Natural News: Obama gives doctors power to declare you 'mentally ill' and take away your guns
Comments
-
Are those the same doctors that will be on the federal payroll someday?
-
If not doctors, who exactly should declare someone mentally ill?
And should mentally ill people have a bunch of guns?
No, I didn't read the article. Just asking based on the title of the thread -
I have a relative who is bipolar. I wonder where they draw the line and whether they will uphold their right to defend themselves.
-
I would have rethought the thread title.
-
This power, remember, is being given to a class of corrupt professionals who are almost universally on the take from Big Pharma, receiving routine bribes and drug peddling influence that encourages them to drug everybody with psychiatric drugs that drive people insane.
Even worse, many doctors already believe that anyone who owns a gun is insane to begin with, and there's the catch-22: If you want to own a gun, you must be insane and therefore should be denied the right to own a gun.
All this comes down to just one more good reason who fewer and fewer people are now visiting mainstream (conventional) doctors. They're now SNITCHES for the feds!
So DJ, you think almost all doctors are corrupt?
It's sad you try to be a member of the media, then buy off on shit like this. -
Hipster douchebags UNITE!!!!!
-
When I was younger, a relative was bipolar and had substance abuse issues. She scared us little ones at times and was quite unstable. I would not have wanted her to have access to guns though she was highly unlikely not to hurt anyone but herself. She didn't commit suicide though....she drank herself to death by her late 40's.
Anyway I'm a moderate who tends to lean libertarian but there has to be a balance between the right to bear arms and freedom from whack jobs bearing arms. When the Founders wrote the 2nd Amendment, a rapid fire rifle didn't exist...let alone a Gatling Gun (showing up in the Civil War).
People of a certain religion who are killing people on pretty much every continent in the world concern me a lot more though. -
In the end it didn't matter what you wanted.
She had access to guns, she didn't buy one nor did she shoot anybody up.
No new executive orders confiscating guns were needed. -
HFNY said:
When I was younger, a relative was bipolar and had substance abuse issues. She scared us little ones at times and was quite unstable. I would not have wanted her to have access to guns though she was highly unlikely not to hurt anyone but herself. She didn't commit suicide though....she drank herself to death by her late 40's.
Anyway I'm a moderate who tends to lean libertarian but there has to be a balance between the right to bear arms and freedom from whack jobs bearing arms. When the Founders wrote the 2nd Amendment, a rapid fire rifle didn't exist...let alone a Gatling Gun (showing up in the Civil War).
People of a certain religion who are killing people on pretty much every continent in the world concern me a lot more though.
I'm too lazy to use the googles, but I would wager heavily the over that there are far more deaths due to alcohol every year than death by guns.
We should ban alcohol. (Sorry, @Swaye)
Wait ......................... -
We should ban weed next.
-
Fuck. YOU.PurpleJ said:We should ban weed next.
-
It's way more profitable when it's illegal. Simple fact.ThomasFremont said:
Fuck. YOU.PurpleJ said:We should ban weed next.
-
That's actually true.PurpleJ said:
It's way more profitable when it's illegal. Simple fact.ThomasFremont said:
Fuck. YOU.PurpleJ said:We should ban weed next.
I feel bad for the enterprising but slightly shady high schooler of today.
-
PurpleJ said:
It's way more profitable when it'sThomasFremont said:
Fuck. YOU.PurpleJ said:We should ban weed next.
illegalmonopolized. Simple fact.
I'm hearing numbers in WA retail that would make your head spin. Simple fact; don't twist.
-
No but there's many restrictions on alcohol to save lives. Just like there are many restrictions on cars to save lives. Hence.... Restrictions on guns to save lives.pawz said:HFNY said:When I was younger, a relative was bipolar and had substance abuse issues. She scared us little ones at times and was quite unstable. I would not have wanted her to have access to guns though she was highly unlikely not to hurt anyone but herself. She didn't commit suicide though....she drank herself to death by her late 40's.
Anyway I'm a moderate who tends to lean libertarian but there has to be a balance between the right to bear arms and freedom from whack jobs bearing arms. When the Founders wrote the 2nd Amendment, a rapid fire rifle didn't exist...let alone a Gatling Gun (showing up in the Civil War).
People of a certain religion who are killing people on pretty much every continent in the world concern me a lot more though.
I'm too lazy to use the googles, but I would wager heavily the over that there are far more deaths due to alcohol every year than death by guns.
We should ban alcohol. (Sorry, @Swaye)
Wait .........................
Nice try tho. -
If we were serious about gun safety, the only people who should have guns are the Syrian refugees who make up Obama's national police force
-
It's not a monopoly. It's oligopoly. But still. Our pot laws are fucked up.
-
Isn't this the point of a doctor?
-
The problem with this is the same as any other health issue which allows/requires disclosure by someone other than the patient. This will cause folks who want to retain their second amendment rights to think twice about seeking help from medical professionals for even mild cases of depression. Either way, this appears to be one of many unconstitutional executive orders the left is again complicit in.
-
Or you are being played by a news organization lying to you.Southerndawg said:The problem with this is the same as any other health issue which allows/requires disclosure by someone other than the patient. This will cause folks who want to retain their second amendment rights to think twice about seeking help from medical professionals for even mild cases of depression. Either way, this appears to be one of many unconstitutional executive orders the left is again complicit in.
-
Such a good little lap dog hondo2001400ex said:
Or you are being played by a news organization lying to you.Southerndawg said:The problem with this is the same as any other health issue which allows/requires disclosure by someone other than the patient. This will cause folks who want to retain their second amendment rights to think twice about seeking help from medical professionals for even mild cases of depression. Either way, this appears to be one of many unconstitutional executive orders the left is again complicit in.
-
BUT HE DIDN'T FEEEEEEL SAFE!sarktastic said:In the end it didn't matter what you wanted.
She had access to guns, she didn't buy one nor did she shoot anybody up.
No new executive orders confiscating guns were needed. -
If concern about your gun makes you avoid necessary medical treatment, you are mentally unstable.Southerndawg said:The problem with this is the same as any other health issue which allows/requires disclosure by someone other than the patient. This will cause folks who want to retain their second amendment rights to think twice about seeking help from medical professionals for even mild cases of depression. Either way, this appears to be one of many unconstitutional executive orders the left is again complicit in.
-
Oh.2001400ex said:
Or you are being played by a news organization lying to you.Southerndawg said:The problem with this is the same as any other health issue which allows/requires disclosure by someone other than the patient. This will cause folks who want to retain their second amendment rights to think twice about seeking help from medical professionals for even mild cases of depression. Either way, this appears to be one of many unconstitutional executive orders the left is again complicit in.
The.
Fucking.
Irony.
-
Necessary for what? Who decides?ThomasFremont said:
If concern about your gun makes you avoid necessary medical treatment, you are mentally unstable.Southerndawg said:The problem with this is the same as any other health issue which allows/requires disclosure by someone other than the patient. This will cause folks who want to retain their second amendment rights to think twice about seeking help from medical professionals for even mild cases of depression. Either way, this appears to be one of many unconstitutional executive orders the left is again complicit in.
-
I would agree with that actually.
Schizophrenia would be the first and foremost concern.
What were the Columbine shit-bag losers?ThomasFremont said:
If concern about your gun makes you avoid necessary medical treatment, you are mentally unstable.Southerndawg said:The problem with this is the same as any other health issue which allows/requires disclosure by someone other than the patient. This will cause folks who want to retain their second amendment rights to think twice about seeking help from medical professionals for even mild cases of depression. Either way, this appears to be one of many unconstitutional executive orders the left is again complicit in.
-
Necessary as in you are sick/need treatment, but decide to remain sick/untreated to retain your gun.sarktastic said:
Necessary for what? Who decides?ThomasFremont said:
If concern about your gun makes you avoid necessary medical treatment, you are mentally unstable.Southerndawg said:The problem with this is the same as any other health issue which allows/requires disclosure by someone other than the patient. This will cause folks who want to retain their second amendment rights to think twice about seeking help from medical professionals for even mild cases of depression. Either way, this appears to be one of many unconstitutional executive orders the left is again complicit in.
I guess that is your choice to make, but come on. Those are some seriously twisted priorities.
The idea behind owning and keeping the gun is self defense. What is the point of self defense if you're heading for an early grave because you refused medical treatment? -
Sounds like you're making a lot of generalities and wanting to make useless laws to justify your ignorance.
-
We don't trust retards with paper that has corners. Why would we want them to have guns?sarktastic said:Sounds like you're making a lot of generalities and wanting to make useless laws to justify your ignorance.
#CircleOfPaper -
I guess we'll need to define which mental illnesses would prevent someone from being able to own a gun, huh? Who decides that? What's the criteria? Fucking just shove the government's hand up all our asses and make us your sock puppets for fuck's sake. None of this shit is going to do a thing to prevent violence. At all. People who want to kill people are just going to make bombs and stab people. Or run planes into buildings.
