Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Room For Differences?

http://www.jpfo.org/athens.htm
<br>
<br>Mike

Chigger, so you believe that folks should be checked damned close to be sure they don't have any known mental illness? Since you are an expert in several areas, let me challenge you as to why you think a known mental illness should automatically disqualify a person from owning firearms? The mentally ill are one of the last politically safe targets for stereotyping and discrimination. It is based on the mistaken belief that having a mental illness means that a person has uncontrollable impulses and is potentially dangerous. Any mental health professional will confirm that the mentally ill are no more violent than the general population. Yet, many people, and laws in many areas, treat a history of mental illness the same as violent behavior. Sad to say, many strong advocates of gun rights feel that way. I know a number of solid ciitizens including doctors, lawyers, and law enforcement professionals (including a chief of detectives) who suffer from mental illness. Under that standard Abraham Lincoln and any number of other famous people couldn't legally own a firearm. With rare exception the only disqualification should be a history of violent behavior, PERIOD. Mental illness per se should be irrelevant. BTW, my qualification is most of a Ph.D. in clinical psychology.

Seems like our forefathers allowed private ownership of cannons at the time. Those would've been pretty powerful weapons and not necessarily fired from the shoulder.
<br>
<br>I believe the 2nd ammendment allows for private ownership of any weapon available to the government (since I also believe it was to allow for the citizens to overthrow a corrupt government). Now, I also believe that it is a little out-dated. See, I don't particularly want everyone carrying around nuke's or ICBM's. I probably would agree with private ownership of most any "conventional war" weaponry, but as the weaponry gets more serious I'd probably also want there to be a better background check and even training. Updated fairly frequently with some of those items.
<br>
<br>I think this is the first time I've heard the "you don't need an AK47 to hunt" arguement from a non-gun grabber. I guess there's a first for everything (and some are starting to buy into the grabber's hype).
<br>
<br>I also consider myself politically non-affiliated. I vote for a person, not necessarily a party. Did ya'll know that Nixon tried to pass a guaranteed living wage? Meaning the government would pay to make up the difference to anyone not earning the minimum yearly amount. He was going to give enough to keep every family above the poverty line - even more than what many had thought they could get. Except some activists talked the lobbyists into not accepting it and starting a protest, so he said screw'em. I wonder how the US would be different if that had ever passed. Talk about a liberal.

Saddlesore, as I posed earilerI agree with most of your assement. I did take offence at your comment about Democrats not knowing the 2nd amandment and lumping it in with your knowledge of the wars this country has fought. It should matter little if a person is of any political party if that person truly believes in his convictions. However we are a nation of Sheeple a few leaders with causes taking advantage of those who "will not" think an original thought for them selves. Perhaps my language was a bit strong but I am passionate about my heritage, Lessons of life were learned at the expence of others blood spilled in sands of far off countries. And to say Democrats don't know is not a fair assement. I do believe many democrats served in all the wars not just Republicans. But todays Democratic party is nothing like the party it once was it now is a party of elitists leading the gulable around and imposing their brand of socialism on the masses.
<br>Sorry if I offended you, we need one another to keep the tyrant at bay. There are many good people who call them selves Democrats that are really democrats only because it is family tradition they are truly conservative Demo's as I was until the party went so far to the left I and thoundsands like me were abandoned and now we drift.
<br>
<br>Bullwnkl.

Paul39, I guess I should have said "mentally incompetent" instead of mentally ill........far there are many I fear who are ill and just don't know it at all. Those who have violent outrage when angered, as having been checked out by a doctor. Those people in anger management classes I don't feel need a gun at their disposal ready to be picked up if they so chose to do so.
<br>
<br>I hope you agree, that such people have NO business with a gun in their hands, and if NOT well all I can say is you and I don't see eye to eye and leave it at that period. I will ask you the question DOC! Just what kind of person with mental illness would you let own and use a gun?
<br>
<br>My father now sorry to say, falls under this heading, we took his guns away from him for more reasons than one after the passing of my mother. Yes, it was a sad time for me and the rest of us involved. A man in his 80's and my hero, with several medals and two purple hearts to boot. His offspring all agreed it was the thing to do.

chigger
<br>
<br>No matter how tough that was, it was the right thing to do..My thing is YOU did it..not the government!
<br>
<br>The less they get involved the safer we are.
<br>
<br>Mike

So what about when our leaders find it necessary to lie to us to git their way? I'm not talkin' about the sef-serving Clinton variety of lies (which is jus' as bad). I'm referin' to the policy-promoting type that is part an' parcel of the public relations machinery thet renders our opinions worthless, largely because we base them on propaganda. Babies being pulled from incubators, covert meetings that never happened, evidence that doesn't really exist. We fell for it all over the years. Hook, line and sinker. How can a simple man trust anyone running the machinery?

Chigger, Sorry to hear about your father. That sort of thing is wrenching for any family. As to what sort of mentally ill person I would let have a gun, that really begs the question as to whether anyone should have to be ALLOWED to have a gun, presumably by our government. Anybody should have the RIGHT to have a gun unless there are specific reasonable disqualifying factors involved, primarily a history of violent behavior, including threats. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association (DSM IV) is the "bible" of psychodiagnosis. It contains many hundreds or even a thousand conditions that could be considered mental illnesses. It reflects as much the current thinking and even the politics of psychiatry as much as science. Point is, you would be surprised how many people have a history of mental ilness without even knowing it. Ever see a school or marriage counselor, or your company's EAP? Ever had your personal doc prescribe a sleeping pill or tranquilizer or antidepressant? If covered by insurance there was a code number indicating the diagnosis - Bingo! When you buy a gun you answer a series of questions that include, as you indicated, whether you have ever been declared mentally incompentent. That is a reasonable standard along with a history of violent behavior. I don't think we really disagree, it's just that I hate to see law abiding non-violent people who suffer from mental illness lumped along with violent criminals either in public opinion or gun laws, however well-meaning either may be. BTW, I'm not a doc. Never completed my dissertation although I did a two-year hospital internship way back when. I've been a union member and a management rep in labor relations, but that's another story. Cheers! Paul39

Paul39
<br>
<br>While I generally agree with what you are saying, don't equate having a DSM diagnosis (especially for insurance purposes) as being deemed mentally incompetent.
<br>
<br>You are correct, there are hundreds of codes and diagnosis. And for insurance to pay, one of them has to be used. But, many would never be considered of a severity to make someone incompetent.
<br>
<br>Also true, is that many can be temporary (which I think you would agree may be an even BIGGER issue when it comes to determining who should lose their right to own firearms, and how it is determined).
<br>
<br>Just a thought...100 years ago what kind of information was needed for someone to purchase a gun? What kind of background check was done and did they look at determining competence? Was murder rampant back then?
<br>
<br>I think most would agree that gun control is more about feeling safe by addressing the symptom than it is about finding out why more and more members of our society are becoming anti-social egocentric killers.

Eddie, I never said that having a DSM diagnosis was the equivalent of being considered mentally incompetent, but it could be considered as a record of mental illness. The distinction between mental illness and mental incompetence was a point I was trying to make. Unfortunately, too many gun laws fail to make that distinction, and treat mental illness as a blanket disqualification. Regarding psychiatric politics, homosexuality used to be considered a mental illness, but was removed from the DSM after a prolonged battle within the psychiatric profession. So was the old Freudian concept of neurosis, which some would say we all have.
<br>However one may feel about homosexuality, and personally I find it distasteful, I would certainly not deny the right to possess a firearm on the basis of sexual preference. In some states homosexual behavior is still illegal, so I guess active gays could be denied the right to own firearms on the basis of being criminal. I wonder how far we have really come? I still have to make a living, so it's back to work I go. Paul39
<br>
<br>

Mule
<br>
<br>The only reason our opinions are worthless is because we have allowed them to be!
<br>
<br>What are the stats on voting in this country? Half of the eligible voters are registered..Only something like a fourth of them vote unless it's a Presidential election...Almost nobody can tell you what a candidate stands for...Lazy Americans!!
<br>
<br>Apathy...and Short voter memory..
<br>
<br>Mike

Ready,
<br>Yer talkin' chicken an' egg here. If our leaders are really doin' sumthin' other than what we would want, an' usin' lies to justify it, doesn't that cause voters to feel impotent? When I hear 'bout bein' tricked to get this or that policy thru, I loose interest in the system as a whole. For instance, how can I send my son to fight in Iraq if the public basis for that invasion is proven to be ficticious? If it's really a move to offset a negative political tide, or to avenge some personal greivance, or to placate a special interest, no boys should be sent to die. When I heard that the meetin' between Atta and Iraqi intellegence never really occurred, or that Iraq was never 6 months away from a nuclear bomb, or that Iraqi soldiers never took babies from incubators in Kuwait, I start wondering why I am bein' lied to by the people I elected, and what is their real motivation? Hard to stay supportive at least.

I don't know abut some of the things you have mentioned..I haven't heard about those stories being disproven..Are they on a news service were I can read them?
<br>
<br>I will say I was in Kuwait during Desert Storm and I did talk to a Phillipino Nurse who had been repeatedly raped by Iraqi's and I heard from somewhere about the Iraqi's hanging Kuwaitis by the feet and transfusing the blood into wounded Iraqi soldiers...I don't remember if it was her or somewhere else!!
<br>
<br>Nobody wants to send their son off to war whether it's a "good" war like WWII or an "unpopular" war like this one appears to be!
<br>
<br>Mike

The whole mideast debacle is premised on the US 's desire for thier oil. The Govt wil say or do anything to keep that oil flowing. Do you think we really cared that Iraq invaded Kuwiat?

Saddlesore
<br>
<br>That is an often cited argument for any interest we have in the middle east, but do you really believe it? If so why?
<br>
<br>My gas was $1.25 today, not the best price ever, but not bad!
<br>
<br>It costs a whole lot more to fight a war with Iraq than it does to buy oil...
<br>
<br>We won't take or keep any oil from Iraq after we flatten the place so what benefit will it provide?
<br>
<br>This war is about getting rid of WOMD and a person who has been trying to harm us for quite some time..
<br>
<br>Mike
<br>
<br>

rotr - You and Mule have stumbled on the problem: lack of reliable information. Heard a story. Later heard its not true. Well is it true or not? How do find out? You can't.
<br>
<br>Regards, sse

Have you guys answered this question yet?
<br>
<br>Blaine

ROTR. I believ it. Think of what our economy would be if the supply of oil would be shut off. How much would your goods cost if Diesel fuel went up to $4/gal. The trucking industry would dry up. We do not get enough oil from South America or our own fields to supply our needs.Stop and think how much our country depends on gasoline /oil for it's economy
<br>
<br>My present job is designing and building high tech security systems that monitor perimeters for intruders.
<br>All out work is in Saudi Arabia around refineries and gas plants.
<br>
<br>The Saudis are every bit afraid of the terroist in their own country and the US has no problem in exporting this technology to safe guard that supply of oil. Being involved in negotiating contracts, I hear a lot of inside info that complimenst my beliefs in this
<br>
<br>I feel like a prostitute at times doing this work, but the pay is exceptional and I only have 7 months to go to retirement.
<br>
<br>

Ready,
<br>The "nurse" who testified before congress before they authorized the first Bush to wage war, was actually the daughter of the Kuwaitee ambassador, in college in the US at the time. Not a nurse, wasn't there, did cry good though. Bush made several speeches to drum up support for the war and used the incubator story to outrage the American people. Also, the head UN nuclear inspector through the early 90s discredits GW Bush's claim that Iraq was ever "6 months" away from having a bomb. An "extreme exageration" was how he characterized it. The Atta/Iraqi intellegence story was supposedly relayed by the Cech intellegence agency, who now deny ever conveying such a message. And the aluminum tubes that were destined for the Iraqi A-bomb program, as it turns out, were not of the type and guage suitable for the purpose of enriching uranium, yet Cheney sat in front of the cameras one Sunday morning and made that assertion, echoed by our president that same week.
<br>
<br>Now I ain't sayin' Iraq ain't a bad kid on the block, but these mis-truths give credence to folks that say this talk of war is really less about Iraq an' more 'bout Bush.