When the Right to Bear Arms Includes the Mentally Ill

[DirtDawg]

Asssuming that we all can agree that felons should be denied their natural rights to live freely, including the right to keep arms, vote, serve the public in any official capacity, etc.  Why is it not as simple to deny the rights of those who prove to be incompetent.

Do we really need a judge to determine this. Well maybe so. If one is incompetent with any dangerous tool, car, gun, hammer, alcoholic drink, whatever, then it follows that ...

If you act like a retard, maybe there should be a way to keep you from your natural rights.
Lock them up with a soap magazine and make them shit in a bucket. It is called prison. You no longer get to exercize your natural rights.




Editing: Oh and no more safe places. Let them all live together in open spaces. Darwin rules for all!

[Semicolon]

Asssuming that we all can agree that felons should be denied their natural rights to live freely, including the right to keep arms, vote, serve the public in any official capacity, etc.  Why is it not as simple to deny the rights of those who prove to be incompetent.

Do we really need a judge to determine this. Well maybe so. If one is incompetent with any dangerous tool, car, gun, hammer, alcoholic drink, whatever, then it follows that ...

If you act like a retard, maybe there should be a way to keep you from your natural rights.
Lock them up with a soap magazine and make them shit in a bucket. It is called prison. You no longer get to exercize your natural rights.




Editing: Oh and no more safe places. Let them all live together in open spaces. Darwin rules for all!

Theoretically, because felons choose to be criminals, but the mentally ill don't (as a rule) choose to be mentally ill.

[DirtDawg]

Asssuming that we all can agree that felons should be denied their natural rights to live freely, including the right to keep arms, vote, serve the public in any official capacity, etc.  Why is it not as simple to deny the rights of those who prove to be incompetent.

Do we really need a judge to determine this. Well maybe so. If one is incompetent with any dangerous tool, car, gun, hammer, alcoholic drink, whatever, then it follows that ...

If you act like a retard, maybe there should be a way to keep you from your natural rights.
Lock them up with a soap magazine and make them shit in a bucket. It is called prison. You no longer get to exercize your natural rights.




Editing: Oh and no more safe places. Let them all live together in open spaces. Darwin rules for all!

Theoretically, because felons choose to be criminals, but the mentally ill don't (as a rule) choose to be mentally ill.

OK, I can see a co-relation, but the "defined as" mentally ill are continually exempt from this argument, until they commit a crime, then they also get loccked up. Sorry, but that is how it is. If one is too mentally ill to maintain a life without hurting others then they are criminals, by the first definition.

I have a "friend"  with a severely autistic sixteen year old son. His son leaves his dirty diapers everywhere in their house. That is NOT a felony. As long as this kid has a support system, he willl be safe from the law. I worry about what happpens if he is ever on his own.

So, since the mentally ill are not capable of making socially acceptable decisions, they should be exempt from social expectations?

There has to be a line  in the sand. It can be as crooked as we like, but crossing it must present consequences.

[odeon]

Asssuming that we all can agree that felons should be denied their natural rights to live freely, including the right to keep arms, vote, serve the public in any official capacity, etc.  Why is it not as simple to deny the rights of those who prove to be incompetent.

Do we really need a judge to determine this. Well maybe so. If one is incompetent with any dangerous tool, car, gun, hammer, alcoholic drink, whatever, then it follows that ...

If you act like a retard, maybe there should be a way to keep you from your natural rights.
Lock them up with a soap magazine and make them shit in a bucket. It is called prison. You no longer get to exercize your natural rights.




Editing: Oh and no more safe places. Let them all live together in open spaces. Darwin rules for all!

Theoretically, because felons choose to be criminals, but the mentally ill don't (as a rule) choose to be mentally ill.

And society should care for them and help them, but also protect its other citizens.

[RageBeoulve]

Would it be better if the police seized private property with no oversight from the judiciary?

Yes.  It is called 'crime prevention'.   We are not talking about the high numbers of people who have a disorder and manage to live without causing harm to anyone else.   

We are talking about someone in denial,  with a history of skipping his meds and with a history of threatening people,  and having messages from 'God'.  Someone with a history of listening and carrying out his messages from 'God'.  Someone known to the police.

This man has red flags hanging out his pockets!  If it is made harder for those flagged up like this to get hold of guns then maybe it would reduce the amount of 'massacres'.

They can temporarily remove guns. However, "because the police say so" does not justify permanently removing a Constitutional right.

What good is a state that does not protect its citizens even when the risk is obvious to even the most casual observer?

Indeed. One would think the reason guns are being systematically removed is because the state has developed the ability to protect the citizens and that they don't need guns to feel safe.

Paradox. 

Yeah, that's why they want to give back this guy's guns. 

I think this stupid problem goes deeper than guns themselves though. The state is an incompetent piece of shit, and is run by companies and banks (They fund the elections after all). The greedy farts get to decide what is best for us.

This is why stateism came with a big fat warning label called the constitution in most countries. If you read it, you'll basically get the idea that although the state can give you peace of mind and make things a bit easier when used in moderation, too much state and government is addictive and hazardous to your health.

[RageBeoulve]

I have one more thing to add.

[DirtDawg]

Asssuming that we all can agree that felons should be denied their natural rights to live freely, including the right to keep arms, vote, serve the public in any official capacity, etc.  Why is it not as simple to deny the rights of those who prove to be incompetent.

Do we really need a judge to determine this. Well maybe so. If one is incompetent with any dangerous tool, car, gun, hammer, alcoholic drink, whatever, then it follows that ...

If you act like a retard, maybe there should be a way to keep you from your natural rights.
Lock them up with a soap magazine and make them shit in a bucket. It is called prison. You no longer get to exercize your natural rights.




Editing: Oh and no more safe places. Let them all live together in open spaces. Darwin rules for all!

Theoretically, because felons choose to be criminals, but the mentally ill don't (as a rule) choose to be mentally ill.

And society should care for them and help them, but also protect its other citizens.

THAT point is the crooked line in the sand I was talking about.

Keeping "them" safe and OTHERS safe from "them" can be quite difficult.

[DirtDawg]

I have one more thing to add.

Not sure that your Second Amendment comment applies.

Bear arms? We got that already and we NEED to keep it!



Mentally ill?  FUCK! 


I say NO!

[Parts]

Asssuming that we all can agree that felons should be denied their natural rights to live freely, including the right to keep arms, vote, serve the public in any official capacity, etc.  Why is it not as simple to deny the rights of those who prove to be incompetent.

Do we really need a judge to determine this. Well maybe so. If one is incompetent with any dangerous tool, car, gun, hammer, alcoholic drink, whatever, then it follows that ...

If you act like a retard, maybe there should be a way to keep you from your natural rights.
Lock them up with a soap magazine and make them shit in a bucket. It is called prison. You no longer get to exercize your natural rights.




Editing: Oh and no more safe places. Let them all live together in open spaces. Darwin rules for all!

That is for me  becoming a bigger and bigger assumption due to the criminalization of seemingly trivial things seems to be the trend in this country. This is a description of a book from 2009 and it's only getting worse

The average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day. Why? The answer lies in the very nature of modern federal criminal laws, which have not only exploded in number, but, along with countless regulatory provisions, have also become impossibly broad and vague. In Three Felonies a Day, Harvey A. Silverglate reveals how the federal criminal justice system has become dangerously disconnected from common law traditions of due process and fair notice of the law's expectations, enabling prosecutors to pin arguable federal crimes on any one of us, for even the most seemingly innocuous behavior.The dangers spelled out in Three Felonies a Day do not apply solely to''white collar criminals,'' state and local politicians, and professionals. No social class or profession is safe from this troubling form of social control by the executive branch, and nothing less than the continued functioning and integrity of our constitutional democracy hang in the balance.

Link

Here's a new one that was in the headlines the other day

Starting next year, Illinois law enforcement will not only be ticketing you for failure to wear a seatbelt or illegal use of a cell phone while driving, they’ll also be stopping motorists who flick cigarette butts out their windows.

With former Democrat State Rep. Deb Mell’s bill HB 3243 now law, flicking butts will cost you. A first time conviction is a class B misdemeanor with a fine not exceeding $1,500. A second conviction is a class A misdemeanor with a fine not exceeding $1,500.

Third or subsequent convictions will be a class 4 felony, punishable by a fine of $25,000 and imprisonment not less than one year and not more than three years.

Link

So this can be tricky even with regards to felonies as to mental illness it's even trickier.  There are certainly people who should never have guns but legislators tend to like broad definitions   and that leaves it very open to abuse.  I am planing on getting my hunting permit for next year and I don't want to be hassled about the fact I have been in therapy or that I take meds. 

[RageBeoulve]

I have one more thing to add.

Not sure that your Second Amendment comment applies.

Bear arms? We got that already and we NEED to keep it!



Mentally ill?  FUCK! 


I say NO!

I was being tongue in cheek. Its a natural human right to be able to defend yourself. Its especially important when everyone seems to want to overdose on the state.

We all know what happens when you use too much of something. Anything. Its dangerous, of course.

[DirtDawg]

Asssuming that we all can agree that felons should be denied their natural rights to live freely, including the right to keep arms, vote, serve the public in any official capacity, etc.  Why is it not as simple to deny the rights of those who prove to be incompetent.

Do we really need a judge to determine this. Well maybe so. If one is incompetent with any dangerous tool, car, gun, hammer, alcoholic drink, whatever, then it follows that ...

If you act like a retard, maybe there should be a way to keep you from your natural rights.
Lock them up with a soap magazine and make them shit in a bucket. It is called prison. You no longer get to exercize your natural rights.




Editing: Oh and no more safe places. Let them all live together in open spaces. Darwin rules for all!

That is for me  becoming a bigger and bigger assumption due to the criminalization of seemingly trivial things seems to be the trend in this country. This is a description of a book from 2009 and it's only getting worse

The average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day. Why? The answer lies in the very nature of modern federal criminal laws, which have not only exploded in number, but, along with countless regulatory provisions, have also become impossibly broad and vague. In Three Felonies a Day, Harvey A. Silverglate reveals how the federal criminal justice system has become dangerously disconnected from common law traditions of due process and fair notice of the law's expectations, enabling prosecutors to pin arguable federal crimes on any one of us, for even the most seemingly innocuous behavior.The dangers spelled out in Three Felonies a Day do not apply solely to''white collar criminals,'' state and local politicians, and professionals. No social class or profession is safe from this troubling form of social control by the executive branch, and nothing less than the continued functioning and integrity of our constitutional democracy hang in the balance.

Link

Here's a new one that was in the headlines the other day

Starting next year, Illinois law enforcement will not only be ticketing you for failure to wear a seatbelt or illegal use of a cell phone while driving, they’ll also be stopping motorists who flick cigarette butts out their windows.

With former Democrat State Rep. Deb Mell’s bill HB 3243 now law, flicking butts will cost you. A first time conviction is a class B misdemeanor with a fine not exceeding $1,500. A second conviction is a class A misdemeanor with a fine not exceeding $1,500.

Third or subsequent convictions will be a class 4 felony, punishable by a fine of $25,000 and imprisonment not less than one year and not more than three years.

Link

So this can be tricky even with regards to felonies as to mental illness it's even trickier.  There are certainly people who should never have guns but legislators tend to like broad definitions   and that leaves it very open to abuse.  I am planing on getting my hunting permit for next year and I don't want to be hassled about the fact I have been in therapy or that I take meds.

The butt flicking thing has been a law here for a very long time, as well the cell phone use and seat belt laws. Any personal deviation from the law puts the general public at risk.  We can not, as a society, have this risk continue. When we drive on the roads we all pay for, we should assume that we are safe to do so. Having some idiot distracted smoking or texting or whatever while slamming into other people who ARE following the laws NEEDS to stop.

Are you saying that an incremental process will lead to a "legal permit" climate which will keep you from being able to get a hunting license because you had therapy and took meds?

I think it is a stretch.

[odeon]

It should be a stretch. Having therapy and taking meds is very different from refusing to take your meds and waving guns at mum. Or, it should be.

[Parts]

It should be a stretch. Having therapy and taking meds is very different from refusing to take your meds and waving guns at mum. Or, it should be.

The mere fact that you have does already put up barriers making joining the armed forces,getting a CDL, and a pilot license  difficult if not impossible.  With the way many laws  are broadly written I can see potential problems especially with the sigma attached to it.

Asssuming that we all can agree that felons should be denied their natural rights to live freely, including the right to keep arms, vote, serve the public in any official capacity, etc.  Why is it not as simple to deny the rights of those who prove to be incompetent.

Do we really need a judge to determine this. Well maybe so. If one is incompetent with any dangerous tool, car, gun, hammer, alcoholic drink, whatever, then it follows that ...

If you act like a retard, maybe there should be a way to keep you from your natural rights.
Lock them up with a soap magazine and make them shit in a bucket. It is called prison. You no longer get to exercize your natural rights.




Editing: Oh and no more safe places. Let them all live together in open spaces. Darwin rules for all!

That is for me  becoming a bigger and bigger assumption due to the criminalization of seemingly trivial things seems to be the trend in this country. This is a description of a book from 2009 and it's only getting worse

The average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day. Why? The answer lies in the very nature of modern federal criminal laws, which have not only exploded in number, but, along with countless regulatory provisions, have also become impossibly broad and vague. In Three Felonies a Day, Harvey A. Silverglate reveals how the federal criminal justice system has become dangerously disconnected from common law traditions of due process and fair notice of the law's expectations, enabling prosecutors to pin arguable federal crimes on any one of us, for even the most seemingly innocuous behavior.The dangers spelled out in Three Felonies a Day do not apply solely to''white collar criminals,'' state and local politicians, and professionals. No social class or profession is safe from this troubling form of social control by the executive branch, and nothing less than the continued functioning and integrity of our constitutional democracy hang in the balance.

Link

Here's a new one that was in the headlines the other day

Starting next year, Illinois law enforcement will not only be ticketing you for failure to wear a seatbelt or illegal use of a cell phone while driving, they’ll also be stopping motorists who flick cigarette butts out their windows.

With former Democrat State Rep. Deb Mell’s bill HB 3243 now law, flicking butts will cost you. A first time conviction is a class B misdemeanor with a fine not exceeding $1,500. A second conviction is a class A misdemeanor with a fine not exceeding $1,500.

Third or subsequent convictions will be a class 4 felony, punishable by a fine of $25,000 and imprisonment not less than one year and not more than three years.

Link

So this can be tricky even with regards to felonies as to mental illness it's even trickier.  There are certainly people who should never have guns but legislators tend to like broad definitions   and that leaves it very open to abuse.  I am planing on getting my hunting permit for next year and I don't want to be hassled about the fact I have been in therapy or that I take meds.

The butt flicking thing has been a law here for a very long time, as well the cell phone use and seat belt laws. Any personal deviation from the law puts the general public at risk.  We can not, as a society, have this risk continue. When we drive on the roads we all pay for, we should assume that we are safe to do so. Having some idiot distracted smoking or texting or whatever while slamming into other people who ARE following the laws NEEDS to stop.

Are you saying that an incremental process will lead to a "legal permit" climate which will keep you from being able to get a hunting license because you had therapy and took meds?

I think it is a stretch.

Yes it has but they have been making up new felonies at an alarming rate and going after people for them http://www.threefeloniesaday.com/Youtoo/tabid/86/Default.aspx

Basically all I am saying it's not as clear cut as it seems and it needs to be looked at with common sense say for instance someone guilty of a felony for a third offense of throwing butts out the window is not the same as someone convicted  for bank robbery.

[Gopher Gary]

Crossbows. Crossbows are the answer to everything. I'm just saying. 

[DirtDawg]

It should be a stretch. Having therapy and taking meds is very different from refusing to take your meds and waving guns at mum. Or, it should be.

The mere fact that you have does already put up barriers making joining the armed forces,getting a CDL, and a pilot license  difficult if not impossible.  With the way many laws  are broadly written I can see potential problems especially with the sigma attached to it.

Asssuming that we all can agree that felons should be denied their natural rights to live freely, including the right to keep arms, vote, serve the public in any official capacity, etc.  Why is it not as simple to deny the rights of those who prove to be incompetent.

Do we really need a judge to determine this. Well maybe so. If one is incompetent with any dangerous tool, car, gun, hammer, alcoholic drink, whatever, then it follows that ...

If you act like a retard, maybe there should be a way to keep you from your natural rights.
Lock them up with a soap magazine and make them shit in a bucket. It is called prison. You no longer get to exercize your natural rights.




Editing: Oh and no more safe places. Let them all live together in open spaces. Darwin rules for all!

That is for me  becoming a bigger and bigger assumption due to the criminalization of seemingly trivial things seems to be the trend in this country. This is a description of a book from 2009 and it's only getting worse

The average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day. Why? The answer lies in the very nature of modern federal criminal laws, which have not only exploded in number, but, along with countless regulatory provisions, have also become impossibly broad and vague. In Three Felonies a Day, Harvey A. Silverglate reveals how the federal criminal justice system has become dangerously disconnected from common law traditions of due process and fair notice of the law's expectations, enabling prosecutors to pin arguable federal crimes on any one of us, for even the most seemingly innocuous behavior.The dangers spelled out in Three Felonies a Day do not apply solely to''white collar criminals,'' state and local politicians, and professionals. No social class or profession is safe from this troubling form of social control by the executive branch, and nothing less than the continued functioning and integrity of our constitutional democracy hang in the balance.

Link

Here's a new one that was in the headlines the other day

Starting next year, Illinois law enforcement will not only be ticketing you for failure to wear a seatbelt or illegal use of a cell phone while driving, they’ll also be stopping motorists who flick cigarette butts out their windows.

With former Democrat State Rep. Deb Mell’s bill HB 3243 now law, flicking butts will cost you. A first time conviction is a class B misdemeanor with a fine not exceeding $1,500. A second conviction is a class A misdemeanor with a fine not exceeding $1,500.

Third or subsequent convictions will be a class 4 felony, punishable by a fine of $25,000 and imprisonment not less than one year and not more than three years.

Link

So this can be tricky even with regards to felonies as to mental illness it's even trickier.  There are certainly people who should never have guns but legislators tend to like broad definitions   and that leaves it very open to abuse.  I am planing on getting my hunting permit for next year and I don't want to be hassled about the fact I have been in therapy or that I take meds.

The butt flicking thing has been a law here for a very long time, as well the cell phone use and seat belt laws. Any personal deviation from the law puts the general public at risk.  We can not, as a society, have this risk continue. When we drive on the roads we all pay for, we should assume that we are safe to do so. Having some idiot distracted smoking or texting or whatever while slamming into other people who ARE following the laws NEEDS to stop.

Are you saying that an incremental process will lead to a "legal permit" climate which will keep you from being able to get a hunting license because you had therapy and took meds?

I think it is a stretch.

Yes it has but they have been making up new felonies at an alarming rate and going after people for them http://www.threefeloniesaday.com/Youtoo/tabid/86/Default.aspx

Basically all I am saying it's not as clear cut as it seems and it needs to be looked at with common sense say for instance someone guilty of a felony for a third offense of throwing butts out the window is not the same as someone convicted  for bank robbery.

 The "Three Strikes Law" only applies to felonies.  Flicking a butt or talking on a cell or texting while driving do not count.

A felon carrying a weapon counts as a "strike."  It is not the same as taking meds or having therapy.

Relax! You live in the most free country on the planet despite being run by a socialist and if in doubt there are thousands of liberal judges to help you meet the law half way.

You are a free citizen. You Have NOTHING to worry about.