Why is legislation targeting "mentally ill" people okay (or even good)?

[Anarchist420]

1st thing first, the people advocating for and making these laws are supposed to be intelligent, Ivy league educated people (liberals and all, y'know) and the people they want to strip of rights are supposed to be mentally ill. Surely they can't be scared of lowly mentally ill scum like me, right?

2nd of all, Obama is a war criminal and has probably murdered more innocents than all of the mentally ill people, ever (past, present, and future), combined... he is a far more dangerous man than I ever could be. I especially take offense that Bill Clinton who stole from Americans to murder innocent Serbian civilians (as well as civilians all over the world) in the sickest, most sadistic ways possible wants legislation banning me from having a firearm.

Just because Clinton hasn't been declared "mentally ill" doesn't mean that he's not a violent person and that he wasn't a tyrant. As a matter of fact, he is a very violent individual and he was a tyrant as I pointed out above. I have never called for stripping him of his rights. Like all politicians, he has an easy time quoting the Bible, but doesn't follow the Golden Rule.

Number 3, many police depts don't hire people with IQs higher than 125. In other words, they're probably, in many cases, more likely to murder innocent bystanders than a mentally ill person is since there are more cops than mentally ill people, especially if police and military are the only ones allowed to bear arms.

Finally, the military is trained to murder and then many of those murderers are offered firearms after they're honorably discharged. They have actually committed crimes against humanity and they're rewarded for it. Yet mentally ill people are punished.

Of course, none of that really matters due to the fact that the State has no business existing, let alone stripping anyone of their inherent rights.

Let me know if you think I made a good case or a bad case and why. No insults please.

 

[CrackRabbit]

Would you trust yourself with a gun?
That is all.

 

[Anarchist420]

Would you trust yourself with a gun? That is all.

Yes because I wouldn't kill any innocents with it other than myself.

 

[hardhat]

Let me know if you think I made a good case or a bad case and why. No insults please.

Ok.

1st thing first, the people advocating for and making these laws are supposed to be intelligent, Ivy league educated people (liberals and all, y'know) and the people they want to strip of rights are supposed to be mentally ill. Surely they can't be scared of lowly mentally ill scum like me, right?

Because it takes a lot of intelligence to pull a gun trigger? This argument makes no sense.

Obama is a war criminal and has probably murdered more innocents than all of the mentally ill people, ever (past, present, and future)....

Randomly making accusations about people that you don't like with no evidence supporting your claims scores zero points. This is a pure ad hominem. And why do you neglect to mention that Congress has to propose a law before a president has the option of writing it into law? You just want to divert attention from your incredibly weak case by going after controversial public figures.

Number 3, many police depts don't hire people with IQs higher than 125. In other words, they're probably, in many cases, more likely to murder innocent bystanders than a mentally ill person is since there are more cops than mentally ill people, especially if police and military are the only ones allowed to bear arms.

a. no basis for claim that police depts. don't hire high IQ people.
b. no basis for claim that police murder more innocent bystanders than mentally ill people do (your opinion on likelihood is meaningless), and even if it were true a murder is a murder and should be prosecuted according to the law. And what is with the random thought about only the police and military able to bear arms? That's not the case now and there is no impetus in our government toward that situation.

Finally, the military is trained to murder and then many of those murderers are offered firearms after they're honorably discharged. They have actually committed crimes against humanity and they're rewarded for it. Yet mentally ill people are punished.

Honestly, you seem to be constructing your own delusional world to fit whatever argument you want to make. What evidence did you present of the US military committing crimes against humanity, and being rewarded for it? What does our military have to do with mentally ill people? Are you really advocating for letting people do whatever they want just because bad things happen when a country is at war?

Of course, none of that really matters due to the fact that the State has no business existing, let alone stripping anyone of their inherent rights.

So I guess we should just tear down the government that keeps us safe, provides roads and utilities, educates our children, supports the sick and impoverished, and protects our freedom and independence from other countries who are ruled by dictators, military rule, real plutocracies, and facists because you don't like it? How about you go live somewhere else if you don't like what our democracy has accomplished?

Here's a real reason why some mentally ill people should not be allowed to own guns. A citizen has no reasonable defense against a mentally ill person who is out on the street, suffering from delusions. That mentally ill person may see the citizen as a demon, or may hear voices telling him to kill. If he has a gun, he has a much higher potential to harm the other person.
Guns create the potential for increased damage. We don't let convicted killers own guns. We shouldn't let other people with a likelihood to hurt others own guns either, whether it is by intention or mental illness.
The key is the likelihood to hurt others. There are a lot of people with mental disabilities that would be perfectly safe with a gun, and there's no reason to have a law taking away their rights.

 

[CrackRabbit]

Yes because I wouldn't kill any innocents with it other than myself.

Some would say that wanting to kill one's self would be enough, but forget about them for a moment.
Can you say with absolute certainty that other people like you would make the same choice?

 

[Pulsar]

Blah. Blah blah. Blahhhhhh.

You're new here, aren't you?

Why don't you take a minute to read 420's other posts, and then consider what his name might imply about his mental state.

Check back once you're done.

 

[superccs]

I wonder why the mentally ill end up in government...

 

[Anarchist420]

Ok.

Thank you

Because it takes a lot of intelligence to pull a gun trigger? This argument makes no sense.

If someone is deemed so mentally ill then a smart person should be able to catch who is and be prepared.

Randomly making accusations about people that you don't like with no evidence supporting your claims scores zero points. This is a pure ad hominem. And why do you neglect to mention that Congress has to propose a law before a president has the option of writing it into law? You just want to divert attention from your incredibly weak case by going after controversial public figures.

Congress does things at the request of the President. Also, you can always google the NATO/Serbian Conflict. Anthony Gregory points out all of war crimes the U.S govt has done at the request of the executive power.

It's worth noting that Bill Clinton was okay with the Waco massacre which was a worse school shooting than the Newtown incident if the latter was even real. So when the govt shoots up a school, it's okay but when private criminals do it, the citizens need to have their rights taken away.

Here's a real reason why some mentally ill people should not be allowed to own guns. A citizen has no reasonable defense against a mentally ill person who is out on the street, suffering from delusions. That mentally ill person may see the citizen as a demon, or may hear voices telling him to kill. If he has a gun, he has a much higher potential to harm the other person. Guns create the potential for increased damage. We don't let convicted killers own guns. We shouldn't let other people with a likelihood to hurt others own guns either, whether it is by intention or mental illness. The key is the likelihood to hurt others. There are a lot of people with mental disabilities that would be perfectly safe with a gun, and there's no reason to have a law taking away their rights.

you put up a pretty logical conclusion, although I don't agree with it.

I have issue with centralization of arms and I just don't understand why the State should be able to murder people and be rewarded for it while people far less dangerous are prohibited from keeping firearms.

And what is with the random thought about only the police and military able to bear arms? That's not the case now and there is no impetus in our government toward that situation

I don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Listen 420, we haven't been supporting people with mental disabilities for decades. I think it's time to start recognizing some folks need more help than others and some that refuse any help need to be watched better.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

If someone is deemed so mentally ill then a smart person should be able to catch who is and be prepared.

We do. Our preparedness starts with stopping you from being armed.

 

[Anarchist420]

nvm