Gun Laws and the Mentally Ill

Posted: April 2, 2013 by ShortTimer in Government, Guns, Health care, Ruling Class, Second Amendment
Tags:

From the BBC:

Mental illness has clearly been at the centre of some of the country’s most notorious mass shootings. But could the new law have an unintended consequence: making it harder for the mentally ill to seek help?

Here’s the thing: if someone is so mentally ill they can’t be trusted, they shouldn’t be out in society.  If they need supervision because of problems, whether permanent or temporary, they need that supervision.  If they can’t live on their own, whether it be because they want to kill themselves by driving into bridge supports at 90mph, or whether they just can’t handle the stresses of life, then maybe they shouldn’t be living on their own until they have those problems conquered.  Whatever the cause, if they need treatment and it will benefit them, they should be treated until they’re well; and if treatment won’t help, then maybe they shouldn’t be out.

If a person is so mentally ill they can’t be trusted in society, then they shouldn’t be trusted in society.

“If I had that fear that it would go to the police, I would feel violated,” she says (a gal with illnesses that needed treatment – ST). “Like big brother is watching me.”

Because, sadly, he is.

Mental health professionals and advocates fear that as a result of the new law, those who need treatment will stay away from the very people who ought to be able to help them.

“It has set back stigma a trillion years,” says Sharon McCarthy, programme director for the Westchester branch of the National Alliance on Mental Illness.

“In developing this law, you brought in the mentally ill people,” says Ms McCarthy, whose daughter is bipolar. “You didn’t bring in the gangs. You pinpointed that group.”

This isn’t about gangs.  This is about disarming the population at large.

Those who are mentally ill and shouldn’t be released simply shouldn’t be released.  Those who are in some supervised status should be supervised.  The objective of treating mental illness, for those who are simply unwell, but not madmen, should not be to demonize them, either.

But here we get to the bigger problem – it’s not about guns, it’s not about preventing the mentally ill or unwell from harming themselves if supervision fails, it’s about control.

…the Safe Act has plenty of supporters.

Westchester County’s Board of Legislators passed a resolution urging similar action by federal leaders.

The board’s chairman, Ken Jenkins, says the act has adequate protections and that no-one should fear that the mental health provision will be used for anything other than preventing the sale of handguns and assault-style weapons to those who have been reported.

He says it’s only reasonable that gun ownership now comes with an extra burden.

“For the privilege of having… specific types of guns, you now have the additional responsibility for opening up your privacy,” he says.

No.

The Second Amendment clearly states THE RIGHT of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  Nowhere in there does it say “privilege”.  At the point that a right becomes a privilege, it’s no longer a right – it’s something to be permitted or denied by your rulers who run the state.

There is no “responsibility” to open up one’s privacy in order to enjoy a RIGHT (aside from counting numbers of voters – but not the votes themselves).  There is no “responsibility” to surrender your privacy to beg for a privilege that the state is out to destroy.

The mentally ill, and more importantly those who feel they would like some therapy or counseling, are sadly correct to be a bit paranoid.  The database on them may well impact their future employment prospects and their future prospects in life.  It’s already part of a bill that is out to destroy the natural right of self-defense and to destroy the self-determination of the citizen because the Ruling Class wants to subjugate the population.

The series of mentally ill murderers in the last few mass murders were not normally troubled people going through a rough patch, they were deeply troubled, and identified as such.   With the massive stigma already attached to mental illness and the difficulties in forcibly committing someone who is dangerous preventing friends and family from acting, that led to many people’s deaths.  There are madmen out there – and many of them are easily identified by anyone who looks at photos of them, and they were well-known to friends and family, who are always concerned with the well-being of the mentally ill person.  But they’re already so scared of the consequences and hamstrung by groups that worked to prevent commitment, that those who needed to be committed were not; and those who’d seek their own help don’t.  Due to the perceived aberration of asking for mental health, individuals who need help receive it much less and their families and friends are that much less likely to ruin their lives on a hunch.

The stigma does run deep.

Comments
  1. […] We’ve hit on this before, but it’s coming up again. […]

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s