Jump to content

looser rules for the mentally ill to carry firearms. p


Recommended Posts

  • Platinum Contributing Member

You think this was fair?

The Obama administration policy "would have required the Social Security Administration to report the records of some mentally ill beneficiaries to the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System," 

As we have reported, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, a leading supporter of the rule's repeal, has stated that "if a specific individual is likely to be violent due to the nature of their mental illness, then the government should have to prove it."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
17 minutes ago, Zambroski said:

Spiner,  you gonna add any substance to this thread or is this a libtard tourettes post?

Image result for tourettes guy gif dairy queen

Got to love the left.   We need to expand mental health coverage and care as well as take their rights away without due process.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
3 minutes ago, Kivalo said:

Innocent until proven guilty is something we cannot let the government forget or bypass. 

Sad, fight for our country so we can strip your constitutional rights from you.

http://www.guns.com/2016/03/25/lawmakers-want-answers-why-va-stripped-260k-vets-of-gun-rights/

Two Senate Republicans are seeking to understand the Veterans Affairs office practice of reporting veterans to the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check system.

Currently a veterans assigned a fiduciary trustee to act on their behalf is automatically declared “mentally defective” and is reported to NICS, the database Federal Firearms Licensees use to determine whether a prospective buyer is eligible to buy guns. As of December 2015, the VA has reported 260,381 individuals to the FBI, effectively making them prohibited firearms possessors under the law.

U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley, an Iowa lawmaker who is currently the Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman, finds this unacceptable.

“Our military heroes risked their lives to protect and defend this country and all that we stand for, including our most basic constitutional rights,” said Grassley in a statement. “Now the very agency created to serve them is jeopardizing their Second Amendment rights through an erroneous reading of gun regulations. The VA’s careless approach to our veterans’ constitutional rights is disgraceful.”

In an effort to fix the issue, Grassley, along with Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee Chairman Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., penned a letter to VA Secretary Robert McDonald last week and another to the subcommittee over the agency’s funding, questioning the practice.

Making a due process argument, the lawmakers argue the VA uses the fiduciary trustee status of a veteran to regulate firearms possession without ever seeking to find out if the service member is a danger to themselves or others.

“The use of the VA regulation, adopted for a totally unrelated purpose, is suspect, especially in light of the Supreme Court holding that the Second Amendment is a fundamental right,” reads the letter to McDonald. “That holding changed the legal calculus by which a regulatory scheme can survive constitutional scrutiny and it is not clear how these regulations would fare under that increased scrutiny.”

Demanding answers, the senators want the VA to explain the process which now supplies over 99 percent of the individuals reported as being “mentally defective” to NICS and how they satisfy the constitutional argument.

A similar standard has been proposed by the Social Security Administration to strip gun rights from as many as 75,000 beneficiaries per year according to figures released by the White House in January.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since there is no link..........What is the Criteria for being mentally ill?

If someone is feeling sad and they go to the doctor should they lose their right to own a gun?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
Just now, Snoslinger said:

prior to trump, most everyone, including highmark if I recall, was OK with preventions to stop mentally impaired people from getting guns. what would be a good way to do that?

I've always stated that taking away anyone's rights without due process is wrong.  I brought up the PTSD argument often.  I've also said that mental health is suppose to be a treatable disease and that if you are put on some list then it would be virtually impossible to get off.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Highmark said:

I've always stated that taking away anyone's rights without due process is wrong.  I brought up the PTSD argument often.  I've also said that mental health is suppose to be a treatable disease and that if you are put on some list then it would be virtually impossible to get off.   

so what do you recommend?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Highmark said:

You think this was fair?

The Obama administration policy "would have required the Social Security Administration to report the records of some mentally ill beneficiaries to the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System," 

As we have reported, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, a leading supporter of the rule's repeal, has stated that "if a specific individual is likely to be violent due to the nature of their mental illness, then the government should have to prove it."

Absolutely. Anyone getting treated for mental illness should be identified and not be able to buy. Cops should immediately go and seize any guns they currently have as well. :news:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
Just now, Snoslinger said:

so what do you recommend?

That we follow the constitution.   Its been upheld by the courts that you cannot own a firearm after committing a felony.  We got a lot of gun violence in the country and I'd be willing to bet a high % are committed by people without mental health issues.  If we take away peoples rights without due process because of mental health it will just make fewer people willing to seek treatment.  

 Yet surprisingly little population-level evidence supports the notion that individuals diagnosed with mental illness are more likely than anyone else to commit gun crimes. According to Appelbaum,25 less than 3% to 5% of US crimes involve people with mental illness, and the percentages of crimes that involve guns are lower than the national average for persons not diagnosed with mental illness. Databases that track gun homicides, such as the National Center for Health Statistics, similarly show that fewer than 5% of the 120 000 gun-related killings in the United States between 2001 and 2010 were perpetrated by people diagnosed with mental illness.26

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4318286/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
7 minutes ago, Angry ginger said:

Absolutely. Anyone getting treated for mental illness should be identified and not be able to buy. Cops should immediately go and seize any guns they currently have as well. :news:

 

There is no evidence people with mental health issues are more likely to commit crimes with guns.  I think too many American's jump to conclusions about mental health issues without knowing the facts.  Thank the liberals and MSM for that.  

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/most-mass-shooters-arent-mentally-ill-so-why-push-better-treatment-as-the-answer/2016/05/17/70034918-1308-11e6-8967-7ac733c56f12_story.html?utm_term=.0862940f711e

“It would be ridiculous to hope that doing something about the mental-health system will stop these mass murders,” said Michael Stone, a forensic psychiatrist at the Columbia College of Physicians and Surgeons and author of “The Anatomy of Evil,” which examines the personalities of brutal killers. “It’s really folly.”

Stone maintains a database of more than 300 killers, most of them shooters of four or more people. He essentially breaks mental illness into two categories. In the first category are those with schizophrenia, delusions and other psychoses that separate them from reality and who are suffering from serious mental illness and could be helped with medical treatment. In the second are those with personality, antisocial or sociopathic disorders who may exhibit paranoia, callousness or a severe lack of empathy but know exactly what they are doing.

In a paper published last year, Stone found that just about 2 out of 10 mass killers were suffering from serious mental illness. The rest had personality or antisocial disorders or were disgruntled, jilted, humiliated or full of intense rage. They were unlikely to be identified or helped by the mental-health system, reformed or not.

Edited by Highmark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Highmark said:

Got to love the left.   We need to expand mental health coverage and care as well as take their rights away without due process.  

I think the Nazi's fell along this line somewhere.  "It's for their own good."

49 minutes ago, Cold War said:

Since there is no link..........What is the Criteria for being mentally ill?

If someone is feeling sad and they go to the doctor should they lose their right to own a gun?

That's the rub.  What is the criteria?  Who decides?  If you looked at everyone on this forum...who would you feel comfortable with owning a gun?  Who would you think absolutely needs to own one?  

45 minutes ago, Snoslinger said:

so what do you recommend?

Again, what would you consider the point at which a persons rights should be revolked?  What particular action would it take?  What words?  Threats?

40 minutes ago, Angry ginger said:

Absolutely. Anyone getting treated for mental illness should be identified and not be able to buy. Cops should immediately go and seize any guns they currently have as well. :news:

 

I can't tell if some of you posts are "real" or not.  So, assuming this is "real", anybody seeking any help for any mental conditions should have their rights AND property taken away?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
6 minutes ago, Zambroski said:

I think the Nazi's fell along this line somewhere.  "It's for their own good."

That's the rub.  What is the criteria?  Who decides?  If you looked at everyone on this forum...who would you feel comfortable with owning a gun?  Who would you think absolutely needs to own one?  

Again, what would you consider the point at which a persons rights should be revolked?  What particular action would it take?  What words?  Threats?

I can't tell if some of you posts are "real" or not.  So, assuming this is "real", anybody seeking any help for any mental conditions should have their rights AND property taken away?

There's probably way more of a link between drugs/alcohol use and gun violence than mental illness.   Lets see how people would react if you had ANY (non felony) drug or alcohol related offenses as a reason to take your guns away.  The facts simply don't back up a severe link between mental illness and gun violence.  

Edited by Highmark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Highmark said:

There's probably way more of a link between drugs/alcohol use and gun violence than mental illness.   Lets see how people would react if you had ANY (non felony) drug or alcohol related offenses as a reason to take your guns away.

So that would lead to any offense at all loosing Constitutional rights.  Get drunk up and shoot up your neighbors house...loose your guns and rights to buy them.  Do a U-turn in the wrong place..same.  

It's a tough nut for sure.  But if I had to choose a place to start, I'd say proof of intent to use a firearm in a felonious manner.  But to get proof of that, it violates other rights and let's face it, would be highly discriminatory.  Muslims and blacks getting the short end of that stick.  And well, that "end" could possibly be justifiably argued,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Zambroski said:

I think the Nazi's fell along this line somewhere.  "It's for their own good."

That's the rub.  What is the criteria?  Who decides?  If you looked at everyone on this forum...who would you feel comfortable with owning a gun?  Who would you think absolutely needs to own one?  

Again, what would you consider the point at which a persons rights should be revolked?  What particular action would it take?  What words?  Threats?

I can't tell if some of you posts are "real" or not.  So, assuming this is "real", anybody seeking any help for any mental conditions should have their rights AND property taken away?

Pretty sure if you went to the shrink and told him you thought everyone should be killed based on, age group, voting republican*, or occupation............You might lose your guns. :lol: 

* original poster

Funny how fast people will give away their rights if you explain it to them in a "partisan manner"  eg.  Obama thinks this is a good idea or Republicans are against this.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Zambroski said:

I think the Nazi's fell along this line somewhere.  "It's for their own good."

That's the rub.  What is the criteria?  Who decides?  If you looked at everyone on this forum...who would you feel comfortable with owning a gun?  Who would you think absolutely needs to own one?  

Again, what would you consider the point at which a persons rights should be revolked?  What particular action would it take?  What words?  Threats?

I can't tell if some of you posts are "real" or not.  So, assuming this is "real", anybody seeking any help for any mental conditions should have their rights AND property taken away?

Can gingers even be 'real'? I'm thinking no. But they can be lummoxes. :news:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
18 minutes ago, Zambroski said:

So that would lead to any offense at all loosing Constitutional rights.  Get drunk up and shoot up your neighbors house...loose your guns and rights to buy them.  Do a U-turn in the wrong place..same.  

It's a tough nut for sure.  But if I had to choose a place to start, I'd say proof of intent to use a firearm in a felonious manner.  But to get proof of that, it violates other rights and let's face it, would be highly discriminatory.  Muslims and blacks getting the short end of that stick.  And well, that "end" could possibly be justifiably argued,

Slippery slope for sure and the burden of proof would need to be extremely high.   Keep in mind people say stupid things all the time and don't always mean they are dangerous to others.

Our current system is not perfect by any means but I will always error on the rights of people to be upheld.  When laws are put in place that infringe upon our rights they seem to only grow and expand.   Very rare does it go the other way.  

Why is it we are so hell bent at taking gun rights away from the mentally ill when there is no distinct link between it and violent crime except maybe the extremely mentally ill and I would argue if they should even be free in society period.

Seems to me a high percentage of mass shootings at the workplace are disgruntled employees.   Should we automatically go in and take the guns from people who have been fired?   Probably "stop" more mass shootings that way than any but highly unconstitutional.  

Edited by Highmark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Cold War said:

Pretty sure if you went to the shrink and told him you thought everyone should be killed based on, age group, voting republican*, or occupation............You might lose your guns. :lol: 

* original poster

Funny how fast people will give away their rights if you explain it to them in a "partisan manner"  eg.  Obama thinks this is a good idea or Republicans are against this.

 

Yep.  It's an "us against them" mentality.  And it really doesn't matter the subject:  Any and all ideas now meet an opposition party whose job it is just to be the opposition.  And the sheeple abide by their party's nightly broadcast opposition and talking points.

Side:  I read a nice article on how much time Maddow (and other "news"), was spending connecting the dots on the whole "Russia!" thing......it was ridiculously funny.  Meanwhile....apparently nothing else is happening that matters.  Oops.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Highmark said:

Slippery slope for sure and the burden of proof would need to be extremely high.   Keep in mind people say stupid things all the time and don't always mean they are dangerous to others.

Our current system is not perfect by any means but I will always error on the rights of people to be upheld.  When laws are put in place that infringe upon our rights they seem to only grow and expand.   Very rare does it go the other way.  

Why is it we are so hell bent at taking gun rights away from the mentally ill when there is no distinct link between it and violent crime.

1st bold:  Yep.  The only way it does "go the other way" is if there isn't enough enforcement.  A big and all powerful (overpowering) government is how this gets enforced and stays enforced with the help of agents from the state screaming "racist" anytime they don't see compliance.  Hmmmmmm................................

2nd: It's a really great term to expand and "broad brush" everybody down the road. Because nobody in their "right mind" would want anybody that is "mentally ill" to have firearms.  AMIRITE? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kivalo said:

Innocent until proven guilty is something we cannot let the government forget or bypass. 

This is kinda what I was touching on in the bootlicker thread. They are slowly gnawing away at the 2nd amendment. More and more hoops to jump thru. They know they cant repeal it so they are just going to make it as difficult as possible. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
6 minutes ago, Zambroski said:

1st bold:  Yep.  The only way it does "go the other way" is if there isn't enough enforcement.  A big and all powerful (overpowering) government is how this gets enforced and stays enforced with the help of agents from the state screaming "racist" anytime they don't see compliance.  Hmmmmmm................................

2nd: It's a really great term to expand and "broad brush" everybody down the road. Because nobody in their "right mind" would want anybody that is "mentally ill" to have firearms.  AMIRITE? 

Yep as soon as gun restrictions are tied to mental health watch the diagnosis of the mentally ill expand and expand.   Before you know it everyone is mentally ill in one way or another.  Even right now you better be god damn careful what you say to a doctor.  Next they will want to take your guns if someone in your bloodline (mother, father, aunt, uncle) has mental health issues.  

Edited by Highmark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Trying to pay the bills, lol

×
×
  • Create New...