Antidepressants (courtesy blog.lib.umn.edu)

The following is republished from freefirezone.org with the author’s permission:

I received a friend request on Facebook and a twitter follower. The person requesting those claimed to be part of the Catholic Worker movement. Now, I am no longer a part of that community, which was 25 years ago, but I have known a few of those folks. Consider: they’re pacifist, followers of Christ, believing that Good Works helping the poor of the work is the Lord. What’s not to like, right? . . .

Consider also I moved past that many, many years ago abandoning most of those precepts, such as non-violence as a means of making peace, the concept itself of social justice, only to later learn that while looking good and sounding good on paper, those concepts are both potential social calamities for the poor.

But I am a sentimental human being, and I thought it was good to maybe reconnect to see where individuals such as the requester were, or how far they had gone down those roads. The people I knew sure as hell knew how to throw a party, besides.

Only a day or two later, around the the time of the anniversary of Roe v Wade Supreme Court decision, the guy posts this missive in which he said that antiabortionists were actually warmongers because they wanted to suppress womens rights enough so that women could spawn cannon fodder for the wars of the plutocracy.

Squeezing those concepts through your brain is a little like trying to look out of one skull socket with both eyes.

Unlike the great massive majority of conservatives, I know how to deal with crazy people. You really have two choices.

You can chuck them out of your life summarily and without debate and never make contact with them again. In this method, you get all the safety you desire and nearly zero personal cost. But on the downside you don’t get to look into the face or hear the voice of madness.

Or you can listen to them, consider the ideas they have, perhaps even debate them at some moment. An intelligent individual can do this all without even fearing whether such contact will taint them, or that their ideas could overwhelm your own good sense.

Then you tell them they are out of their minds and to either start drinking heavily or to get help.

I have nothing against crazy people. They exist and they have as much right as anyone to express their views. The same with the majority of the population, crazy people are harmless, probably less than one percent of them represent a threat to others or even to themselves.

Unfortunately, mentally ill people are about to become victims of the political class as discussions become more focused on making mental health issues a matter of public record for the purpose of purchasing a gun.

I read Saturday morning an opinion piece by a Soviet immigrant now residing in Florida that gun registration is bad but mental health background checks are good. All of which has been proposed and advanced in some states in an effort to prevent tragedies such as the Sandi Hook school massacre last December.

Criminal background checks, for warrants and the like make sense, but the rest of it, protective orders, misdemeanor convictions for assaults going back a lifetime do not.

By the way, I am a prohibited person, not permitted to buy a gun through a federal firearms dealer because of a now 19 year old protective order. Getting the order lifted would cost me a month’s pay, and the cooperation of the other party. Only one of those two conditions are insurmountable. My rights have been taken away from me forever for something that isn’t even a crime.

Does anyone think that mental health background checks would not be abused the way the law is now with gun buying? Do you really want the same people who interpret law to impose a lifetime ban for misdemeanors to make the same decisions with regard to your mental health?

But it is law now, the court have endorsed this madness repeatedly to the degree that the only way real justice can be served is from the barrel of a gun.

And we have friends who agree that it is a good thing I can’t protect myself. To those, I say: wait until the state or a pissed off ex-wife and her lawyer in a divorce declares you as mentally ill. I’ll be laughing my ass off.

Recommended For You

34 Responses to Mental Health Gun Bans: It Stops Being Sensible When It Starts Being You

  1. It’s PATHETIC that protective orders, which are virtually free for the asking, without having a proper airing in court, are valid until the end of time. I suppose it’ll remain in place long after the passing of the author, so as to “protect” the requesting party from his return as a zombie. We all know how much zombies fear protective orders.

  2. ISTR the Soviet Union classifying dissent as a mental illness.. I would only consider mental illness denials if they involved sworn testimony from a certified mental health professional that the person is an imminent violent threat to themselves or others, and even that can be ginned up.. Otherwise, folks who would otherwise seek treatment for, say, depression, will be rightfully scared off.

  3. If mental-health background checks become necessary to buy a gun, then they could also be implemented for

    (1) getting an abortion
    (2) voting
    (3) becoming an American citizen
    (4) writing an editorial
    (5) ________________

    since such checks are not a violation of rights.

  4. I grew up NM, currently, live in Chicago, and lived in NYC and Denver inbetween. NYC was by far the worst example of this. Take a look at the NYPD form (link here: http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/permits/HandGunLicenseApplicationFormsComplete.pdf ). Below are some of the “common sense” questions that you can guarantee are automatic denials if you answer yes. Another interesting aspect from the mental health angle, is that it is impossible to see a therapist (and going through your insurance) without them diagnosing you with something. Usually it’s around ‘general anxiety’. Now look at the questions and an antigun .gov filter – ‘yeah you got the help you needed but your so anxious. We can’t have jumpy people with a gun!’

    Although I would never want to go back to NY, I would look forward to the SAF lawsuit I could bring having successfully jumped through the chicago hoops, and most likely being denied in NY for their permit.

    Question 21. Suffered from mental illness, or due to mental illness received treatment, been admitted to a hospital
    or institution, or taken medication? List Doctor’s/Institutions, Name, Address, Phone #, in explanation ..

    From the author’s perspective:
    24. Have you ever, or do you now have an Order of Protection issued against you? ………………………………….  Yes  No
    25. Have you ever, or do you now have an Order of Protection issued by you against a member of your
    household, or any family member? ……………………………………………………………………………………………….  Yes  No
    26. Have you ever, or do you now have an Order of Protection issued by you against a person other than
    a member of your housold or family? …………………………………………………………………………………………….  Yes  No
    If you have answered yes to questions 24 – 26, you must indicate the following information:
    a. Court of Issuance
    b. Date of Issuance
    c. Complainant’s Name, Address and Telephone Number
    d. Complainant’s relationship to you
    e. Reason for issuance of Order of Protection
    27. Have the police ever responded to a domestic incident in which you were involved?…………………………….  Yes  No

    Don’t forget question 14:
    14. Been denied appointment in a civil service system, Federal, State, Local? ………………………………………..  Yes  No

    Surpised Robert hasn’t covered this issue where certain law enforcement departments are known for rejecting a much higher than average % of applicants on the psych test. Not only is this a pretty hard thing to ever overcome with other depts, but essentially makes it impossible to ever receive a federal clearance.

    Sorry for the long post. This hit a few nerves for me.

    • The NY application, beggin for your god given natural rights, is dispicable. Think those cops are members of Oathkeepers and will stand up for the Consitiution when the going gets tough?

      A win in Il for carry, when the same in NYC?

  5. mental health checks are a slippery slope. what constitutes a problem? meds? masturbating too much? driving without a seatbelt? listening to Iron Maiden?

    it would definitely have the possibility to be abused.

    • And would be. I, as a mental health professional (clinical psycholgist, 43 years of experience) can assure you that psychological/psychiatric diagnosis is pretty much of a crap-shoot, with ample room for the operation of subjective bias. We mental health professionals do pretty well in agreeing on whether or not a given person is “seriously mentally ill,” which translates into “bat-shit crazy,” but much less well in agreeing on whether or not a person, because of his/her serious mental illness, is imminently dangerous to others or to him/herself and therefore not to be trusted with a firearm. If mental health professionals find themselves in the position of vetting folks for the appropriateness of their being able to own guns, it’s going to get ugly out there. I know of some psychologists/psychiatrists who would deem the very wish to purchase a gun to be evidence of mental unbalance. Hold on to your hats, y’all, turbulence ahead.

  6. Yeah, who’s really crazy? obummer for wanting to blow your ass up with a drone or the Repubs for wanting a drone in your bedroom? It used to be a tough choice come election time, not any more. The real criteria for mental illness is if you are a danger to yourself or someone else. The brady’s will kill themselves & you, I call that a danger, Randy

  7. I have no problem with reducing the rights of people who have been through due process with all the protections therein and been found guilty of committing a crime. I have no problem with holding someone for evaluation if the person has been making extravagant threats. But that’s the limit of what the Constitution allows. All of this other mishegoss is stuff that we must stop tolerating.

  8. Mental health has the potential to become an almost limitless and sinister resource to deny rights.

    Even if you don’t deal with mental illness you should be scared out of your wits over this type of legislation. The current system requires a judicial adjudication (somewhat like due process) to be denied your right to buy a gun. Any legislation putting that determination in the hands of any doctor without the benefit of a court hearing is dangerous beyond belief. Feinstein has already declared every combat vet as suffering from PTSD and automatically denied their 2A rights. Think she’ll stop there?

    We can go on and on about mag limits, semi-autos, the Second Amendment, needs and cosmetic features all we want but if something like this gets passed we are ALL, and I mean EVERY LAST ONE OF US is wide open to lose our 2A rights on the whim of some doctor.

  9. Would have the possibility to be abused? Change that to, “WOULD be abused.” I, as a mental health professional (clinical psycholgist, 43 years of experience) can assure you that psychological/psychiatric diagnosis is pretty much of a crap-shoot, with ample room for the operation of subjective bias. We mental health professionals do pretty well in agreeing on whether or not a given person is “severely mentally ill,” which translates into “bat-shit crazy,” but much less well in agreeing on whether or not a person, because of his/her severe mental illness, is imminently dangerous to others or to him/herself and therefore not to be trusted with a firearm. If mental health professionals find themselves in the position of vetting folks for the appropriateness of their being allowed to own guns, it’s going to get ugly out there. I know of some psychologists/psychiatrists who would deem the very wish to buy a gun to be evidence of mental unbalance. Hold on to your hats, y’all, turbulence ahead.

  10. The public’s perception of the mentally ill in this country is quite ignorant. For instance, if you say someone is bipolar some people automatic think the person has two or more personalities. Likewise, most people don’t know that Schizophrenia has sub types such as Catatonic, Disorganized, and Paranoid. If people did a little research they would find that the mentally ill are actually less violent then the populace that surrounds them.Is it sane to deprive a person of liberty when no rational reason exists.

  11. 19 year old protecting order requiring the sole permission of the complainant to lift? Without any kind of court hearing? Yeah…. Sure….. I got some waterfront property in Neveda for you

  12. And yet…..it was perfectly Ok to all Jesse Jackson, Jr to be elected to represent people. Maybe is should be extended to those who want to hold office too.

  13. Pharmaceuticals will be next.
    The check box will read
    “Are you on any medications that have been determined by the Surgeon General to impair judgement or interfere with the safe handling of a deadly weapon?”

    The list of drugs will be a carbon copy of the PDR.

  14. While I agree with Mental Health issues and all the craziness in these mass shootings, I also have massive reservations on the potential abuse of the “Mental Health” aspect of new gun legislation.

    I have an un-diagnosed neurological disorder that has yet to be recognized by the Medical community. Slowly people who suffer from this are starting to make inroads into having it become an official disorder and finding solid treatment that works. I refrain from mentioning it at this time, but it’s a lifelong struggle and can be completely debilitating to the sufferer and cause massive strain on those whom they love.

    I am also a lifelong gun owner and advocate for the second amendment.

    As much as my condition pains me, I do not want to lose my ability to own firearms to protect, hunt and entertain myself and my loved ones. Why would I volunteer to basically black-list myself? How many others will go un-diagnosed with the numerous mental health issues in fear of losing that right? Will my wife who owns her own firearms be labeled unfit for firearm ownership due to her past issues with mental health?

    “Oh, we see that you were on Zoloft when you were 15, we can’t allow you to own a firearm.”

    The potential for abuse is astonishing. The amount of people who will remain untreated will lead to more senseless deaths, just because they didn’t want their Glock taken away.

    Slippery, slippery slope indeed.

  15. you are never (for liability reasons) going to get a doctor to say that you are NOT going to shoot someone.

    That said (since no one else mentioned it) the push back one is going to get on protective orders (and i have a “family lawyer” in the family, which is really a joke since she mainly seems to do divorces) is that from a judges perspective, who does not know you, they are going to take a conservative approach. Perhaps protective orders should have an expiration, but as mind bending as it is I have seen couples fight longer then they were married, especially when kids were involved. over bat-shit stupid stuff. I know of some examples where the order really should be for a very long time due to the idiocy of both parties.

    Moreover, very often felonies are pled down to misdemeanors. If you have a misdemeanor assault, how do we differentiate?

    While i totally agree with all the comments about due process, there has to be a line drawn somewhere. Maybe a 20-year-old order seems unfair, but there are usually two sides to a story and i gotta ask, why is (s)he unwilling to let it go after so long? just playing devils advocate here.

    Where-ever the line is drawn one its going to be unfair to someone. For every person who has a 10 year old assault from a college bar fight, there are probably two or three other thugs who should not have guns. background checks with an appeal process is indeed a very blunt tool, but I am not really sure what the solution is.

    As a friend of mine told me once, the law guarantees your rights, but does not guarantee you wont go bankrupt defending your rights.

  16. It’s quite clear that the gun grabbers have never read Phillip K. Dick’s short story The Minority Report or the 2002 Steven Spielberg film starring Tom Cruise. Pre-convicting a person of a crime they have not yet committed and may never commit is just plain wrong and in my opinion unconstitutional.

  17. Sorry.
    This is a weak argument. A person who shares the same psych features as 70%-80% of the mass shooters of the past several decades should not have access to guns. PERIOD.
    Yes, there should be a formal adjudication process.
    Yes, there ought to be room for appeal.
    But if someone is schizophrenic with wild delusions and thought disturbance, they don’t need access to guns.
    A clear clinical line *CAN* be drawn between the Alex Jones fan and the prepper who fears economic collapse (and likely won’t go shooting up a church, a school or a mall) and the floridly psychotic individual (who – like Cho, Loughner, Holmes and others – is much more likely to do so).

    • It’s kind of you to sacrifice the natural rights of others at the altar of gun control, DrVino, but you should be aware that mentally ill individuals are no more of a threat of violence than anyone else. Additionally, few mass shooters appear to be psychotic in the clinical sense–I doubt you’d find one psychiatrist in ten who’d be willing to classify Cho or Lanza as such. Malevolence is the common trait among these individuals, not psychosis.

      Before you begin throwing people under the bus to satisfy the advocates of gun control, try to remember that decent people do not engage in prior restraint against those who have committed no crime.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *