+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 3 of 17 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 167

Thread: Should mentally disturbed people be able to buy guns?

  1. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kode View Post
    So you're ok with buying across state lines to get around laws.



    Good point. So you're saying we need more and better gun laws to cover these things. I agree. I think the determination of mental illness is covered though.
    Buying guns across state lines is already illegal. And if you want to remove somebody's 2A rights, we already have a process for that.
    My dog Sam eats purple flowers.....

  2. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kode View Post
    What is wrong with them?!!! Seriously mentally disturbed people should be able to buy firearms?? REALLY??

    What's going on here? Why would Congress do such an obviously stupid thing?
    I don't recall. Do you own a gun?
    Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.

  3. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kode View Post
    Does the name "Dylann Root" mean anything to you?
    Almost.

    The problem is you've provided no real basis for debate.

    Saying "why do people want the mentally ill to own guns" is like saying "when did you stop beating your wife"?

    Of course, maybe that's the intention.

  4. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by popopolitics View Post
    I wish mentally ill people could not buy guns, but what is the definition of mentally ill? This would open up thousands of law suits if Americans were denied a purchase of a gun because someone determined they were mentally ill. Nobody wants to see crazy people purchase guns, and a lot of murders have been committed by mentally ill folks. I don't think either party will ever be able to agree on any type of gun control. On that same note, even though I believe in the 2nd Amendment, I think assault weapons should be banned. IMO,the only people who feel they need them are these survivalist end of the world doomsday vigilantes and of course the preferred weapon of choice for CRIMINALS AND DRUG DEALERS and TERRORISTS. The only people who should have them are law enforcement and military personnel. I know I will get attacked for making this statement, but I am a Republican and pretty much support everything on the right, but I like many others on both sides have serious concerns about this particular issue.
    An ar15 is used by most if not all law enforcement personnel. It is considered a defensive weapon. Why does the name change to assault when I own it? And why am I not entitled the same choice of weapon as law enforcement? There isn't a cop alive whose life is more important than mine.
    My dog Sam eats purple flowers.....

  5. Likes DOconTEX, EggKiller liked this post
  6. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HonestJoe View Post
    You’d have done better linking some relevant report of information about the legislation you’re referring to so you didn’t get as many uninformed responses.

    In general though, I don’t think the objections are about wanting the mentally ill to have firearms but about not believing the proposed system is the right one for determining who’s rights should be restricted.
    Then the right way is to develop better laws and repeal what doesn't work if necessary to let the new laws work. Repealiong this mental illness restriction withy nothing better to replace it is obviously wrong.
    "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

  7. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by popopolitics View Post
    I wish mentally ill people could not buy guns, but what is the definition of mentally ill? This would open up thousands of law suits if Americans were denied a purchase of a gun because someone determined they were mentally ill. Nobody wants to see crazy people purchase guns, and a lot of murders have been committed by mentally ill folks. I don't think either party will ever be able to agree on any type of gun control. On that same note, even though I believe in the 2nd Amendment, I think assault weapons should be banned. IMO,the only people who feel they need them are these survivalist end of the world doomsday vigilantes and of course the preferred weapon of choice for CRIMINALS AND DRUG DEALERS and TERRORISTS. The only people who should have them are law enforcement and military personnel. I know I will get attacked for making this statement, but I am a Republican and pretty much support everything on the right, but I like many others on both sides have serious concerns about this particular issue.
    We've already seen what they try to do with the label of "mentally ill".

    Most recently they decided if someone else is handing your finances, you're "mentally ill" and should lose your 2A rights.

    We seem to have a lot of insane "journalists" running around. Let's classify them as "working for terrible organizations" and strip their 1A rights.

    There's no difference between the two.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Kode View Post
    Then the right way is to develop better laws and repeal what doesn't work if necessary to let the new laws work. Repealiong this mental illness restriction withy nothing better to replace it is obviously wrong.
    Mental health notes are perhaps the most heavily protected health records under HIPPA.

    The reason these records do not get entered into NICS is because of HIPPA. Go argue with Bill Clinton on it.

  8. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YouLie View Post
    Congress is not allowing "seriously mentally disturbed" people to buy firearms.

    Obama used the social security administration to try to identify people who may not be fit to own guns. It was a bad order for many reasons. First, it didn't involve Congress. Second, the social security administration has nothing to do with public safety or firearms restrictions. Third, it affect mostly old people, many of whom are perfectly capable of responsible gun ownership, but the social security administration has someone else doing their finances to protect them, because they're old and vulnerable. Don't you want old people to be able to protect themselves in their homes? I sure do.
    You left out the biggest reason of all.

    That law allowed the SSA to discriminate against someones protected rights based on, of all things, having someone else manage your finances.

    That's how they lie and go after our rights, under the guise of "hi I'm from the government and I'm here to save lives".

  9. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YouLie View Post
    Congress is not allowing "seriously mentally disturbed" people to buy firearms.

    Obama used the social security administration to try to identify people who may not be fit to own guns. It was a bad order for many reasons. First, it didn't involve Congress. Second, the social security administration has nothing to do with public safety or firearms restrictions.
    Not so. Those who have been identified as mentally ill receive disability payments from Social Security. They are clearly enough mentally ill as to qualify for such payments. So that is an ideal way of identifying them for gun restrictions. If they are unjustly deprived, they can appeal it. http://www.latimes.com/nation/politi...718-story.html



    Third, it affect mostly old people, many of whom are perfectly capable of responsible gun ownership, but the social security administration has someone else doing their finances to protect them, because they're old and vulnerable. Don't you want old people to be able to protect themselves in their homes? I sure do.
    Wrong again. It's not about old people. See the above.

    - - - Updated - - -

    The Obama reform identifies mentally ill people as those receiving federal disability payments for mental disability.
    "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

  10. #29
    usa
    Location: Born in L.A. - NYC is Second Home - Rustbelt is Home Base
    Posts: 1,071

    Default

    Nope, if you got mental problems bad enuf to be on record...no guns for you other than a CA legal BB gun

  11. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steady Pie View Post
    Congress should have nothing to do with it. If New York wants to enact a law banning all firearms so be it. Same goes for banning the mentally ill.

    I would say however that it's the enforcement of laws like these which is the issue: who determines if you are mentally ill? What happens in a private sale? Etc.
    New York cannot make any such law because the 14th amendment extended the restrictions on the Federal government found in the Bill of Rights to the states.
    sputterman: "Aiding the enemy? If the truth aids the enemy then we are in the wrong war."

    Me: "When the people who teach our children, protect us from fires and criminals, save our lives when we're injured, and defend us with their very lives make less in a year than a guy who throws a ball for a living makes in an hour, there is something truly (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up with our country."

+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 3 of 17 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 41
    Last Post: Dec 15 2015, 01:23 AM
  2. Replies: 40
    Last Post: Nov 17 2014, 04:06 AM
  3. Should marijuana users be able to buy guns?
    By Hairball in forum Opinion POLLS
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: May 28 2013, 08:35 PM
  4. Replies: 46
    Last Post: Nov 07 2012, 05:22 AM
  5. AQ: American Muslims Should Buy Guns, Start Shooting People
    By DonGlock26 in forum Current Events
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: Jun 28 2012, 01:14 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks