tinfoil derp."
The old adage about an armed society being a polite society carries a lot of truth. If everyone from the grocery store cashier to the middle school teacher were armed, it wouldn't matter if folks with ill intent, or mental impairment, were armed as well.
As with most of life, the definition of crazy (i.e. diagnostic criteria for various mental illnesses) changes every decade or so. For example, we are now on the fifth iteration of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manuel of Mental Disorders. Keep in mind there is no "test" for any of the most severe mental illnesses; diagnoses depends on meeting a set of rather subjective criteria in most cases. Thus, I have very little tolerance for the absurd notion that we can come up with a test (be it written, breathalyzer, or some other method) that lets the government know when to start stripping rights.
Some great points here.
One thing that is clear to me is that anyone using the "common sense" crap to advance disarmament of the populace is not to be trusted one iota.
Let's focus on locking up violent repeat criminals, prosecuting criminals who acquire guns illegally and then commit crimes with them. That would take care of most of the problems. As for suicides with guns - one's life is one's own property to be blunt. They're gonna do it one way or another anyways.
Suicides (80% of "gun deaths"), repeat violent criminals (the other ~19%), that's 99% right there.
That would require actively going after drug gangs (a lot of "minorities" and Obamaphone users there), and not gifting guns to Mexican cartels.
It ain't gonna happen under any Democrat administration, and probably not under any Cuckservative one either.
I dont want crazy people to have guns !
I dont want the gov deciding who is crazy !
and that as bubba would say "dat der is da pre-dick-a-mint" :) hahahahahah (yes I know how to spell predicament)
Moose-Knuckle
01-31-16, 03:06
Near future? Tactic is already being used. It's part of the bulldozer named 'common sense'.
If you don't have 'common sense certainly you must be suspected of being crazy, deficient or at the very least, someone who should not be paid any attention in matters of government.
Ironically The Constitution was based on "Common Sense"(Thomas Paine) and now those that oppose it wish to disable it through common sense...... now that's crazy for you.
I'm not sure about your home state but it's not happening in mine like it is in CA and HI, but I get what you are saying that it is being used now. I see this as being more wide spread through out the nation sometime soon, like after the election. With Obamacare SCOTUS has opened Pandora's Box . . .
Just imagine if Hilary is selected, oops I mean elected and she gets to appoint Justices.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nz4HRj0mORE
Excellent points.
I don't think a lack of articulable evidence is going to stop anyone in "officialdom" from calling whatever thinking is contrarian to the status quo as "bonkers".
Hell, mistrust of government might be labeled as "crazy". It's pretty much at that that point anyway.
Mention corruption and collusion, and the first response someone throws out is "derp derp tinfoil derp."
The old adage about an armed society being a polite society carries a lot of truth. If everyone from the grocery store cashier to the middle school teacher were armed, it wouldn't matter if folks with ill intent, or mental impairment, were armed as well.
Mistrust of authority and not following "the rules" is already covered in the DSM-5. It's called oppositional defiant disorder.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/oppositional-defiant-disorder/basics/definition/con-20024559
It's scary how many folks here would be okay with loss of rights for such things. Anyone, and I mean ANYONE can be diagnosed as "crazy" if someone wants them to be.
My sister works in the mental health field- and believe me most of the folks in That field are just as if not MORESO "crazy" than those they are treating. The field attracts a lot of folks with mental issues who prefer to treat others instead of themselves.
You do not want your rights in the hands of these people. Period.
I wish folks weren't so eager to find more and more ways for TPTB to strip us of our rights. And I wish more people understood the difference between a "right" and a "permission" and stop interchanging the two.
SenseI hit the nail on the head with his posts.
Outlander Systems
01-31-16, 10:16
I hereby declare anyone in a position of "authority" to be suffering from Vocationally-Induced Megalomaniacal Disorder. Symptoms may include:
An attitude of self-righteousness
A lack of humility
A desire to dominate and subjugate others
Increased feelings of superiority / inflated sense of self-worth
Habitual, compulsive lying
Treatment methods recommended are an immediate resignation from political office, and volunteer work at a homeless shelter.
See how that shit works?
Sensei is absolutely, 100% correct in his post.
Mistrust of authority and not following "the rules" is already covered in the DSM-5. It's called oppositional defiant disorder.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/oppositional-defiant-disorder/basics/definition/con-20024559
It's scary how many folks here would be okay with loss of rights for such things. Anyone, and I mean ANYONE can be diagnosed as "crazy" if someone wants them to be.
My sister works in the mental health field- and believe me most of the folks in That field are just as if not MORESO "crazy" than those they are treating. The field attracts a lot of folks with mental issues who prefer to treat others instead of themselves.
You do not want your rights in the hands of these people. Period.
I wish folks weren't so eager to find more and more ways for TPTB to strip us of our rights. And I wish more people understood the difference between a "right" and a "permission" and stop interchanging the two.
SenseI hit the nail on the head with his posts.
KalashniKEV
01-31-16, 10:56
"Take away your RIGHTS."
Interesting concept. One I will never be able to wrap my head around.
Sounds like you need to get down with the United States Constitution, homey.
Only a judge can take your rights, but it doesn't have to come with a criminal conviction.
People can be "adjudicated mentally defective," and IAW 18 USC § 922(g)(4), Any person who has been “adjudicated as a mental defective” or “committed to a mental institution” is prohibited under Federal law from shipping, transporting, receiving, or possessing any firearm or ammunition.
The problem is the reporting is broken, and not enough crazies are going in front of the judge to get reviewed- which is why a couple times a year they go on Safari and shoot up a Gun Free Zone.
Then we have to deal with non-gun-people saying, "Gee, why not take all the guns away if people with no prior record, who we can't identify, are shooting up the place?"
FALSE
They do have a prior record- just not a criminal one.
We can identify them- quite easily.
1) They are people who went in front of the doc and said, "I'm sad. Gimme pills."
2) Then the doc said, in his professional medical opinion, "Your brain is malfunctioning. Let's open the hood and I can externally regulate the chemistry of your brain with meds."
Where is the judge, in his professional legal opinion, to say, "You appear to be the kind of guy who just might miss a dose and go on blaze... maybe take up painting instead of 3-gun" or "Best of luck in sorting out your troubles, you may go on your way."
No problem.
Let's follow the law and see if they're defective or not.
Judges are now health care providers?
Nope, but they sure do render judgement, don't they?
Sounds like you need to get down with the United States Constitution, homey.
Only a judge can take your rights, but it doesn't have to come with a criminal conviction.
People can be "adjudicated mentally defective," and IAW 18 USC § 922(g)(4), Any person who has been “adjudicated as a mental defective” or “committed to a mental institution” is prohibited under Federal law from shipping, transporting, receiving, or possessing any firearm or ammunition.
The problem is the reporting is broken, and not enough crazies are going in front of the judge to get reviewed- which is why a couple times a year they go on Safari and shoot up a Gun Free Zone.
Then we have to deal with non-gun-people saying, "Gee, why not take all the guns away if people with no prior record, who we can't identify, are shooting up the place?"
FALSE
They do have a prior record- just not a criminal one.
We can identify them- quite easily.
1) They are people who went in front of the doc and said, "I'm sad. Gimme pills."
2) Then the doc said, in his professional medical opinion, "Your brain is malfunctioning. Let's open the hood and I can externally regulate the chemistry of your brain with meds."
Where is the judge, in his professional legal opinion, to say, "You appear to be the kind of guy who just might miss a dose and go on blaze... maybe take up painting instead of 3-gun" or "Best of luck in sorting out your troubles, you may go on your way."
No problem.
Let's follow the law and see if they're defective or not.
Nope, but they sure do render judgement, don't they?
I missed the part in the constitution that says: "The permission of the people to keep and bear arms shall be infringed when a judge says so".
It's either a right or its a permission.
If any other right was taken away due to mental illness would you be okay with that? Apply it to the entire BOR.
Is it okay to take away a mentally ill persons freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom the assembly, freedom to petition and freedom of speech?
Is it okay to take away a mentally ill persons freedom from warrant less search and seizure?
Is it okay to take away a mentally ill persons freedom of due process and should they be open to double jeopardy?
Is it okay to take away a mentally ill persons right to not be treated with cruel and unusual punishment?
Is it okay to take away a mentally ill persons right to trial in civil cases?
Is it okay to take away a mentally ill persons Right to a fair and speedy trial and representation by lawyer?
Should rights reserved to people or the states just go out the window for the mentally ill?
Serious questions for you Kev.
KalashniKEV
01-31-16, 11:31
I missed the part in the constitution that says: "The permission of the people to keep and bear arms shall be infringed when a judge says so".
I think that may actually be the issue... either you haven't read, or you don't understand the United States Constitution.
Here is the part you apparently missed:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922
(6) who [2] has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
...
(4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;
...
(8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph...
...
(9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
...plus, of course felons, but none of those above are the same as being convicted of a felony, but the citizen (obviously) loses his rights.
Is it okay to take away a mentally ill persons freedom of...
Serious questions for you Kev.
Well, I believe Sensei is probably the one to address your questions, since he apparently is responsible for taking away mentally ill person's freedoms.
Not sure if he is a Judge or a Doctor though...
The answer is, YES- according to the laws of our society, it is OK to take rights away from the mentally ill, up to and including catching them in a net, shooting them up with tranquilizers and placing them in a straight jacket or a padded cell.
I'm surprised you don't know this...
I think that may actually be the issue... either you haven't read, or you don't understand the United States Constitution.
Here is the part you apparently missed:
...plus, of course felons, but none of those above are the same as being convicted of a felony, but the citizen (obviously) loses his rights.
Well, I believe Sensei is probably the one to address your questions, since he apparently is responsible for taking away mentally ill person's freedoms.
Not sure if he is a Judge or a Doctor though...
The answer is, YES- according to the laws of our society, it is OK to take rights away from the mentally ill, up to and including catching them in a net, shooting them up with tranquilizers and placing them in a straight jacket or a padded cell.
I'm surprised you don't know this...
I know I am being picky, but you do realize that you quoted US code and not the Constitution right? It's been a while since I've been to school, but I'm pretty sure that there is a difference between the Constitution and US Code. Didn't US Code allow for the ownership of people and such that was last deemed to NOT be Constitutional?
I'll go back to my previous statement: if you pose a danger to yourself and/or those around you; you should not be out among those you are a danger to. You shouldn't be voting for the leadership of any level of government. You shouldn't be out there trying to influence people with your opinions...
FromMyColdDeadHand
01-31-16, 12:10
I think the best part of KEVs post is that they system right now for reporting people that have dangerous mental issues isn't working. Instead of fixing that problem, the Progressives seem to just want to add more people to a list that isn't used correctly. Kind of like their insistence on more BGC, but then not following up on all the instances of prohibited persons trying to buy a gun.
From the side that uses the IRS for political gains, I don't think it is 'crazy' for people to be concerned that this new system could be used for nefarious ends.
Outlander Systems
01-31-16, 12:27
It's absolutely will be used as a political tool.
But I'm sure certain members here would insist that it is my Oppositional Defiant Disorder flaring up...
I think the best part of KEVs post is that they system right now for reporting people that have dangerous mental issues isn't working. Instead of fixing that problem, the Progressives seem to just want to add more people to a list that isn't used correctly. Kind of like their insistence on more BGC, but then not following up on all the instances of prohibited persons trying to buy a gun.
From the side that uses the IRS for political gains, I don't think it is 'crazy' for people to be concerned that this new system could be used for nefarious ends.
I'm with you on that- only a judge can take away your rights in this country.
That being said, a whole lot of folks are walking the streets all whacked out on SSRIs and other, worse stuff that effects their brain chemistry. We need to put these folks in front of the judge and have him adjudicate them as mentally defective, or good to go. It should be a part of the process.
I'm not interested in becoming target practice for a psych case because he thinks I'm bullying him or something, and I wouldn't want anything like that to happen to the ones I love.
No, you're wrong. "Protection" orders are unconstitutional and wrong. No man shall be denied his rights unless he had a jury trial wherein he was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. End of discussion.
Anyone who can't be trusted with a gun can't be trusted without a custodian.
FromMyColdDeadHand
01-31-16, 12:31
It's absolutely will be used as a political tool.
But I'm sure certain members here would insist that it is my Oppositional Defiant Disorder flaring up...
F**K them!!!!
Wait, this is sounding a lot like the "are you an alcoholic"- admit you are or your denial proves you are.
Seems like common sense to me...
There is such a clear record of how "mental illness," and its diagnosis, has been used in despotic totalitarian regimes to suppress opponents that it would be foolish not to consider the possibility of it being used here.
I'd rather take my chances against the random lone nut than the edifice of the state.
Outlander Systems
01-31-16, 12:37
Indeed, good Sir.
Certain individuals here are basically advocating modern day witch hunts.
F**K them!!!!
Wait, this is sounding a lot like the "are you an alcoholic"- admit you are or your denial proves you are.
I think that may actually be the issue... either you haven't read, or you don't understand the United States Constitution.
Here is the part you apparently missed:
...plus, of course felons, but none of those above are the same as being convicted of a felony, but the citizen (obviously) loses his rights.
Well, I believe Sensei is probably the one to address your questions, since he apparently is responsible for taking away mentally ill person's freedoms.
Not sure if he is a Judge or a Doctor though...
The answer is, YES- according to the laws of our society, it is OK to take rights away from the mentally ill, up to and including catching them in a net, shooting them up with tranquilizers and placing them in a straight jacket or a padded cell.
I'm surprised you don't know this...
So much fail Kev. YOU are the one who needs to read he constitution and not get it confused with US Code.
The USC is not Constitutional law. (Which is different from saying that something is unconstitutional) Most of the USC is established by Congress using their constitutionally granted powers. The Constitution overrules any laws that are in conflict with it, as decided by the Supreme Court (SCOTUS). Treaties also supercede the USC. The heirarchy goes like this:
COTUS, Treaties, USC, CFR
strict Constitutionalists (I am among those with those beliefs) believe that Congress's power should be limited to only those duties listed in the Constitution. All other powers should be vested to the people and the state governments. The Tenth Amendment specifically says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Go do some reading bro.
I think that may actually be the issue... either you haven't read, or you don't understand the United States Constitution.
Here is the part you apparently missed:
...plus, of course felons, but none of those above are the same as being convicted of a felony, but the citizen (obviously) loses his rights.
Well, I believe Sensei is probably the one to address your questions, since he apparently is responsible for taking away mentally ill person's freedoms.
Not sure if he is a Judge or a Doctor though...
The answer is, YES- according to the laws of our society, it is OK to take rights away from the mentally ill, up to and including catching them in a net, shooting them up with tranquilizers and placing them in a straight jacket or a padded cell.
I'm surprised you don't know this...
As has been pointed out, you don't understand the difference between the COTUS and US Code. The Lautenberg Amendment is patently unconstitutional, in retroactive application if not in scope.
I have a question. Have you ever entertained the hypothesis that some of the native cultural characteristics you've carried with you, are incompatible with our freedom based, constitutionally underpinned republic? Cultural transferrance is not at all uncommon in immigrants and it's not exclusive to the US. Some cultures simply don't fit well with a high level of freedom and self-determination. And before you accuse me of xenophobia, some immigrants are some of the MOST freedom and self-determination oriented citizens we have. They make better US citizens than many native born citizens do.
I hereby declare anyone in a position of "authority" to be suffering from Vocationally-Induced Megalomaniacal Disorder. Symptoms may include:
An attitude of self-righteousness
A lack of humility
A desire to dominate and subjugate others
Increased feelings of superiority / inflated sense of self-worth
Habitual, compulsive lying
Treatment methods recommended are an immediate resignation from political office, and volunteer work at a homeless shelter.
See how that shit works?
Sensei is absolutely, 100% correct in his post.
I know you were being facetious, but you're actually bang on here.
I think that may actually be the issue... either you haven't read, or you don't understand the United States Constitution.
Here is the part you apparently missed:
...plus, of course felons, but none of those above are the same as being convicted of a felony, but the citizen (obviously) loses his rights.
Well, I believe Sensei is probably the one to address your questions, since he apparently is responsible for taking away mentally ill person's freedoms.
Not sure if he is a Judge or a Doctor though...
The answer is, YES- according to the laws of our society, it is OK to take rights away from the mentally ill, up to and including catching them in a net, shooting them up with tranquilizers and placing them in a straight jacket or a padded cell.
I'm surprised you don't know this...
This has to be the most unintentionally hilarious post I've seen.
U.S.C. is not an abbreviation for US Constitution, btw.
Classic.
Were you unaware of the significant difference between the two, or were you trying to sneak that one by?
KalashniKEV
01-31-16, 19:43
U.S.C. is not an abbreviation for US Constitution, btw.
As has been pointed out, you don't understand the difference between the COTUS and US Code.
YOU are the one who needs to read he constitution and not get it confused with US Code.
I know I am being picky, but you do realize that you quoted US code and not the Constitution right?
You guys are on it... I started responding to the invoking of "the Constitution" and should have switched gears to, "the law."
No, you're wrong. "Protection" orders are unconstitutional and wrong. No man shall be denied his rights unless he had a jury trial wherein he was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. End of discussion.
The Lautenberg Amendment is patently unconstitutional, in retroactive application if not in scope.
Why don't you just say, "I don't like the laws in the US" or "I wish we all lived like Somali Pirates."
Also, let's stay on topic- this thread is about guns for the mentally ill... not guns for wife beaters.
(I'm really shocked not only that this was brought up, but that anyone could support arming those who abuse women... this truly is an interesting place!)
LowSpeed_HighDrag
01-31-16, 19:52
You guys are on it... I started responding to the invoking of "the Constitution" and should have switched gears to, "the law."
Why don't you just say, "I don't like the laws in the US" or "I wish we all lived like Somali Pirates."
Also, let's stay on topic- this thread is about guns for the mentally ill... not guns for wife beaters.
(I'm really shocked not only that this was brought up, but that anyone could support arming those who abuse women... this truly is an interesting place!)
Abuse women? Criminal Mischief DV Enhancer in Colorado is as simple as this: slamming a plate down in the sink as you are doing dishes and simultaneously fighting with the wife. Plate brakes, she says she felt intimidated. That can and HAS led to a DV conviction...
KalashniKEV
01-31-16, 19:56
That can and HAS led to a DV conviction...
Want to keep your rights?
Don't pick up convictions.
Super simple stuff.
You guys are on it... I started responding to the invoking of "the Constitution" and should have switched gears to, "the law."
Why don't you just say, "I don't like the laws in the US" or "I wish we all lived like Somali Pirates."
Also, let's stay on topic- this thread is about guns for the mentally ill... not guns for wife beaters.
(I'm really shocked not only that this was brought up, but that anyone could support arming those who abuse women... this truly is an interesting place!)
You are aWare that Constitution is the supreme law of the land?
And it supersedes all other laws that contradict or run counter to it.
Nice back peddle by the way- I almost forgot you didn't know the difference between the Constitution and USC. Your former posts intimated your obvious lack of understanding how the two are separated, and this most recent post reinforces the fact you don't understand which "laws" supersede others.
Again- reading and research is in order. I put it in plain English- COTUS supersedes USC.
You guys are on it... I started responding to the invoking of "the Constitution" and should have switched gears to, "the law."
Why don't you just say, "I don't like the laws in the US" or "I wish we all lived like Somali Pirates."
Also, let's stay on topic- this thread is about guns for the mentally ill... not guns for wife beaters.
(I'm really shocked not only that this was brought up, but that anyone could support arming those who abuse women... this truly is an interesting place!)
I'm really shocked that you don't understand how U.S. law works, or that Congress has passed and presidents have signed laws that were struck down as illegal. Further, I'm shocked that you'd confuse not supporting illegal "laws" with supporting domestic violence.
Actually, I'm not surprised you'd fail to understand this, hence the question I asked that you ignored.
FromMyColdDeadHand
01-31-16, 20:53
Abuse women? Criminal Mischief DV Enhancer in Colorado is as simple as this: slamming a plate down in the sink as you are doing dishes and simultaneously fighting with the wife. Plate brakes, she says she felt intimidated. That can and HAS led to a DV conviction...
Want to keep your rights?
Don't pick up convictions.
Super simple stuff.
The principle is that there are repercussions for legal decisions made with out the possible way of knowing the repercussions. How many people would have challenged more vigorously their DV charges if they had known that it would in effect signing away their 2A rights?
What crimes- and we could potentially be using that term loosely, since even a misdemeanor DV charge is a death sentence- will threaten our 2A rights? What medical assistance that we have tried to obtain in the past could imperil our 2A rights. Things that we thought were protected by doctor privilege?
That is what people are concerned about. Nobody want wife beaters to have guns, but what about people who plead guilty to a BS charge in the middle of a messy and expensive divorce, thinking that it really didn't matter.
Not a reason to shut down any and all attempts to link psychological interventions with keeping guns out of people's hands, but there has to be some forethought in what the direct and indirect implications are- and with Progressive gun policy dictated by the law of 'do something' with 'do something right now'- that isn't encouraging.
Hell, a large part of the left thinks that hunting is a crime and a sign of being evil.
And I don't think anyone has mentioned the effect this will have on people and their decisions to seek assistance.
I'd like to see some more of that interview. Because either that is heavily edited, someone was talking in Marcus' ear, or he was having an off day.
LowSpeed_HighDrag
01-31-16, 21:04
Want to keep your rights?
Don't pick up convictions.
Super simple stuff.
Ha! The trust you put into the (very broken) system with that statement is laughable!
KalashniKEV
01-31-16, 21:18
You are aWare that Constitution is the supreme law of the land?
Hmmm... sounds like a losing defense strategy.
Nice back peddle by the way- I almost forgot you didn't know the difference between the Constitution and USC.
No, I do... but I like the way you all pounced when you found factual inaccuracy in one of my posts. I'm sure you've all been waiting years for that... ;)
Actually, I'm not surprised you'd fail to understand this, hence the question I asked that you ignored.
What is your question?
Ha! The trust you put into the (very broken) system with that statement is laughable!
What's laughable is that I even responded to such a silly post.
Do you realize how easy it is to pick up a Domestic Violence conviction if you break something arguing?
Do you realize how easy it is to land on the Sex Offender Registry if you're masturbating in a house that has windows?
LOL
Don't do crimes. Don't start a rap sheet. Keep your rights.
When you go in front of the judge, you might not walk away with all the same options...
In all fairness, DomVio law and Sex Registry have become pretty sorely abused and over-interpreted.
People have gone to jail for restraining a combative and crazy spouse because the onus is placed on the officer who is held liable for anything arising from DomVio calls so he just arrests them both. It can be quite an uphill battle. Same for calling a wife/shack job a bitch and storming out. Like that was all.
It's an overinvolved uphill battle.
Same with guys getting caught pissing on a walk or streaking during a college prank. They too are in the ranks of legit pedos and rapists under some of these statutes.
You really can not be careful enough with your company. A lot of guys aren't quiet loners by choice. They just see the elephant and know that in some cases the only winning move is not to play.
There are some people who would LOVE to get some help. Some real help. Not dope. Not "I'm okay, you're okay", but not having to be so alone with their demons. But they know that at the end; they want their rights.
There was this movie I saw as a kid during a rough patch. It was called Lost Angels and it had a Beastie Boy in it. Essentially this guy gets locked up in a crazy ward, but he isn't crazy...just a bit of a selfish ass. Everybody wants to dope him up but Donald Sutherland who sees that his only illness is being 17 years old.
There is a lot of grey area here on who's really 'crazy' and who isn't. Some people are just mean and heartless. Some people just numb it with pills instead of accepting what is, what was, and what shall never be.
I've known too many judges to put faith in them. And...I probably don't fit the mold of what a "modern" man is.
Am I crazy too?
There are no obvious or easy answers on this subject, especially with modern sensibilities.
Hmmm... sounds like a losing defense strategy.
No, I do... but I like the way you all pounced when you found factual inaccuracy in one of my posts. I'm sure you've all been waiting years for that... ;)
What is your question?
What's laughable is that I even responded to such a silly post.
Do you realize how easy it is to pick up a Domestic Violence conviction if you break something arguing?
Do you realize how easy it is to land on the Sex Offender Registry if you're masturbating in a house that has windows?
LOL
Don't do crimes. Don't start a rap sheet. Keep your rights.
When you go in front of the judge, you might not walk away with all the same options...
More misdirection and ignoring the debate about the "laws" we are all discussing.
"Pounce". You repeatedly posted ignorant statements, you got called out; then back peddled and are now trying to misdirect.
Let's discuss the merit of the law. The intent of our founding documents. What supersedes what. What is right and just.
How about that?
Your posts about the discussion of the Constitution seem to posit a certain disdain of the document and Illegitimizes its importance and cache; how it IS the supreme law of the land and should be regRdless of how far we have strayed by the very incompetency of these judges you are willing to give powers that should not be granted.
Let's be honest and transparent here and quit with the shuck and jive Kev.
KalashniKEV
01-31-16, 22:07
...how it IS the supreme law of the land and should be regRdless of how far we have strayed by the very incompetency of these judges you are willing to give powers that should not be granted.
You realize that there are three branches of government, and that the judges didn't write the law... don't you?
I understand what you're trying to say... just like I understand what that "I AM THE LIVING MAN!" guy is trying to say...
http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/man5-641x375.jpg
It's interesting to ponder... but then there's reality to be dealt with...
You realize that there are three branches of government, and that the judges didn't write the law... don't you?
I understand what you're trying to say... just like I understand what that "I AM THE LIVING MAN!" guy is trying to say...
It's interesting to ponder... but then there's reality to be dealt with...
More deflection. Reality is what we allow it to be. We allow corrupt politicians and judges (Of all 3 branches of course- I was specifically using judges as that has been the focus of your debate herein) to subvert our supreme law- it becomes realit. We allow more control and subversion- it becomes reality.
So AGAIN- let's discuss the merit of these laws/ideals and how things are SUPPOSED to be. We've allowed things to go off the rails in MANY fashions- is it reality; yes. Should it be? Reality changes constantly, we have the power to change it to what is SHOULD be; that's the very grace and intent of our Constitution- what is right, and that what is right is so important that we may enforce it as "We The People" in several ways as laid out in our founding documents and our natural born rights codified in that document.
That men have subverted the Constitution for personal gain, and to wield great power over the citizenry being the reality we inhabit currently- does not make it right, just or something we need allow and bow down to.
History shows us time and time again the folly of men who follow merely to follow and succumb to the will of the Unjust just because it is easier than taking a stand and fighting for what is right and just.
Reality to be dealt with indeed...
In all fairness, DomVio law and Sex Registry have become pretty sorely abused and over-interpreted.
People have gone to jail for restraining a combative and crazy spouse because the onus is placed on the officer who is held liable for anything arising from DomVio calls so he just arrests them both. It can be quite an uphill battle. Same for calling a wife/shack job a bitch and storming out. Like that was all.
It's an overinvolved uphill battle.
Same with guys getting caught pissing on a walk or streaking during a college prank. They too are in the ranks of legit pedos and rapists under some of these statutes.
You really can not be careful enough with your company. A lot of guys aren't quiet loners by choice. They just see the elephant and know that in some cases the only winning move is not to play.
There are some people who would LOVE to get some help. Some real help. Not dope. Not "I'm okay, you're okay", but not having to be so alone with their demons. But they know that at the end; they want their rights.
There was this movie I saw as a kid during a rough patch. It was called Lost Angels and it had a Beastie Boy in it. Essentially this guy gets locked up in a crazy ward, but he isn't crazy...just a bit of a selfish ass. Everybody wants to dope him up but Donald Sutherland who sees that his only illness is being 17 years old.
There is a lot of grey area here on who's really 'crazy' and who isn't. Some people are just mean and heartless. Some people just numb it with pills instead of accepting what is, what was, and what shall never be.
I've known too many judges to put faith in them. And...I probably don't fit the mold of what a "modern" man is.
Am I crazy too?
There are no obvious or easy answers on this subject, especially with modern sensibilities.
Well stated Firefly.
Hmmm... sounds like a losing defense strategy.
No, I do... but I like the way you all pounced when you found factual inaccuracy in one of my posts. I'm sure you've all been waiting years for that... ;)
What is your question?
What's laughable is that I even responded to such a silly post.
Do you realize how easy it is to pick up a Domestic Violence conviction if you break something arguing?
Do you realize how easy it is to land on the Sex Offender Registry if you're masturbating in a house that has windows?
LOL
Don't do crimes. Don't start a rap sheet. Keep your rights.
When you go in front of the judge, you might not walk away with all the same options...
Second paragraph of post #61.
I can't tell if you're really this naive, or if you just enjoy trolling everyone. One thing is for certain, you don't understand the Constitution nearly as well as you think you do and you definitely don't understand how the law works.
KalashniKEV
01-31-16, 22:48
More deflection.
Income tax is voluntary!
The speed limit is unconstitutional!
Reality is what we allow it to be. We allow corrupt politicians and judges...
So getting right down to it... the "corrupt politicians" made laws that allow the "corrupt judges" to render judgment disarming wife beaters and crazies, and you don't agree because anyone who is not incarcerated should be able to carry a gun?
I don't agree.
Neither does Marcus Lutrell. (Who cares?)
Most importantly, the laws of the United States of America do not agree.
Second paragraph of post #61.
Should immigrants come to this country and fight the law... because you don't agree with the law?
No. Immigrants who don't agree with our laws should not come here.
Americans who don't agree with the law should do their part to try to overturn it, or GTFO.
There's the answer.
(Super simple stuff)
LowSpeed_HighDrag
01-31-16, 22:50
Second paragraph of post #61.
I can't tell if you're really this naive, or if you just enjoy trolling everyone. One thing is for certain, you don't understand the Constitution nearly as well as you think you do and you definitely don't understand how the law works.
I've reached the same conclusion on this gentleman. I've seen naïveté and I've seen trolling, but this appears to be a mix of both.
We have an infinitely broken legal system. I have spent years now in corrections and law enforcement, I have been witness to it. If life were as simple as "Don't break laws, don't start a rap sheet, don't get a conviction" the world would be a perfect place. If it were that simple, then only the true criminals would be a part of the system. Unfortunately for us all, it is not that simple, regardless of how a poster wishing for his voice to be loudest might wish for us to believe.
I think that may actually be the issue... either you haven't read, or you don't understand the United States Constitution.
Here is the part you apparently missed:
...plus, of course felons, but none of those above are the same as being convicted of a felony, but the citizen (obviously) loses his rights.
Well, I believe Sensei is probably the one to address your questions, since he apparently is responsible for taking away mentally ill person's freedoms.
Not sure if he is a Judge or a Doctor though...
The answer is, YES- according to the laws of our society, it is OK to take rights away from the mentally ill, up to and including catching them in a net, shooting them up with tranquilizers and placing them in a straight jacket or a padded cell.
I'm surprised you don't know this...
Only judges and magistrates take away people's rights. Doctors write a Petition for Commitment and a First Exam (in most states) which basically amounts to a medical opinion. The rights are not taken until the judge or magistrate (it varies depending on the commitment) signs it and directs the authorities to deliver the subject to a suitable medical facility, or affirms that a patient be detained for a prescribed length of time (in a medical facility) for treatment.
Also, straight jackets fell out of favor over 20 years ago. While you may have a few in your basement, the Joint Commission removed straight jackets and ball gags from hospitals due to various safety concerns.
Perhaps it's time to call it quits in this thread?
LowSpeed_HighDrag
01-31-16, 23:18
Only judges and magistrates take away people's rights. Doctors write a Petition for Commitment and a First Exam (in most states) which basically amounts to a medical opinion. The rights are not taken until the judge or magistrate (it varies depending on the commitment) signs it and directs the authorities to deliver the subject to a suitable medical facility, or affirms that a patient be detained for a prescribed length of time (in a medical facility) for treatment.
Also, straight jackets fell out of favor over 20 years ago. While you may have a few in your basement, the Joint Commission removed straight jackets and ball gags from hospitals due to various safety concerns.
Perhaps it's time to call it quits in this thread?
Agreed.
This seems appropriate to leave, right..... here,
https://youtu.be/MaGE6j6srCY
Income tax is voluntary!
The speed limit is unconstitutional!
So getting right down to it... the "corrupt politicians" made laws that allow the "corrupt judges" to render judgment disarming wife beaters and crazies, and you don't agree because anyone who is not incarcerated should be able to carry a gun?
I don't agree.
Neither does Marcus Lutrell. (Who cares?)
Most importantly, the laws of the United States of America do not agree.
Should immigrants come to this country and fight the law... because you don't agree with the law?
No. Immigrants who don't agree with our laws should not come here.
Americans who don't agree with the law should do their part to try to overturn it, or GTFO.
There's the answer.
(Super simple stuff)
What you just posted doesn't make a lick of sense. Seriously, I can't make heads or tails of it. So much so that I'd call it a non-sequitur. You didn't even answer the question, which tells me a lot about the way you think. I think I'm done trying to debate the issue with you. I just hope your influence in American law and politics, never rises above your quirky opinions and one single vote at the ballot box. It would be to our general detriment if it did. :(
Outlander Systems
02-01-16, 06:05
Sometimes I wonder if folks get paid to be here...
...or if Trolling has been taken to an entirely new level.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.