There’s an oft’ repeated wish when things like this occur “Please, don’t this guy be one of ‘ours’”.
Congratulations, he’s not one of yours . . . this time.
Given that, it seems to me (as others have pointed out) that if there really isn’t anything objectionable about the list above, an awful lot of time is being spent explaining it away.
“Oh no, what Angle really meant by “Second Amendment solutions” was marches and protests, but she really wasn’t talking about people actually being shot.”
Of course this doesn’t explain her other comment noting the short supply of real live gun ammunition . . . I’m sure she was just concerned that those stockpiling ammo might get lead poisoning,
Guess a different kind of lead poisoning was on her mind.
No, no single one of the statements, on that incomplete list, is the equivalent of dumping the contents of a honey truck into the well of civil discourse, they’re just a series of individuals taking a shit in the well. Which, in the end of course, has the same effect.
What if he had been one of ‘ours’? Do we really need that to happen before we all can agree that some “rhetoric” does go too far?
So, do you believe this is a 2-part problem whereby the availability of guns and mental illness share the responsibility about 50/50, or is one or the other more the issue here?
That confused me too. Isn’t the Left always making up new disabilities and syndromes that need to be treated with federal money when the Right thinks the “afflicted” just need to cowboy up and soldier on?
I knew she’d find a way to make herself the victim out of all of this, all criticism is persecution in her narcissistic mind, but “blood libel?” I wasn’t expecting that. I’m going to give her the benefit of the doubt and just assume she had no fucking idea what that phrase actually refers to.
It’s odd that you didn’t quote the sentence that gave that claim some context:
The left doesn’t share blame for the mentally ill not thinking they need help. The left shares blame for notions of personal rights that make it difficult to involuntarily commit a mentally ill person who needs help but does not realize it.
That’s always the problem, isn’t it? The left and their damn insistence on personal rights.
The right doesn’t want to pay for mental health treatment or commitments anyway, so that complaint is disingenuous, but just out of curiosity, who should decide whether a person needs to be committed, and how should those commitments be funded?
Given that so many people missed my point, I’ll shoulder the blame for not explaining it clearly.
But didn’t you kind of wonder what reason I had for bringing up the taser incident? Or did you think I was just randomly musing about some unrelated, amusing anecdote before turning my attention to the issue of care for the mentally ill?
Anyway, let me make it clear: it’s not the right that fights against the ability of the government to detain and evaluate, involuntarily, people suspected of being dangers to themselves or others. (Well, the right may make it more difficult by fighting against funding for doctors, but the left makes it more difficult by fighting to expand the sphere of personal rights that make such commitment more difficult.)
The right seems to want everyone to be sick, stupid and starving, and then pull themselves up by their bootstraps. If they haven’t eaten or sold them, I guess.
I assure you, the government already has this right. I’ve seen it happen several times, but the individual actually has to make an attempt or declare an intention to hurt themelves or others. There is no campaign by the left to prevent such people from being detained, just a lack of resources to evaluate and treat them. God forbid some Richie Rich has to pay a few extra cents in taxes.
Agreed. This is why I said “share” when referring to the blame.
Well, in my state, we have an involuntary commitment fund, which allows individuals without insurance to be held temporarily at even a private facility. I like that kind of solution. As to deciding the need… the law in my state requires a magistrate to get a doctor’s opinion before issuing the forty-eight hour hold. Since that is sometimes impossible to do on short notice, some necessary commitments just don’t happen. I’d say that as long as a law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe the individual is a danger to himself, to others, or cannot care for himself, that should be enough for a 48 hour hold.
Is that some kind of accusation of disingenuousness on my part? Because I’m here to tell you, the leading sentence bore no semblance of relevance to the following one. And the sentence that confused me and so many others had a subject and a predicate. IOW, it stood alone as a complete thought. And it made no damn sense!
Would you mind citing some evidence for this allegation, please?
Oh, so if several people miss your point, you’ll take the blame. But when you assume I’m the only one who missed your point, I must have some ulterior motive. Gotcha ya.
Condescend much? We couldn’t figure out what the hell you meant. It’s really that simple. You could have said anything you wanted just prior to that sentence. It still wouldn’t have made a lick of sense.
In the earlier thread, there was plenty of opinion that the threat to shoot yourself was (or should not be) sufficient to commit someone – what if the guy was joking?
This is where the left needs to take some share of the blame.
This might be a libertarian-authoritarian divide. The left and the right both typically accuse the other of being authoritarian and themselves as libertarian, and I would think libertarians would tend to oppose the excesses of involuntary commitment.
But as innumerable threads on this message board have shown, there are libertarians and authoritarians on both the left and the right. See also “Kelo v New London”.
Andyou know that this is bullshit. I don’t sit here saying, “What?? The right wanted to cut mental health funding? Cite? Cite?” I know it, generally, to be true.
Would that my opponents would extend the same general courtesy.