Ann Coulter nails it...

[Bfgrn]

Unfortunately there are laws that have been put into place in the last 40 years or so, that make it almost impossible to get people committed before they commit a heinous crime.

Which is why we have so many homeless people on the streets. They can't be institutionalized, they can't be convicted of a crime, there are no places to lodge them...so they roam until they die, or someone kills them.

Progressive utopia!

WOW, only a right wing fascist mind could see prison as 'lodging'.

There is NO doubt you folks are the scourge of mankind.

The right wing Utopia is REAL...

Conservatives have built the BIGGEST Nanny State in the history of the world...

“Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. Reagan was an ideological inflection point, ending a 50-year liberal ascendancy and beginning a 30-year conservative ascendancy."
Charles Krauthammer

Shame that Clinton didn't change anything.. But this is not political.. It's the failed "War on Drugs".. And --- the onerous civil liberties sapping SINCE REAGAN that assist law enforcement in getting rich off of asset forfeiture.. Now a crime to carry too much cash..

NOW -- a toilet flush sound can warrant your door being broken down.. Too many grannies and grandpas getting shot in botched raids as well..

The HEROES fighting this abuse are rare but bipartisian. And of course, SOME OF US, have ALWAYS been outraged --- no matter who's clowns were currently in charge..

We agree on something...

"The rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened."
President John F. Kennedy

 

[flacaltenn]

WOW, only a right wing fascist mind could see prison as 'lodging'.

There is NO doubt you folks are the scourge of mankind.

The right wing Utopia is REAL...

Conservatives have built the BIGGEST Nanny State in the history of the world...

“Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. Reagan was an ideological inflection point, ending a 50-year liberal ascendancy and beginning a 30-year conservative ascendancy."
Charles Krauthammer

Shame that Clinton didn't change anything.. But this is not political.. It's the failed "War on Drugs".. And --- the onerous civil liberties sapping SINCE REAGAN that assist law enforcement in getting rich off of asset forfeiture.. Now a crime to carry too much cash..

NOW -- a toilet flush sound can warrant your door being broken down.. Too many grannies and grandpas getting shot in botched raids as well..

The HEROES fighting this abuse are rare but bipartisian. And of course, SOME OF US, have ALWAYS been outraged --- no matter who's clowns were currently in charge..

We agree on something...

"The rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened."
President John F. Kennedy

Aint that simply amazing.. Never thought it could ever happen...

 

[koshergrl]

Unfortunately there are laws that have been put into place in the last 40 years or so, that make it almost impossible to get people committed before they commit a heinous crime.

Which is why we have so many homeless people on the streets. They can't be institutionalized, they can't be convicted of a crime, there are no places to lodge them...so they roam until they die, or someone kills them.

Progressive utopia!

WOW, only a right wing fascist mind could see prison as 'lodging'.

There is NO doubt you folks are the scourge of mankind.

The right wing Utopia is REAL...

Conservatives have built the BIGGEST Nanny State in the history of the world...

“Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. Reagan was an ideological inflection point, ending a 50-year liberal ascendancy and beginning a 30-year conservative ascendancy."
Charles Krauthammer

*Yawn*. Take a breath and wipe the spittle from your screen, extremist loon.

 

[KGB]

If someone put you in a container labeled "medical waste", would that make it true?

I guess in your case it would.

No, that someone would be put into traction...

Fetuses aren't babies. They aren't people. And watching you wingnuts get all worked up about spooge when we've got millions of hungry children in this country is just a farce.

Millions of hungry children? This is seriously your argument to justify abortion?

Fetuses may not be babies or "people", but they are a human with its own unique DNA. That is a scientific fact, not religious belief. Just because it cannot survive on its own doesn't mean it isn't a human being.

But hey, don't let the facts stop ya. After all, there is a progressive agenda at stake here, we must convince everyone that the unborn aren't "real" humans, so we can do what we please with them.

newborns can't survive on their own either. Does that make them less a "person" in Joe's eyes I wonder....

 

[KGB]

You're right. The military has special dispensation to hack into the killing instinct and enhance it.. But EVEN THEY don't want psychiatric patients on drugs in active training or service.

But the point was -- that DISCLOSURE IS REQUIRED for many instances where a person is undergoing psych care. And that adding some type of special disclosure for access to guns should be considered and perhaps have the civil libertarian issues ironed out..

https://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificates/medical_certification/specialissuance/antidepressants/index.cfm?print=go



Dozens of examples of separating psych patients from access to dangerous equipment.

I KNOW !! It's a snake pit.. But it needs to be discussed. And we need better DETECTION and SCIENCE from the psych community..

the problem with your assertion is that you mixing apples & oranges. Owning a gun is a Constitutional right. The only thing you have to do is be born. I do agree we need to keep weapons out of the hands of mentally disturbed individuals, but Constitutional rights can't be stripped without due process. What you are suggesting is proving your innocence with is anathema to everything our country stands for.

I've got the pedigree for consistent defense of civil rights and liberty. But honestly, if you only needed to be born -- we wouldn't need InstaCheck -- would we? Involuntary commitment IS a legal proceeding. ALL I know is that I can't trust psychiatrists or politicians to make that call. BUT -- I don't think either shrinks or parents ought to fart around with handling a potentially explosive character. There needs to be a mechanism for making law enforcement AWARE of the danger.. And therefore LEGALLY separating these cases from dangerous weapons (or airplanes or college campuses.).

Shrinks or parents are the first line of defense here. And if nothing else -- they OUGHT to be compelled somehow to report or certify that they don't have control of their patients or kids.. OR be held liable if they KNEW of a threat to society.

Going back to the OP --- it's NOT about the guns. It IS about stripping liberty from a select few who are either under the influence of dangerous psych meds or who have made credible threats of harm to the public. Don't know who to trust to do that --- but it NEEDS to get done..

And we need a lot less political whining and mining about these horrible events til we design a better system to either institutionalize or treat these cases.

I'm not tracking here. In one line, you say you don't trust psychiatrists and then in another, you say they are the first line of defense. Which is it? Personally, I would have no issue if by due process, a person is stripped of their 2nd Amendment rights because they are on dangerous meds or have made credible threats of harm to the public. The presumption of course being that the state would need to prove it. A parent can be held liable for their children, but up to a point. If a 16/17-year old goes around & shoots up a school, yes, the investigation needs to be conducted into how that kid got a weapon. However, it still bears stating that the crime is so heinous that said kid can be tried as an adult instead. And in truth, should be. If the parent was found to be negligent in allowing easy access to weapons for the kid, then yes, that parent shares liability. However, if said kid goes out & steals a gun elsewhere & commits the crime, then the parent should not be held liable.

 

[JoeB131]

[

newborns can't survive on their own either. Does that make them less a "person" in Joe's eyes I wonder....

They can live outside someone else's body.

 

[Bfgrn]

Shame that Clinton didn't change anything.. But this is not political.. It's the failed "War on Drugs".. And --- the onerous civil liberties sapping SINCE REAGAN that assist law enforcement in getting rich off of asset forfeiture.. Now a crime to carry too much cash..

NOW -- a toilet flush sound can warrant your door being broken down.. Too many grannies and grandpas getting shot in botched raids as well..

The HEROES fighting this abuse are rare but bipartisian. And of course, SOME OF US, have ALWAYS been outraged --- no matter who's clowns were currently in charge..

We agree on something...

"The rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened."
President John F. Kennedy

Aint that simply amazing.. Never thought it could ever happen...

I am a liberal. Civil liberties are not negotiable. Your "toilet flush sound can warrant your door being broken down" reminds me of a story written by the late great Harry Browne.

Your Innocence Is No Protection

by Harry Browne

 

[KGB]

[

newborns can't survive on their own either. Does that make them less a "person" in Joe's eyes I wonder....

They can live outside someone else's body.

so they can feed themselves, bath themselves, cloth themselves, etc. Last time I checked, that wasn't the case. So again, are they still "people".....

 

[JoeB131]

[

newborns can't survive on their own either. Does that make them less a "person" in Joe's eyes I wonder....

They can live outside someone else's body.

so they can feed themselves, bath themselves, cloth themselves, etc. Last time I checked, that wasn't the case. So again, are they still "people".....

GUy, here's the major difference.

No one is being FORCED to care for an infant. Someone will, of course, but no one is being forced to at gunpoint.

For you idiots to get your way on Abortion, you'd have to FORCE women to have babies they don't want to have.

Ain't gonna happen.

 

[BDBoop]

No, that someone would be put into traction...

Fetuses aren't babies. They aren't people. And watching you wingnuts get all worked up about spooge when we've got millions of hungry children in this country is just a farce.

Millions of hungry children? This is seriously your argument to justify abortion?

Fetuses may not be babies or "people", but they are a human with its own unique DNA. That is a scientific fact, not religious belief. Just because it cannot survive on its own doesn't mean it isn't a human being.

But hey, don't let the facts stop ya. After all, there is a progressive agenda at stake here, we must convince everyone that the unborn aren't "real" humans, so we can do what we please with them.

newborns can't survive on their own either. Does that make them less a "person" in Joe's eyes I wonder....

Nope.

They can survive without their mother, though - so remove the hostage situation, and you're good to go!

 

[squinch]

Ann Coulter nailed the entire flight deck crew of the USS. Kittyhawk and nine members of the Harlem Globetrotters.

 

[JoeB131]

Ann Coulter nailed the entire flight deck crew of the USS. Kittyhawk and nine members of the Harlem Globetrotters.

Ewwww......

 

[flacaltenn]

the problem with your assertion is that you mixing apples & oranges. Owning a gun is a Constitutional right. The only thing you have to do is be born. I do agree we need to keep weapons out of the hands of mentally disturbed individuals, but Constitutional rights can't be stripped without due process. What you are suggesting is proving your innocence with is anathema to everything our country stands for.

I've got the pedigree for consistent defense of civil rights and liberty. But honestly, if you only needed to be born -- we wouldn't need InstaCheck -- would we? Involuntary commitment IS a legal proceeding. ALL I know is that I can't trust psychiatrists or politicians to make that call. BUT -- I don't think either shrinks or parents ought to fart around with handling a potentially explosive character. There needs to be a mechanism for making law enforcement AWARE of the danger.. And therefore LEGALLY separating these cases from dangerous weapons (or airplanes or college campuses.).

Shrinks or parents are the first line of defense here. And if nothing else -- they OUGHT to be compelled somehow to report or certify that they don't have control of their patients or kids.. OR be held liable if they KNEW of a threat to society.

Going back to the OP --- it's NOT about the guns. It IS about stripping liberty from a select few who are either under the influence of dangerous psych meds or who have made credible threats of harm to the public. Don't know who to trust to do that --- but it NEEDS to get done..

And we need a lot less political whining and mining about these horrible events til we design a better system to either institutionalize or treat these cases.

I'm not tracking here. In one line, you say you don't trust psychiatrists and then in another, you say they are the first line of defense. Which is it? Personally, I would have no issue if by due process, a person is stripped of their 2nd Amendment rights because they are on dangerous meds or have made credible threats of harm to the public. The presumption of course being that the state would need to prove it. A parent can be held liable for their children, but up to a point. If a 16/17-year old goes around & shoots up a school, yes, the investigation needs to be conducted into how that kid got a weapon. However, it still bears stating that the crime is so heinous that said kid can be tried as an adult instead. And in truth, should be. If the parent was found to be negligent in allowing easy access to weapons for the kid, then yes, that parent shares liability. However, if said kid goes out & steals a gun elsewhere & commits the crime, then the parent should not be held liable.

I am just trying to find a way around things like patient privacy and oblivios parents in order to get early warning of threats to the public. Without blasting the Bill of Rights. Dropped in here because I was tired of leftists claiming that the NRA wants mentally ill folks to have guns or that its all Reagans fault. Its actually a harder problem than that. But youre reply shows that we shouldnt stop trying to figure out how to identify these threats and deny them access to dangerous objects and weapons while in the hands of the psych community..