Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well it did not take her long to come out to attack the NRA.
What happened in Vegas is horrific and it saddens a sane mind but GeeZ Hillary can we at least let the families grieve before we go pointing fingers?
Though she holds no public office she is still attempting to sway the masses.
Her anti gun tirade is nothing but the Left's knee jerk reaction to a terrible incident. In the article she says that the carnage would have been so much worse if they guy had a silencer that the NRA wants to make easier for people with hearing disorders get. There is no way to silence a machine gun like the murderer used plus silencers do not work like they do in a James Bond movie but facts? who needs them when an agenda is being pushed?
What really gets me is how the Left will tell us that we cannot condemn all Muslims due to a small percentage that turn to terrorism just like we cannot put all black people in the same group as the ones who riot, loot and burn just like how we cannot deport all illegal immigrants because a small percentage are career criminals. YET it seems that the Left is Ok with putting all legal law abiding gun owners in the same deplorable basket as some idiot mass murderer?
It boggles the mind
.
I am so happy that Hillary is not our President today.
Selective Serotonin Reuptake inhibitor. They are anti-depressants and anxiety medications. Paxil and Prozac are brand names. I took Paxil while going through my thyroid crap. Honestly this guy would be on something much stronger than an SSRI if he was on anything at all.
It used to be that a citizen could petition a court to have someone committed to a mental institution, and the court could grant such committment if enough valid evidence was presented.
This changed in the 1960s and 70s.
In 1967 two Democrats and a Republican in California's state legislature came up with the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, designed to end INVOLUNTARY commitments of mentallly ill, alcoholic, etc. people into large mental institutions. The LPS Act was hailed by liberals all over the country as putting an end to eeevil government practices of dictating to helpless victims where they would go and what treatments they would get whether they liked it or not. It was overwhelmingly passed by California's Assembly and Senate, and finally signed by Governor Ronald Reagan in 1967. Similar laws were quickly passed all over the country, advocated mostly by liberal groups and do-gooders.
The liberal ACLU kept pushing this agenda to get these patients out of mental institutions, and finally resulted in 1975 (coincidentally Reagans' last year as Governor) in the U.S. Supreme Court handing down a decision in O'Connor vs. Donaldson (422 US 563). This Court decision announced a new Constitutional right: The mentally ill could not be forced to stay in such institutions if they were not an actual threat to others. This opened the floodgates and let huge numbers of patients, in various degrees of helplessness, out of the institutions.
When it was discovered that these laws and court decisions had the effect of putting many people who could not, in fact, take care of themselves out on the street, the liberals did a fast 180, hastily forgot about their long, enthusiastic nationwide advocacy and support of the agenda, and invented a completely new accusation: That it was Ronald Reagan alone who had "kicked all those poor people out of their nice, safe hospitals and made them homeless".
From Wikipedia:
The Lanterman–Petris–Short (LPS) Act (Cal. Welf & Inst. Code, sec. 5000 et seq.) concerns the involuntary civil commitment to a mental health institution in the State of California. The act set the precedent for modern mental health commitment procedures in the United States. It was co-authored by California State Assemblyman Frank Lanterman (R) and California State Senators Nicholas C. Petris (D) and Alan Short (D), and signed into law in 1967 by Governor Ronald Reagan. The Act went into full effect on July 1, 1972. It cited seven articles of intent:
•To end the inappropriate, indefinite, and involuntary commitment of mentally disordered persons, people with developmental disabilities, and persons impaired by chronic alcoholism, and to eliminate legal disabilities;
•To provide prompt evaluation and treatment of persons with serious mental disorders or impaired by chronic alcoholism;
•To guarantee and protect public safety;
•To safeguard individual rights through judicial review;
•To provide individualized treatment, supervision, and placement services by a conservatorship program for gravely disabled persons;
•To encourage the full use of all existing agencies, professional personnel and public funds to accomplish these objectives and to prevent duplication of services and unnecessary expenditures;
•To protect mentally disordered persons and developmentally disabled persons from criminal acts.
The Act in effect ended all hospital commitments by the judiciary system, except in the case of criminal sentencing, e.g., convicted sexual offenders, and those who were "gravely disabled", defined as unable to obtain food, clothing, or housing [Conservatorship of Susan T., 8 Cal. 4th 1005 (1994)]. It did not, however, impede the right of voluntary commitments. It expanded the evaluative power of psychiatrists and created provisions and criteria for holds.
---------------------------------------
Hey, Post #1000 in this thread!
I've no doubt that in some cases involuntary commitment was abused - just as all laws/regulations are occasionally abused. When they removed the ability for family to force a commitment, they also removed any "hope" that family had of forcing help on a mentally ill family member. The mentally ill are usually totally incapable of understanding that they need help of some sort.
Nobody knows more about the mental stability than a family member or close friend.
There have been HUGE Unintended Consequences for Laws - this was one of those Laws that actually took away Family members rights to get help for the mentally ill.
I committed my Mother 3 times before these laws were passed. It kept her alive for another 5 years, it kept others alive because she was unstable enough to do great harm to other people.
You were spot-on. Gang violence and mental illness: the two things driving up our gun violence rate, and the two things people don't seem to want to talk about.
So many excuses when a white guy commits domestic terrorism.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,411,082 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by treasurefinder
I have no problem talking about gun control now and I say this as a gun owner. Every time tragedy strikes everyone says "not now, let them grieve, you are being partisan, etc". If not now, when?
But in a case like this, where the guns were apparently obtained legally and the man was not on LE's radar, it would seem unlikely any law could've prevented this atrocity, at least a Constitutional one.
How about we intervene and get these twisted individuals help before they get their crazy little fingers on a gun.
"No! no! It's the guns, the guns are the problem! Not the people using them! The crazy people are fine, they're fine, they aren't hurt....um... well no, they're fine. It's the guns that are the problem! If we get the guns, the crazy people won't be crazy anymore!"
Guns are not the problem. Crazy, ****ed up people are the problem. We need to un**** the crazy people. Our focus should be on mental health care, not gun control.
Right, because it's much easier to determine who is "crazy" and dangerous as opposed to the fact that guns are inherently dangerous and should have limited access.
Yes, we should throw a bunch of people who COULD be dangerous into institutions because it's more important that Red Dawn anti-government wannabes have access to their toys.
Selective Serotonin Reuptake inhibitor. They are anti-depressants and anxiety medications. Paxil and Prozac are brand names. I took Paxil while going through my thyroid crap. Honestly this guy would be on something much stronger than an SSRI if he was anything at all.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
