Should mental defectives be identified?

Mental patients

  • Should crqzy people have their names in the DOJ computer for "Brady" checks?

    Votes: 28 45.9%

  • No! The right to medical/psychological privacy is absolute

    Votes: 33 54.1%
  • Total voters
    61
Status
Not open for further replies.
cheygriz

cheygriz

member
Joined
Dec 28, 2002
Messages
3,550
Location
High up in the Rockies
Do you believe that persons who have been legally adjudicated as a danger to themselves or others have a right to absolute privacy, or should their names be made available to the DOJ, and/or the public?
 
I believe that you need to better qualify this.

If you are asking us if people that have been deemed an OBVIOUS threat to others by a court of law and shouldn't be allowed to walk the streets/drive a car because they are an extreme threat to society then I would agree with you.

If you are asking if everyone should be sat down periodically in front of some whacko psycho-babble-chologist that got into the field to solve their OWN issues and have now been deemed qualified to examine and treat others by a board of their peers (mostly nutjobs) then I would say absolutely not!!!

I'm sorry for the biased/negative opinion of mental health "professionals" but most of the ones that I have met in College and through Social contacts have turned out to be complete LOONS!
 
This is still the USA right? Guilty until proven innocent here? Just because some psychologist says someone is "potentially" dangerous you want them listed? Driving down the street to the corner store is potentially dangerous. I think we have enough lists already. I think we should be more worried about someone who has been PROVEN to be violent...not "potentially"...so vague.
 
You put a lot more credit into "adjudication" than it deserves.

The key is in the definition of "mental defective" or whatever term you choose to use. It can include everything or nothing, or anything in between.

It can be permanent or transitory. It can be curable, treatable, or uncontrollable (although anyone can be "controlled" with enough thorizine).

The current federal definition is both much too broad and much too narrow.

It catches the person who had a single bad spell 30 years ago (remember One Flew Over the Cookoo's Nest) but it would not catch Mr. Chu.

The Devil is in the details.

So I'll not vote in this poll.
 
The mentally defective are identified... by titles like Senator or Congressman. :rolleyes:

I've been thinking there's a risk in agreeing to the 'sanity test' for gun ownership.
First the politicians get us to agree to this, then they redefine mentally defective to include 'wants to buy a gun'.
 
If you are a threat to yourself or others, you shouldn't be carrying weapons, or having anything to do with them.
 
Unfortunately, I believe the sad situation is that either we tighten up on the restrictions for people with dangerous mental disorders or the gun control activists will inevitably win and restrict firearm purchases for everyone far beyond where they are now.

These shootings keep happening and almost every time it's a nut-job. The gun control activists and now apparently even nations around the world come out and say "I told you so" every time one of these things happens. If we really want our gun rights to be preserved, can we really afford not to identify the serious cases?

That being said, I agree with the following quote from jpk1md:

If you are asking us if people that have been deemed an OBVIOUS threat to others by a court of law and shouldn't be allowed to walk the streets/drive a car because they are an extreme threat to society then I would agree with you.

If you are asking if everyone should be sat down periodically in front of some whacko psycho-babble-chologist that got into the field to solve their OWN issues and have now been deemed qualified to examine and treat others by a board of their peers (mostly nutjobs) then I would say absolutely not!!!
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
The Second Amendment doesn't give the government the power to perform background checks at all.
 
Wow

This topic comes up a lot lately.

Since I've crumpled many bits and bytes on this subject already, I'll summarize.

The psych "sciences" aren't.

They've molested our school system for more than 40 years. The schools are now little more than a sinkhole for money and a 12-year daycare for kids.

The psych "disciplines" were imported from countries who used them as tools of political oppression.

It's an elite club of "doctors" with delusions of adequacy who periodically vote on what will be considered an illness.

So . . . what was the question again?
 
You're correct, Arfin. Just take a college level psych class and you'll realize what little science there is. Pure speculation based on experience.
 
Showing the inconsistencies in Freud or the failure of Marx's predictions has not destroyed either Freudian psychoanalysis or Marxism.

Obviously.

I think it's time for a trip back to the re-education camp...I don't feel I was properly indoctrinated. Maybe we can get labels for everyone and have their info printed on their clothes...maybe if they had to wear some kind of symbol. Hmmm.

Or store all their info on a little microchip that we could inject into the neck that would set off alarms if they came too close to us.
 
Like all of those mentally defective Jews, Hitler tried to keep track of them. OH, and mentally defective 'patriots' that would 'fight' for the constitution and freedom of the 'republic'. Don't forget the masses of mentally defective people who want 'guns' for who knows what.

I hear what you are saying, but it is a powerful tool and without checks and balances in the system could have very unintended consequences. Or quite intended.
 
The psych "sciences" aren't.
Click to expand...

Interesting.

Particularly in light of the fact that the “psych sciences” encompass a multidisciplinary treatment approach to dysfunction; medicine, pharmacy, counseling, social work, etc.


It's an elite club of "doctors" with delusions of adequacy
Click to expand...

“Doctors” with "delusions of adequacy"?

I’m fascinated. Explain this to me if you would.
 
They had this "scheme" back in the day in Nazi Germany... they ended up "marking" gays/lesbians/handicaps/eldery as "defective" and national policy was, you guessed it: euthanasia.

BAD IDEA. Cataloging people, and labeling, no no.
 
They had this "scheme" back in the day in Nazi Germany... they ended up "marking" gays/lesbians/handicaps/eldery as "defective" and national policy was, you guessed it: euthanasia.

BAD IDEA. Cataloging people, and labeling, no no.
Click to expand...

Right.

Like their scheme of registering and identifying sex offenders.
 
I'm not sure how we would implement this "completely" with no danger whatsoever of abuse. BUT we do not allow comvicted felons, ADJUDICATED habitual drunkards, etc to pass a Brady check.

It seems to me that an ADJUDICATED delusional paranoid schizophrenic should fall into the same category. Why is this unaccepatable?:confused:

And I don't trust all of the "psycho-babblers" either. But at the moment, unfortunately, pscyhiatrists are all we've got. Better them than politicians and so-called "journalists."
 
Ah, so you advocate driver's licenses for habitual drunkards? ;)

First, one must define liberty, and that's not as easy as it first appears due to the numerous definitions of the word. Second, I believe that liberty and freedom (not the same thing) come with responsibilities attached. Or don't you believe actions have consequences?

John
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top