Graham digs in to ban mentally ill from gunsThat would pretty much eliminate guns in the hands of liberals.
Posted on 03/17/2013 3:23:55 PM PDT by Kaslin
As Senate Democrats push ahead with a proposed ban on assault weapons and other gun-control legislation, Republicans are still trying to draw attention to what they see as the bigger issue -- keeping the mentally ill from owning firearms.
A proposal on the issue was introduced this month by South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who on Thursday again expressed his interest in getting the measure passed.
“I believe that the best way to interrupt the shooter is to have a mental health system that actually records and enters into the database people who should not be able to buy a gun,” Graham said.
He made his remark while voting against a bill passed by the committee to ban assault weapons and high-capacity gun magazines.
Graham’s proposal would require that people found mentally incompetent be added to the National Instant Criminal Background System – the database for all new gun sales.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Would our narscissist president Present pass a psy exam? Is he willing to mass murder like his pal Bill Ayers seemed willing to do? Should he and all under his command be disarmed?
I find most of these moron holding political office to be mentally incompetent.
I’ll be honest with you, I think some form of restriction on allowing people with serious mental problems to buy guns is perfectly reasonable, as long as it is done right.
The trouble is, every time some crackpot goes off and uses a force-multiplying weapon to slaughter scores of people, it undermines public faith in the second amendment and adds ammunition (ahem) to those who want to restrict gun ownership for everyone.
“I believe that the best way to interrupt the shooter is to have a mental health system that actually records and enters into the database people who should not be able to buy a gun,” Graham said.
Everyone of the people who have completed mass murders displayed dangerous signs before the event. Usually, numerous times and to professionals.
While some of them purchased their weapons the majority stole them from a friend or family member. How will this prevent the crazies from stealing weapons?
What we need to do is outlaw the “something must be done “syndrome.
VT shooter used 10 round magazines. His victims hid under their desks waiting for him to reload and shoot them.
Ban democrats from owning guns.
Problem solves itself
God help us if he is
touche’
You have an excellent point
Anyone too dangerous to own a gun is too dangerous to walk free.
While I support keping weapons from mentally unstable people, I have great concern that about allowing the government to determine who falls into that category and then maintaining a database for same. That is EXACTLY what the Soviet Union did vis-a-vis those who did not tow the party line: Government shrinks labeled dissenters or critics as mental deficients, and they were subject to detention or outright imprisonment in the gulags.
And the leftist nature of our current government, who seem to be enamored of all things Soviet, would encourage it to gleefully take the same road.
I am probably not "mentally ill", but I do resent law makers delving into the question.
They may determine that I am "mentally ill" simply by asking the question and opposing the intrusion.
Graham digs in to ban mentally ill from gunsThat would pretty much eliminate guns in the hands of liberals.
Exactly right. They can dis-allow gun ownership based on some liberal shrinks opinion. That doesn’t fly.
I was going to ask you if you meant the school shooter in CT because you used the postal abbreviation for Vermont until I did a search and realized you meant Virginia Tech
TRUE! (Life again imitates comedy.)
Otter: No, I think we have to go all out. I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part!
Bluto: We're just the guys to do it.
D-Day: [stands up] Yeah, I agree. Let's go get 'em.
Boon: Let's do it.
If a shrink team had to assess the team I work with we would all be disarmed. We are honest, God fearing, hard working conservatives that risk our life every other day. We don’t belong to the new Castrati.
LOL. He wouldn't like the report if I did the evaluation.
Seriously though, according to the article, these persons would be included in a database: Under the proposal, a person would be added to the database for such reasons as being an imminent danger to themselves or others, found guilty but mentally ill in a criminal case, found guilty by reason of insanity, found incompetent to stand trial, committed to a psychiatric hospital or required to have psychiatric outpatient treatment.
Anyone who's done mental health evaluations knows that mental status fluctuates. A person who's a risk to self (for example threatens suicide after a breakup) today may be fine with no further problems in the future once the immediate crisis is handled. And "committed" to inpatient care is not a good term if mental health is the issue. Commitment is about legal status not mental status. People can go in voluntarily or involuntarily. Do those who voluntarily seek inpatient treatment go into the database or only those who are forced legally into an inpatient setting? And what's "required" outpatient care? Is it someone court-ordered? Or someone who has to have it to continue meds or other therapies that don't necessarily make him a risk? And what about competency? Some are restored to competency to stand trial. If acquitted do they stay in the database?
I don't like this at all. My decision to get out of health care was a good one. I wouldn't want to be part of this BS!
No, no, and yes.
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.
