Should mentally disturbed people be able to buy guns?

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Kode, Feb 16, 2017.

  1. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,670
    Likes Received:
    3,709
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The same process already does apply. You can't bring a firearm to an involuntary committal.

    I'm quite sure the suggestion here is that if you have a condition in the dsm you pose a danger to society and that is not true. In fact as my link shows, your more likely to be a victim of violent crime.

    Is the goal really to make a vulnerable population even more vulnerable? Are you afraid that the guy with an extra chromosome down the street might shoot you for harmlessly bullying him?
     
  2. Vegas giants

    Vegas giants Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    49,909
    Likes Received:
    5,343
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Suicide is the highest cause of gun deaths in this country. We could save lives if we removed guns from clinically depressed people until they are stable. A psychiatrist should make this call
     
  3. Vegas giants

    Vegas giants Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    49,909
    Likes Received:
    5,343
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Also allowing a person that has paranoid delusions that people are trying to kill him have a gun is ridiculous. But we allow that in the usa
     
  4. Daggdag

    Daggdag Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2010
    Messages:
    15,668
    Likes Received:
    1,957
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    '


    Well seeing as they just repealed a law that does nothing but prohibited people who have been deemed mentally unstable with violent tendencies by a license Phsychogist, from buying or owning guns, I can't think of anything except that they simply want guns in the hands of crazy people.

    If they had their way, Adam Lanza wouldn't have needed to steal his mom's guns to go kill those kids at Sandy Brook. He would have been able to own his own with no issues at all.
     
  5. Cherub786

    Cherub786 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2017
    Messages:
    315
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    18
    One of the principles of a free society with true liberty is minimum legislation as possible. The more laws there are the less freedom for individual citizens. If you outlaw mentally ill people from purchasing guns, will you outlaw them from buying matches and gasoline? The latter can cause considerable more harm than the former.
     
  6. Vegas giants

    Vegas giants Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    49,909
    Likes Received:
    5,343
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No just guns. There are not a high number of suicides with gas and matches
     
  7. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,370
    Likes Received:
    9,297
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The NRA owns them and tells them what to do.....the real question should be why does the NRA think it's a good idea?
     
  8. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    LOL, typical left wing authoritarianism. Banning guns from people that have not been deemed mentally ill. In case you missed it we normally believe in innocent until proven guilty. It is an essential building block of a free society. Your rant has nothing to do with the NEW Obama EO.
     
  9. Vegas giants

    Vegas giants Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    49,909
    Likes Received:
    5,343
    Trophy Points:
    113
    But let's ban them for people that are mentally ill
     
  10. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Already law.
     
  11. Vegas giants

    Vegas giants Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    49,909
    Likes Received:
    5,343
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They need to be added to the background check system
     
  12. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Already law. If your state is not reporting them then contact your representatives.
     
  13. Vegas giants

    Vegas giants Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    49,909
    Likes Received:
    5,343
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Mental health professionals should be able to add them. They have the right to determine who is mentally ill and who is not
     
  14. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Demonstrate the actual proof of your claim.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Perhaps because the effort to prohibit legal firearms ownership amongst those who receive social security benefits is devoid of anything resembling due process, and did not go through congress?
     
  15. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Already law. See above.
     
  16. glloydd95

    glloydd95 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    Messages:
    1,919
    Likes Received:
    424
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Not only should the mentally ill be allowed to purchase firearms, they should be given heavily discounted ammo. Odds are that being mentally ill, they probably don't have good jobs. It could probably be income tax based. Anyone mentally ill and under a certain income level should be able to carry a subsidized ammo discount card. If they are far enough under the poverty line, it should be free.
     
  17. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,370
    Likes Received:
    9,297
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Perhaps eliminating the "Mentally Ill" aspect and focusing instead on the SS part is a completely disingenuous dodge of the actual thread topic made by an individual with no logical or competent position to express.
     
  18. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Since the laws already exist that brings the SS issue to the front since that is the vehicle the previous administration used to automatically ban people from owning guns.
     
  19. Scampi

    Scampi Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2016
    Messages:
    829
    Likes Received:
    202
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Whether they wrote the laws down on a particular piece of paper or not isn’t the point, you simply can’t drag one right from the past when conditions were far different than those that exist today.
    At the least armed militias made some sense then considering that the continental army was disbanded in 1783 but the borders of the colonies were still under threat.
    In short, the 2nd amendment was made to engage with the events for that time and to argue that they are as true today is ludicrous. Comparing the weapons then with those that are available today is akin to comparing a horse and cart to a F1 Grand Pre car.

    If you are prepared to live with the consequences of living with more than three deaths each hour and every hour as a price of arming civilians including the mentally impaired, then you’re the ones that have to live with that decision.
     
  20. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,370
    Likes Received:
    9,297
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Actually they used social security as the means of tracking Mentally Ill individuals in order to prevent them from obtaining guns. You are attempting to do the same thing he did because you cannot defend it either.

    How's this:

    Do you think its a good idea to give a gun to a crazy person?
     
  21. Scampi

    Scampi Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2016
    Messages:
    829
    Likes Received:
    202
    Trophy Points:
    43
    So what are you suggesting, to let them out of the asylum and hand them a gun?
    I don’t think that the law that is under discussion doesn’t include the inmates of mental asylums.

    Oh and spare us that old NRA mantra, i.e. cars can kill so why don’t we ban cars?
    Because cars are essential to civilian life and guns are most decidedly not.
     
  22. Scampi

    Scampi Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2016
    Messages:
    829
    Likes Received:
    202
    Trophy Points:
    43
    That’s easy friend, the profit motive, it dominates every piece of propaganda they hand out. Their answers to the deaths of small children at Sandy Hook was to buy more guns which perfectly illustrates that their not concerned with the carnage, injury and death caused by their products.
     
  23. perdidochas

    perdidochas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    27,293
    Likes Received:
    4,346
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Nobody is suggesting giving people that come out of an asylum a gun. Stop the hyperbole, it does nothing to advance your argument. It's just a strawman, and that's a weak form of argument.

    I'm 100% for not letting people that have been committed to mental hospitals get guns. That's not the issue. The issue is whether we allow the decision to ban people from having guns (or other rights) to be made by Social Security bureaucrats without due process (i.e. a court hearing that allows the person that is about to lose rights, the chance to have a say with a lawyer, etc.). If you want to take any right away from somebody, it has to be done by due process. Review the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

    Amendment V

    No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


    Amendment XIV
    Section 1.

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
     
  24. Homer J Thompson

    Homer J Thompson Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2016
    Messages:
    2,583
    Likes Received:
    1,901
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I guess it's unconstitutional to stop democrats from buying guns.
     
  25. perdidochas

    perdidochas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    27,293
    Likes Received:
    4,346
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    First, the NRA as an organization didn't buy guns.
    Second, it was people, i.e. fellow citizens, who bought guns, and it was because of a fear that gun restrictions would be put in place. It's a natural human reaction to a perceived future loss of resources.
     

Share This Page