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 ...
If you read the DSM-IV-TR you will quickly discover that everyone on the planet is suffering from some kind of diagnosable mental illness.
The minute they prohibit anyone who has a diagnosable mental illness from owning a firearm, you can bet that they will be able to prevent EVERYONE from owning one.
all medical info tracked by obamacare all decisions by obamacare control panel,
You just brought something else to mind. What about having access to weapons at work? If you're an armed security guard or a cop in marital counseling (that's outpatient therapy!), are you out of a job too? Or is home the only place you're not trusted with a gun? If you're a store owner who's on short term meds, can you no longer keep a weapon at work? And how in the heck would this apply to our active duty military and the mental health staff who treat them? The more I think about this the more I really don't like it!
All the kids we now have on Ritalin?? They are marked for life. I’m told they will all need drugs for life.
Another bad idea from Grahamnesty. The first people this would be used against are conservatives, whom the left deems are crazy!!
The problem is...you report someone...and everyone says...we can’t do anything because he hasn’t beaten or klilled anyone yet.
Minors and autistic people don't "walk free". They are under legal guardianship of their parents or some other responsible adult. I also don't think there are many gun dealers that sell firearms to minors or people with autistic. A person too dangerous to own a firearm would be able to bypass the honest gun dealers. That is why they are too dangerous to walk free.
It is a double edged sword. Just like it is the guys that count the votes it’s the guys that declare you mentally incompetent. Most leftists think I am mentally incompetent because I own guns. In New York they are demanding the VA release soldiers records. For now the VA has told them to pund sand but if the feds draft a law OKing this crap my records and every other vets records are open season for bureaucrats. Do we really want that crap?
bttt
Now all disasters can be prevented. This fairytale Disney world where everything is a happy ending is not how reality operates.
And give up their phoney-baloney jobs?
The hard reality is that man can't predict criminal behavior sufficient to pass strict legal scrutiny.
Without predictive capability demonstrated and validated to reach such certainty as to convince a jury “beyond reasonable doubt”, no citizen may be convicted or deprived of rights or property.
Back to your commie ‘wet dreams’ Libtards.
Do you have a copy? I'm looking at mine now. Specifically at the disclaimers for its use in forensic settings (pages xxxii-xxxiii). I wonder if the feds will push the APA to strike these disclaimers from version V when it comes out in a few months.
” those who did not tow the party line. . ..”
To all Freepers: Please cease writing “tow the . . . line.”
To “toe” the line can mean to place one’s toe on a starting line in preparation for running a race, or to bring one’s attitudes or convictions into concordance with a certain position.
How much in revenues could be harvested from rich folks with such a law, after any family members in their homes are outlawed for possessing weapons? Let’s see, pay the shrinks, pay the attorneys enough for all of the officers of the courts,... That would be quite a take.
bttt!
And gun owners will be labeled "terrorists."
Then come the drones.
The armed drones.
That would be every soldier who has been in combat, everybody who was ever prescribed antidepressants, every ADHD kid who grew up....
And of course, anybody who lives in those houses....
Just wait to see how wide they cast the net.
The problem is who get’s to decide who is “Crazy.”
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.