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.
A lot of people think that those with PTSD from being raped or some other traumatic event shouldn't be allowed the power to defend themselves.
Indeed, some feel thus. I honestly have to wonder who it is they feel should be given the power to determine what constitutes disqualifying criteria in "mental impairment". What, exactly, is a "mental illness"? This has come up before. "Keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill." To the minds of the anti firearms crowd, going through a bad divorce and being given anti depressants or anti anxiety medication so you can get some sleep is enough to deny someone their right to a firearm.
PTSD has come up a lot. That describes a VERY wide range of things. So if someone has nightmares because of some traumatic event, or has heightened anxiety in certain situations that trigger bad memories and such, then they are "mentally ill" and should be denied their 2a rights? When we think of mental illness as it applies to having a gun we think of psychotic conditions where one is disassociated with reality, has hallucinations and/or fits of rage etc. However the anti gunners would have us just buy off on the broad term of "mental illness' as being a catch all.
Oh, they would love that. One big brush and they have banned firearms from a large number of people. There was even talk of requiring doctors to report prescribing medication such as antidepressants to people for that specific purpose. These leftist loons are willing to go to extreme lengths it seems.
The NRA has a good Link to the actual Federal Register Final action as opposed to your original post, so you are correct but this has been going on for more than a year.
If you read through the wording it isn't a blanket statement for those receiving social security and they offer relief from prohibition, I don't see any problem with addressing mental illness.
Indeed, some feel thus. I honestly have to wonder who it is they feel should be given the power to determine what constitutes disqualifying criteria in "mental impairment". What, exactly, is a "mental illness"? This has come up before. "Keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill." To the minds of the anti firearms crowd, going through a bad divorce and being given anti depressants or anti anxiety medication so you can get some sleep is enough to deny someone their right to a firearm.
PTSD has come up a lot. That describes a VERY wide range of things. So if someone has nightmares because of some traumatic event, or has heightened anxiety in certain situations that trigger bad memories and such, then they are "mentally ill" and should be denied their 2a rights? When we think of mental illness as it applies to having a gun we think of psychotic conditions where one is disassociated with reality, has hallucinations and/or fits of rage etc. However the anti gunners would have us just buy off on the broad term of "mental illness' as being a catch all.
Oh, they would love that. One big brush and they have banned firearms from a large number of people. There was even talk of requiring doctors to report prescribing medication such as antidepressants to people for that specific purpose. These leftist loons are willing to go to extreme lengths it seems.
We do know that mentally ill people have acquired guns in the past, I will leave the definition up to others but we should take a conservative approach to who can own a gun. If there is a remote possibility that they can do harm to others they shouldn't own a gun. PTSD is a good example, the VA has deemed certain veterans that are mentally incompetent be prohibited from owning a gun.
We do know that mentally ill people have acquired guns in the past, I will leave the definition up to others but we should take a conservative approach to who can own a gun. If there is a remote possibility that they can do harm to others they shouldn't own a gun. PTSD is a good example, the VA has deemed certain veterans that are mentally incompetent be prohibited from owning a gun.
No they haven't. They can't. We do NOT remove rights because we think someone might abuse them in the future.
No they haven't. They can't. We do NOT remove rights because we think someone might abuse them in the future.
Then we have no easy solution for addressing mentally ill people, a choice between removing the right to own a gun from somone that might be mentally ill is an easy decision for me, it makes a lot of sense. We have many examples of people that flew under the mental illness radar, we should be more stringent in our approach.
Then we have no easy solution for addressing mentally ill people, a choice between removing the right to own a gun from somone that might be mentally ill is an easy decision for me, it makes a lot of sense. We have many examples of people that flew under the mental illness radar, we should be more stringent in our approach.
I am not against it as a general idea BUT we refuse to have to discussion about how to do it properly. The courts could possibly remove the rights from someone through due process that is shown to be mentally ill but it's going to have to be a court order.
So now if you are receiving Social Security payments and have your child handling your finances, you no longer can own a gun. Thanks Obama for screwing the little people again.
BTW, when is the last time an 80 year old who is too feeble to handle their own finances went out and shot up a theatre?
-----------------
Seeking tighter controls over firearm purchases, the Obama administration is pushing to ban Social Security beneficiaries from owning guns if they lack the mental capacity to manage their own affairs, a move that could affect millions whose monthly disability payments are handled by others.
Actually we do. Anyone who ever had a PFA filed against them faced just what you are saying. No evidence, no trial, just a complaint.
Yes, they would face that AFTER due process.
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.
These leftist loons are willing to go to extreme lengths it seems.
