Mental health and gun control

[vrosej10]

Law, tradition, history, culture, existing gun ownership and society are so different in the USA that importing remedies from elsewhere will not work.[/QUOTE

True that. I just their is a kind of violent self destructive nuttiness amongst them. I am just glad I don't live there. Frankly I think they need to piss or get off the pot!

 

[vrosej10]

[/I]

~~~

vRose, you are historically incorrect. There was great discussion concerning the second amendment before it was adopted. A large part of that discussion was to clarify that 'the right to bear arms', was not tied to government service, as in a militia, but was in fact a basic right of self defense, an 'indidivudal right', not granted but acknowledged as inherent and unalienable.

I see it as a sadness that two former Colonies of Great Britain still do not understand the basic concepts of human individual liberty and that those 'rights' are accurately described in our Founding Documents as 'unalienable', they can neither be granted nor removed from the individual and government is authoroized only to protect and defend them.

It is you who are the dinosaurs; time to wake up and smell the freedom.



Amicus

Unlimited freedom is a dangerous thing; most men are incapable of dealing with it and your country continues to prove this is the case.

 

[vrosej10]

I have many friends who carry a gun in their car or truck and have many more in their home. When I ask them why, they are quick to describe the many threats which a gun can answer.

Carjackers and home invaders are the most common response. Of course, none of my friends has ever seen a car jacker or home invader, but they are certain the danger is real. The gun allows them to feel safe. In reality, they are not, but there is no point in arguing with them.

The feeling of safety and security which comes from having a gun is so powerful, we will pay whatever price is asked. Guns in the hands of lunatics and children is not too high a price.

We can whine and moan every time a Congress person or school student is gunned down, but nothing will be done about. The only way to keep guns out of the hands of the irresponsible is to also keep them out of the hands of my friends.

Fair enough. I am watching this from a distance and the cost of this particular freedom seems too high to me. What does continue to bother me, is that it seems to be an all or nothing concept to you guys. We have to have guns or we'll have not freedom at all. Change seems to be impossible for you lot. You know what they say, that which does not change, dies. One wonders whether the declination of the USA star may be due to its inability to move forward?

 

[ishtat]

I have gone to the trouble of researching Auistralia's actual laws. More than "certain assault rifles" were banned; military grade weapons are in a separate category from "semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns and rifles" but both are in 'banned' categories that require higher levels of justification to own or possess. My Remington .22 rifle would be in that "semi-automatic rifle" class.

Harold, prior to 1996 a lot of the military style weapons were already banned in parts of OZ but the situation was different in each state. NSW and Victoria were more restrictive than the other states. The 1996 Act codified the situation because the Feds were able to dictate that all states had the same laws under threat of funding cuts. The 1996 Act codified the situation across all 6 states.

The argument about assault rifles carried the 1996 Act because of the particular guns Martyn Bryant used at Port Arthur.

PS I forgot to mention how the gun amnesty buyback was financed. It was funded by a 1% point temporary increase in the medicare (socialised medicine) levy and hardly drew a peep of opposition!!.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Guns make predators think again.

With a pistol in your handbag or fanny-pack youre protected from rape and thugs.

We have a STAND YOUR GROUND law here, and plenty of criminals are dying after they assault joggers and pedestrians possessing guns. So a few of these guys are re-thinking things.

 

[Weird Harold]

The argument about assault rifles carried the 1996 Act because of the particular guns Martyn Bryant used at Port Arthur.

PS I forgot to mention how the gun amnesty buyback was financed. It was funded by a 1% point temporary increase in the medicare (socialised medicine) levy and hardly drew a peep of opposition!!.

Yeah, I've used some of PM Howard's quotes about how he hates guns and guns are evil and how he used public outrage to push his anti-gun agenda. I'm not particlarly opposed to rational gun control, but I am opposed to irrational, ban at any cost, fanatics like PM Howard. Many of our home-grown anti-gun activists share PM Howard's viewpoint and hold him up as a hero for the world-wide anti-gun movement.

I did not come across any reference to how the gun buy-back was funded. Nice to know they considered it a "public health" problem.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Face the facts: Gun control laws don't save lives
Ron Smith
12:34 p.m. EST, January 20, 2011

I wasn't surprised to see letters to the editor about last week's column from people who cling to their heartfelt notion that if we just had more sensible gun control laws, the assassination attempt on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords that resulted in six deaths earlier this month might not have happened.

My comments on the rush to condemn Sarah Palin and conservative commentators for somehow encouraging the alleged gunman by fostering a "climate of hate" made no mention of the gun issue.

However, just as the commentariat on the left couldn't resist trying to tie its political opponents to the Tucson massacre, however farfetched the hypothesis, so too are the believers in gun-control laws unable to avoid trotting out their discredited theories — the ones rebuffed by reality and rejected by voters outside of Democratic bastions like New York, California and, yes, Maryland.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-smith-20110120,0,7874660.column

 

[Stella_Omega]

Fair enough. I am watching this from a distance and the cost of this particular freedom seems too high to me. What does continue to bother me, is that it seems to be an all or nothing concept to you guys. We have to have guns or we'll have not freedom at all. Change seems to be impossible for you lot. You know what they say, that which does not change, dies. One wonders whether the declination of the USA star may be due to its inability to move forward?

Absolutely.

 

[stephen55]

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

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 (sic) 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.

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

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

Amicus, you and I often disagree. I'm happy to say that this tradition continues.

The Constitution was written to be changeable. The Hon. Jack Brooks, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives, agrees with me.

http://www.house.gov/house/Foreword.shtml

In this article, he writes...

The Framers made the conscious decision of choosing constitutional generality over the overly specific civil codes of the European nations. By so doing, they wisely built in a flexibility to accommodate change so that a living instrument of government could be passed down to succeeding generations.

You see the world as polarized into good or evil, right or wrong, black or white. You feel that what was true then, must be true now and forever.

That works for a lot of things. It doesn't work for a lot of other things.

The Framers of the Constitution understood this. There were not adhering to "Marxist Dialectic". They were adhering to common sense.

 

[stephen55]

Ps; ami, I'm beginning to think that you've never really studied your own Constitution. (I'm certain you've never really studied anything written by Karl Marx.)

Read...perhaps.
Studied...maybe.
Understood...unlikely.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Amicus, you and I often disagree. I'm happy to say that this tradition continues.

The Constitution was written to be changeable. The Hon. Jack Brooks, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives, agrees with me.

http://www.house.gov/house/Foreword.shtml

In this article, he writes...

The Framers made the conscious decision of choosing constitutional generality over the overly specific civil codes of the European nations. By so doing, they wisely built in a flexibility to accommodate change so that a living instrument of government could be passed down to succeeding generations.

You see the world as polarized into good or evil, right or wrong, black or white. You feel that what was true then, must be true now and forever.

That works for a lot of things. It doesn't work for a lot of other things.

The Framers of the Constitution understood this. There were not adhering to "Marxist Dialectic". They were adhering to common sense.

Yes, the Constitution can be changed. The document even lays out the method by which it may be changed.

Barring change, it is the law of our land and has been codified by the highest court in the land many times. Just because one person or group of persons believe it says, or interprets the words differently from those actually written is irrelevant.

 

[jomar]

may have put this on the wrong thread at first - arizona blu...

I find it fascinating that people even feel the need to have a gun, especially pistols...hunting rifles/shotguns for game...maybe a sporting case to be made. Or hand-me-downs/inheritance.

The US is a technological nation now. There is absolutely no need to own a gun, a weapon meant for lethal destruction no matter the sugar coating.

But guns are amazingly entrenched in the nations psyche and the lobbyists powerful.

So fuck a Glock, I want a phaser.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

You dont need a gun till you need a gun. Like while youre waiting for the bus and a shithead drags you into the weeds to fuxk you and make dents in your skull; or while youre jogging when a couple of good boys slap you around to get your money or maybe the BTK guy lives next door.

 

[Handley_Page]

The statistics on sanity is that one out of every four persons are suffering from some sort of mental illness. Think of your three best friends -- if they're okay, then it's you.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

That's only because the psychiatric profession has defined mental illness so broadly. I figure it's their attempt to rule the world by putting everyone on the planet in mental hospitals.





They're out to get us, you know they are . . .

 

[jomar]

You dont need a gun till you need a gun. Like while youre waiting for the bus and a shithead drags you into the weeds to fuxk you and make dents in your skull; or while youre jogging when a couple of good boys slap you around to get your money or maybe the BTK guy lives next door.

Do you carry?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

No. I'm the worst thing I'm likely to come upon on the street. But I usually have a knife on me.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The statistics on sanity is that one out of every four persons are suffering from some sort of mental illness. Think of your three best friends -- if they're okay, then it's you.

Most diagnoses are for what we call adjustment disorders. That is, something comes along that causes a bout of depression or whatever, you get thru it, and move on with your life. Could be a divorce or death or failure of some kind. These things knock us down. If your insurance is good the problem can last a long time; if your insurance is miserly youre usually cured pretty quickly.

 

[vrosej10]

No. I'm the worst thing I'm likely to come upon on the street. But I usually have a knife on me.

Now that thought is frightening. I am not sure you should be allowed to roam the streets freely. By the by, that would be illegal in Aussie and you could be arrested.

 

[xssve]

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.

Gotta pay for tax cuts for arms dealers somehow.

http://eddirt.frozenreality.co.uk/strips/20040328.jpg

 

[xssve]

That's only because the psychiatric profession has defined mental illness so broadly. I figure it's their attempt to rule the world by putting everyone on the planet in mental hospitals.





They're out to get us, you know they are . . .

Naw, they're just trolling custom for their pharma patrons.

 

[1sickbastard]

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

The 2nd Amendment is the only real defense of the people against tyranny. If you don't think your fellow citizens can be trusted with deadly force, why should you trust them to participate in the political process at all? Remember the end result of the process is law. If one doesn't abide by the law, you become subject to force, deadly if necessary to bring one back within the law.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Now that thought is frightening. I am not sure you should be allowed to roam the streets freely. By the by, that would be illegal in Aussie and you could be arrested.

It gets worse. The hospital trained most of us how to take down violent people...just put you on the ground if youre mean-spirited.

Your laws put you at the mercy of violent people.

 

[vrosej10]

It gets worse. The hospital trained most of us how to take down violent people...just put you on the ground if youre mean-spirited.

Your laws put you at the mercy of violent people.

The fact that you are a mental health nurse? explains a lot. Most of you guys (not pyschologists, psychiatrists) want to be prison guards and failed so now you enjoy lording your authority over people who don't have an option to resist. i can see how this would appeal to you.

 

[ishtat]

Yeah, I've used some of PM Howard's quotes about how he hates guns and guns are evil and how he used public outrage to push his anti-gun agenda. I'm not particlarly opposed to rational gun control, but I am opposed to irrational, ban at any cost, fanatics like PM Howard. Many of our home-grown anti-gun activists share PM Howard's viewpoint and hold him up as a hero for the world-wide anti-gun movement.

.

Harold, Prime Minister Howard was not an anti- gun fanatic... ever. He introduced the legislation because there were votes in it... for no other reason.When John Howard spoke for controlling the use of guns most of the ordinary working and middle class people out in the suburbs agreed with him. He didn't lead the debate, he followed the majority public opinion to get their votes. Howards rhetoric was only extreme if transposed into an American context.

John Howard retained office for ten years and that alone is the sum of his achievement. In almost every other respect he was utterly contemptable but on this issue whether one likes it or not his was the majority point of view.