Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't see why not. Something has to give here. Nutty people are getting access to weapons, and i don't know how much more of this stuff people can take before the public starts demanding that something be done about it. If that means changing the laws on what medical information can be made available to keep flat-out crazies from buying weapons legally, then by all means, lets get on it.
I'm fully aware that this doesn't preclude them from buying a black market weapon, but let's close one avenue at least.
This isn't going to be popular, but I'm starting to think they should be locked up or euthanized if proven to have violent tendencies. The non-mentally-ill should be protected from these people. Gun laws aren't going to stop nutbags from getting a gun.
On the one end, the second amendment makes it's point pretty clearly. Everyone has the right to bear arms. It doesn't make exceptions. All people should be able to legally purchase a firearm.
Then there's the issue of public safety. Someone who is unstable risks putting others in harms way if they get a firearm.
Of course, taking someone's rights away due to something that they can't control is in many ways unfair. Once you commit a crime, most people can say certain rights, like the right to bear arms, can be suspended or taken away all together, but once that happens, people have already been hurt.
I don't think there's an easy solution to this. I fully support people's second amendment rights and think a lot of the gun control people are suggesting will only work in a perfect world, which we don't live in. I'm somewhat on the fence about mental healthy checks. The issue of public safety is compelling, but all people have a right to confidentiality when it comes to medical problems.
good points dusty, and you are right that even though you suspend someones constitutional rights due to a criminal conviction, the harm has already been done. but you cannot proactively suspend someones rights because you think they might commit a crime. and therein lies another problem. the gun grabbers want to make everyone a criminal so that suspending their rights becomes a matter of law, which makes getting said right back difficult at best.
as for mental health issues, i dont think that someone who is seeing a therapist for certain issues should have their rights suspended, however if they have been committed to an institution, either voluntarily or by court order, then certainly they should have their rights suspended, and it should be part of their record.
but again we do have to be very careful in how we approach the mental health issue, as we need to avoid stepping on toes that dont need to be stepped on.
This isn't going to be popular, but I'm starting to think they should be locked up or euthanized if proven to have violent tendencies. The non-mentally-ill should be protected from these people. Gun laws aren't going to stop nutbags from getting a gun.
I don't agree with euthanizing, but I'm not entirely opposed to institutionalization, or 'locked up' as you called it. We should try and study their brain and habits to get an idea on the nature of their disorder. If we can find the cause, we can prevent it. We can also work toward treatments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm
good points dusty, and you are right that even though you suspend someones constitutional rights due to a criminal conviction, the harm has already been done. but you cannot proactively suspend someones rights because you think they might commit a crime. and therein lies another problem. the gun grabbers want to make everyone a criminal so that suspending their rights becomes a matter of law, which makes getting said right back difficult at best.
as for mental health issues, i dont think that someone who is seeing a therapist for certain issues should have their rights suspended, however if they have been committed to an institution, either voluntarily or by court order, then certainly they should have their rights suspended, and it should be part of their record.
but again we do have to be very careful in how we approach the mental health issue, as we need to avoid stepping on toes that dont need to be stepped on.
Exactly. It's essentially saying 'you haven't done anything wrong yet, but you might.' And indeed, some of those people are maybe very very likely to break and hurt someone and something should be done, but to take away a right based on what might happen is unfair. We use that logic for a very small selection of things, but applying that to other things, like race for example, is extremely taboo. For a good reason.
I think a step in the right direction would be to remove the stigma that's attached to mental health. People with mental help should be treated as sick people who need medical help. Maybe we'll get people who will recognize their symptoms and seek help before they do harm to themselves or others. That should be our first priority. Gun legislation can come after that if need be, but we shouldn't just jump on what seems like the easy solution.
People are quick to forget that roe v wade was based around patient doctor confidentiality. If that premise is thrown out the window re government access to doctors records then the right to abortion also goes with it.
Not to mention people with mental health issues are no more violent than anyone else with the vast majority of individuals with mental health issues leading a long, meaningful and productive life. They are being stigmatized much like aids sufferers of the 80's.
On the one end, the second amendment makes it's point pretty clearly. Everyone has the right to bear arms. It doesn't make exceptions. All people should be able to legally purchase a firearm.
That isn't what the Constitution as a whole says though. The Constitution allows for a removal of ones rights through due process. Through due process not everyone can legally purchase a firearm. Like certain convicted felons. No, this will not stop someone intent on getting one from getting one. Nothing will.
Quote:
Then there's the issue of public safety. Someone who is unstable risks putting others in harms way if they get a firearm.
That is part of what we need to look at but so far refuse to.
Quote:
Of course, taking someone's rights away due to something that they can't control is in many ways unfair. Once you commit a crime, most people can say certain rights, like the right to bear arms, can be suspended or taken away all together, but once that happens, people have already been hurt.
Due process can also restore your rights.
Quote:
I don't think there's an easy solution to this. I fully support people's second amendment rights and think a lot of the gun control people are suggesting will only work in a perfect world, which we don't live in. I'm somewhat on the fence about mental healthy checks. The issue of public safety is compelling, but all people have a right to confidentiality when it comes to medical problems.
People who have shown in the past to be violent towards others do not have an absolute right to not be confined to where they can not hurt others though. That's only part of the issue. I still have to wonder if we are not in part creating this problem with the drugs we sometimes force on others.
That isn't what the Constitution as a whole says though. The Constitution allows for a removal of ones rights through due process. Through due process not everyone can legally purchase a firearm. Like certain convicted felons. No, this will not stop someone intent on getting one from getting one. Nothing will.
Due process can also restore your rights.
People who have shown in the past to be violent towards others do not have an absolute right to not be confined to where they can not hurt others though. That's only part of the issue. I still have to wonder if we are not in part creating this problem with the drugs we sometimes force on others.
Glad you mentioned DUE PROCESS, because I am in full agreement that just because someone has mental development/disability issues, that is grounds to just take away all their Constitutional rights.
I am also glad Libertarians along with others are questioning one size fits all mandatory minimums for local authorities.
Glad you mentioned DUE PROCESS, because I am in full agreement that just because someone has mental development/disability issues, that is grounds to just take away all their Constitutional rights.
Same here. My only argument is that we should have the discussion whether or not there are certain actions that can be taken through due process to protect society from certain people with issues.
This last guy who shot up the movie theatre had shown where he was capable of violent actions. I'm not even sure where we can go with this but it doesn't matter as we refuse to discuss it.
Quote:
I am also glad Libertarians along with others are questioning one size fits all mandatory minimums for local authorities.
I think this would curb some folks from seeking treatment.
The question we need to ask is whether or not it always should be a choice where violence is a part of the equation.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
