Mental health and gun control

[stephen55]

In the wake of Jared Loughner's Tucson shooting rampage, there have been renewed calls for both controls on easy access to guns, especially high capacity guns and also for improved mental health care.

The gun control aspects have been argued and will be forever argued. In a country that loves and passionately defends it's rights to keep and bear handguns and rifles with thirty shot magazines, I think it will take an act of Congress, amending the Second Amendment, to deal with this part of the Tucson tragedy.

So, let's move on to mental health issues. Psychiatric illnesses are with us. People do become mentally ill. People like Jared Loughner, who apparently was a fairly regular kid when he entered high school, can descend into a pattern of broken and distorted thought. They can lose connection with the real world and enter a psychotic and delusional world of their own. The vast majority of people with mental health problems are not a danger to themselves or others, but when thought processes become so disorganized and chaotic that one is clearly a paranoid schizophrenic and not receiving proper psychiatric help, then that someone is a real danger to themselves and others.

So, what is the state of Arizona doing about mental health care in Arizona, particularly in the wake of the Tucson tragedy?

http://www.azcentral.com/news/artic...zona-budget-mentally-ill-health-benefits.html

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2011...an-already-beleaguered-mental-health-system/#

The state of Arizona has been cutting mental health budgets and proposes to further cut mental health budgets.

Hey there, Governor Jan Brewer, cutting budgets for mental health care in Arizona...how's that been working out for you?



Whatever happened to...

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

As for "provide for the common defense", that brings us back to the value of and meaning of the Second Amendment in 2011, as opposed to 1791, when it was passed.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Silly Billy doesnt know that tax revenues are wayyyyy down and unemployment is wayyyyy up.

 

[Stella_Omega]

There's a lot of work available in health care, but no wages available for health care.

 

[DeeZire]

Silly Billy doesnt know that tax revenues are wayyyyy down and unemployment is wayyyyy up.

There are also $9 billion a year in tax loopholes - the result of special interest lobbying. Compare that $9 billion to the $1 billion projected deficit and the solution is obvious - close 15% of the loopholes.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Any attempt to change the laws enabling the involuntary hospitalization of those whose behavior has become alarmingly bizarre will run nose first into the First Amendment. And while the ACLU leaves the defense of the Second in the capable hands of the NRA they will fight to the death before any change is made to the interpretations of the First.

Of course the Founders no more expected that the First Amendment would be interpreted to defend the right of the schizophrenic to walk around mumbling to themselves and (rarely) lashing out violently than they would have expected Glock 23's with 31 shot magazines. But the fact remains that the first two amendments in the Bill of Rights do occasionally come in conflict with each other. What the resolution of this dilemma might be I have no idea.

 

[stephen55]

What's wrong with amending the Amendments?

But the fact remains that the first two amendments in the Bill of Rights do occasionally come in conflict with each other. What the resolution of this dilemma might be I have no idea.

When something has outlived its usefulness, it's a good idea to modify it, or get rid of it altogether and replace it with something that is useful today.

The authors of the Constitution meant it to be a living document, a machine that would go of itself. It was never meant to be chiseled in stone, forever unalterable.

Personally, I don't think the First Amendment infringes on the right of the state to hospitalize mentally ill patients against their will. I don't think the First Amendment gives anyone the right to walk around, so mentally ill that they are a danger to themselves or others.

And while the First Amendment has been interpreted by the Supreme court to mean that it's perfectly okay to burn a cross on the front lawn of an African American family (well, actually, they ruled that legislation banning such behavior is unconstitutional)...

http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/school/1st_crossburning.html

...that doesn't mean that the First Amendment can't itself be amended.

As for the Second Amendment, the time to amend it has long past.

Get it done.

 

[jomar]

...

I don't think the First Amendment gives anyone the right to walk around, so mentally ill that they are a danger to themselves or others.


...

A serious question: How do you propose society determines who is a risk to others?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

There are also $9 billion a year in tax loopholes - the result of special interest lobbying. Compare that $9 billion to the $1 billion projected deficit and the solution is obvious - close 15% of the loopholes.

Obama plans to use that billion for 2012. Where do you suppose the Democrats get their money?

 

[voluptuary_manque]

When something has outlived its usefulness, it's a good idea to modify it, or get rid of it altogether and replace it with something that is useful today.

The authors of the Constitution meant it to be a living document, a machine that would go of itself. It was never meant to be chiseled in stone, forever unalterable.

Personally, I don't think the First Amendment infringes on the right of the state to hospitalize mentally ill patients against their will. I don't think the First Amendment gives anyone the right to walk around, so mentally ill that they are a danger to themselves or others.

And while the First Amendment has been interpreted by the Supreme court to mean that it's perfectly okay to burn a cross on the front lawn of an African American family (well, actually, they ruled that legislation banning such behavior is unconstitutional)...

http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/school/1st_crossburning.html

...that doesn't mean that the First Amendment can't itself be amended.

As for the Second Amendment, the time to amend it has long past.

Get it done.

Ain't gonna happen. To amend the constitution you have to have a vote by two-thirds of both houses of Congress and then have it ratified by three quarters of the state legislatures. Fuggedaboudit! Outside of the Northeast and California there is NO backing for additional firearms legislation. The NRA has won. Cope.

 

[stephen55]

Is that the best you can do?

Ain't gonna happen. To amend the constitution you have to have a vote by two-thirds of both houses of Congress and then have it ratified by three quarters of the state legislatures. Fuggedaboudit! Outside of the Northeast and California there is NO backing for additional firearms legislation. The NRA has won. Cope.

Cope?

I don't have to. Where I live, treatment for mental health problems is readily available and easily accessible. New legislation requires a simple majority in Parliament.

You're the ones who have to cope.

Then again, maybe you can deal with it. In the early Forties you built the bomb. In the Sixties you sent men to the moon and back. Are you saying you can't help the mentally ill and/or keep high capacity firearms out of ridiculously easy access?

Figure out a way to make it happen.

You can start by electing legislators and states persons, instead of politicians and ex beauty queens.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

You can start by electing legislators and states persons, instead of politicians and ex beauty queens.

A worthy goal. Unfortunately that will require a complete change in the national character, something that is unlikely. Please understand that there is a single essential difference between Americans and our beloved neighbors to the north. We hate our government. Always have, probably always will. Its not just that we hate out particular government, we hate all governments. Why else would the oldest democracy on the planet have such a low voter turnout? We don't trust it, we don't like it and we want it to do as little as possible with the exception of handing out benefits to us on a personal level. Mad, no? I'm not sure how we got this way but today it seems that the only reason we elect officials is to use them to bash and belabor those other Americans we despise. Pity, actually . . .

 

[DeeZire]

A worthy goal. Unfortunately that will require a complete change in the national character, something that is unlikely. Please understand that there is a single essential difference between Americans and our beloved neighbors to the north. We hate our government. Always have, probably always will. Its not just that we hate out particular government, we hate all governments. Why else would the oldest democracy on the planet have such a low voter turnout? We don't trust it, we don't like it and we want it to do as little as possible with the exception of handing out benefits to us on a personal level. Mad, no? I'm not sure how we got this way but today it seems that the only reason we elect officials is to use them to bash and belabor those other Americans we despise. Pity, actually . . .

I'd suggest your collective "we" does not represent the majority of Americans. Granted, there are those who've given up, so to speak, but there are others, like Gabby Giffords, who believe in the role of government in promoting the common good. I think if we were to remove the Frank Luntz affect from public discourse (deceptive rhetoric demonizing government) there would be a lot more people at the polls come election time. It would also help if voting occurred on the weekend, rather than trying to cram the act of voting into the 2 hour window between getting off of work and the closing of the polls on a Tuesday night.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I think Bear describes the majority. A close majority. maybe 52-56%.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

I think Bear describes the majority. A close majority. maybe 52-56%.

And I'd like to point out that it doesn't make me proud to be right on this. I am an observer by nature, not a participant. I merely report what I see.

 

[R. Richard]

Cope?

I don't have to. Where I live, treatment for mental health problems is readily available and easily accessible. New legislation requires a simple majority in Parliament.

Interesting. How do you go about getting those who need mental health treatment to go about getting it? Remember, those who really need the mental health treatment are living in a dream world, which dream world often suits them quite well. Somehow, the psychotic needs to be convinced that he/she/it is living in a dream world and that the person who's trying to convince whako to get help isn't the one living in a dream world. Exactly how do you go about convincing a fully functional psychotic that he/she/it needs mental help? TIA!

 

[Huckleman2000]

Interesting. How do you go about getting those who need mental health treatment to go about getting it? Remember, those who really need the mental health treatment are living in a dream world, which dream world often suits them quite well. Somehow, the psychotic needs to be convinced that he/she/it is living in a dream world and that the person who's trying to convince whako to get help isn't the one living in a dream world. Exactly how do you go about convincing a fully functional psychotic that he/she/it needs mental help? TIA!

Good question. We've been trying to convince you for years.

 

[vrosej10]

Aussie normally has excellent control of these things but this morning it was in the paper about this white power nutter butter was given permission to own one. This is not going to end well. http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...ven-okay-for-gun/story-e6freuzi-1225991344204

 

[TxRad]

Aussie normally has excellent control of these things but this morning it was in the paper about this white power nutter butter was given permission to own one. This is not going to end well. http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...ven-okay-for-gun/story-e6freuzi-1225991344204

I have a friend down-under who has tried to explain to me how well the national gun control over there is working. So far his main explanation has been, "Not worth a fuck!"

Serious question? Is that about right or is he pulling my wooden leg?

 

[vrosej10]

I have a friend down-under who has tried to explain to me how well the national gun control over there is working. So far his main explanation has been, "Not worth a fuck!"

Serious question? Is that about right or is he pulling my wooden leg?

For 99% of people it works fine. For that particularly talented criminal 1%, well they just walk through it. But I think that's how it is everywhere. Our gun crime levels are very low. So low that if anyone manages to get shot, it makes the news. It's a rare event.

This particular event is beyond belief. I doubt he'd get a gun in the US. He has a personality disorder and a history of domestic violence, plus a whole bunch of weird beliefs.

 

[amicus]

When something has outlived its usefulness, it's a good idea to modify it, or get rid of it altogether and replace it with something that is useful today.

The authors of the Constitution meant it to be a living document, a machine that would go of itself. It was never meant to be chiseled in stone, forever unalterable

.

~~~


A handful of envious Canadians join the 'usual suspects' here on the forum to dispense propaganda injurious not only to America, but the unversal concepts of human freedom and human dignity.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment X

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.

~~~

The above is identified as the United States Bill of Rights, the first Ten Amendments to the Constitution. And...they are indeed 'carved in stone', as intended by the Framers.

They are such because they identify, clarify and codify Unversal Moral Absolutes applicable to all men at all times, past, present and future.

The current popular patina on Marxist Dialectic, is to state that the US constitution is a 'living document', intended to be modified over time to suit changing events.

It is not.

It is the first clear statement of universal human rights codified in law and has lasted longer that any other government in the history of democratic institutions.

Only the Ten Commandments have perhaps lasted longer, for for somewhat the same reason: they reflect certain universal, absolute and unchaning aspects of human existence.

The 'usual suspects', et al, who reject traditional and conventional morals and ethics are expressing a guilt at their own immoral or amoral and unjustified lifestyle and beg the rest of us to indulge their Bohemian fancies that exist without a future and, essentially, without a past or present, as they live for the moment only and take no responsibility for the quality and values of human life.

Walk away when someone tries to foist off, 'a living document' interpretation of universal human ethics, they are out to corrupt your soul and destroy your concepts of moral issues.

Amicus

 

[DeeZire]

I think Bear describes the majority. A close majority. maybe 52-56%.

A majority of Americans favor all but one of the individual mandates of Obamacare, (as long as Obamacare isn't mentioned) so in that sense they're okay with their government "nudging" the private sector in the right direction. In fact, America was polling in favor of the public option until Frank Luntz renamed it, so I'd say the anti-government majority Bear speaks of is fluid rather than set in stone.

*****

Since Ami is still on ignore, I can only imagine what he just added to this thread. Let me guess: Eight single-sentence paragraphs featuring words such as "tyranny," "socialism," and "personal freedoms," but no mention of Medicare, since that's a rather sensitive subject for the freeloading old coot.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Interesting. How do you go about getting those who need mental health treatment to go about getting it? Remember, those who really need the mental health treatment are living in a dream world, which dream world often suits them quite well. Somehow, the psychotic needs to be convinced that he/she/it is living in a dream world and that the person who's trying to convince whako to get help isn't the one living in a dream world. Exactly how do you go about convincing a fully functional psychotic that he/she/it needs mental help? TIA!

How do you convince people to eat their veggies and stop smoking and exercise and do their homework? People know what to do and dont.

 

[rgraham666]

Since a large number of people still regard mental illness as a matter of 'strength' and 'will', with the resulting conclusion that people who are mentally ill choose to be mentally ill, very little will be done about improving mental health care in that area in the States. Since that group also tends to regard 'taxes as theft' the likelihood of improvement grows even lower.

Even though it won't actually save money because more mentally ill people will end up in jail and more people will be injured and killed by those whose mental illness becomes serious because of lack of care.

As a little factoid I give you the data that the largest defacto mental asylum in the States is the Los Angeles County jail system, where one third of the inmates are mentally ill.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Dont pay your taxes and see if the IRS cuts you any slack for mental illness.

 

[amicus]

There has been a forty year battle over the definition of 'mental illness', mental disorders, and whatnot...thanks to the 'hippy generation' in the 60's & 70's, who decided that any behavior was, 'social' and should be accepted as such.

Seeking a neutral definition; "....mental disorder,noun
Definition of MENTAL DISORDER

: a mental or bodily condition marked primarily by sufficient disorganization of personality, mind, and emotions to seriously impair the normal psychological functioning of the individual—called also mental illness

What DSM 4 & 5 Fucked up on, was that it/they, discounted human nature, natural inclinations, and began to equate, 'social justice' with real psychological science, and the outcome, was that any human behavior is 'acceptable' in a fabricated social environment.

Suddenly in 1973, as a result of this this psychological revolution, it was perfectly moral to butcher a baby in the womb, and butt fuck your buddy, whatever turns you on or gets you through the night.

DeeZire & Xssve, just to name two, struggle to justify genocide and buggery, as if those immoral acts were simply subjective decisions, relativistic moral codes that were perfectly fine in an amoral social setting.

What they failed to predict, was entirely predictable, that of the mental disolution of those who accepted amorality as a standard and how it would reflect to the innate psychological make-up of the individual human being.

Human behavior is determined by the nature of human existence, not fabricated, social models motivated by subjective imperatives. Mental illness of such natures cannot be treated nor ameliorated by social acceptance or treatment of any kind.

The nation, indeed the world, will pay for the millions of abortion murders, as indeed, the price will be paid for homosexual acts. There is no God, no afterlife, no judgement day, but each and all will pay with a complete and total loss of human dignity which places you along side all the atrocities committed by deranged men and women in all times and all places.

There is an absolute and universal moral code for dignified human actions and you have violated the basic codes of life, and mental illness, mental disorders, is and are, the inevitable price you pay. Narcotics as a path to death, are your only escape and you know it.

Amicus