Angry over mentally ill people able to get guns? Guess who you can thank for it.

[koshergrl]

Yup.

I bring this up just about every time a nutbag kills a bunch of people and the lunatics who set them free point at those of us who are armed to DEFEND ourselves from those sorts of assholes, and say "It's your fault!"

No, it's not. We shoot rabid dogs when we see them. You loons turned them out. Don't blame us because they go nuts and kill people. That's why they need to be locked up to begin with.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Yup.

I bring this up just about every time a nutbag kills a bunch of people and the lunatics who set them free point at those of us who are armed to DEFEND ourselves from those sorts of assholes, and say "It's your fault!"

No, it's not. We shoot rabid dogs when we see them. You loons turned them out. Don't blame us because they go nuts and kill people. That's why they need to be locked up to begin with.

One of the board liberals recently remarked to me:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-tougher-gun-laws-shameful-8.html#post9246526

If you would rather see 6 year olds massacred than submit to that......tough

He has yet to call for the repeal of the LPS Act, or the re-examination of the 1975 Supreme Court case.

Apparently he'd rather see 6 year olds massacred, then submit to that.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Yup.

I bring this up just about every time a nutbag kills a bunch of people and the lunatics who set them free point at those of us who are armed to DEFEND ourselves from those sorts of assholes, and say "It's your fault!"

No, it's not. We shoot rabid dogs when we see them. You loons turned them out. Don't blame us because they go nuts and kill people. That's why they need to be locked up to begin with.

One of the board liberals recently remarked to me:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-tougher-gun-laws-shameful-8.html#post9246526

If you would rather see 6 year olds massacred than submit to that......tough

He has yet to call for the repeal of the LPS Act, or the re-examination of the 1975 Supreme Court case.

Apparently he'd rather see 6 year olds massacred, then submit to that.

And he's still continuing the same hysterical ranting.

 

[koshergrl]

I have liewinger on ignore.

He's an admitted liar, a paid hack, and a loon.

 

[g4racer]

The discussion on gun control shouldn't control the message board. It is too late for any meaningful regulations because there are so many guns out there with no papers. Limiting ammo won't work ass I loaded my own. Do any of you know how many 45 and 306s rounds you can do over a New England winter? More than enough to cover a years match shooting and practice for a year. I closed my shop when I noticed that many people could buy guns legally that I didn't feel comfortable with them having a gun.

 

[g4racer]

Sorry for the finger error while typing, It's a combination on not knowing how to type, trifocals and a cast on my right hand.
Limiting ammo won't work ass I loaded my own correction Limiting ammo won't work as I loaded my own
how many 45 and 306s rounds correction how many 45 and 308 rounds

 

[Little-Acorn]

Frustrated with the defeat of their efforts to restrict (and ultimately confiscate) the guns of law-abiding citizens, the liberal fanatics are now whining about "getting crazy people off the streets" instead.

I'm all for it... but there's a law in the way. Passed by Guess Who.

This seems like a good time to resurrect this thread.

What efforts are you liberals making now, to repeal the LPS Act and/or re-examine the relevant USSC cases?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Wow. TWO desperate, funtionally illiterate liberals in one forum, both trying to persuade normal people that "able to get guns" somehow equates to "they gave them the guns".

Maybe the need for involuntary commitment to mental institutions is more immediate than I thought.

The good news is, neither of these two desperate liberals has actually killed anybody, yet. Or even threatened anybody that I know of.

You have yet to provide any linkage

We are still waiting

Really? Courts are Loath to rule on mental incompetence these days. Police are slow to bring anyone up on it and so those that could be adjudged mentally incompetent are in fact almost never so judged. Meaning that LEGALLY they can and do buy firearms. You see the only way to prevent a mentally ill person from legally buying a firearm is for a JUDGE to rule they are a threat to someone or themselves or that they are incompetent. Thanks to the system you liberals created that almost never happens.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Where is the part where they give them the guns?

The NRA takes care of that.

Conservatives whine because the mentally ill are not locked up......but then can't wait to give them a gun

Bald faced LIE. have you no morals, no conscious? You know full well NO ONE gives them anything. That the system allows them to not be flagged due to laws you LIBERALS all supported got passed and still support.

 

[koshergrl]

It used to be that a citizen could petition a court to have someone committed to a mental institution, and the court could grant such committment if enough valid evidence was presented.

This changed in the 1960s and 70s.

In 1967 two Democrats and a Republican in California's state legislature came up with the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, designed to end INVOLUNTARY commitments of mentallly ill, alcoholic, etc. people into large mental institutions. The LPS Act was hailed by liberals all over the country as putting an end to eeevil government practices of dictating to helpless victims where they would go and what treatments they would get whether they liked it or not. It was overwhelmingly passed by California's Assembly and Senate, and finally signed by Governor Ronald Reagan in 1967. Similar laws were quickly passed all over the country, advocated mostly by liberal groups and do-gooders.

The liberal ACLU kept pushing this agenda to get these patients out of mental institutions, and finally resulted in 1975 (coincidentally Reagans' last year as Governor) in the U.S. Supreme Court handing down a decision in O'Connor vs. Donaldson (422 US 563). This Court decision announced a new Constitutional right: The mentally ill could not be forced to stay in such institutions if they were not an actual threat to others. This opened the floodgates and let huge numbers of patients, in various degrees of helplessness, out of the institutions.

When it was discovered that these laws and court decisions had the effect of putting many people who could not, in fact, take care of themselves out on the street, the liberals did a fast 180, hastily forgot about their long, enthusiastic nationwide advocacy and support of the agenda, and invented a completely new accusation: That it was Ronald Reagan alone who had "kicked all those poor people out of their nice, safe hospitals and made them homeless".

From Wikipedia:

The Lanterman–Petris–Short (LPS) Act (Cal. Welf & Inst. Code, sec. 5000 et seq.) concerns the involuntary civil commitment to a mental health institution in the State of California. The act set the precedent for modern mental health commitment procedures in the United States. It was co-authored by California State Assemblyman Frank Lanterman (R) and California State Senators Nicholas C. Petris (D) and Alan Short (D), and signed into law in 1967 by Governor Ronald Reagan. The Act went into full effect on July 1, 1972. It cited seven articles of intent:

•To end the inappropriate, indefinite, and involuntary commitment of mentally disordered persons, people with developmental disabilities, and persons impaired by chronic alcoholism, and to eliminate legal disabilities;

•To provide prompt evaluation and treatment of persons with serious mental disorders or impaired by chronic alcoholism;

•To guarantee and protect public safety;

•To safeguard individual rights through judicial review;

•To provide individualized treatment, supervision, and placement services by a conservatorship program for gravely disabled persons;

•To encourage the full use of all existing agencies, professional personnel and public funds to accomplish these objectives and to prevent duplication of services and unnecessary expenditures;

•To protect mentally disordered persons and developmentally disabled persons from criminal acts.

The Act in effect ended all hospital commitments by the judiciary system, except in the case of criminal sentencing, e.g., convicted sexual offenders, and those who were "gravely disabled", defined as unable to obtain food, clothing, or housing [Conservatorship of Susan T., 8 Cal. 4th 1005 (1994)]. It did not, however, impede the right of voluntary commitments. It expanded the evaluative power of psychiatrists and created provisions and criteria for holds.

Spot on.

Also there was a huge push to de-criminalize sex crimes, by determining that homosexuality was no longer a mental illness, and sodomy a crime. Child Rape used to be a capitol offense...now it is nothing more than a violation, misdemeanor, occasionally a low felony. The result is that the whole population of depraved, sociopathic individuals who commit those crimes and the whole population of the dangerously insane have been turned loose on society. Who do those people target?

They target the vulnerable and the unprotected. They're nothing more than animals, and they behave like it. You don't let wild animals run at will among your children. If you aren't going to kill them, at least lock them up and leave them locked up.

And you certainly don't PUBLICIZE the inability of groups of vulnerable people as being unprotected.

This isn't rocket science. The only conclusion I can draw from the repeated and eternal insistence by the left that we lay down our arms is that they want to kill, or be instrumental in the killing of, more innocent people.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Now that liberals have decided they DO want the mentally impaired locked up, when can we expect them to begin work on repealing the LPS Act that they put in place in the 1970s?

It used to be that a citizen could petition a court to have someone committed to a mental institution, and the court could grant such committment if enough valid evidence was presented.

This changed in the 1960s and 70s.

In 1967 two Democrats and a Republican in California's state legislature came up with the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, designed to end INVOLUNTARY commitments of mentallly ill, alcoholic, etc. people into large mental institutions. The LPS Act was hailed by liberals all over the country as putting an end to eeevil government practices of dictating to helpless victims where they would go and what treatments they would get whether they liked it or not. It was overwhelmingly passed by California's Assembly and Senate, and finally signed by Governor Ronald Reagan in 1967. Similar laws were quickly passed all over the country, advocated mostly by liberal groups and do-gooders.

The liberal ACLU kept pushing this agenda to get these patients out of mental institutions, and finally resulted in 1975 (coincidentally Reagans' last year as Governor) in the U.S. Supreme Court handing down a decision in O'Connor vs. Donaldson (422 US 563). This Court decision announced a new Constitutional right: The mentally ill could not be forced to stay in such institutions if they were not an actual threat to others. This opened the floodgates and let huge numbers of patients, in various degrees of helplessness, out of the institutions.

When it was discovered that these laws and court decisions had the effect of putting many people who could not, in fact, take care of themselves out on the street, the liberals did a fast 180, hastily forgot about their long, enthusiastic nationwide advocacy and support of the agenda, and invented a completely new accusation: That it was Ronald Reagan alone who had "kicked all those poor people out of their nice, safe hospitals and made them homeless".

From Wikipedia:

The Lanterman–Petris–Short (LPS) Act (Cal. Welf & Inst. Code, sec. 5000 et seq.) concerns the involuntary civil commitment to a mental health institution in the State of California. The act set the precedent for modern mental health commitment procedures in the United States. It was co-authored by California State Assemblyman Frank Lanterman (R) and California State Senators Nicholas C. Petris (D) and Alan Short (D), and signed into law in 1967 by Governor Ronald Reagan. The Act went into full effect on July 1, 1972. It cited seven articles of intent:

•To end the inappropriate, indefinite, and involuntary commitment of mentally disordered persons, people with developmental disabilities, and persons impaired by chronic alcoholism, and to eliminate legal disabilities;

•To provide prompt evaluation and treatment of persons with serious mental disorders or impaired by chronic alcoholism;

•To guarantee and protect public safety;

•To safeguard individual rights through judicial review;

•To provide individualized treatment, supervision, and placement services by a conservatorship program for gravely disabled persons;

•To encourage the full use of all existing agencies, professional personnel and public funds to accomplish these objectives and to prevent duplication of services and unnecessary expenditures;

•To protect mentally disordered persons and developmentally disabled persons from criminal acts.

The Act in effect ended all hospital commitments by the judiciary system, except in the case of criminal sentencing, e.g., convicted sexual offenders, and those who were "gravely disabled", defined as unable to obtain food, clothing, or housing [Conservatorship of Susan T., 8 Cal. 4th 1005 (1994)]. It did not, however, impede the right of voluntary commitments. It expanded the evaluative power of psychiatrists and created provisions and criteria for holds.

 

[007]

Now we've had another mass shooting by a mentally ill person in Santa Barbara.

And everybody is going through the same arguments, justifications, and outrage, all over again, just like clockwork.

It's the same as them calling anyone who disagreed with their little muslim messiah a racist. Now they're all beating the gun confiscation dead horse until it's also just worthless tripe and no one is listening.

They're just not smart enough to figure out that they're cutting their nose off to spite their face. People are sick of listening to their knee jerk hyperbole.

 

[FA_Q2]

Now we've had another mass shooting by a mentally ill person in Santa Barbara.

And everybody is going through the same arguments, justifications, and outrage, all over again, just like clockwork.

You still have not provided a link on who is giving them guns..Hint: it ain't Liberals

*sigh*

For the willfully obtuse:
The problem is not the fact that people are able to exercise their constitutionally protected right to defend themselves - the problem is that mentally ill people are not receiving the treatment or the identification required for the courts to infringe on that right for those that are truly dangerous. All the background checks in your drams and gun bans will do nothing if these people are not identified and properly treated. To the sane, this is blatantly obvious.

 

[Little-Acorn]

It's entertaining these days, hearing the liberal fanatics screeching that we shouldn't allow people with mental problems to get guns....

....when those liberal fanatics are the ones who kicked the mental patients out of hospitals and left them running around free, able to get those guns.

It used to be that a citizen could petition a court to have someone committed to a mental institution, and the court could grant such committment if enough valid evidence was presented.

This changed in the 1960s and 70s.

In 1967 two Democrats and a Republican in California's state legislature came up with the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, designed to end INVOLUNTARY commitments of mentallly ill, alcoholic, etc. people into large mental institutions. The LPS Act was hailed by liberals all over the country as putting an end to eeevil government practices of dictating to helpless victims where they would go and what treatments they would get whether they liked it or not. It was overwhelmingly passed by California's Assembly and Senate, and finally signed by Governor Ronald Reagan in 1967. Similar laws were quickly passed all over the country, advocated mostly by liberal groups and do-gooders.

The liberal ACLU kept pushing this agenda to get these patients out of mental institutions, and finally resulted in 1975 (coincidentally Reagans' last year as Governor) in the U.S. Supreme Court handing down a decision in O'Connor vs. Donaldson (422 US 563). This Court decision announced a new Constitutional right: The mentally ill could not be forced to stay in such institutions if they were not an actual threat to others. This opened the floodgates and let huge numbers of patients, in various degrees of helplessness, out of the institutions.

When it was discovered that these laws and court decisions had the effect of putting many people who could not, in fact, take care of themselves out on the street, the liberals did a fast 180, hastily forgot about their long, enthusiastic nationwide advocacy and support of the agenda, and invented a completely new accusation: That it was Ronald Reagan alone who had "kicked all those poor people out of their nice, safe hospitals and made them homeless".

From Wikipedia:

The Lanterman–Petris–Short (LPS) Act (Cal. Welf & Inst. Code, sec. 5000 et seq.) concerns the involuntary civil commitment to a mental health institution in the State of California. The act set the precedent for modern mental health commitment procedures in the United States. It was co-authored by California State Assemblyman Frank Lanterman (R) and California State Senators Nicholas C. Petris (D) and Alan Short (D), and signed into law in 1967 by Governor Ronald Reagan. The Act went into full effect on July 1, 1972. It cited seven articles of intent:

•To end the inappropriate, indefinite, and involuntary commitment of mentally disordered persons, people with developmental disabilities, and persons impaired by chronic alcoholism, and to eliminate legal disabilities;

•To provide prompt evaluation and treatment of persons with serious mental disorders or impaired by chronic alcoholism;

•To guarantee and protect public safety;

•To safeguard individual rights through judicial review;

•To provide individualized treatment, supervision, and placement services by a conservatorship program for gravely disabled persons;

•To encourage the full use of all existing agencies, professional personnel and public funds to accomplish these objectives and to prevent duplication of services and unnecessary expenditures;

•To protect mentally disordered persons and developmentally disabled persons from criminal acts.

The Act in effect ended all hospital commitments by the judiciary system, except in the case of criminal sentencing, e.g., convicted sexual offenders, and those who were "gravely disabled", defined as unable to obtain food, clothing, or housing [Conservatorship of Susan T., 8 Cal. 4th 1005 (1994)]. It did not, however, impede the right of voluntary commitments. It expanded the evaluative power of psychiatrists and created provisions and criteria for holds.

 

[Little-Acorn]

And now we are hearing yet again screeching liberals lamenting the idea that mentally ill people can get guns. With no mention, of course, that those same liberals are the ones who passed laws making it nearly impossible for the mentally ill to get the help and treatment they need.

The liberals really milk their lies and diversions for all they're worth, don't they?

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Mentally ill people can vote, they can practice their religion, they can speak as they want, so they should get the same rights as everyone else. Unless you believe we should discriminate against the mentally ill?

 

[whitehall]

The most notorious (and underreported) school shooting in American history happened a couple of years ago in Va. Tech. Blacksburg in western Virginia.The dirty little secret in Virginia school cities and towns is that the school liberals usually take control over the town or city political power and local Cops understand it and avoid arresting a (rich) student at all costs. In the case of the Va. Tech shooter it seems that credible testimony by women who claimed they were being stalked by a mysterious Korean student wasn't enough for local police to arrest him Instead a deal was made with the University that the student would be remanded to psychiatric counseling instead of having an arrest record. Meanwhile the liberal faction of Virginia delegates deemed that a patient's privacy trumped the public's safety and the freaking law. In short the shooter was able to dodge his psychiatric counseling and "legally" purchase the weapons he used to kill thirty people on the campus.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Apparently some liberals are still using the excuse of mentally ill people possibly getting guns, to restrict them from everybody.

This thread will be needed, until they stop.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Republicans are angry that mentally ill people can get guns, but have no problem with people on the terror watch list getting guns. Crazy.

 

[FA_Q2]

Republicans are angry that mentally ill people can get guns, but have no problem with people on the terror watch list getting guns. Crazy.

False.

What they have a problem with is a random government agency being able to infringe on and take your rights without the courts involved.

Do you think that those on the terror watch list would be barred from speaking in a public venue? Should they be barred from voting?