Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Mental Illness’

MORE Politically INCORRECT Cartoons for Thursday April 26, 2018

Ann Coulter Letter

Mental health laws are trouble for Democrats

Mental health laws are trouble for DemocratsBy: Ann Coulter  12/18/2013 05:01 PM

Instead of always taking incoming fire, how about Republicans start sending some back? It’s great that they stopped HillaryCare, but if they had actually fixed health care by forcing health insurance plans to be sold in a competitive free market, there would have been no opportunity for shyster Democrats to foist Obamacare on us.

It’s fantastic that we caught the Boston Marathon bombers, but why don’t Republicans fix an immigration system that brings foreign terrorists and mass murderers to our country? Let the Democrats explain why we couldn’t make room for a Danish surgeon because we needed another Chechnyan terrorist.

And it’s terrific that Republicans have managed to block sweeping gun bans after every mass shooting over the past few years — opposition to new gun restrictions has more than doubled since Newtown — but how about they actually do something to stop the next mass murder?

All these shootings are united by one clear thread: They all were committed by visibly crazy people, known to be nuts but not institutionalized.

Mental illness was blindingly clear in the cases of Seung-Hui Cho (Virginia Tech), Maj. Nidal Hasan (Fort Hood), Jared Loughner (Arizona shopping mall), James Holmes (Colorado movie theater), and a dozen other mass shootings in the past few decades.

But in every instance, Democrats’ response was: Let’s ban high-capacity magazines! Let’s limit private gun sales! Let’s publish the names of everyone who owns a registered gun!

Mass shootings don’t correlate with any of these things. They correlate with not locking up crazy people. We’re not worried about school kids being systematically gunned down by angry husbands, gang members or antique gun collectors. We’re worried about a psychotic showing up in a public place and shooting everyone in sight.

There’s absolutely no point in making it more difficult to buy firearms at gun shows — unless gun dealers have no trouble getting files on the mentally ill. Until we do that, we’re wasting our time.

Fixating on guns after a crazy person commits mass murder is like draining the ocean to find a ring you dropped.

Liberals can take the position that crazy people living on the street and filling up our prisons and homeless shelters are a necessary evil that is a consequence of their idee fixe. But then, when one of their pet victims shoots up a movie theater, they don’t get to blame it on guns.

In every one of these mass shootings, there was someone in a position to say before the attack, “Trust me, this person is a psycho.” Try getting Jared Loughner or James Holmes through any mental illness hearing in which they’re required to speak. (Though both might end up being offered their own shows on MSNBC.)

If someone was brought back from the 1950s to today, he’d tell us: “I couldn’t help but notice that all the people who committed mass shootings were batsh*t crazy. Why were they not locked up or forced to take medication?”

We’d have to say, “Because some people — we call them ‘liberals’ — get a warm feeling of self-righteousness by defending the right of the deranged to crap in a shoebox, carefully label it and put it in a closet.”

Democrats absolutely will not address the one thing that was screaming out from all of the mass shootings: a crazy person committing the crime. We can’t medicate them and we can’t lock them up because the ACLU has handcuffed society’s ability to deal rationally with the mentally disturbed.

Not only will Democrats refuse to address the problem of the mentally ill on their own, but they will fight to the last ditch to protect any crazy person’s right not to take his medication.

At some point in the 1980s, not being “judgmental” became the highest form of virtue — although the left is plenty judgmental about things they don’t like, such as white males, smokers, Christianity, Wal-Mart, Fox News, talk radio and NASCAR.

Liberals are so determined not to stigmatize anybody that their solution is always to make all of society suffer instead:

– To avoid hurting Muslims’ feelings, everyone has to strip to his underwear at the airport.

– So no one feels excluded, we’re not allowed to say “Merry Christmas!”

– To avoid singling out gays, the government and media lied to Americans for a decade about the coming explosion of heterosexual AIDS. (We’re still waiting.)

– To stop people from noticing patterns, the media bend over backward to avoid telling us the race of dangerous criminals on the loose.

– To prevent hurt feelings, everybody gets an “A.”

And to avoid “stigmatizing” the mentally ill, society has to live with the occasional mass murder.

These anti-stigmatization rules don’t even help the people they claim to be protecting. But defending ridiculous rules that ruin things for everyone else makes liberals feel heroic.

Rather than constantly playing defense on gun rights, why don’t Republicans force Democrats into taking uncomfortable positions for once? Make them choose between ticking off the ACLU or ticking off soccer moms — as well as all of sane America. (Don’t kid yourself: The non-insane are still a potent voting bloc in this country.)

Republicans should say, “We owe it to the memory of these kids to unclog the regulations that prevent us from forcing psychotics to take their medication.”

Ann Coulter is author of the new book, Never Trust a Liberal Over Three – Especially a Republican (Regnery 2013).

Gun Control Laws: Judge, Jury and Executioner of Rights?

By / 31 May 2013 /

executionerIn reading the article The Fat Lady Hasn’t Sung: Gun Debate Not Over, I was again struck by the idea of our judicial system being at risk via the gun control issue. What I am about to write will cause some consternation, but read it through to the end and then argue with me.

The article states:

A host of logistical problems – including concerns about violating privacy, misunderstandings about which records should be submitted and a lack of money and training – has prevented federal and state agencies from submitting millions of mental health and drug abuse records to the database that’s used for background checks.”

In the U.S. Constitution is the Second Amendment that we are all familiar with. What we sometimes forget to associate with that is, within that Bill of Rights is the following:

“Amendment V”

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. [my bolding]“


“Amendment VI

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. [my bolding]“

The current process of our way of denying someone their Second Amendment rights is in conflict with the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. In the current system, anyone who has had mental problems of whatever sort has their problem reported to the federal government behind the person’s back, and they have no recourse but to immediately lose their right to bear arms.

Forget the whole idea of it being unconstitutional to testify against oneself — for is that not what mental counseling amounts to? — of the Fifth Amendment. Forget, also, finding any witnesses in your favor, the decision is made without that process and if you wish to appeal it, you may, but it will take a lot of work on your part, and possibly a lot of money as well. Attorneys don’t come cheap.

This affects the third part of the Fifth Amendment that is bolded: the right to “life, liberty, or property without due process of the law”. Liberty and property both include the right to keep and bear arms, do they not?

The Sixth Amendment is trashed by our current gun control laws (A.K.A. people control laws) via the fact that there is no witness against you to confront once you have sought mental help. Ever been diagnosed as ADHD? That’s a mental illness.

You lose your right to a firearm. Where is your witness against you? ‘Tis you. Fifth Amendment: allegedly it prevents you from testifying against yourself, but in talking to a mental health professional, you are testifying against yourself! And it is used against you!

Where is your right to bring a witness in your favor? Shall the psychiatrist who reported you testify for you? Don’t count on that, the psychiatrist is the one who turned you in.

That leads us to the last portion of the Sixth Amendment: the right to “have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence [sic]“. When was the last time you heard of anyone being offered a public defender in order to help them get their Second Amendment rights returned to them after they were denied the right to buy a firearm? Has it ever happened? Our Sixth Amendment says that it is supposed to be available. After all, this is happening in a court of law, is it not?

When the law is written in such a way that the law itself becomes our judge, jury and the executioner of our GOD-given rights (for such they are according to our Founding Fathers), then there is a problem with the way the law is written. Gun purchasing laws, as currently constructed, say basically, “IF A, then B and C.” “A” being the mental history, and “B” being your psychiatrist turning you in, and “C” being the loss of your Second Amendment rights.

The law itself has found you guilty of having a mental problem, has therefore removed your Second Amendment right, and you cannot now legally own a gun and are left defenseless in your own home. You cannot defend your life, nor the lives of your wife (or hubby) and children with a gun. You have committed the ultimate sin: you have broken the law of an untarnished mind.

In a nation of  305,528,358 (2008′s number to match the mental health stat) in 2008 approximately 8% of the population who were considered “severely mentally ill”. In 2011 the population was approximately 310,500,000; and 14,612 murders were committed; only 1,000 (6.843%)  committed by those “with untreated severe mental illness“.  That leaves 93.157% of the murders in America committed by those without mental illness.

For the rights of the many to be protected, we must start with the rights of the few. If one person is denied their Fifth Amendment right in a court of law and is forced to testify against himself is that not a declination of the rights of all of us? If they can do it one, they can do it to many.

In America, our justice system is based upon the idea of “Innocent until proven guilty”, apparently we need to add, “Unless you’ve had a mental health issue.”

In Part II of my article, I shall cover some new information from the world of psychiatry and the implications for those affected by the “mental illness” rules of gun control laws.

Answers More Simple Than Second Amendment Destruction Gun Control Bill

Ann Coulter Letter

Coulter: Liberals Go Crazy for the Mentally Ill

Coulter: Liberals Go Crazy for the Mentally Ill

Obama has been draping himself in families of the children murdered in Newtown.

MSNBC’s Martin Bashir suggested that Republican senators need to have a member of their families killed for them to support the Democrats’ gun proposals. (Let’s start with Meghan McCain!)

In a bizarre version of “A Christmas Carol,” CNN’s Carol Costello fantasized about “a mother who lost her child,” showing up and knocking on Sen. Rand Paul’s door, saying, “Please don’t do this!”

The victims of gun violence are the left’s latest “human shields” — a term coined by me in Godless: The Church of Liberalism — for their idiotic ideas. At least it’s not the godawful Jersey Girls this time.

The one clear thread that unites all the mass murders currently being exploited by the Democrats is that they were committed by visibly crazy people who were unaccountably not institutionalized. But Democrats refuse to do anything about crazy people. Apparently, the views of families with relatives murdered by severely disturbed individuals are no longer relevant when it comes to institutionalizing the mentally ill.

If liberals had a decent argument for taking guns away from the law-abiding while doing nothing to prevent schizophrenics from getting guns, they’d make it. Manifestly, they don’t, so they send out victims to make the argument for them, knowing no one will argue with a person whose child has just been murdered.

This allows liberals to act as if Republicans’ only counter-argument to their idiotic gun control proposals is: We don’t mind dead children.

The truth is the opposite. Republicans are pushing policies that will reduce gun violence; Democrats are pushing policies that will increase gun violence.All the actual evidence — mountains of it, in peer-reviewed studies by highly respected economists and criminologists and endlessly retested — shows that limits on magazine capacity, background checks and assault weapons bans will accomplish nothing. Only one policy has been shown to dramatically reduce multiple public shootings: concealed-carry laws.

Unfortunately, there are no similar studies on the effect of involuntary commitment laws for the mentally deranged because no such laws exist anymore and therefore can’t be tested. But we do know that the number of mass public shootings has ballooned since crazy people were thrown out of mental institutions in the 1970s.

For most of the 20th century, from 1900 to 1970, there was an average of four mass public shootings per decade. Throughout the ’70s, as the loony bins were being emptied, the average number of mass shootings suddenly shot up to 13. In the 3.3 decades since 1980, after all the mental institutions had been turned into condos, mass shootings skyrocketed to 36 on average per decade.

Mass shootings don’t correlate with gun ownership; they correlate with not locking up schizophrenics.

Mental illness was blindingly clear in the case of Seung-Hui Cho, who committed mass murder at Virginia Tech. Jared Loughner showed signs of schizophrenia for at least five years before he shot up the Tucson shopping mall. James Holmes was being treated for mental illness long before his massacre at the Aurora movie theater. It was clear to Adam Lanza’s mother — nearly the only person who had contact with him — that he was mentally disturbed and had violent fantasies. (Three-quarters of matricides are committed by the mentally ill.)

We can add paranoid schizophrenic One L. Goh, who committed a mass murder at a Christian college in California last year, and the Muslim Army major, Nidal Hasan, known to be crazier than an MSNBC host, who killed 13 and injured 30 in a “gun-free” area of the Fort Hood Army base a couple years ago. For hundreds more examples of the mentally ill committing murder, read E. Fuller Torrey’s book, The Insanity Offense: How America’s Failure to Treat the Seriously Mentally Ill Endangers Its Citizens.

But Democrats simply will not address the one thing that is screaming out from all of these mass murders, which is that they were committed by crazy people.

As soon as the issue of mental illness came up at a Senate hearing on gun violence in January, Sen. Al Franken leapt in to say: “I want to be careful here — that we don’t stigmatize mental illness. The vast majority of people with mental illness are no more violent than the rest of the population.”

Liberals at and The Huffington Post hailed Franken for his sensitivity. Can we check with the families of the children murdered by crazy people on the danger of “stigmatizing” the mentally ill?

Contrary to Franken’s claim, some of the mentally ill are far more likely to be violent. According to the National Institute of Mental Health, schizophrenics and similarly disturbed individuals are three times more likely to commit a violent crime than others.

The mentally ill are also more likely to be the victims of violence. Ask the sisters of the crazy homeless woman “Billie Boggs” how grateful they were to the ACLU for keeping Boggs out on the street.

Meanwhile, the only target of Democrats’ gun proposals — legal gun owners — are less likely to commit violent crimes than others. To the contrary, armed civilians justifiably kill about 1,500-2,800 felons a year, compared to 300-600 legal killings by the police. Responsible armed citizens protecting us from violent criminals should be subsidized rather than taxed and harassed.

After five mass shootings by deranged lunatics, even liberals know that the only policy — apart from concealed-carry laws — that might have stopped these shootings are laws permitting the institutionalization of the mentally ill.

That’s why they keep claiming their gun bills address mental illness. Warning: Read the bill. You will find nothing in any of the Democrats’ “gun safety” proposals that will make it easier to commit a crazy person or to prevent him from buying a gun.

The Democrats’ argument for doing absolutely nothing about the dangerously mentally ill, while disarming crime-preventing armed citizens is: Tell it to this weeping mother. If the Democrats’ “gun safety” bill passes, there’ll be plenty more weeping mothers to tell it to.


Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: