lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

It's apparent that Americans treat the Constitution like it's a menu, where you get to pick your rights...............and the rights of others. We also seem to adhere to a rights hierarchy, where we pick which rights are the most important for ourselves, and which rights of others we're willing to ignore. Do we have the right to do as we please with stuff we own? Really? If you live in a city, try building a ham radio tower without consulting anyone. Put really dark window film in your car, and see how long it takes to get pulled over. Shouldn't you be able to drive as fast as you want, on streets YOU paid for? You get the picture.

In a normal society, it's members agree to allow personal rights to be bridled for the common good. We impose speed limits, as a measure to protect pedestrians and other motorists, and all members are expected to obey these limitations. We impose penalties as a society, to encourage compliance with the law. We all grew up knowing that there were rules and laws that regulated our behavior, and that there were penalties for non compliance. Sometimes we chaff at some of these, when we feel they impede our pursuit of life, liberty and happiness.

The question has always been; when is regulating a societies behavior for the common good, a violation of individual rights? The answer will vary wildly, with as many answers as there are people. We are not a true democracy in America, where the people must be consulted before any actions are taken, rather, we are a representative republic, where democratic principles are applied through a representative governing process. That being said, when the majority of representatives agree on a limitation of individual rights, it means ( theoretically ) that the majority of the people have approved this limitation, and intend to comply. It's the old yelling fire in a crowded theater question, in which the Supreme Court agreed that one's right to free speech, does not override everyone else's right to safety, i.e., you can be charged with a crime for yelling fire.

Here we are again, arguing over which rights are superior to which rights. Is one's right to bear arms superior to one's right to safety? Remember traffic laws and the reasoning behind them? Some argue that ANY bridling of their second amendment rights for the common good is unacceptable, insisting that their right to yell fire in a theater is absolute. Others argue for extensive curtailing of 2nd amendment rights for the common good, insisting that muzzling theater attendees is the only way to ensure no one yells fire. As with almost everything.................the best answer is somewhere in the middle. The 2nd amendment is not any more important than any other right, and guns are not the only issue in play.

We know by now that mental health issues are the #1 cause of all violence, regardless of which tools are used by the offender. Where do we draw the line between the safety of everyone ( the common good ) and the right to be free from unreasonable searches and/or incarcerations? To be clear, remanded to a mental health facility is incarceration. Having a mental health issue is not a crime, but the behavior exhibited as a symptom of the ailment may be. Do we wait until a crime has been committed, or do we become proactive? Try this on for size; every American has a right to be free from mental health issues, as this is anathema to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, therefor, finding and treating those suffering from mental health illnesses is as much societies responsibility as any other responsibility. Americans have a RIGHT to be free from mental diseases and it is the responsibility of every American to participate in seeing this accomplished.

Any way you want to slice it, we're arguing about that wrong s**t - again. Our elected folk are seeking the cheapest "fix", so that they can continue to spend our money as THEY see fit. That is un-Constitutional behavior I'm afraid, and it will be up to you to correct. Until we decide to spend our coin on REAL solutions, we'll continue to spin our wheels uselessly, arguing over petty crap, while people suffer and die. You have a right to keep and bear arms, you also have the right to be treated for mental health problems that put others at risk. You have a right to go to prison for breaking the law, you also have a right to be committed to a mental health treatment facility, until you are better. We MUST spend the money necessary to accomplish these rights as well. We build more prisons when we run out of room, but refuse to build a single mental health hospital? It's all in how you look at the problem - and the solutions. The Constitution is not a menu.

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

Major~~ well said!!!

I could relate to everything you said here and agree with most of it..

We are not a democracy, we are a republuc.. Governance of laws form the foundation of society, like it or not.. Without laws and punishment society would run amoke... Look what happens now even in having more laws than are needed... and we allow them to be made when the existing laws on the book are sufficient.. Start enforcing them is the answer...

Mental health has to be addressed and if someone has been disgnosed with mental illness that prohibits clear thought etc then that person should not be given a permit to purchase a gun.. However, if that person has not been judicially determined to have mental Instability then that person is just as free and clear as you and I are.. We cant run around saying he’s crazy and or find out we’re on some no fly list for wh**ever reason and say because of that I’m automatically now not allowed to fly... all of this goes right to our Constitutional Rights, the Bill of rRghts and the Declaration of Independance.. We don’t throw them aside to suit one or the other but we use and measure everything by them.. There is the balance in what governs...

debeda

Excellent post!! I agree with the largest part. The part that really gave me pause was the mental health piece. You're right, we don't build more mental health centers. I see that as a two-fold problem. First, the attitude has become so laissez faire about handing out medications for mental health issues it's appalling. Secondly, we can't seem to agree as a society on what constitutes mental health issues. Things that only a few years ago were considered aberrant behavior is now considered normal by many/most health care professionals within guidelines. How do we gain consensus on these things? Is it even possible?

Thanks for your great post lots of food for thought

debeda

Hear hear!!

Big dog

Intelligently put.

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

Thank You, debeda... Majors post is food for thought, absolutely right you are !!!

pafret Loc: Northeast

Your comments run dangerously close to establishing an Orwellian police state as a matter of law. Second amendment rights are just as important as any other right and such comparisons between the importance of each right anent the others leads to disparagement, limitation, and elimination of that right. This sort of comparison is not conducive to retaining liberty and should be abjured.

The free speech example is appropriate; putting others lives in danger without cause, by your speech, should be prohibited. Why the Black L***s M****r group weren't prosecuted for calling for "dead pigs" is beyond comprehension. That said, there are already many such limitations on Second amendment rights. No open discharge of weapons within city limits is almost universal. No hunting within so many yards of a dwelling is another and no firing across a road to hunt game is also a limitation. No open carry, no children with weapons unless accompanied by an adult and the list goes on. There is no want of law limiting the Second amendment and the majority of these are prudent and accepted by all.

The problem then becomes not one of suitable restraints on the total free exercise, of most rights, but the momentary hysteria against certain aspects which lead the calls for restraints which would destroy those rights. The causes of this hysteria lie in the media manipulation, propaganda, selective reporting and overload of commentary which inundates the populace and leads to detrimental support for measures that destroy freedom. When uninformed pundits dominate and flood the sources of communication, not with facts, but with their personal agendas we are led into a totalitarian form of control of the masses.

Considering that we have a plethora of law, what seems to be the root cause? You have proposed mental deficiency as that cause and this too is a dangerous slope, in many ancillary areas. Any crime from the most petty to the most egregious can be construed to be a form of mental illness. How do we differentiate between regular crime and mental deficiency caused crime?

Are we then to replace our jail and justice systems with hospital systems and medical boards? We have all heard the horror stories of people, who were "cured", and released from medical custody that went on to commit even more heinous crimes.

Another aspect of this is troubling. Many of our homeless are suffering from mental illness and they were formerly incarcerated in mental hospitals. This was challenged by the ACLU as an abridgment of their liberty and unlawful incarceration. Now it is illegal to commit these people even though they would be infinitely better off with food, shelter and medical attention than living catch-as-catch-can on the streets. They were not in full possession of their mentality but were adjudged to be of no danger to society.

If these obvious unfortunates cannot be locked up how do you determine that an apparent functioning person is sufficiently dangerous? The recent case of the Florida shooter is an exception; many people noted his mental state and were sufficiently alarmed to notify the proper authorities. Most of these cases gave no such warning or the precursors were known only to the intelligence gathering communities, who did not act on their knowledge, for political reasons or for concealment of illegal spying. We have no laws which will compel those with the knowledge of such a mental state to report it and no law to compel the authorities to take an effective action.

The medical profession has little success in defining psychiatric conditions or effecting "cures" of those conditions and mostly they are determined after the fact as in "homicidal maniac". Your proposal of examining everyone's actions for mental instability would require the 24 hour a day surveillance of every citizen. The horror would be that each of us would be required to report on our acquaintances as in "Big Brother Is Watching You.".

There is a further danger here and it has to do with things like the no-fly list. People have been placed on this list without recourse, for erroneous or trivial reasons, but it disrupts so many aspects of the individuals lives that it is total abridgment of freedom. Who decides that someone is sufficiently ill mentally to warrant stigmatizing and abridging freedoms for the rest of that individual's life? Is it the accusation, of some disgruntled neighbor, who dislikes your parking in front of his home or a that of a rival seeking to do you harm? What is the criteria for such mental institution incarceration and for how long? What was the offense; is it the actual or potential commission of a crime? If it is the latter the entire nation must repair to the nearest nut factory because we are all capable of such actions under sufficient provocation. Who decides you go in, or come out and what gave them that ability to fathom the human psyche?

debeda

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

Not all mental illnesses are equal, at least, in so far as symptoms expression. Severe depression has few symptoms that place others at risk, whereas bi-polar disorder frequently does. The problem is trying to fit everyone into the same mold, which is what would happen if legislators decided to list which illnesses warrant compulsory commitment, weapons seizure, etc.

The thing is, everyone "suspected" of mental illness would need to be evaluated by someone certified to do so...........not police officers, prosecutors or judges - or the public. Properly evaluating someone takes more than a single session, so should that someone become violent, or present a clear danger to themselves or others, there must be a mechanism for a compulsory hold for that evaluation, whether in jail or elsewhere. As with any incarceration, evidence must be presented to a judge within 72 hours for adjudication. Should the mental health professional find significant symptomology that represents a risk to the public, the judge must have the authority to order commitment for treatment, with periodic reports to follow........and there must be a place for this commitment and treatment. Barring emergency conditions, judges, police, school nurses, etc., should have the capacity to order outpatient evaluations..........with appropriate laws to compel compliance.

We have had these mechanisms in place before, but like with many good things, someone has always taken advantage of the rules for personal gain and screwed it up. We have to stop throwing the babies out with the bath water. Prosecute those who abuse the system with gusto, making sure the penalties are severe, then move on. The public has a right to be safe from those who might harm them, and the individual has a right to be free of their personal demons - the two conditions are not mutually exclusive.

debeda

pafret Loc: Northeast

Here you have put your finger on the crux of the problem:

"Barring emergency conditions, judges, police, school nurses, etc., should have the capacity to order outpatient evaluations..........with appropriate laws to compel compliance."

Who watches the watchers? This pack of villains you have identified and the compulsory compliance means we should move to Venezuela now, before this becomes a reality.

bahmer

Amen and Amen

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

The families of course, and the public at large. The very first clue that something may be amiss.............is denying visitation by family members. Sweden has that problem now, where government agencies may forcibly incarcerate someone for suspected mental illness, and denying visitation. Secrecy is the governments friend.

There will always be a tendency towards abuse of a system, which is why vigilance by the public and investigative journalism is paramount.

pafret Loc: Northeast

Yes, as a member of the public at large, my every whisper causes hurricane force winds to blow away those who incur my ire. You are either Polyanna's relative or you live in cloud cookoo land. Investigative journalism, a marvelous concept. What country can I visit to see that in action, perhaps we can import some of it here.

bahmer

Get into your way back machine and go back to 1973/1974 United States of America Nixon impeachment years. You will see some investigative journalism going on in that ers of US history.