1. Forum
  2. FidoNet
  3. POLITICS

  • Right(?) to Life 3

    From Lee Lofaso@2:203/2 to Jimmy Anderson on Saturday, April 03, 2021 19:12:11
    Hello Jimmy,

    Is a 'nutcase' anyone that takes medication for psycological reasons?

    John Hinckley was not taking any medication for psychological reasons
    until after he committed his awful act. But he was found innocent by
    reason of insanity by a jury of his peers, who sent him away to St.
    Elizabeth's Hospital where he could get some help.

    And then Hinckley managed to get a shrink to say he was no longer
    a danger to others or himself, and was therefore "cured". No more meds
    for him. He was then sent home to live with his elderly mother and
    play music with a rock band.

    So someone that takes the occasional prescription med for anxiety attacks.

    Hinckley is a paranoid schizophrenic. Cured, according to a shrink
    of his choosing. And to think a judge believed him.

    Should they not have the right?

    Hinckley was *innocent* by reason of insanity. That is a legal defense.
    And it worked. Once he was cured, he was no longer a danger to others,
    or to himself. Therefore, he was released from a mental institution,
    and allowed to live with his elderly mother.

    If that's okay, then where is the line?

    No jury or judge can convict anybody who is certifiably nuts.

    If someone has been committed against their will to a mental institution,
    then they are already disallowed from legally owning a firearm.

    John Hinckley can legally own a firearm. But I do not think his
    mother will allow him to.

    Were you aware of that?

    John Hinckley is not nuts. According to his shrink. And the judge
    who allowed him to go home to live with his mother.

    >I am anti-gun control because it does not work and because it is a violation
    > of my rights.

    Your right to kill innocent people?

    My right to protect myself and my family from 'nutcases' and anyone else
    that would wish to kill me/us or do us severe bodily harm. The right to protection is not the right to kill innocent people.

    Protecting yourself and your family while disregarding the lives
    of others does not sound very 'manly' to me.

    Are you saying you have the
    same rights as nutcases? The same kind of people who slaughtered
    so many in Atlanta and Boulder? I do not think you are such a
    person who could ever do such a thing. Or even think of doing such
    a thing.

    I'm saying that American citizens have the same rights as other American
    citizens.

    That is wishful thinking. This country was never founded on that
    principle. The Framers of the Constitution cared only about themselves,
    to protect their own interests above anybody else's. Rich, elderly
    white men, who owned property (slaves). Such rights did not exist
    for black folks, or women, or for Native Americans ...

    I'm saying yes I do have the same rights as 'nutcases.' A 'RIGHT'
    is just that, a right, not a privalage.

    We had places where we housed 'nutcases' against their will. Some
    of those places still exist today. One of them is located in Jackson, Louisiana. With residents resident there today. I have been there.
    On the inside. There is a section reserved for tourists. This is
    where anybody can go and check out how residents lived there many
    decades ago. It has been kept just the way it was back then. More
    like a dungeon than any place a man or woman could live.

    Imagine yourself being tied to a post, peeing and defecating
    all over yourself, and never having taken a bath - except to be
    hosed down once in a while.

    But at least we didn't execute them. Besides, they would not
    have understood. So what was the point?

    And no, I'm not the type person that could ever do such a deplorable thing!
    I have a respect for human life tthat would prevent that.

    Would you? Future generations will look back at the way we treat
    others and wonder how we could ever do such things. And yet, we
    consider ourselves to be "good" people who would never harm a soul.

    --Lee

    --
    We! Reject! The president-nonelect!

    --- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
    * Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)
  • From JIMMY ANDERSON@1:116/18 to LEE LOFASO on Saturday, April 03, 2021 19:01:00
    Lee Lofaso wrote to Jimmy Anderson <=-

    Okay - snipping the John Hinkley parts of this - I don't know
    what you're trying to say with regards to that...

    >I am anti-gun control because it does not work and because it is a violation
    > of my rights.

    Your right to kill innocent people?

    My right to protect myself and my family from 'nutcases' and anyone else
    that would wish to kill me/us or do us severe bodily harm. The right to protection is not the right to kill innocent people.

    Protecting yourself and your family while disregarding the lives
    of others does not sound very 'manly' to me.

    I'm not concerned about being 'manly' - I will gladly run away from
    a confrontation if it will save a life, but how is my right to protection
    also the right to kill innocent people? If I shoot someone that is trying
    to kill me, they are not innocent.





    ... I'm being held prisoner in a chocolate factory. Don't send help.
    --- MultiMail/Mac v0.52
    * Origin: Omicron Theta (1:116/18)