Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a troll by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldnt be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill, is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

PTSD and rights

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • PTSD and rights

    My friend MHP and I are having a disagreement about PTSD patients. MHP believes that a diagnosis of PTSD means a person should automatically lose their second amendment rights:

    Originally posted by MeadHallPirate
    ahoy OldmanDan,

    not really, matey.

    as i said,

    1) folks with PTSD should have thar 2nd amendment rights rescinded. that was me first comment. Captain Jason Upshaw 'o the local sheriff's department was quoted in USA Today sayin' that Mr. Routh may have been sufferin' from mental illness, he'd even heard rumors 'bout it. if ye have PTSD, ye should lose yer guns, automatically.
    I disagree, for my experience with PTSD is that every patient is different, and a blanket suppression of Constitutional rights is not valid.

    And I am not alone in my belief here that not all PTSD is the same.

    Post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury can increase a persons anger and hostility and diminish his or her self-control. But the link between those disorders and outright violent behavior is weak and hard to pin down with certainty.

    Link between PTSD and violent behavior is weak - Washington Post
    There is, as the article goes on to note, a higher incidence of domestic violence among PTSD patients. But to claim that every PTSD patient is potentially violent and thus must be stripped of their rights is not supported by the data.

    In any case, mental disorders arising from trauma are unlikely to be a big contributor to a persons violent tendencies, many experts believe. To pick PTSD and highlight it in the way its been played out in the media is a gross distortion and contrary to what we know, said Matthew Friedman, director of the VAs national center.
    Theres a misperception that PTSD is debilitating for anyone who has the diagnosis. There are actually varying degrees of how it impacts ones life, she said.
    Now, we DO know that PTSD patients who go untreated are likely to get worse over time. This would indicate that blanket punitive measures, like having rights stripped and property confiscated as MHP advocates, would likely result in some percentage of PTSD patients avoiding treatment.

    Now, let me slide to realm of the anecdotal for a bit. I used to work with a paramedic whom we will call Bill. He was working a weekend day shift one day, and was called to a particularly horrific scene. A woman had killed her baby, and done unspeakable things to the body. I will not recount details of the event here. Suffice it to say that Bill was the first one on the scene, and no human being should ever be forced to see what he saw that day. I was scheduled to come on duty that evening, and the shift captain paged me at home to come in early.

    We had an unwritten understanding in the department that if an EMS provider caught a particularly bad call on a shift, he or she she would be offered the opportunity to be relieved from the unit and given a different assignment for the remainder of the shift if they wanted. I came in early and relieved Bill, who rode a fire truck for the rest of the shift. As a peer counsellor in the fire service, I sat with Bill and the captain and we held a debriefing there in the firehouse.

    It was obvious that Bill was badly shaken up by the call. Not to drag the story out, but he ended up in counseling and was eventually diagnosed with PTSD. It would eventually end his career and nearly cost him his marriage. But although he was struggling with some fairly severe PTSD, he was never violent, and his treating psychiatrist (who discussed the case with me with Bill's permission) was very clear that he did not consider Bill a threat to himself or anyone else. He displayed many symptoms of PTSD, including sleep pattern derangement, hyper-vigilance regarding his childrens' safety, and other disruptive symptoms.

    He is better now, these years and years later, but he still has problems from time to time. His symptoms still disrupt his day to day routine, but he is managing fairly well.

    The suggestion that Bill is less deserving of Constitutional rights by virtue of his illness, even though he has never displayed ANY violent tendencies, offends me to my core. He's never given anyone the slightest excuse to seize his property, nor demote him to second class citizen status. He's a brother medic, and a close friend. And yes, we occasionally go shoot together when we get together. It gives him a chance to get away and do something he enjoys.

    I still respect ye, MHP, but on this particular issue, I think yer spewin bilgewater....

  • #2
    Re: PTSD and rights

    No surprise i concur.... there are A LOT of PTSD guys who are not violent and to just wield a wand that "we think you do not deserve this right" is pretty slippery slope....

    It seems to me in the zeal to support Obama i hear progressives getting pretty loose with the "rights" of citizenship ... let someone start restricting freedom of speech and i think they would change their tac ....

    ?


    • #3
      Re: PTSD and rights

      This is one of the up and coming issues that will be used to push for more restrictive firearms legislation and it's one of the most dangerous.

      Already we have tons of people who are uninformed or misinformed on firearms making knee jerk legislation and now these people who are equally ill informed regarding mental issues are going to use THAT to push their agenda.

      I warned a few years ago that Obamacare would be used as a mechanism to restrict all kinds of freedoms and since that time my concerns have only been reinforced.

      ?


      • #4
        Re: PTSD and rights

        Originally posted by Lutherf View Post
        This is one of the up and coming issues that will be used to push for more restrictive firearms legislation and it's one of the most dangerous.

        Already we have tons of people who are uninformed or misinformed on firearms making knee jerk legislation and now these people who are equally ill informed regarding mental issues are going to use THAT to push their agenda.

        I warned a few years ago that Obamacare would be used as a mechanism to restrict all kinds of freedoms and since that time my concerns have only been reinforced.
        Aye. Much to worry about there. I said as much in this post: http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/heal...ml#post2147771, but I have to admit, the passion was burning in me that day for that topic.

        ?


        • #5
          Re: PTSD and rights

          Not so sure I can get behind a PTSD diagnosis also meaning "automatic" removal of rights, or confiscation of someone's possessions.

          You would think if we were going to have a rational discussion on this it would have to include the one making diagnosis, as in a set of guidelines using the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.) When it comes to classification standards then you can get into severity, or complexity, or source events (as in the reason) for a PTSD determination. It is often complex, and as such should not be subject to whimsical suggestions. PTSD as a diagnosis covers many things, not always being the result of warfare or witness to gun based violent acts. Firemen can have it, EMTs, medical professionals even, other first responders, someone who just happened to witness or go through some traumatic event, etc. So, it is not just about guns, or even just about other weapons.

          What should not happen is some blanket Obamacare like line item in a legislation effort that takes out of the hands of a professional the step of diagnosis that one may be a danger to themselves or someone else. This is what happens when emotional driven desires to "do something" results in unintended consequence. Leave it to those we charge to make these PTSD diagnoses to determine when someone needs help from themselves.

          ?


          • #6
            Re: PTSD and rights

            Originally posted by Sluggo View Post
            Not so sure I can get behind a PTSD diagnosis also meaning "automatic" removal of rights, or confiscation of someone's possessions.

            You would think if we were going to have a rational discussion on this it would have to include the one making diagnosis, as in a set of guidelines using the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.) When it comes to classification standards then you can get into severity, or complexity, or source events (as in the reason) for a PTSD determination. It is often complex, and as such should not be subject to whimsical suggestions. PTSD as a diagnosis covers many things, not always being the result of warfare or witness to gun based violent acts. Firemen can have it, EMTs, medical professionals even, other first responders, someone who just happened to witness or go through some traumatic event, etc. So, it is not just about guns, or even just about other weapons.

            What should not happen is some blanket Obamacare like line item in a legislation effort that takes out of the hands of a professional the step of diagnosis that one may be a danger to themselves or someone else. This is what happens when emotional driven desires to "do something" results in unintended consequence. Leave it to those we charge to make these PTSD diagnoses to determine when someone needs help from themselves.
            This is a fine point, but I wouldn't limit it to PTSD; mental illness in general has been stigmatized. In the post-Sandy Hook discussion about firearms there seemed to be an a pervasive belief that equated mental illness with violent behavior.

            ?


            • #7
              Re: PTSD and rights

              Originally posted by MeadHallPirate
              ahoy Sluggo,

              i'll clarify, me hearty (and this response be fer the mighty veteran 'o USPO, MattLarson);

              if ye have PTSD, then ye have to be cleared to retain ownership 'o yer firearm. i do not believe that the 2nd amendment ought to be extended to the mentally ill.

              PTSD and Domestic Abuse: Husbands Who Bring the War Home - The Daily Beast

              'tis odd, fer "i won't give an inch" gun enthusiasts often try to redirect the conversation to mental illness, and when someone like meself obliges, a fellow poster actually replies;

              http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/gun-...hris-kyle.html

              errrrm, aye?

              it just shows how this bit 'o "concern" 'bout mental health really just be misdirection.

              imagine if we were talkin' 'bout welfare fraud and ye wanted stricter o'ersite on the matter, and i responded, "only half the people on welfare are involved in fraud...its not all 'o them!".

              - MeadHallPirate
              You say "cleared to retain ownership 'o yer firearm." I say leave it to a medial professional using DSM guidelines to determine when someone is a danger to themselves or others. It sounds like we are close on this subject but not really. Begs the question, cleared by whom?

              ?


              • #8
                Re: PTSD and rights

                Originally posted by MeadHallPirate
                ahoy Sluggo,

                i'll clarify, me hearty (and this response be fer the mighty veteran 'o USPO, MattLarson);

                if ye have PTSD, then ye have to be cleared to retain ownership 'o yer firearm. i do not believe that the 2nd amendment ought to be extended to the mentally ill.
                I find this position of yours to be odd, matey.

                In order to be diagnosed with PTSD, one must sail into the harbor o' a mental health professional, come alongside, and be examined, aye?

                So why not say that when such an individual be diagnosed as dangerous to themselves or others, THEN their rights can be suspended by a court, aye? That be the way it works in most states today.

                ?


                • #9
                  Re: PTSD and rights

                  Originally posted by MeadHallPirate
                  ahoy Sluggo,

                  don't know, matey.

                  that doesn't mean that thar isn't a person or entity that makes this kind 'o determination in cases 'o mental illness, it just means that imma not well versed on the topic.

                  if yer okies dokies with folks with PTSD havin' the right to retain firearms, i just disagree with that.

                  i'd ask Chris Kyle what he thinks 'o it now, 'cept he's dead, and therefore has no opinion on the matter.

                  avast ye!

                  - MeadHallPirate
                  That is not quite what I said. What was was I would rather we leave it to a professional to make the determination if someone with PTSD (or some other issue along the lines of DSM guidelines) needs to have their firearms taken from them. What I am not ok with is a blanket statement, or legislation type effort, that says anyone with PTSD should be stripped of rights. This is what I am saying about us still refusing to have a serious discussion about mental health. We have tools to help here, even if more work needs to be done. Even the evidence you provided did not say everyone with PTSD will go out and harm someone or themselves. We have some risks to handle, and we have a profession to do that.

                  You also have still failed to really address that PTSD does not start and stop with a military source for the issue. In fact, women who have been raped can end up dealing with a form of PTSD as an example. Usually characterized as re-experiencing the traumatic event causing distress. With all the difficulty this could present, it does not mean every woman that has been raped is a danger to herself or someone else. Thus, there is no need for a blanket statement here either that women should be stripped of their rights. PTSD is way to complex for such an oversimplistic answer, no way around this. We should leave it to professionals to make a determination when someone is a potential danger, keep the person responsible for their actions.

                  ?


                  • #10
                    Re: PTSD and rights

                    Originally posted by MeadHallPirate
                    i'd ask Chris Kyle his opinion on the matter, 'cept he's dead, and therefore has no opinion.

                    avast ye!

                    - MeadHallPirate

                    It seems pretty obvious Mr. Kyle would have said people suffering from PTSD should retain their rights, because he took someone with that very ailment that to a shooting range.

                    ?


                    • #11
                      Re: PTSD and rights

                      Originally posted by MeadHallPirate
                      ahoy CYDdharta,

                      it seems more obvious to me that whilst Mr. Kyle was a mighty patriot and rendered a heroic service to his country in the battlefield, he should leave psychiatric measures fer PTSD to the professionals.

                      now he has eternity to dwell on it, i guess, if thar be life after death - or he has oblivion to not think 'bout it, if death indeed be the end 'o our journey.

                      - MeadHallPirate

                      That being the case, I'm not sure why you'd have wanted to ask him in the first place

                      ?


                      • #12
                        Re: PTSD and rights

                        Originally posted by MeadHallPirate
                        ahoy CYDdharta,

                        'twas more 'o a rhetorical question, i guess.

                        me apologies, matey, fer not bein' more clear.

                        i just ate some ambien and am sippin' a bit 'o grog. i feel slightly woozy, but well inclined towards me fellow USPO friends.

                        (are we friends or do ye hate the Pirate?)

                        - MeadHallPirate

                        Of course I don't hate the pirate; he's one of the best sparring mates on deck.

                        ?


                        • #13
                          Re: PTSD and rights

                          Originally posted by MeadHallPirate
                          the only thing i really know 'bout firearms is that i have 3 'o them in me studio (one was misplaced, and i've no idear whar it is, arg). one 'o me partners be a survivalist kind 'o fella - waitin' fer the end 'o civilized society. we have one handgun in our equipment locker - from time to time i take it out 'o its drawer and look at it.
                          Do you think you yourself should have unrestricted access to firearms? You have a compulsion to pretend to be a pirate and you have professed use of certain controlled substenances on occasion...

                          ?


                          • #14
                            Re: PTSD and rights

                            PTSD isn't just one consistent diagnosis with syphtoms and behaviors that are identical across the board. It can follow someone for years but doesn't make people universally dangerous to the population at large. One veteran I used to know would proudly proclaim "I've got papers that declare I'm sane, do you"?

                            ?


                            • #15
                              Re: PTSD and rights

                              Originally posted by MeadHallPirate
                              ahoy Sluggo,

                              i want to make sure imma really clear on this point, oh reasonable Sluggo; i don't think many folks who be avid pro-gun swabbys want to have a serious discussion either. as i said, 'tis just misdirection.
                              Well I do, there are too many out there suffering with various degrees of PTSD to ignore this.

                              Originally posted by MeadHallPirate
                              imma not talkin' 'bout raped women, matey. this thread grew directly outta the Chris Kyle thread. thats what imma talkin' about. ex-military who be trained to use deadly force in the most extreme manner with dispassion, afflicted with PTSD, and fully armed.

                              look...i don't really care if they be armed and mentally unstable as long as they only shoot thar wives, children or themselves - it would be tragic, but life be full 'o tragedy, aye? it just so happens that i live in state with a robust military presence, and from time to time find meself workin' rather close to Camp Lejeune and Fort Bragg, and i don't wanna get shot in me noggin' if one 'o these fellas has an "incident".

                              *puts his foot down*

                              aye.

                              - MeadHallPirate
                              Well, I am talking about PTSD for what it really is. I respect your concern. And of course the liberal in me wants to see them all get help as it is unfortunate so many are suffering from it.

                              If we are talking about someone that is a danger to themselves or someone else, like Eddie Ray Routh, then perhaps we need a new approach here. But whatever that is I would hope it would be through a medical professional looking to help a patient over a group of politicans responding emotionally looking to solve a "problem." I bring up women who have been raped potentially having PTSD for a real reason. It is very real for these ladies, and treated in a similar way. I did it to add a point about the unintended conseqnece of disarming them too. With no real evidence that they are a danger to themselves or someone else. It should be case by case, from a professional looking to diagnosis.

                              Perhaps Chris Kyle could have handled Routh a little differently but it is pretty well documented that going to the range was just Kyle's way of working with soldiers having a hard time adjusting to civilian life. Perhaps Routh was not getting the help he needed, that is reason to be concerned. It is unfortunate this time good will by Kyle resulted in loss of life. But I would hope this places PTSD in the light of looking to help the situation, over looking to knee-jerk reaction legislate.

                              ?

                              Working...
                              X