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 consider myself pro 2nd amendment. But I don't think we would be gutting the constitution by making it harder for people with a history of mental illness to buy a firearm.
It's already illegal, how much harder to you think you can make it? Make it double secrete super illegal?
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?
What a BS question!!! You are asking a question that you know is warped and you know the right answer.
As always with discussions on this topic, the most affected population - the "mentally ill" - is left completely voiceless.
I'm branded "schizophrenic" myself , been involuntarily committed etc. and to me this whole topic of gun control via mental health is a disgusting sham. I've said this before but the fact is that most people who've never been subjected to this ridiculous system don't get it. It's a false construct to begin with. There is no "mind" can that be diseased in the first place (the "mind" is just an abstract construct, not a bodily organ). It's just bigotry against people who are socially awkward, idiosyncratic, obnoxious, anti-social or otherwise undesirable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AuburnAL
Lacking the mental faculty to follow regulations makes it difficult to consider it possible for the mentally impaired to be well regulated. This is different from someone who is capable of following regulations but refuses to.
And how can it be determined that someone is "lacking the mental faculty to follow regulations"? Is there an objective scientific standard for such a thing? No.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ginmqi
I think we should listen to the mental health professionals opinions.
I don't. Most are miseducated quacks who only care about controlling people, maintaining their professional authority/stature, and making money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ginmqi
Sometimes the 2nd amendment craze goes a bit insane. The NRA used to be about gun safety and responsible ownership. Now any regulation is painted as the burning of the constitution.
The government depriving me of my Constitutional right to own a gun because I was assigned an arbitrary LABEL that not only can't be medically proven, but is nothing but a stigmatizing value judgement is what's really insane.
Quote:
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.
Absolute truth, and this is why I left the mental death system within months of my initial exposure to it. It's a ludicrous twilight zone that diminishes people to sub-human status, but the misinformed and miseducated blindly support it thinking it's helpful. It's a giant scam.
They're also apparently unaware of how many of themselves are updated in government databases, as patients, by law after every filled prescription at their corner pharmacy for psych meds.
Yup, and finding out about those government "mental health" databases is what expedited my departure from the system. Scary stuff. It's just like "mutant registration" in the old X-Men cartoons - it has a facade of an outreach program, but is really a paternalistic intrusion and subversion of civil rights: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohg52XNzygE
Quote:
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.
If a person was really a danger to themselves or others they'd be immediately arrested and prosecuted or already incarcerated. The phrase 'danger to oneself or others' seems to misleadingly make people think it's okay for someones rights to be deprived for a future act that hasn't happened yet. Only it's not okay, it's unconstitutional.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
The NRA isn't against regulations that restrict the rights of the mentally ill through due process.
They definitely have no problem scapegoating psychiatric patients. It takes the heat off guns themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by r small
I consider myself pro 2nd amendment. But I don't think we would be gutting the constitution by making it harder for people with a history of mental illness to buy a firearm.
Actually, you would be, since the presence of "mental illness" is based on nothing but the subjective perceptions and prejudicial biases of an individual clinician - i.e. is arbitrarily made up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toyman at Jewel Lake
I agree. If someone is so violently mentally ill that they are a threat and should be restricted from legally purchasing a firearm, they are too much of a danger to have access to car keys, gasoline and matches, knives or baseball bats. The problem isn't the tool, it's the nutcase. What needs to be done is:
1) Identifying the truly violent
2) Defining a legal process that determines who qualifies as "violently mentally ill" and a legal process for involuntary institutionalization.
3) Re-opening facilities to house/treat them.
This process already exists, but the State has limited power to impose it because the law prioritizes individual liberty, and because, as mentioned, "mental illness" is mired in ambiguity.
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?
Shouldn't we first figure out what the exact definition of a "mentally ill" person is? Many mental health professionals will diagnose a person to be mentally ill for quite marginal reasons. Let's be realistic. Most psychologists are quacks to begin with, and to rest the fate of millions on their diagnosis has proven quite problematic.
There are hundreds, if not thousands, of cases where people have been diagnosed simply to fill a bed. There are plenty of law suits proving some of these people were beaten simply to put them in restraints which doubles what the hospital can charge the state.
We have a corrupt government, and an even more corrupt healthcare system.
Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww To some therapists just saying this ^^^^^would be construed as me being mentally ill! How awesome is that?
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?
It's that whole "danger to themselves or others" thing. (Hey, can you get a gun license and buy one at age 8? Why not?)
Kinda like how you have the right to raise your kids but if you choose to not feed or bathe them you'll lose custody.
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?
In English Common Law there are certain presumptions about actors.
These presumptions are known as Doctrines.
Some examples are the Clean Hands Doctrine, Good Faith Doctrine, Absurd Results, etc etc etc.
One obtains a firearm for the express purpose of using it in defense of the State or to defend against a tyrannical State. The 2nd Amendment was never intended to allow people to have firearms for purposes of murder, or to cause harm or injury to others.
Note that felons who are denied firearms have had Due Process (their trial).
You can certainly deny the mentally ill the right to bear arms, provided there is Due Process. It would be incumbent on the State to prove that an individual is unfit to bear arms, through a preponderance of the evidence.
Exactly. Because that's not "nice" to talk about. Instead we let the violently mentally ill continue to slaughter innocent people. While using the dead as an excuse to disarm gun owners.
I guess freedom of press doesn't apply to radio, television or the Internet, cars do not require warrants for searching, etc.
The founders would be up in arms if they ever became aware of how "shall not be infringed" has been misconstrued to almost any type of regulation goes.
Honestly, our founders knew nothing about the future when they wrote the constitution. How would they know that there would be cars, planes, phones, internet....etc. Life was much more simple then. I think they are rolling over in their graves in how we have abused their meaning.
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.
