Aren't mentally ill Americans protected by the 2nd Amendment?

[Dbones]

Originally Posted by Utopian Slums

I don't have an audience. Most reasonable people can see that those statements are ambiguous and up for debate.



So why is it unacceptable for me to say that the government is not against regulations that restrict the rights of gun owners through due process?



I'm sorry that you feel that way. But it does not sound like "people like you" *want* anything to be done. You're constantly looking for scapegoats and reasons to horde firearms.

It's obvious and unfortunate that you have typecast and misinterpreted my main point. Yes, you can obviously own "a gun" IMHO and most others' opinions. When you obsess over "people and/or the government wanting to seize all your guns" when that is not the point, do you not see that you come across as paranoid conspiracy spreaders and how this lessens your credibility? Do you think it was helpful to the "opposition" to have the NRA show up immediately after Sandyhook?

But why can "no one from your side" even agree that *no one needs 13 guns.* Seems like basic logic to me

The ammendment states: RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS *NOT* THE RIGHT TO COLLECT THEM.

We actually DONT have the right to free speech on the Internet or TV. For the radio and TV, there is FCC. The FBI monitors Internet. Just last night on FB, someone was suicidal and reaching out for help. It was reported to FB by someone else and the strings "disappeared." I've had many private websites take down stuff I've written. And we all know about our phones, the government and NSA......

Seriously, please tell me, how many firearms do you think is reasonable to own in the context "having the right to bear?" 5? 10? 50? 100?

A million?

We're merely in between mass shootings right now. Can any boy on the right seriously deny this?

lmao..Another true Constitutional scholar here just like Obama. Pretty much EXACTLY like Obama here since neither know what they are talking about. I swear, this country has some of the dumbest people on the planet.

[BentBow]

Originally Posted by knowledgeiskey

How can you call yourself a constitutionalist if you want to deprive mentally ill citizens their right to bear arms? Isn't that gun regulation in itself?

The laws that take the most freedom....


"It could happen" So we need to take that choice(freedom) away with threat of punishment by the government.

Instead of being punished for causing harm, damage or theft, we have all these laws on what could happen, not what happened... Your freedom and liberties disappear faster than greased lightning.

Pretty soon, you will have to act like a robot.

[arleigh]

Say driving was a right ,I would have certainly voted for that .
But if it were right what would your argument then be about taking away that capacity even though crazy people kill others with cars.
How would you keep crazy people from stealing cars ?
The only method I know is for society to stop throwing off the responsibility of security, and deal with it them self.
and laws should no longer give way to mental illness, political position, and plea bargaining, or age discrimination.

[BentBow]

There are millions of people everyday, prosecuted, then fined and even sometimes incarcerated on what could happen.
All in an effort to control individuals that have every right to be free as long as harm, theft and damaging other property is not one of those freedoms.

[AnywhereElse]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

Those with mental health issues are treated as second class citizens on the forum and in society. No one seems to care about their rights. If it was up to many on this forum they would be inststutionaled and forced medicated to keep them out of society.

It is really sad how some great others because they are different.

You are SO correct. I guess you missed the discussions about euthanizing them. Our state is constantly cutting funding for anyone with any disability or making them take medications that are cheaper and less effective.

Originally Posted by dv1033

But should they be deprived of their 2nd amendment right?

I would say that in the case where they have a guardian that takes care of ALL of their affairs having been judged previously incompetent, no. My adult son has Down syndrome and is lower functioning. We are his guardians and he has no right to make any of his own decisions. They also do this type of thing with people who are just too mentally ill to make rationale decisions or look out for their own best interest.

I think the determination needs to happen before not as a check for whether the person is "gun" worthy.

Originally Posted by shooting4life

Not without due process to determine that they are a danger to themselves or others. If someone is so dangerous to fit in this category then they are not safe to be part of society anyways.

Right. Only under those circumstances and it goes without saying that anyone that can't make decisions about any part of their life and would be easily taken advantage of for that reason that they should not be purchasing a weapon.

Funny though to think about how many are on psychiatric drugs and in the data base as such. I cannot believe how heavily medicated people are in the US. Our household is medication free so guess I'd get my permit! Others? Maybe not. List of "psychiatric drugs": http://psychcentral.com/lib/top-25-p...ions-for-2011/

The state just did some juggling around of people with disabilities and anyone on a psychotropic drug got lumped into the mentally ill category so.............

I support the right to gun ownership. We have had too many people lose life and limb to just throw away one right after another like I am seeing done. Freedom used to mean something and in the memory of those that worked so hard to attain it for us, I will continue to support the rights earned by those people who actually gave a darn about freedom and our country.