more from GOA on H.R. 2640, which some have defended
- Thread starter F4GIB
- Start date
- Status
JohnBT
Member
"...but also to any diagnosis by a federal-(or state)-sanctioned psychologist or psychiatrist..." - GOA
Any disorder? Like 315.1 - Mathematics Disorder. "Mathematical ability...is substantially below that expected given the person's chronological age, measured intelligence and age-appropriate education." - DSM-IV
Any disorder? GOA is drinking the kool-aid.
307.0 - Stuttering.
307.6 - Enuresis (that's bedwetting folks, not due a general medical condition)
:banghead:
John
Any disorder? Like 315.1 - Mathematics Disorder. "Mathematical ability...is substantially below that expected given the person's chronological age, measured intelligence and age-appropriate education." - DSM-IV
Any disorder? GOA is drinking the kool-aid.
307.0 - Stuttering.
307.6 - Enuresis (that's bedwetting folks, not due a general medical condition)
:banghead:
John
JohnBT
Member
305.90 - Caffeine Intoxication
A. Recent consumption of 250 mg - 2-3 cups, and five or more from:
B. restlessness, nervousness, excitement, insomnia, flushed face, diuresis, gastrointestinal disturbance, muscle twitching, rambling thought and speech, and 3 more I'm tired of typing.
John
Aw, heck, one more => 292.0 - Nicotine Withdrawal
A. Recent consumption of 250 mg - 2-3 cups, and five or more from:
B. restlessness, nervousness, excitement, insomnia, flushed face, diuresis, gastrointestinal disturbance, muscle twitching, rambling thought and speech, and 3 more I'm tired of typing.
John
Aw, heck, one more => 292.0 - Nicotine Withdrawal
JohnBT
Member
If the GOA, you, me, or anybody else wants to fight a bill successfully they're going to have make perfect sense and not rant and rave like the GOA has been recently.
John
John
ArfinGreebly
Moderator Emeritus
Another Inch
For reasons expounded elsewhere, I don't trust the psych community. You may assure me all you like, but I have made my own observations. I actually believe its no longer possible for them to win back my trust.
For reasons too well known to mention I have an abiding distrust of politicians.
When the two of them work together on anything, as when a law is written which further reinforces the "authority" of the first group, I contemplate these events with a measure of dread.
Every law that limits gun ownership is yet another precedent, yet another instance of "see? it's really okay" infringement.
There was a time when anyone disembarking on America's soil was simply expected to be armed. People walking the street were assumed to be armed. Every home was assumed to be an armed camp. People traveling the roads and highways were even instructed to be armed.
Villains were armed. Crazy people were armed. Healthy people were armed. Sick people were armed. Farmers were armed. Coachmen were armed. Bankers and lawyers were armed. And among this lot, the common man (and often woman) was also armed.
A certain amount of "predictable chaos" is one of the consequences of a completely armed populace. It comes with the territory.
Freedom and liberty have a certain amount of chaos as part of their makeup.
The only way to remove chaos is to assert total control.
One of the fundamental vectors of politicians is control. Anything they write into law will have this as a component.
Such control ought to be mitigated by the judicial branch. As long as the judicial branch can be counted on to err on the side of liberty, such legislation can be kept in check.
I'm not at all sure that the current trends in a) legislation, b) law enforcement, and c) judicial restraint, bode well for liberty.
I am very apprehensive about this bill and the dominoes it will fell.
I am not reassured by what I have read here so far.
Maybe I have "mistrust of lying politicians" disorder.
Or is that a syndrome?
- - - - -
P.S.
There is this story, which references this article, in case this has not already been made part of the discussion.
For reasons expounded elsewhere, I don't trust the psych community. You may assure me all you like, but I have made my own observations. I actually believe its no longer possible for them to win back my trust.
For reasons too well known to mention I have an abiding distrust of politicians.
When the two of them work together on anything, as when a law is written which further reinforces the "authority" of the first group, I contemplate these events with a measure of dread.
Every law that limits gun ownership is yet another precedent, yet another instance of "see? it's really okay" infringement.
There was a time when anyone disembarking on America's soil was simply expected to be armed. People walking the street were assumed to be armed. Every home was assumed to be an armed camp. People traveling the roads and highways were even instructed to be armed.
Villains were armed. Crazy people were armed. Healthy people were armed. Sick people were armed. Farmers were armed. Coachmen were armed. Bankers and lawyers were armed. And among this lot, the common man (and often woman) was also armed.
A certain amount of "predictable chaos" is one of the consequences of a completely armed populace. It comes with the territory.
Freedom and liberty have a certain amount of chaos as part of their makeup.
The only way to remove chaos is to assert total control.
One of the fundamental vectors of politicians is control. Anything they write into law will have this as a component.
Such control ought to be mitigated by the judicial branch. As long as the judicial branch can be counted on to err on the side of liberty, such legislation can be kept in check.
I'm not at all sure that the current trends in a) legislation, b) law enforcement, and c) judicial restraint, bode well for liberty.
I am very apprehensive about this bill and the dominoes it will fell.
I am not reassured by what I have read here so far.
Maybe I have "mistrust of lying politicians" disorder.
Or is that a syndrome?
- - - - -
P.S.
There is this story, which references this article, in case this has not already been made part of the discussion.
JohnBT
Member
"There was a time when anyone disembarking on America's soil was simply expected to be armed."
Hogwash. You telling me indentured servants and slaves were expected to be armed?
John
Hogwash. You telling me indentured servants and slaves were expected to be armed?
John
ArfinGreebly
Moderator Emeritus
Just Humans
Humans, John, just humans.
While I'm sure there have been times when "anyone" included only free white male protestant landowning folks, the point was that "armed" was the default.
Incrementally, "unarmed" has become the default.
The object of the exercise, from our side, is to restore "armed" as the defaut.
Even for former felons.
Humans, John, just humans.
While I'm sure there have been times when "anyone" included only free white male protestant landowning folks, the point was that "armed" was the default.
Incrementally, "unarmed" has become the default.
The object of the exercise, from our side, is to restore "armed" as the defaut.
Even for former felons.
JohnBT
Member
Are we talking about the words that were typed on the page in the post or what you think should have been typed?
Anyone means anyone. There were gun control laws in colonial America. There were numerous gun control laws passed around the time of the Civil War. NY state passed the Sullivan Laws in 1911. I could go on and on. When exactly was "anyone disembarking on America's soil was simply expected to be armed."
IOW, you aren't making any sense. You need facts.
John
Anyone means anyone. There were gun control laws in colonial America. There were numerous gun control laws passed around the time of the Civil War. NY state passed the Sullivan Laws in 1911. I could go on and on. When exactly was "anyone disembarking on America's soil was simply expected to be armed."
IOW, you aren't making any sense. You need facts.
John
It does look as if the GOA has a point here. Section 101(c) (1) (C), Standard for Adjudications, Commitments, and Determinations Related to Mental Health, reads:
Drop the "No" at the beginning, flip that bold "without" around, and any department or agency may provide mental health determinations "based solely on a medical finding" if whoever is doing the medical evaluation finds the patient is a danger to self/others or lacks mental capacity to manage their own affairs. Note that is doesn't say "court ordered medical finding," just plain old "medical finding." Or, in other words, it really is broad enough to allow doctors to do this without the court, no?
And with no clear definition of "danger" or "capacity," couldn't an anti-gun doctor play fast and loose with the terms?
Drop the "No" at the beginning, flip that bold "without" around, and any department or agency may provide mental health determinations "based solely on a medical finding" if whoever is doing the medical evaluation finds the patient is a danger to self/others or lacks mental capacity to manage their own affairs. Note that is doesn't say "court ordered medical finding," just plain old "medical finding." Or, in other words, it really is broad enough to allow doctors to do this without the court, no?
And with no clear definition of "danger" or "capacity," couldn't an anti-gun doctor play fast and loose with the terms?
JohnBT
Member
Drop the no and turn the without around? What does the sentence say then? I can't make it out.
Why are you rewriting the bill?
John
Why are you rewriting the bill?
John
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
The doctor doesn't get to make that determination on his own though. It is still up to a judge.
I'd also point out that RIGHT NOW, the VA is adding people to the prohibited persons list on NICS who have NOT been found to be a danger to themselves or others. They are adding people simply based on a mental illness disability - H.R. 2640 corrects this by requiring the removal of their name from NICS (without any further action on their part) and helps prevent further abuse by establishing a state-administered process (can't be defunded by Congress) to appeal and review these determinations, even if a finding was made.
Sorry JohnBT, I was just talking in circles, not trying to rewrite the bill. 
My point was that if instead of reading it in the negative to see what it explicitly forbids, reading it in the affirmative made it seem vague. Looks like I was wrong though anyway.
Ah, so basically the bit quoted in my last post is actually disallowing the V.A. (and other doctors) from arbitrarily adding people like that then? I thought it was allowing the doctor who made the medical finding to also determine the danger to self/others without a judge. D'oh.
My point was that if instead of reading it in the negative to see what it explicitly forbids, reading it in the affirmative made it seem vague. Looks like I was wrong though anyway.
Bartholomew Roberts said:
Ah, so basically the bit quoted in my last post is actually disallowing the V.A. (and other doctors) from arbitrarily adding people like that then? I thought it was allowing the doctor who made the medical finding to also determine the danger to self/others without a judge. D'oh.
- Status