What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

People with mental disorders can buy guns now (1 Viewer)

Ilov80s said:
Man of Constant Sorrow said:
I have it now.  If you want to discuss, I have time.

Or, if you wish, I will dig deeper.

I apologize if I have made an error.  :unsure:
Click to expand...
I am very open to any discussion.  Aspergers isn't a mental disorder nor does it make anyone more violent. 
Click to expand...
Great, I may have a poor understanding here.

I was relying on this:

The ASD classification is to some extent an artifact of how autism was discovered,[20] and may not reflect the true nature of the spectrum;[21]methodological problems have beset Asperger syndrome as a valid diagnosis from the outset.[22][23] In the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), published in May 2013,[24] AS, as a separate diagnosis, was eliminated and folded into autism spectrum disorder.[25] Like the diagnosis of Asperger syndrome,[26] the change was controversial[26][27] and AS was not removed from the WHO's ICD-10.
Click to expand...
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome

In many cases, Wikipedia is plain wrong. With my particular diagnosis, it has some mild errors...maybe better termed misrepresentations, but for the most part it is correct.

Also, I did not mean to infer that Asperger Syn causes or promotes violence.  I am STRONGLY in the camp that each diagnosis is a unique case, and all stereotypes and  negative connotations towards the mentally ill need to be THOROUGHLY debunked in all areas where they are wrong.

I think we are on the same side here 80's, its just that I may have not qualified my original statement...as it DEFINITELY should have been.

My sincere apologies.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Max Power said:
per wiki is sounds likes a disorder that effects the brain. agree with the non violent part though.
Click to expand...
It's a developmental disorder. It is not a mental illness. Does it effect the brain? Yes, so does sleeping or doing a math problem. "Effecting the brain" is a super complicated topic. 

 
Man of Constant Sorrow said:
Great, I may have a poor understand here.

I was relying on this:

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome

In many cases, Wikipedia is plain wrong. With my particular diagnosis, it has some mild errors...maybe better termed misrepresentations, but for the most part it is correct.

Also, I did not mean to infer that Asperger Syn causes or promotes violence.  I am STRONGLY in the came that each diagnosis is a unique case, and all stereotypes and  negative connotations towards the mentally ill need to be THOROUGHLY debunked in all areas where they are wrong.

I think we are on the same side here 80's, its just that I may have not qualified my original statement...as it DEFINITELY should have been.

My sincere apologies.
Click to expand...
That is the most important part of any of this, the  burden of proof falls on the one taking away the rights.

 
Galileo said:
Right to own <> do whatever you want

Do you believe people have a right to hunt...for sport or for food?

do you believe people have a right to shoot skeet?

Do you believe people have a right to go to the local range and shoot targets?
Click to expand...
I'll be damned if they take my right to skeet in my own home!

 
Ilov80s said:
No problem, I figure we are all wrong half the time so I will consider myself lucky to have maybe been right about something. 
Click to expand...
:thumbup: :)

Also, did you read my long post on the previous page about my personal experiences with SAD?

If not, it contains a little more in regards to many of my opinions on this topic.

 
Of course mental disorders are hard to define. President Obama nonetheless looked for a way to do so. After Sandy Hook, his people came up with one way: anyone who was considered too mentally ill to sign his own Social Scurity check and needed a loved one to sign it for them. Of course this doesn't cover all mentally ill people but it covers some. Obama proposed this and other very reasonable gun legislation after Sandy Hook and the GOP killed all of it without discussion, because they are beholden to the NRA. So Obama signed an Executive Order after he checked with his lawyers. If the EO was unconstitutional as Walking Boot and others claim, why was it never challenged, the way the travel ban was challenged? Of course it was constitutional, and very rational. 

This decision by the Congress is shameful and stupid and I'm hoping the public will see it as such. 

 
timschochet said:
Of course mental disorders are hard to define. President Obama nonetheless looked for a way to do so. After Sandy Hook, his people came up with one way: anyone who was considered too mentally ill to sign his own Social Scurity check and needed a loved one to sign it for them. Of course this doesn't cover all mentally ill people but it covers some. Obama proposed this and other very reasonable gun legislation after Sandy Hook and the GOP killed all of it without discussion, because they are beholden to the NRA. So Obama signed an Executive Order after he checked with his lawyers. If the EO was unconstitutional as Walking Boot and others claim, why was it never challenged, the way the travel ban was challenged? Of course it was constitutional, and very rational. 

This decision by the Congress is shameful and stupid and I'm hoping the public will see it as such. 
Click to expand...
Depriving people of their rights without due process is not reasonable to me.

 
timschochet said:
Of course mental disorders are hard to define. President Obama nonetheless looked for a way to do so. After Sandy Hook, his people came up with one way: anyone who was considered too mentally ill to sign his own Social Scurity check and needed a loved one to sign it for them. Of course this doesn't cover all mentally ill people but it covers some. Obama proposed this and other very reasonable gun legislation after Sandy Hook and the GOP killed all of it without discussion, because they are beholden to the NRA. So Obama signed an Executive Order after he checked with his lawyers. If the EO was unconstitutional as Walking Boot and others claim, why was it never challenged, the way the travel ban was challenged? Of course it was constitutional, and very rational. 

This decision by the Congress is shameful and stupid and I'm hoping the public will see it as such. 
Click to expand...
This is the best approach I have heard yet for those that want to take away. 

 
timschochet said:
Of course mental disorders are hard to define. President Obama nonetheless looked for a way to do so. After Sandy Hook, his people came up with one way: anyone who was considered too mentally ill to sign his own Social Scurity check and needed a loved one to sign it for them. Of course this doesn't cover all mentally ill people but it covers some. Obama proposed this and other very reasonable gun legislation after Sandy Hook and the GOP killed all of it without discussion, because they are beholden to the NRA. So Obama signed an Executive Order after he checked with his lawyers. If the EO was unconstitutional as Walking Boot and others claim, why was it never challenged, the way the travel ban was challenged? Of course it was constitutional, and very rational. 

This decision by the Congress is shameful and stupid and I'm hoping the public will see it as such. 
Click to expand...
It's not the job of the POTUS (ANY POTUS) to legislate. If you want to restrict the rights of a broad class of citizens, you better include some due process to justify it. 

 
timschochet said:
Of course mental disorders are hard to define. President Obama nonetheless looked for a way to do so. After Sandy Hook, his people came up with one way: anyone who was considered too mentally ill to sign his own Social Scurity check and needed a loved one to sign it for them. Of course this doesn't cover all mentally ill people but it covers some. Obama proposed this and other very reasonable gun legislation after Sandy Hook and the GOP killed all of it without discussion, because they are beholden to the NRA. So Obama signed an Executive Order after he checked with his lawyers. If the EO was unconstitutional as Walking Boot and others claim, why was it never challenged, the way the travel ban was challenged? Of course it was constitutional, and very rational. 

This decision by the Congress is shameful and stupid and I'm hoping the public will see it as such. 
Click to expand...
how would that have stopped Sandy Hook? His mom owned the guns.

 
timschochet said:
Of course mental disorders are hard to define. President Obama nonetheless looked for a way to do so. After Sandy Hook, his people came up with one way: anyone who was considered too mentally ill to sign his own Social Scurity check and needed a loved one to sign it for them. Of course this doesn't cover all mentally ill people but it covers some. Obama proposed this and other very reasonable gun legislation after Sandy Hook and the GOP killed all of it without discussion, because they are beholden to the NRA. So Obama signed an Executive Order after he checked with his lawyers. If the EO was unconstitutional as Walking Boot and others claim, why was it never challenged, the way the travel ban was challenged? Of course it was constitutional, and very rational. 

This decision by the Congress is shameful and stupid and I'm hoping the public will see it as such. 
Click to expand...
What other rights do you think the president should be allowed to define and revoke from groups of people?

 
Man of Constant Sorrow said:
Thank you...much appreciated. :)
Click to expand...
That post was legit, the honesty is great. I think there are pieces there that could help you understand a major fundamental difference between many people with ASD and many people with other mental disorders. I don't want to use your experiences as an example unless you are ok with that though. 

 
timschochet said:
Of course mental disorders are hard to define. President Obama nonetheless looked for a way to do so. After Sandy Hook, his people came up with one way: anyone who was considered too mentally ill to sign his own Social Scurity check and needed a loved one to sign it for them. Of course this doesn't cover all mentally ill people but it covers some. Obama proposed this and other very reasonable gun legislation after Sandy Hook and the GOP killed all of it without discussion, because they are beholden to the NRA. So Obama signed an Executive Order after he checked with his lawyers. If the EO was unconstitutional as Walking Boot and others claim, why was it never challenged, the way the travel ban was challenged? Of course it was constitutional, and very rational. 

This decision by the Congress is shameful and stupid and I'm hoping the public will see it as such. 
Click to expand...
Tim, I like this post of yours because I agree with you passion & zeal to prevent gun violence.

However, I DO NOT believe that politicians are capable of defining mental disorders in the manner that you describe.

Rather, have the Surgeon General implement a plan to conduct a scientific study that can then be used as a data source for making these kinds of decisions.

Or, is this not a feasible plan of action?  I don't know as much about politics as many here. :shrug:

 
Ilov80s said:
That post was legit, the honesty is great. I think there are pieces there that could help you understand a major fundamental difference between many people with ASD and many people with other mental disorders. I don't want to use your experiences as an example unless you are ok with that though. 
Click to expand...
I posted my experience here for that VERY PURPOSE 80s...roll with it bro!  :thumbup:

 
Man of Constant Sorrow said:
I posted my experience here for that VERY PURPOSE 80s...roll with it bro!  :thumbup:
Click to expand...
Just as a very rough idea why ASD is different from traditional "mental illnesses" ( like PTSD, Bi-Polar, Schizophrenia).  A person with ASD has always had it. You can't become a person with autism. People are born with autism and it's traits come through during development. A person with aspergers can not receive a drug that will chemically alter them to make the not display the qualities of a person with autism.  Aspy can be improved with therapy, maturity, education, etc.  Aspy isn't something that can be episodic, flare up, etc. 

 
Ilov80s said:
What was bad? President promoted an idea for a  law and opposition in legislative branch shut it down.  
Click to expand...
Tim called it shameful and stupid.  I'm wondering what his entire list of constitutional rights are that should be revoked from what groups and why.  Certainly, it's more than guns and people with mental disorders.

 
Ramblin Wreck said:
Tim called it shameful and stupid.  I'm wondering what his entire list of constitutional rights are that should be revoked from what groups and why.  Certainly, it's more than guns and people with mental disorders.
Click to expand...
you and tim seem caught in political quicksand. i bet you guys can find higher ground to meet on. 

 
Ilov80s said:
you and tim seem caught in political quicksand. i bet you guys can find higher ground to meet on. 
Click to expand...
I mostly like Tim.  He falsely accuses me, and many others, of things.  He whines about not having legitimate discussion.  But then when I try he avoids the question.  I'm really interested in what asterisks he would put on the constitution.  I don't disagree that certain people shouldn't own guns but defining/labeling people is a slippery slope too.

 
Ilov80s said:
Just as a very rough idea why ASD is different from traditional "mental illnesses" ( like PTSD, Bi-Polar, Schizophrenia).  A person with ASD has always had it. You can't become a person with autism.  People are born with autism and it's traits come through during development. 
Click to expand...
This is a very good point 80s, thus the labeling of ASD as a "developmental disorder" (which you brought to my attention earlier..thnx) clearly separates it from the other "mental disorders" you list...which includes mine.  I agree 100% with your assessment here. Further, the established medical literature & the DSM support it as well.  These are the tools and guides that practicing therapist and counselors  use...from psychiatrists to social workers.  Thus, it is a VERY strong foundation you have.  :thumbup:

However, I do want to note that there exists studies that may support the theory that many "mental disorders" are in fact genetically based or influenced...yet their outward expression is delayed until a later developmental stage outside of the womb.  

My first "episode" occurred when I was 22.  My "break" (which is what I wrote about) occurred when I was 41.  At that time, I received professional medical help for the 1st time.  In my analysis, it was determined that I expressed many features of SAD as early as the age of 7 or 8....the earliest memories that were considered valid enough for analysis.  Perhaps I displayed "features" earlier, but there is no way of determining it.

This in no way refutes your statement, rather, I add it to note that the lines may be fuzzier than is usually presumed in the practicing community.

Ilov80s said:
A person with aspergers can not receive a drug that will chemically alter them to make the not display the qualities of a person with autism.
Click to expand...
Awesome point! I have nothing other to say than,TRUTH!  :thumbup:

Ilov80s said:
Aspy can be improved with therapy, maturity, education, etc.  Aspy isn't something that can be episodic, flare up, etc. 
Click to expand...
Another good point 80s, my situation is the very epitome of "episodic" and "flare up"

However, therapy, maturity, education, etc. are also VERY valid and useful for many other major mental disorders as well.  To better explain my opinion, I would like to conclude by quoting something that I sent to a very good friend just earlier today.  Sorry if it strays a little from your points, but I think it could add some new elements to this discussion. 

Oh, before I get to that though, thank you very much for the sincere and educational chat.  Not only will it help me, it will help others learn more about topics that are far too often "hidden behind closed doors."   :thumbup:

I am a bi-polar type SAD, not a depression type.I have been off of medication for almost a year with doctor's approval. Oddly enough, the one "medication" I do use is marijuana. In the Wiki article, it states that drugs like this can exacerbate my problem.  This is true in a general sense, but specific cases are never "general".

I was on lexapro and seroquel for many years...during which I used no alcohol, grass or other drugs.  In my past, I used alcohol, grass and hallucinogens for self medication and for exploring some of the mental spaces that my illness already brought me into contact with.

Well, to get to the point, the standard drugs were not very appealing to me...tended to make me isolated, uninterested and less engaged with life in general.  I was pretty much emotionally, intellectually and socially numb...yet, I was "saner" in a certain sense.

Thus, after much consultation with my doc, we decided that while certain aspects of my disorder could be increased with MJ use, other aspects of my disorder could be greatly reduced.  It became a decision of: What can I live with & what REALLY disables me in the real world.

Now that I paint and photo for $, a little added weirdness is no issue...social, emotional & intellectual numbness are.

Things have been great for me since this transition was made...and I am really enjoying life once again.
Click to expand...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
 So Obama signed an Executive Order after he checked with his lawyers. If the EO was unconstitutional as Walking Boot and others claim, why was it never challenged, the way the travel ban was challenged? Of course it was constitutional, and very rational. 
Click to expand...
:lmao:  

 
secondary question to those who support this.  Should there be a follow on screening to ensure mental health stays at an acceptable level?  who pays for this?

 
Ramblin Wreck said:
Tim called it shameful and stupid.  I'm wondering what his entire list of constitutional rights are that should be revoked from what groups and why.  Certainly, it's more than guns and people with mental disorders.
Click to expand...
I don't want to revoke any constitutional rights. Again, if this executive order was unconstitutional, why wasn't it challenged?

 
BowieMercs said:
Man of Constant Sorrow said:
I posted my experience here for that VERY PURPOSE 80s...roll with it bro!  :thumbup:
Click to expand...
Kudos to the Man of Constant Brass Balls ... I salute you, sir!
Click to expand...
Sincere thank you, Uncle Bowie...yet...

Honestly...

I would never define my balls as "brass"..

...I have spent many a year apprenticed to scheming alchemists of varying degrees of authenticity..

...in the end...I have ultimately relied on my own senses...internal & external (which you do as well...far better than myself).

But, in the end, my balls are more akin to Rocky Mountain oysters.

I don't care so much about the defense & hardness; rather, I do care about the consumption. ;)

 
timschochet said:
I don't want to revoke any constitutional rights. Again, if this executive order was unconstitutional, why wasn't it challenged?
Click to expand...
Sincere question Tim, as you know far more about current politics than I do...but, could politics have anything to do with it?

Who determines "challenges"?

Is it the majority?

And, if so, who was in majority at the time you reference? Not, true majority, but rather psychological majority.

Am I making any sense here or I am lost on this wilderness?

 
timschochet said:
Of course mental disorders are hard to define. President Obama nonetheless looked for a way to do so. After Sandy Hook, his people came up with one way: anyone who was considered too mentally ill to sign his own Social Scurity check and needed a loved one to sign it for them. Of course this doesn't cover all mentally ill people but it covers some. Obama proposed this and other very reasonable gun legislation after Sandy Hook and the GOP killed all of it without discussion, because they are beholden to the NRA. So Obama signed an Executive Order after he checked with his lawyers. If the EO was unconstitutional as Walking Boot and others claim, why was it never challenged, the way the travel ban was challenged? Of course it was constitutional, and very rational. 

This decision by the Congress is shameful and stupid and I'm hoping the public will see it as such. 
Click to expand...
You are ignoring the fact it wasn't just the NRA that opposed this. 

The ACLU sided with the NRA in their opposing to the rule (and these are two organizations that are rarely on the same side), which has never been in place, by the way.

If you had done any real research into this, you would know those things.

 
I keep seeing these things

ACLU

NRA

PCP

AR-15

These are just words 

They mean nothing

Just because I voluntarily checked myself in to a laughing academy doesnt mean I shouldn't be able to own a gun to protect the family I plan to have

which is possible if she doesn't hear about my time in the funny farm

and if she does find out and reject me?

THAT MAKES ME SO MAD I !!!!!!!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
FBG Parents: Is There A Growing Post-Pandemic Youth Mental Health Crisis ? (10/30)
Replies
21
Views
2K
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
Is There A Widespread Growing Mental Health Crisis For Both Adult Men And Teenage Boys? (27/30)
2
Replies
52
Views
4K
Ilov80s
Ilov80s
GordonGekko
Do You Believe That The Modern "Tipping" Culture Has Gone Completely Out Of Control? (1/30)
6 7 8
Replies
371
Views
21K
Hastur
Hastur

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top