SITYS: NY Confiscates Veteran's Guns For Insomnia

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

I realize there are basically two kinds of liberals- there are those that believe the flat out lie that the liberal gun grabbers are really just concerned about public safety, and they take their public policy proposals in the name of "common sense gun safety" at face value.

Then there's the liberals who know exactly what they're doing, and as much as they dress it up in common-sense-sounding, even conservative-sounding cliches, they're constantly seeking a way to implement broad-based gun bans, which involves confiscating guns and disarming individual Americans once and for all.

For those of you who want to piss on my leg and tell me it's raining- don't bother.  This is exactly why I oppose restricting people's gun rights using the pretext of "mental health".  It's back door gun control, and it is a transparent Gruber to eventually confiscate guns from individuals on the slightest excuse.

www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/3/andrew-cuomo-sued-by-veteran-after-insomnia-treatm/

A U.S. Navy veteran and retired police detective is suing New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and other state officials for confiscating his gun permit and four handguns after he voluntarily sought medical treatment for insomnia.

In a lawsuit filed Dec. 17 in a U.S. District Court in Rochester, N.Y., Donald Montgomery claimed his constitutional rights were violated by the state’s SAFE Act — a law Mr. Cuomo signed in Jan. 2013 that is considered one of the toughest gun laws in the country, the Daily Caller reported Friday.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 4, 2015 0:10:22 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

I realize there are basically two kinds of liberals- there are those that believe the flat out lie that the liberal gun grabbers are really just concerned about public safety, and they take their public policy proposals in the name of "common sense gun safety" at face value.

Then there's the liberals who know exactly what they're doing, and as much as they dress it up in common-sense-sounding, even conservative-sounding cliches, they're constantly seeking a way to implement broad-based gun bans, which involves confiscating guns and disarming individual Americans once and for all.

what about liberals who own guns, who love the second amendment, and who have no problem with the LIBERAL ownership and distribution of guns whatsoever?

sounds like you need at least one more class of liberal, my friend.

[dondub]

Oh gosh...if we all lived up to Paul's stereotypes it would be a sad world full of two kinds of conservatives....paranoids and delusionals. Thankfully there is a rich palette of Americans that put his two liberal theory out to pasture with the poop. 

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

I'm not having the definition of a liberal discussion. That discussion is over as far as I'm concerned. The point of this thread is that there are policy makers whose aim is to strip us of our right to keep and bear arms, which shall not be infringed. Mental health is too broad a category to be an exception, and government's knowledge of our health violates our fourth amendment right to privacy anyway. The OP clearly demonstrates I'm right about this.

[billisonboard]

Jan 4, 2015 9:17:28 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

... The OP clearly demonstrates I'm right about this.

The OP links to a newspaper article about a lawsuit just filed. It talks about things that are alleged to have taken place. One side of the case is offered. It "clearly demonstrates" nothing.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 4, 2015 9:17:28 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

I'm not having the definition of a liberal discussion.

i wasn't asking you to.  i was suggesting that your monolithic view of liberals is not accurate.

i can readily imagine someone who is pro-welfare state and pro-gun.  you can't?

edit: don't listen to much hip-hop, i am gathering? 

[Opti]

More proof that some people read this board and only remember what they

want to. Its kind of funny the most vocal person against stupid people with

guns is a professed gun owner.

It was hard to wade through all the unnecessary crap. Was there an actual point

to discuss in the OP?

[tallguy]

I'm not having the definition of a liberal discussion. That discussion is over as far as I'm concerned.

Would that that were true.  Unfortunately, you keep insisting on losing it over and over again. 

[swamp]

He may have sought treatment for insomnia, but there is more to the story. The SAFE ACT allows reporting by medical providers opif the believe the mental illness affects the ability to,safely own firearms. 

Then em there is a report to,the county judge who,holds a hearing on the issue. 

When end the case is litigated I would be willing to bet there is more to his diagnosis than insomnia. 

[dondub]

I'm not having the definition of a liberal discussion. That discussion is over as far as I'm concerned.

 Did you run out of mirror or was the guy in it so agreeable you won?

[dondub]

There are gun nutters so nutty they have no problem with diagnosed mentally unstable owning a cache of weapons. These folks are usually the mass shooters at schools and elsewhere.

I'm beginning to think those nutters are part of the mentally unstable due to their position in this regard.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 4, 2015 14:26:59 GMT -5 dondub said:

There are gun nutters so nutty they have no problem with diagnosed mentally unstable owning a cache of weapons. These folks are usually the mass shooters at schools and elsewhere.

I'm beginning to think those nutters are part of the mentally unstable due to their position in this regard.

Would you say that an individual suffering from insomnia is too "mentally unstable" to own a firearm?

What about an individual suffering from depression, who's being medicated for the condition?

What about an individual who attempted suicide as a teenager? Or a fellow who was once committed to psychiatric observation after a nervous breakdown in college?

How about a man diagnosed as obsessive compulsive? Or a woman with autism? A woman who claimed during a session with her psychiatrist in 2005 that she wanted to shoot her ex-husband dead?

By all means, sir, why don't you provide us with the appropriate un-nutty positions on permitting gun ownership in the above cases. I've given you the data and the diagnoses. Should these mentally unstable individuals be able to own guns or not? Let's get your straightforward and unabridged opinion on the matter.

[billisonboard]

Jan 4, 2015 15:59:02 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

... I've given you the data and the diagnoses. ...

You have given a single sentence for each complex human being.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jan 4, 2015 13:12:04 GMT -5 swamp said:

He may have sought treatment for insomnia, but there is more to the story. The SAFE ACT allows reporting by medical providers opif the believe the mental illness affects the ability to,safely own firearms. 

Then em there is a report to,the county judge who,holds a hearing on the issue. 

When end the case is litigated I would be willing to bet there is more to his diagnosis than insomnia. 

Doesn't matter to me what his diagnosis is- that should be between him and his doctor.  If his doctor thinks he's a threat to himself and others, s/he should take the steps necessary to deal with that situation, like having him committed.  Barring that, if he can be released- he can keep his guns.  This is too slippery a slope to take the first step down on.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jan 4, 2015 14:26:59 GMT -5 dondub said:

There are gun nutters so nutty they have no problem with diagnosed mentally unstable owning a cache of weapons. These folks are usually the mass shooters at schools and elsewhere.

I'm beginning to think those nutters are part of the mentally unstable due to their position in this regard.

No doubt you do.  No doubt in my mind, in fact.  That's why people like you must never be given the power to determine who is "mentally fit" enough to retain their God-given, unalienable rights.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 4, 2015 0:32:51 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 4, 2015 0:10:22 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

I realize there are basically two kinds of liberals- there are those that believe the flat out lie that the liberal gun grabbers are really just concerned about public safety, and they take their public policy proposals in the name of "common sense gun safety" at face value.

Then there's the liberals who know exactly what they're doing, and as much as they dress it up in common-sense-sounding, even conservative-sounding cliches, they're constantly seeking a way to implement broad-based gun bans, which involves confiscating guns and disarming individual Americans once and for all.

what about liberals who own guns, who love the second amendment, and who have no problem with the LIBERAL ownership and distribution of guns whatsoever?

sounds like you need at least one more class of liberal, my friend.

Abandon your definition, sir. For the sake of your sanity.

Perhaps this will influence you: I short while back I posted a question on english.stackexchange.com (a site for expert advice on English-related matters) asking whether it was better to accept the common definition of a word or to steadfastly adhere to the dictionary definition despite its relative obscurity. The answer was unanimously and unequivocally that the common definition should be accepted. Many of the replies, including the expert replies, went so far as to say that clinging to the dictionary definition was small-minded and elitist, antithetical to productive discourse.

I realize you hold the term "liberal" in high regard. I get that. Still, isn't it about time you acknowledge the fact that it's been co-opted by a large group of very non-classically-liberal people, and both this group and its conservative opponents (i.e. nearly everybody) has transited to the new definition?

Small-L "liberal" means the NYT, HuffPo, thinkprogress.org, the Daily KOS, Occupy Wall Street, socialism, statism, and cradle-to-grave. The original definition is a relic. The closest thing nowadays is "libertarian", and while I admit there are some not-so-DJian connotations to that word, it is far closer to your conception of liberalism than the commonplace definition of "liberal".

It's 2015, my friend. You fought the good fight. You're going to keep on running into these brick walls if you cling to a defunct definition. It's time to let go.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 4, 2015 16:04:15 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jan 4, 2015 15:59:02 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

... I've given you the data and the diagnoses. ...

You have given a single sentence for each complex human being.

It's exactly the same sentence that would appear on a psychiatric assessment, or on a list of "mental conditions that disqualify an individual from gun ownership" going into a bill somewhere.

Unless you'd prefer that an individual's ability to own a gun be at the discretion of his/her psychologist without any strict legal guidelines. I can't think of a hundred things that could go terribly wrong with that kind of policy.

The law can't codify "each complex human being" and this is a discussion about the law. Now perhaps the data I've provided is a bit too sparse and you believe more is necessary for the determination. That's perfectly understandable. Why don't you choose one or two of the cases I listed and enlighten us as to what ought to be sufficient to revoke the right of an individual to own a firearm. Give us something concrete to work with. What data goes into the determination, and how does the language in the gun control bill read?

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jan 4, 2015 16:26:44 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jan 4, 2015 16:04:15 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

You have given a single sentence for each complex human being.

It's exactly the same sentence that would appear on a psychiatric assessment, or on a list of "mental conditions that disqualify an individual from gun ownership" going into a bill somewhere.

Unless you'd prefer that an individual's ability to own a gun be at the discretion of his/her psychologist without any strict legal guidelines. I can't think of a hundred things that could go terribly wrong with that kind of policy.

The law can't codify "each complex human being" and this is a discussion about the law. Now perhaps the data I've provided is a bit too sparse and you believe more is necessary for the determination. That's perfectly understandable. Why don't you choose one or two of the cases I listed and enlighten us as to what ought to be sufficient to revoke the right of an individual to own a firearm. Give us something concrete to work with. What data goes into the determination, and how does the language in the gun control bill read?

The other thing that liberals- (meaning NYT, HuffPo, thinkprogress.org, the Daily KOS reading, Occupy Wall Street supporting, socialism, statism, and cradle-to-grave welfare state fans)- always fail to understand is the slippery slope.  They will cheerlead the extermination of our gun rights for the flimsy definition of "mental health" (I wonder how many are aware that homosexuality was a mental illness up until about 1972?) which is quite flexible and open to interpretation, and then it will expand to encroach upon your other rights-- and you won't have a gun to do a damn thing about it.  When they get our guns, they'll get the rest of our rights in short order.  You can call that "paranoid" but in reality it's just wisdom.  There's very little to inform us that in all of human history, disarmament will be different "this time".

[billisonboard]

Jan 4, 2015 16:26:44 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

... Give us something concrete to work with. What data goes into the determination, and how does the language in the gun control bill read?

I support a process that includes a judicial hearing as the final necessary step for removal of the right to possess a weapon. I support the right to appeal the decision of removal of that right. I support the decision to be based on "danger to self or others". I support judicial decision on admissible and necessary data.

[mroped]

So the "government is out to take my guns" subject is on. AGAIN!
Do you Paul, actively seek 24/7 for cases where an individual has his weapons removed/sequestrated by some level of government just so you can claim that owning guns is your "God given right" no matter how sane or insane you might be?
That kinda puts you in the "crazies" category.
There is also a category of "normals" that believe that you can own a gun as long as you are a responsible person and then is the "neuro-psycho-koo-koo" that want more and more guns and have nightmares about the Government confiscating them.
And I believe that GOD was not mentioned REALY in the Constitution. I believe was something like "endowed by our Creator...". There is no mention of God. Maybe because the framers of the Constitution were more like Deists than Christians?
Anybody can clarify that?!

[swamp]

Jan 4, 2015 16:06:40 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Jan 4, 2015 13:12:04 GMT -5 swamp said:

He may have sought treatment for insomnia, but there is more to the story. The SAFE ACT allows reporting by medical providers opif the believe the mental illness affects the ability to,safely own firearms. 

Then em there is a report to,the county judge who,holds a hearing on the issue. 

When end the case is litigated I would be willing to bet there is more to his diagnosis than insomnia. 

Doesn't matter to me what his diagnosis is- that should be between him and his doctor.  If his doctor thinks he's a threat to himself and others, s/he should take the steps necessary to deal with that situation, like having him committed.  Barring that, if he can be released- he can keep his guns.  This is too slippery a slope to take the first step down on.

I agree with you. The SAFE. ACT is crap. But there is more to this than insomnia. 

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 4, 2015 16:42:47 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jan 4, 2015 16:26:44 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

... Give us something concrete to work with. What data goes into the determination, and how does the language in the gun control bill read?

I support a process that includes a judicial hearing as the final necessary step for removal of the right to possess a weapon. I support the right to appeal the decision of removal of that right. I support the decision to be based on "danger to self or others". I support judicial decision on admissible and necessary data.

If there's one blindingly obvious truth about modern psychology, it's that psychologists can't determine who is and isn't a "danger to self or others" with any reliability.

For every kid with all the red flags who shoots up a school, there are a hundred thousand more with all the red flags who don't. For every ten thousand veterans with PTSD that manage their insomnia without problems, there's that one soldier whose insomnia is a precursor to his shooting up a military base.

Judicial hearings, appeals, assessments on "danger to self or others" all presume the existence of a reliable standard for making this determination, and no such standard exists, nor anything even approaching it. I've posted the articles in the past about behavioural psychologists jumping through hoops trying to determine what makes a killer a killer. All they have is weak correlations. It wouldn't be an exaggeration to say that the majority of Americans exhibit at least two or three of the risk factors.

Due process of law is worthless (or worse, counterproductive) if the law is a shot in the dark. There need to be defensible guidelines for determining who poses a "danger to self or others". Possibly you're proposing that we set the bar at the absolute type II error extremum where we deem an individual "dangerous" if and only if (s)he possesses nine or ten major risk factors and has expressly uttered threats. I can sympathize with this position. Even so, the three things we have to note in the context of this discussion are that: i) to the best of my knowledge, none of the recent mass shooters exhibited sufficiently many risk factors to qualify as dangerous per this standard, ii) it ranges from "likely" to "certain" that prohibiting these shooters from owning firearms wouldn't have prevented their crimes, and iii) the legal battle being discussed in the OP is so far removed from "type II error extremum" that it's practically the opposite. If insomnia is a risk factor, there's 25% of America with one risk factor right off the bat.

They're shooting in the dark here. No pun intended. And Paul is right that there are individuals out there (his so-called "second type of liberal") who clearly don't care whether grabbing guns is a good idea or not. They just want them gone, under any pretense.

[EVT1]

16 hours and 17 posts from OP to Godwin- via the same person.

[Tennesseer]

Jan 4, 2015 17:13:01 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

16 hours and 17 posts from OP to Godwin- via the same person.

I have seen it in an OP and probably from the same poster.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 4, 2015 17:13:01 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

16 hours and 17 posts from OP to Godwin- via the same person.

The comments about "Godwin's Law" got old in 2010.

We get it. People make Nazi analogies. Isn't that a great way to ignore their arguments? Lolz.

Let's also give heed to Virgil's Law, which states that the probability anyone gives a crap about Godwin's Law approaches zero as the year approaches now, and that if we don't have an actual counterargument, we can still do everyone a favour by shutting up about it.

[tallguy]

...if we don't have an actual counterargument, we can still do everyone a favour by shutting up...

Yes, I agree completely, but the guy keeps starting threads anyway.  

[EVT1]

You want me to argue with someone that doesn't know what liberal is and is trying to turn 'Gruber' into new definition?

Surely if it is so '2010' to bring up Godwin then it is so '20th century' to bring up Hitler in the first place and I should be the one ignoring their arguments right?

Was there even an argument in there?  All I saw was a few statements about all Liberals wanting to take all of the guns and a Nazi poster with a stupid tagline.

[billisonboard]

Jan 4, 2015 17:12:37 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jan 4, 2015 16:42:47 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

I support a process that includes a judicial hearing as the final necessary step for removal of the right to possess a weapon. I support the right to appeal the decision of removal of that right. I support the decision to be based on "danger to self or others". I support judicial decision on admissible and necessary data.

If there's one blindingly obvious truth about modern psychology, it's that psychologists can't determine who is and isn't a "danger to self or others" with any reliability.

For every kid with all the red flags who shoots up a school, there are a hundred thousand more with all the red flags who don't. For every ten thousand veterans with PTSD that manage their insomnia without problems, there's that one soldier whose insomnia is a precursor to his shooting up a military base.

Judicial hearings, appeals, assessments on "danger to self or others" all presume the existence of a reliable standard for making this determination, and no such standard exists, nor anything even approaching it. I've posted the articles in the past about behavioural psychologists jumping through hoops trying to determine what makes a killer a killer. All they have is weak correlations. It wouldn't be an exaggeration to say that the majority of Americans exhibit at least two or three of the risk factors.

Due process of law is worthless (or worse, counterproductive) if the law is a shot in the dark. There need to be defensible guidelines for determining who poses a "danger to self or others". Possibly you're proposing that we set the bar at the absolute type II error extremum where we deem an individual "dangerous" if and only if (s)he possesses nine or ten major risk factors and has expressly uttered threats. I can sympathize with this position. Even so, the three things we have to note in the context of this discussion are that: i) to the best of my knowledge, none of the recent mass shooters exhibited sufficiently many risk factors to qualify as dangerous per this standard, ii) it ranges from "likely" to "certain" that prohibiting these shooters from owning firearms wouldn't have prevented their crimes, and iii) the legal battle being discussed in the OP is so far removed from "type II error extremum" that it's practically the opposite. If insomnia is a risk factor, there's 25% of America with one risk factor right off the bat.

They're shooting in the dark here. No pun intended. And Paul is right that there are individuals out there (his so-called "second type of liberal") who clearly don't care whether grabbing guns is a good idea or not. They just want them gone, under any pretense.

One area of no data is the number of people who have had guns removed from their possession who would have ended up shooting themselves or others if the guns had not been removed. It could be zero. It could be a large number. I am okay with considering that it is a significant number. YMMV

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jan 4, 2015 17:01:20 GMT -5 swamp said:

Jan 4, 2015 16:06:40 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Doesn't matter to me what his diagnosis is- that should be between him and his doctor.  If his doctor thinks he's a threat to himself and others, s/he should take the steps necessary to deal with that situation, like having him committed.  Barring that, if he can be released- he can keep his guns.  This is too slippery a slope to take the first step down on.

I agree with you. The SAFE. ACT is crap. But there is more to this than insomnia. 

Perhaps. I'd still oppose it, and for the same reason.  I'd rather see a 1,000 paranoid schizophrenics with guns than 1 law abiding person without one.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

For every kid with all the red flags who shoots up a school, there are a hundred thousand more with all the red flags who don't. For every ten thousand veterans with PTSD that manage their insomnia without problems, there's that one soldier whose insomnia is a precursor to his shooting up a military base.

So far the only warning signs we know with certainty present a threat are a proclivity towards radical islam. The rest are a crap shoot. Take Adam Lanza- do you have any idea how many semi-orphaned suburban kids of wealthy or affluent mom's are utterly neglected, and ignored, drugged, or if not drugged they are otherwise accommodated instead of confronted about their behavior- and yes, I do think a lot of these supposed psych problems are really just bad behavior allowed to fester; and worst of all-- utterly weird, anti-social, rude, mean, and even violent behavior isn't just ignored, or not taken seriously-- but regarded as "normal", and treated as a "difference".