Should anorexics/bulemics and bullied gay teens be deprived of constitutional rights?

[g5000]

So doctors control people's constitutional rights?

It looks like that people have always had to have a background check on mental stability.

Did you know that if you attempt suicide and get hospitalized in some states you need a Doctor's note to say you are safe to drive a vehicle and not a danger to others on the road?

First, find the definition of mental illness, and how is "violent" defined? Would a transgendered person be denied guns if they tried to self operate? Cutters? Is starving yourself or purging considered violent? I don't know about you, but when I vomit, it's VERY violent. In fact my face gets all bruised.

We leave these decision to professionals and let them determine if giving you a gun is a good idea.

 

[novasteve]

So doctors control people's constitutional rights?

You are protected by your constitutional due process rights, even when it comes to a doctor.

You can only be confined against your will by a doctor after judicial review. And you can only be denied your right to bear arms after due process has determined you to be a violent hazard to yourself or others.

Not short term. A doctor can have you confined and then you only get to challenge it after the fact.

 

[novasteve]

It looks like that people have always had to have a background check on mental stability.

Did you know that if you attempt suicide and get hospitalized in some states you need a Doctor's note to say you are safe to drive a vehicle and not a danger to others on the road?

First, find the definition of mental illness, and how is "violent" defined? Would a transgendered person be denied guns if they tried to self operate? Cutters? Is starving yourself or purging considered violent? I don't know about you, but when I vomit, it's VERY violent. In fact my face gets all bruised.

We leave these decision to professionals and let them determine if giving you a gun is a good idea.

So your constitutional rights are in the hands of unelected doctors?

 

[g5000]

So doctors control people's constitutional rights?

You are protected by your constitutional due process rights, even when it comes to a doctor.

You can only be confined against your will by a doctor after judicial review. And you can only be denied your right to bear arms after due process has determined you to be a violent hazard to yourself or others.

Not short term. A doctor can have you confined and then you only get to challenge it after the fact.

That's common sense. I once had to bring a young man to the ER because he told a roomful of people he had been thinking about bringing a gun to the meeting and shooting all of us. He also said that he had been thinking about driving into an oncoming car on his way to the meeting.

Should the doctors have waited to hospitalize him?

THAT is the kind of person you don't want to have a gun.

As it turns out, he did manage to get his hands on a gun about a year later and shot himself in the head.

 

[novasteve]

You are protected by your constitutional due process rights, even when it comes to a doctor.

You can only be confined against your will by a doctor after judicial review. And you can only be denied your right to bear arms after due process has determined you to be a violent hazard to yourself or others.

Not short term. A doctor can have you confined and then you only get to challenge it after the fact.

That's common sense. I once had to bring a young man to the ER because he told a roomful of people he had been thinking about bringing a gun to the meeting and shooting all of us. He also said that he had been thinking about driving into an oncoming car on his way to the meeting.

Should the doctors have waited to hospitalize him?

THAT is the kind of person you don't want to have a gun.

As it turns out, he did manage to get his hands on a gun about a year later and shot himself in the head.

Uh, perhaps you should have called the police instead since he threatened to commit a crime? The crime would have disqualified him from gun ownership.

 

[novasteve]

So still the bullied gay teen will be deprived of his rights until he gets a note from a doctor, that's IF he can. Say if the doctor doesn't approve of guns, period? What about personal views of doctors impacting their decisions since they are not subject to judicial review?

 

[g5000]

First, find the definition of mental illness, and how is "violent" defined? Would a transgendered person be denied guns if they tried to self operate? Cutters? Is starving yourself or purging considered violent? I don't know about you, but when I vomit, it's VERY violent. In fact my face gets all bruised.

We leave these decision to professionals and let them determine if giving you a gun is a good idea.

So your constitutional rights are in the hands of unelected doctors?

No. I clearly said your rights are protected by due process. That means the legislature and judiciary oversee the actions of a doctor who would confine you or otherwise affect your freedoms. A doctor cannot act arbitrarily except in common sense emergencies.

It seems like you are now being deliberately obtuse. It has been shown to you the Maryland law under consideration would not deny an anorexic the right to own a gun. I went to the trouble to find the actual legislation for you, and now you are acting like a fool.

 

[Chassit]

It looks like that people have always had to have a background check on mental stability.

Did you know that if you attempt suicide and get hospitalized in some states you need a Doctor's note to say you are safe to drive a vehicle and not a danger to others on the road?

First, find the definition of mental illness, and how is "violent" defined? Would a transgendered person be denied guns if they tried to self operate? Cutters? Is starving yourself or purging considered violent? I don't know about you, but when I vomit, it's VERY violent. In fact my face gets all bruised.

We leave these decision to professionals and let them determine if giving you a gun is a good idea.

Why should we trust them, as you put it?

 

[g5000]

First, find the definition of mental illness, and how is "violent" defined? Would a transgendered person be denied guns if they tried to self operate? Cutters? Is starving yourself or purging considered violent? I don't know about you, but when I vomit, it's VERY violent. In fact my face gets all bruised.

We leave these decision to professionals and let them determine if giving you a gun is a good idea.

Why should we trust them, as you put it?

Because they have the education and experience in the relevant spheres. Duh.

 

[novasteve]

We leave these decision to professionals and let them determine if giving you a gun is a good idea.

So your constitutional rights are in the hands of unelected doctors?

No. I clearly said your rights are protected by due process. That means the legislature and judiciary oversee the actions of a doctor who would confine you or otherwise affect your freedoms. A doctor cannot act arbitrarily except in common sense emergencies.

It seems like you are now being deliberately obtuse. It has been shown to you the Maryland law under consideration would not deny an anorexic the right to own a gun. I went to the trouble to find the actual legislation for you, and now you are acting like a fool.

You don't know that, as you haven't defined "violence". And you don't know what due process is by talking about LEGISLATIVE actors...

What recourse does someone have if their doctor doesn't think they should have a gun? Can they just go to another doctor and get that one to agree with them? And who pays for all of this? Obamacare?

 

[novasteve]

Your next job is to find out the courts for purposes of mental illness define violence, because citing a bill let alone a statute doesn't help much since the word needs to be defined, which is usually done by caselaw. now find me proof that being bulemic isn't considered an act of violence against one's self, and I see you are completely conceding that bullied gay teens will be denied their constitutional rights.

 

[g5000]

So your constitutional rights are in the hands of unelected doctors?

No. I clearly said your rights are protected by due process. That means the legislature and judiciary oversee the actions of a doctor who would confine you or otherwise affect your freedoms. A doctor cannot act arbitrarily except in common sense emergencies.

It seems like you are now being deliberately obtuse. It has been shown to you the Maryland law under consideration would not deny an anorexic the right to own a gun. I went to the trouble to find the actual legislation for you, and now you are acting like a fool.

You don't know that, as you haven't defined "violence". And you don't know what due process is by talking about LEGISLATIVE actors...

Holy shit. It is difficult to knock off enough brain voltage to deal with this kind of ignorance.

The legislature defines the process whereby someone can be denied a gun permit.

If the whackjob is unhappy with his doctor's assessment of his proneness to violence, he can contest it, and then a judge will determines whether a doctor's assessment of a patient's volatility was properly done.

See? I don't have to define violent danger. That's the professional's job based on his experience. "Gee, every time we let a patient have a gun who says they want to shoot everyone, it turns out badly. Now this guy says he wants to shoot everyone. I wonder if we should give him a certificate of non-violence which will allow him to buy a gun. Hmmmm..."

What recourse does someone have if their doctor doesn't think they should have a gun? Can they just go to another doctor and get that one to agree with them? And who pays for all of this? Obamacare?

You have legal and medical recourse. And you pay for it. Just like you pay for a lawyer if you are accused of a crime you did not commit.

Got a better system? You seem to want violent whackjobs to be able to get guns.

 

[novasteve]

No. I clearly said your rights are protected by due process. That means the legislature and judiciary oversee the actions of a doctor who would confine you or otherwise affect your freedoms. A doctor cannot act arbitrarily except in common sense emergencies.

It seems like you are now being deliberately obtuse. It has been shown to you the Maryland law under consideration would not deny an anorexic the right to own a gun. I went to the trouble to find the actual legislation for you, and now you are acting like a fool.

You don't know that, as you haven't defined "violence". And you don't know what due process is by talking about LEGISLATIVE actors...

Holy shit. It is difficult to knock off enough brain voltage to deal with this kind of ignorance.

The legislature defines the process whereby someone can be denied a gun permit.

If the whackjob is unhappy with his doctor's assessment of his proneness to violence, he can contest it, and then a judge will determines whether a doctor's assessment of a patient's volatility was properly done.

See? I don't have to define violent danger. That's the professional's job based on his experience. "Gee, every time we let a patient have a gun who says they want to shoot everyone, it turns out badly. Now this guy says he wants to shoot everyone. I wonder if we should give him a gun?"

What recourse does someone have if their doctor doesn't think they should have a gun? Can they just go to another doctor and get that one to agree with them? And who pays for all of this? Obamacare?

You have legal and medical recourse. And you pay for it. Just like you pay for a lawyer if you are accused of a crime you did not commit.

Got a better system? You seem to want violent whackjobs to be able to get guns.

DEFINE VIOLENT. Do you not admit the word doesn't have a clear meaning? Surely it would cover if you stabbed yourself, but would it include making yourself vomit? Would it cover someone who is a cutter? The judicial system clarifies legislation with unclear words by helping to define the words. So now it's YOUR job to find how they define violent for purposes of people with mental illnesses who were involutarily committed. Seriously, if someone had a sexual addiction and was committed because they did that Carradine thing, woudl that constitute violence? Unless you find me an answer to my question, you don't know what you are talking about.

 

[novasteve]

No. I clearly said your rights are protected by due process. That means the legislature and judiciary oversee the actions of a doctor who would confine you or otherwise affect your freedoms. A doctor cannot act arbitrarily except in common sense emergencies.

It seems like you are now being deliberately obtuse. It has been shown to you the Maryland law under consideration would not deny an anorexic the right to own a gun. I went to the trouble to find the actual legislation for you, and now you are acting like a fool.

You don't know that, as you haven't defined "violence". And you don't know what due process is by talking about LEGISLATIVE actors...

Holy shit. It is difficult to knock off enough brain voltage to deal with this kind of ignorance.

The legislature defines the process whereby someone can be denied a gun permit.

If the whackjob is unhappy with his doctor's assessment of his proneness to violence, he can contest it, and then a judge will determines whether a doctor's assessment of a patient's volatility was properly done.

See? I don't have to define violent danger. That's the professional's job based on his experience. "Gee, every time we let a patient have a gun who says they want to shoot everyone, it turns out badly. Now this guy says he wants to shoot everyone. I wonder if we should give him a certificate of non-violence which will allow him to buy a gun. Hmmmm..."

What recourse does someone have if their doctor doesn't think they should have a gun? Can they just go to another doctor and get that one to agree with them? And who pays for all of this? Obamacare?

You have legal and medical recourse. And you pay for it. Just like you pay for a lawyer if you are accused of a crime you did not commit.

Got a better system? You seem to want violent whackjobs to be able to get guns.

So you are calling bullied gay teens whackjobs?

 

[Jarlaxle]

You are protected by your constitutional due process rights, even when it comes to a doctor.

You can only be confined against your will by a doctor after judicial review. And you can only be denied your right to bear arms after due process has determined you to be a violent hazard to yourself or others.

Not short term. A doctor can have you confined and then you only get to challenge it after the fact.

That's common sense. I once had to bring a young man to the ER because he told a roomful of people he had been thinking about bringing a gun to the meeting and shooting all of us. He also said that he had been thinking about driving into an oncoming car on his way to the meeting.

Should the doctors have waited to hospitalize him?

THAT is the kind of person you don't want to have a gun.

As it turns out, he did manage to get his hands on a gun about a year later and shot himself in the head.

Probably the best possible outcome, assuming he didn't kill anyone else in the meantime.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

We leave these decision to professionals and let them determine if giving you a gun is a good idea.

So your constitutional rights are in the hands of unelected doctors?

No. I clearly said your rights are protected by due process. That means the legislature and judiciary oversee the actions of a doctor who would confine you or otherwise affect your freedoms. A doctor cannot act arbitrarily except in common sense emergencies.

It seems like you are now being deliberately obtuse. It has been shown to you the Maryland law under consideration would not deny an anorexic the right to own a gun. I went to the trouble to find the actual legislation for you, and now you are acting like a fool.

That or the realization he’s failed to contrive a controversy where none exists, as the law clearly affords due process to anyone in jeopardy of losing his firearms.

 

[novasteve]

So your constitutional rights are in the hands of unelected doctors?

No. I clearly said your rights are protected by due process. That means the legislature and judiciary oversee the actions of a doctor who would confine you or otherwise affect your freedoms. A doctor cannot act arbitrarily except in common sense emergencies.

It seems like you are now being deliberately obtuse. It has been shown to you the Maryland law under consideration would not deny an anorexic the right to own a gun. I went to the trouble to find the actual legislation for you, and now you are acting like a fool.

That or the realization he’s failed to contrive a controversy where none exists, as the law clearly affords due process to anyone in jeopardy of losing his firearms.

Are you going to deny that a bullied gay teen who attempts suicide or is just suicidal gets involutarily committed will be denied his/her gun rights? Oh great, so a private actor, a doctor, can later write a note? wow, that's due process.

Do you think the federal proposal will supply the same "exception"?

 

[Michelle420]

You don't know that, as you haven't defined "violence". And you don't know what due process is by talking about LEGISLATIVE actors...

Holy shit. It is difficult to knock off enough brain voltage to deal with this kind of ignorance.

The legislature defines the process whereby someone can be denied a gun permit.

If the whackjob is unhappy with his doctor's assessment of his proneness to violence, he can contest it, and then a judge will determines whether a doctor's assessment of a patient's volatility was properly done.

See? I don't have to define violent danger. That's the professional's job based on his experience. "Gee, every time we let a patient have a gun who says they want to shoot everyone, it turns out badly. Now this guy says he wants to shoot everyone. I wonder if we should give him a certificate of non-violence which will allow him to buy a gun. Hmmmm..."

What recourse does someone have if their doctor doesn't think they should have a gun? Can they just go to another doctor and get that one to agree with them? And who pays for all of this? Obamacare?

You have legal and medical recourse. And you pay for it. Just like you pay for a lawyer if you are accused of a crime you did not commit.

Got a better system? You seem to want violent whackjobs to be able to get guns.

So you are calling bullied gay teens whackjobs?

I'm fully confident if a bullied gay teen was in good mental health and wanted to he could own a firearm.

 

[Michelle420]

You don't know that, as you haven't defined "violence". And you don't know what due process is by talking about LEGISLATIVE actors...

Holy shit. It is difficult to knock off enough brain voltage to deal with this kind of ignorance.

The legislature defines the process whereby someone can be denied a gun permit.

If the whackjob is unhappy with his doctor's assessment of his proneness to violence, he can contest it, and then a judge will determines whether a doctor's assessment of a patient's volatility was properly done.

See? I don't have to define violent danger. That's the professional's job based on his experience. "Gee, every time we let a patient have a gun who says they want to shoot everyone, it turns out badly. Now this guy says he wants to shoot everyone. I wonder if we should give him a gun?"

What recourse does someone have if their doctor doesn't think they should have a gun? Can they just go to another doctor and get that one to agree with them? And who pays for all of this? Obamacare?

You have legal and medical recourse. And you pay for it. Just like you pay for a lawyer if you are accused of a crime you did not commit.

Got a better system? You seem to want violent whackjobs to be able to get guns.

DEFINE VIOLENT. Do you not admit the word doesn't have a clear meaning? Surely it would cover if you stabbed yourself, but would it include making yourself vomit? Would it cover someone who is a cutter? The judicial system clarifies legislation with unclear words by helping to define the words. So now it's YOUR job to find how they define violent for purposes of people with mental illnesses who were involutarily committed. Seriously, if someone had a sexual addiction and was committed because they did that Carradine thing, woudl that constitute violence? Unless you find me an answer to my question, you don't know what you are talking about.

The definition of violent crime suggests that violence is a behavior by persons, against persons or property that intentionally threatens, attempts, or actually inflicts physical harm. The seriousness of the injuries to the victim(s), whether or not guns or other weapons were used and/or whether or not the alleged perpetrator has a criminal record will alter the crime's seriousness.

Often times, violent crimes against individuals and their property are typically infused with hatred, or at the very least an incredible disregard for the worth and rights of another human being which may also alter the crimes severity in the eyes of a judge or jury. The most common violent crimes are aggravated assault, arson, assault and battery, domestic violence, hate crimes, homicide, manslaughter, mayhem, murder, terrorism and theft/larceny.

Violent Crimes Law & Legal Definition

 

[Michelle420]

Your next job is to find out the courts for purposes of mental illness define violence, because citing a bill let alone a statute doesn't help much since the word needs to be defined, which is usually done by caselaw. now find me proof that being bulemic isn't considered an act of violence against one's self, and I see you are completely conceding that bullied gay teens will be denied their constitutional rights.

That would be your job unless your job is to spout mis-information.