• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Obama's offensive comment

R

Rjohnson

New member
Joined
Oct 29, 2012
Messages
12
Reaction score
10
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Obama said something during his second debate that offended me. He said that guns should be kept out of the hands of the mentally ill. That comment suggested that every mentally ill person is capable of violence and that isn't true.

I'm mentally ill and I'm not violent. I've never committed a crime. I've never even gotten a jay walking ticket. My mom is also mentally ill and she's not violent either. She's one of the sweetest people alive. The majority of the mentally ill are harmless.

Yes, it's true that some mentally ill people are violent and those who show any signs of violent behavior shouldn't be allowed to own guns. But Obama didn't say that guns should be kept out of the hands of certain mentally ill people. He said that they should be kept out of the hands of all mentally ill people.

Obama obviously thinks that mentally ill people are dangerous. That's prejudice. Let me give you an example. Some women kill people with guns. Would it be fair if I said that because some women are violent that guns should be kept out of the hands of all women? Of course it wouldn't be fair. That would be prejudice. And saying that guns should be kept out of the hands of the mentally ill is just as prejudice.

Obama was trying to gain more votes with his second debate but he lost one. And if he offended other mentally ill people, he may lose more.
 
Rjohnson said:
Obama said something during his second debate that offended me. He said that guns should be kept out of the hands of the mentally ill. That comment suggested that every mentally ill person is capable of violence and that isn't true.

I'm mentally ill and I'm not violent. I've never committed a crime. I've never even gotten a jay walking ticket. My mom is also mentally ill and she's not violent either. She's one of the sweetest people alive. The majority of the mentally ill are harmless.

Yes, it's true that some mentally ill people are violent and those who show any signs of violent behavior shouldn't be allowed to own guns. But Obama didn't say that guns should be kept out of the hands of certain mentally ill people. He said that they should be kept out of the hands of all mentally ill people.

Obama obviously thinks that mentally ill people are dangerous. That's prejudice. Let me give you an example. Some women kill people with guns. Would it be fair if I said that because some women are violent that guns should be kept out of the hands of all women? Of course it wouldn't be fair. That would be prejudice. And saying that guns should be kept out of the hands of the mentally ill is just as prejudice.

Obama was trying to gain more votes with his second debate but he lost one. And if he offended other mentally ill people, he may lose more.
Click to expand...

what sort of mental illness? only those who have been adjudicated mentally incompetent are banned from owning guns legally
 
Rjohnson said:
Obama said something during his second debate that offended me. He said that guns should be kept out of the hands of the mentally ill. That comment suggested that every mentally ill person is capable of violence and that isn't true.

I'm mentally ill and I'm not violent. I've never committed a crime. I've never even gotten a jay walking ticket. My mom is also mentally ill and she's not violent either. She's one of the sweetest people alive. The majority of the mentally ill are harmless.

Yes, it's true that some mentally ill people are violent and those who show any signs of violent behavior shouldn't be allowed to own guns. But Obama didn't say that guns should be kept out of the hands of certain mentally ill people. He said that they should be kept out of the hands of all mentally ill people.

Obama obviously thinks that mentally ill people are dangerous. That's prejudice. Let me give you an example. Some women kill people with guns. Would it be fair if I said that because some women are violent that guns should be kept out of the hands of all women? Of course it wouldn't be fair. That would be prejudice. And saying that guns should be kept out of the hands of the mentally ill is just as prejudice.

Obama was trying to gain more votes with his second debate but he lost one. And if he offended other mentally ill people, he may lose more.
Click to expand...

I'd be willing to bet that even though you are seeing it as a blanket statement of all mentally handicapped, I took it as mentally unstable and violence prone folk like they guy who shot Gabriel Giffords and such.
 
TurtleDude said:
what sort of mental illness? only those who have been adjudicated mentally incompetent are banned from owning guns legally
Click to expand...

I'd like to know too.
 
poweRob said:
I'd be willing to bet that even though you are seeing it as a blanket statement of all mentally handicapped, I took it as mentally unstable and violence prone folk like they guy who shot Gabriel Giffords and such.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't bet on it. How would that work? If we created a database of people who sought therapy/treatment, people wouldn't go which may be a worse situation. I don't recall the statement but my guess is it was one of those focus group tested rhetoric things that go nowhere because they were never intended to.
 
Fisher said:
I wouldn't bet on it. How would that work? If we created a database of people who sought therapy/treatment, people wouldn't go which may be a worse situation. I don't recall the statement but my guess is it was one of those focus grouped tested rhetoric things that go nowhere.
Click to expand...

I think Turtledude is kind of saying that it is a policy already in place.
 
poweRob said:
I think Turtledude is kind of saying that it is a policy already in place.
Click to expand...

Generally you do not get adjudicated incompetent until after something has happened and due to Hinkley getting a pass on Reagan, competency is pretty low. I don't see how it could be done preventatively which is what I assume you and POTUS may have been thinking.
 
poweRob said:
I think Turtledude is kind of saying that it is a policy already in place.
Click to expand...

see 11f

http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf

Question 11.f. Adjudicated Mentally Defective: A determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease:
(1) is a danger to himself or to others; or (2) lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs. This term shall include: (1) a finding of insanity by a court in a criminal case; and (2) Those persons found incompetent to stand trial or found not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility.
Committed to a Mental Institution: A formal commitment of a person to a mental institution by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority. The term includes a commitment to a mental institution involuntarily. The term includes commitment for mental defectiveness or mental illness. It also includes commitments for other reasons, such as for drug use. The term does not include a person in a mental institution for observation or a voluntary admission to a mental institution. Please also refer to Question 11.c. for the definition of a prohibited person.
 
Fisher said:
Generally you do not get adjudicated incompetent until after something has happened and due to Hinkley getting a pass on Reagan, competency is pretty low. I don't see how it could be done preventatively which is what I assume you and POTUS may have been thinking.
Click to expand...

I don't know about Obama but I'm for single payer health care that includes mental parity in coverage.
 
I think that violent mentally ill people should get government assistance to purchase assault rifles.
 
poweRob said:
I don't know about Obama but I'm for single payer health care that includes mental parity in coverage.
Click to expand...

I thought you supported Obamacare. I would have a lot less problem with a single payer system not run by private corporations. Mental health coverage is pretty crappy. 30 days a year and that is it on a lot of policies.
 
Fisher said:
Generally you do not get adjudicated incompetent until after something has happened and due to Hinkley getting a pass on Reagan, competency is pretty low. I don't see how it could be done preventatively which is what I assume you and POTUS may have been thinking.
Click to expand...

I think the OP is stating that he and his mother are already declared mentally ill. So there is a record there on them and I think he believes it will be used against him. As Turtle's post said, it's not ALL mentally ill that are sidelined regarding guns.
 
Fisher said:
I thought you supported Obamacare. I would have a lot less problem with a single payer system not run by private corporations. Mental health coverage is pretty crappy. 30 days a year and that is it on a lot of policies.
Click to expand...

Nah... Obamacare pissed me off because I saw it as a half-assed move and Obama capitulated BEFORE the debate even began by taking single payer off the table. I don't think he could've gotten single payer but he should've come to the table with it and worked back from there. He pissed us lefties off quite a bit with this kind of caving. I think Obamacare has set the ground though of moving that way. Apparently there were a lot of time release policies that push it that way.
 
poweRob said:
I think the OP is stating that he and his mother are already declared mentally ill. So there is a record there on them and I think he believes it will be used against him. As Turtle's post said, it's not ALL mentally ill that are sidelined regarding guns.
Click to expand...

I am aware of what is. The question is what Obama wants to add to that. I don't see how it would work different than it does without creating a database for people seeking mental health treatment voluntarily which may keep those people from seeking the treatment, especially paranoid people. The VA Tech shooter broke no gun laws until he did what he did as far as I know. How would you change what we have now to flag people like that without flagging other mentally ill people? That is the rub of it.
 
poweRob said:
I'd be willing to bet that even though you are seeing it as a blanket statement of all mentally handicapped, I took it as mentally unstable and violence prone folk like they guy who shot Gabriel Giffords and such.
Click to expand...

I guess it all depends on the level of mental illness. If they are mentally ill or are on medication to prevent that, they should be barred from owning and carrying guns IMHO.
 
poweRob said:
I'd be willing to bet that even though you are seeing it as a blanket statement of all mentally handicapped, I took it as mentally unstable and violence prone folk
Click to expand...

It's such fun to watch partisans do the 'that's not what he said!' stuff.
 
AdamT said:
I think that violent mentally ill people should get government assistance to purchase assault rifles.
Click to expand...

tell us what the purpose of this post was
 
poweRob said:
Nah... Obamacare pissed me off because I saw it as a half-assed move and Obama capitulated BEFORE the debate even began by taking single payer off the table. I don't think he could've gotten single payer but he should've come to the table with it and worked back from there. He pissed us lefties off quite a bit with this kind of caving. I think Obamacare has set the ground though of moving that way. Apparently there were a lot of time release policies that push it that way.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I think if they had merged medicaid, medicare, and whoever got picked up on this program who didn't have private policies into a single system would have been the better step toward single payer. He didn't have the votes for it in the Senate and barely go by with what he did after Teddy K croaked and was replaced by Brown.
 
Fisher said:
I am aware of what is. The question is what Obama wants to add to that. I don't see how it would work different than it does without creating a database for people seeking mental health treatment voluntarily which may keep those people from seeking the treatment, especially paranoid people. The VA Tech shooter broke no gun laws until he did what he did as far as I know. How would you change what we have now to flag people like that without flagging other mentally ill people? That is the rub of it.
Click to expand...

I honestly don't know how it'd be done either. I have no idea if something preventative is in the works or if it's just bluster. Not a clue.
 
Arbo said:
It's such fun to watch partisans do the 'that's not what he said!' stuff.
Click to expand...

And you would know. LOL @ the blatant hypocrisy of U calling anyone else partisan. Especially a lefty like me who, in the last four elections, didn't vote Dem.
 
poweRob said:
I'd be willing to bet that even though you are seeing it as a blanket statement of all mentally handicapped, I took it as mentally unstable and violence prone folk like they guy who shot Gabriel Giffords and such.
Click to expand...
Or someone who is mentally incompetent, and entirely incapable of understanding the consequence of their actions. I have to agree with Obama on this one.
 
Fisher said:
I disagree. I think if they had merged medicaid, medicare, and whoever got picked up on this program who didn't have private policies into a single system would have been the better step toward single payer. He didn't have the votes for it in the Senate and barely go by with what he did after Teddy K croaked and was replaced by Brown.
Click to expand...

I agree on that plan. My idea would be to merge medicaid, medicare and child coverage programs to cover everyone in those age groups and then year by year raise up the age of the childrens' coverage and lower the elders' age coverage until they met in the middle and everyone is covered. This means a gradual implementation rather than all the sudden financial burden.
 
poweRob said:
And you would know. LOL @ the blatant hypocrisy of U calling anyone else partisan.
Click to expand...

"I know you are but what am I?" Classic.

Problem with your kindergarden response is there is ample evidence of your partisanship on display. Whereas I don't like the extremists on either side and freely say so.
 
Arbo said:
"I know you are but what am I?" Classic.

Problem with your kindergarden response is there is ample evidence of your partisanship on display. Whereas I don't like the extremists on either side and freely say so.
Click to expand...

Nice chopping of my post there to destroy context.

You my friend are the very definition of extremist... You didn't even read through the posts in this thread very much and instead dropped in the thread to troll me... not even noticing that I'm right here in this thread agreeing with Turtledude all while you are calling me a partisan extremist.

:lamo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom