Posted on 01/15/2013 7:01:58 AM PST by Conservaliberty
Gun control alone will not solve the complex problem of guns and extreme violence. We have an access problem. The mentally ill should never have access to guns.
Eight of the nine killers in mass shootings in the United States in 2012 had a history of mental illness or suffered from untreated mental illness. Their families, friends, classmates, teachers or coworkers knew something was wrong.
The mass murders (defined by the FBI as four or more murders during one incident) occurred across the country -- including one right here in Minneapolis -- and targeted schools, movie theaters, stores, religious facilities and businesses, leaving 72 dead and 74 wounded. Two of the killers used assault rifles, but seven used handguns. And seven of the nine had access to legally purchased guns.
Many have called for a ban on military-style weapons, large ammunition magazines and more. The nation should consider a comprehensive federal policy.
But gun control alone will not solve the complex problem of guns and extreme violence. We have an access problem. The mentally ill should never have access to guns.
Federal law already prohibits high-risk individuals from buying guns -- persons determined by a court to be "mentally ill and dangerous," felons, drug addicts, fugitives, illegal aliens, dishonorably discharged soldiers, those who have renounced U.S. citizenship, and domestic abusers all are disqualified from gun ownership. The National Criminal Instant Background Check System (NICS) assists law enforcement in identifying the disqualified.
(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...
Any validity to the article??
If true then we need to get after Congress to revisit that disability law and tighten it up, IMO.
Nope, not a joke, though I assume you forgot your /s tag. :) I am bipolar and I have a right to own a firearm. I am not a threat to myself or others.
No, they don’t, any more than the blind have a right to be bus drivers.
I am mentally ill. I have a diagnosis of bipolar. I work in a public place, own a car, and interact with people on a daily basis with no problems whatever. People with mental illnesses should not be segregated unless they are a threat to themselves or others, in which case they need to be hospitalized or locked up (such as for violent criminals).
I am sure I will be called over-sensitive, but of course I am sensitive to something that threatens my constitutional rights.
There is nothing valid in denying constitional rights under a blanket “you’re mentally ill” statement.
As I said in my comment, I am not a second class citizen. I am intelligent, hardworking, have a college degree which I earned all by myself, am poor enough to accept welfare but don’t because I want to stand on my own two feet.
I should not be denied the right to own a gun because I have a few neurotransmitters missing.
Sorry, I disagree.
Thank you, newheart. I appreciate your comments. Bipolar is largely considered to be one of the more dangerous and unpredictable disorders—but I have known enough of them to know that it doesn’t automatically mean you are a killer. And I am managing my illness very well.
Also, there are plenty of non-violent schizophrenics. Non-violent paranoid schizophrenics. Mainstream media paints mentally ill people as these horrible criminals, but that’s not the case for all of them. Just like a lot of ‘normal’ people commit crimes, so do a lot of mentally ill.
Thanks again for your thoughts, I appreciate them. Because that is exactly the slippery slope such a registry would create.
No, they don’t, any more than the blind have a right to be bus drivers.
—
Comparing a bipolar person with a gun to a blind bus driver is a ridiculous thing to say. First of all, being a bus driver requires being able to see. Being a gun owner requires the ability to shoot straight and make good moral judgements. Are you saying that bipolar people cannot make good moral judgements?
I go to church. I am a faithful Christian. I work hard and I would NEVER shoot a person unless they were breaking into my house or trying to kill me. I am an American citizen.
The constitution does not say I have a right to drive a bus. It says I have a right to bear arms.
Do I not have a right to own a firearm because I am bipolar? Answer me.
So...you disaggree that that I am not a threat to myself or others? LOL. You don’t even know me. You know nothing about my life, what I’ve been through.
I have a right to own a gun, just like you. This is America. I am not a second class citizen.
Well, I certainly qualify on that count as do many other conservative Christians.
By the way, I do own a gun. Don’t worry, I won’t be committing any mass murders. You are perfectly safe. :)
Already the adamant tone of your posting is telling.
In my state, at this time, the answer to that would largely depend upon whether you or I were involuntarily committed for inpatient mental health treatment for a certain period of time, or came under an order for involuntary outpatient treatment (and either of these is not signed casually and is not based on a diagnosis -- only the threat to harm oneself or others or based on gross disability). Even if the above has transpired, on release or after completion of the treatment program the individual can petition the court for restoration of possession rights.
A diagnosis -- any diagnosis -- in itself is not grounds for termination of possession rights in this state.
What do you mean ‘near’ ?? 100 years?
When I mean near I mean they think today or tomorrow. They give up their property if they have any. Like their photo albums. .
Most people seem to spend and save like that is true.
I’m sorry, but you are wrong. Nobody, blind or sighted, has an inherent right to be a bus driver, but everyone has an inherent right to keep and bear arms. Comparing apples to oranges will only confuse the matter.
How about comparing two similarly inherent, personal rights? The mental ill have as much right to bear arms as stupid people have a right to free speech. That’s a much better comparison.
Already the adamant tone of your posting is telling.
Oh, puh-lease.
In our society, through due process of law, a person can lose their rights only through punishment administered for the commission of a crime, or if they have already demonstrated that they are a danger to themselves or others.
There are people like the original poster who believe that people should be judged by what they do.
And then there are people like you who believe people should have their rights removed because of what they COULD do rather than what they have DONE. We call this second class of people "tyrants." I have no mental health issues, but I still want to slap you around a little. How's that for adamant tone? Her response was not due to her condition, but due to the fact that tyrants provoke ire in all freedom-loving people.
A very flawed comparison. Speech is not lethal. A stupid person’s verbal outbursts can’t maim, cripple or kill anyone. A mentally unstable person with a weapon is a tragedy waiting to happen.
On the other hand, schizophrenia, paranoia and dementia do exist. People who have aural hallucinations and push strangers into the path of oncoming subways do exist. Do you want someone guided by “voices” to be armed?
Truly sorry, but I don’t agree with your basic premise. I am sure you are a terrific person, but I don’t buy the “it’s all physical” line about what is now called bi-polar disorder.
“A very flawed comparison. Speech is not lethal.”
The comparison has nothing to do with lethality, you are confusing the issue. Speech and bearing arms are both inherent rights, meaning they are inalienable.
“A stupid person’s verbal outbursts can’t maim, cripple or kill anyone.”
Actually, they can. Yelling “fire” in a crowded theater is a classic example. However, that’s beside the point and quite irrelevant to the question of whether they have the right to begin with, and if/how it can be limited.
“A mentally unstable person with a weapon is a tragedy waiting to happen.”
That’s nonsense. First of all, who defines “mentally unstable”? Under some definitions, everyone on the planet is mentally unstable. Secondly, you are not a fortune teller, and therefore, you don’t have any authority to make pronouncements about what tragedies will unfold in the future.
Anyway, none of your points even attempt to address the real issue, which is that the right to bear arms is an inherent personal right, and not one which you, or anyone else, is in any position to remove from others. In fact, even if you managed to get a law passed, or the Constitution amended, it would have no affect on whether mentally ill people have the right to bear arms, because that right is inalienable, and preexists the Constitution.
Kadumbo...I get your drift...and I understand your confusion. I mean there are sooooo many voi...errrrr...choices to consider. On the one hand, it is going to “difficult” to effectively neuter 2nd amendment rights through arbitrary mental health screenings, regulations, unlawful executive orders, forced registration, etc., yet continue to fill buses at every special needs facility with the mentally challenged and demented to benefit the demonrats in upcoming elections. Its like...a double edged sword. Let’s call it a bi-polar sword. Say that you are gun grabbing, Obot worshiping slave to Messiah who must have the votes of idiots, illegals, and the cognitively challenged. To be sure, liberal thinking is such that, if you have the capacity (memory, thinking, language, judgment, and behavior skills ) to climb aboard the First United Mt. Zion Holiness Church of the Jump and Run (after, of course, someone kindly secures your name and address to your shirt pocket with a safety pin and hands you a free biscuit), it is perfectly prudent, acceptable, and politically correct that you exercise your RIGHT to vote!!!! And NO I.D required! Perfectly FIT to vote, not on a list ANYWHERE as a real person, yet perfectly FIT to VOTE. On the other hand, the veteran whose honorable service to freedom brings night screams or the police officer who experienced 30 years of automobile death investigations develops PTSD and both seek psychiatric care…both trained…both honorable…both smart enough to get help...now somehow not entitled to 2nd amendment rights due to a particular medication or diagnosis because a government bureaucrat says so?????? So many questions arise. Can you be fit to vote and unfit to own a gun? What takes more thinking, judgment, discernment, and control…owning a gun or voting? If I call him UNFIT and take away his right to own a gun, can I still call FIT the disabled, and mentally challenged so I can USE them to stack the big government vote? What is the “definition” of “FIT?” (deja vue Slick Willy) Ahhh, the political conundrum created by the less than transparent march towards the Communistic Nirvana of Dear Leader. Yes Kadumbo, so many questions...happy trolling....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.