Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Aaron Alexis and the gun control mental health dodge [A cautionary tale please read]
Hot Air ^ | September 21, 2013 | Jazz Shaw

Posted on 09/26/2013 1:10:34 PM PDT by Voice of Reason1

Gun grabbers have found an issue where they can get almost unanimous consent across the board, including from gun owners. Nobody wants the dangerously insane to have weapons. not even the NRA. So using that bit of light coming in under the edge of the door, they’ve found a point of attack. Since we all agree that the insane shouldn’t have guns, we’ll pass a law to enforce that. And then we’ll start dumbing down the definition of “insane” to include as many people as possible.

Because in the end, this was never about helping people. This is about taking away the guns. This is the story of a vast group of extremely angry and frustrated liberals who are forlorn at the refusal of certain lines from the Constitution to simply disappear. And since they can’t rid the founding documents of the hated clause, their long time tactic has been to adopt the First Amendment “fire in the theater” caveat to say that all rights have limitations, and then to seek out every possible nook and cranny to find “exceptions” where gun rights can be infringed and weapons can be confiscated. The mental health issue is no exception. We already have a system in place for defining those who are too dangerously deranged to own guns, and it involves having people adjudicated as such in a court of law with the opportunity to defend themselves and challenge the finding if they wish. That is sufficient. If you let the anti-gun rights lobby define the mentally ill when it comes to background checks and gun ownership, soon enough they will define wanting to own a gun as a mental illness.

If we fall for that, then we truly will have the government we deserve for being fools.

(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Front Page News; Government
KEYWORDS: aaronalexis; banglist; democrats; dsm5; dsmisajoke; guncontrol; liberalfascism; liberalism; navyyard; psychofascism; secondamendment; youwillnotdisarmus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-53 next last
And then we’ll start dumbing down the definition of “insane” to include as many people as possible.

A posting from a couple days ago that makes an excellent point:

That if the Gun grabbers can push “Universal registration” and “mental health checks” through during the next shooting crisis hysteria they will simply lower the bar as to who is ‘insane’ and thus be deprived of their commonsense civil right of self-defense.

Two other items to keep in mind:

1).The old Soviet Union would lock up dissidents in mental hospitals as a way of oppressing the people.

2). Leftists over here are deliberately using various forms of mental heath smears against us already – saying that we are “Nut jobs” and the like.

I believe this is where the gun gabbers are going next in trying to take away our civil rights.

1 posted on 09/26/2013 1:10:34 PM PDT by Voice of Reason1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Voice of Reason1
The NRA helped pass the GCA of 1968, which was pretty much the same ... we don't want any more Kennedy's or Kings, right?

America needs to step back and take a breath.

2 posted on 09/26/2013 1:12:43 PM PDT by knarf (I say things that are true ... I have no proof ... but they're true)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Voice of Reason1

Ahead of you, I figured that out years ago and have opposed all gun control ever since.


3 posted on 09/26/2013 1:15:05 PM PDT by Navy Patriot (Join the Democrats, it's not Fascism when WE do it, and the Constitution and law mean what WE say.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: knarf

The primary driver on the pro-gun side behind the passage of GCA68 was the dealers - they were strongly in favor of shutting down their mail-order competitors.


4 posted on 09/26/2013 1:16:06 PM PDT by jdege
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: knarf

I’ll go out on a limb here and simply say that you can Never compromise with Socialists.

I know that’ll be ‘controversial’ and all.. /sarc.


5 posted on 09/26/2013 1:16:33 PM PDT by Voice of Reason1 (Absolute power corrupts absolutely Lord Acton 1887)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Voice of Reason1

I’ve been saying this for years.


6 posted on 09/26/2013 1:17:11 PM PDT by raybbr (I weep over my sons' future in this Godforsaken country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Voice of Reason1

1. If you are insane, you can’t have a firearm.
2. If you want a firearm, you are insane.

“That’s some catch, that Catch 22.”


7 posted on 09/26/2013 1:18:52 PM PDT by eddie willers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Voice of Reason1
Yep. The left’s list of “crazies”:

- Military veterans
- Christians
- Tea Partiers
- Preppers
ETC...

8 posted on 09/26/2013 1:18:54 PM PDT by ryan71 (The Partisans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Voice of Reason1

It stands to reason that if an individual has been determined to be too unstable, too dangerous, to own, possess, or hold weapons....

Then there should be jobs that person should not hold, places that person should not be.

Like a teacher, mentor, advocate, pilot, flight attendant, or anything involving kids or having some control over groups of people (like being a politician). Meat cutter in a food store, private pilot, boat owner, and why should that person have access to gasoline?

This issue would be a good one to make amendments (poison amendments) to any “mental health” gun control bill. Imagine a liberal teacher losing her job because 35 parents wrote notes about her “stability”.

An idea that has been kicked around is that an entire household must be gun-free if one member has been deemed to be ineligible. next would be apartment building or neighborhood! After all it’s to save the children.


9 posted on 09/26/2013 1:22:56 PM PDT by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Navy Patriot
At some point you just have to stand and fight – giving up a little freedom with each ‘crisis’ is a losing game.
10 posted on 09/26/2013 1:24:23 PM PDT by Voice of Reason1 (Absolute power corrupts absolutely Lord Acton 1887)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: eddie willers

Yes, that’s exactly what we’re looking at – they’ve already are telegraphing this all over the place.


11 posted on 09/26/2013 1:25:36 PM PDT by Voice of Reason1 (Absolute power corrupts absolutely Lord Acton 1887)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ryan71

And if you’re several of those i.e. a patriot– watch out!


12 posted on 09/26/2013 1:27:25 PM PDT by Voice of Reason1 (Absolute power corrupts absolutely Lord Acton 1887)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Voice of Reason1

Background checks are for statists. Never ask permission from the government to exercise your natural rights.


13 posted on 09/26/2013 1:45:17 PM PDT by andyk (I have sworn...eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Voice of Reason1

“Insane” is anyone with no party book.

It’s an old trick.


14 posted on 09/26/2013 1:52:27 PM PDT by Hardraade (http://junipersec.wordpress.com (Obama: the bearded lady of the Muslim Brotherhood))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Voice of Reason1

*** their long time tactic has been to adopt the First Amendment “fire in the theater” caveat to say that all rights have limitations,***

But what if there IS A FIRE in the theater?


15 posted on 09/26/2013 1:55:53 PM PDT by Ruy Dias de Bivar (Sometimes you need 7+ more ammo. LOTS MORE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Voice of Reason1

My elderly mother had a seizure a few years ago. It came out of the blue & she went to the doctor who put her on meds. Within DAYS she received a notice from the DMV that her license would be pulled if she did not stay on anti-seizure meds.

I wouldn’t have a problem for a doctor to report an individual who said they were hearing voices, or had other indications that there was a sanity issue. At the least, they could put a hold on an immediate approval for a gun purchase until the individual’s situation could be clarified.

That doesn’t mean they could get away with requiring some sort of mental health check on the average gun purchaser. But if we can stop people from driving if they’ve had a seizure, then we can stop people from buying guns who are clearly not rational.


16 posted on 09/26/2013 1:56:27 PM PDT by Twotone (Marte Et Clypeo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Voice of Reason1

I’ve said it before, and I will say it again...

We should allow EVERYONE to carry a firearm. Eventually the problem of crazies with guns will sort itself out, because a lot of them will be shot in self-defense.


17 posted on 09/26/2013 1:58:03 PM PDT by ZirconEncrustedTweezers (My sweet talk is also savory and creamy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: knarf

The problem with mentally ill people getting guns was solved in 1968.

“Today we begin to disarm the criminal and the careless and the insane. All of our people who are deeply concerned in this country about law and order should hail this day.
- Lyndon Johnson when he signed the 1968 GCA into law.


18 posted on 09/26/2013 1:59:57 PM PDT by Ruy Dias de Bivar (Sometimes you need 7+ more ammo. LOTS MORE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: andyk

We have been doing so for far too long – there needs to be some pushback.

This isn’t a new thing either – they’ve been wanting two parts of the puzzle for quite a while:

1) Background checks that are routed through the due process free terror “Watch lists”
2) Statists trying to claim Tea Party people and other folks to be “Terrorists”.


19 posted on 09/26/2013 2:01:39 PM PDT by Voice of Reason1 (Absolute power corrupts absolutely Lord Acton 1887)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Voice of Reason1

There are ER people who are very fast on pulling out commitment papers...and once those are initiated gun rights are taken away;

I believe all our totalitarinasm control will come from healthcare.


20 posted on 09/26/2013 2:02:50 PM PDT by Chickensoup (...We didn't love freedom enough... Solzhenitsyn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DBrow

Of course, all of those things are dangerous – but for the national cadre of socialists there is but a BIG difference – guns can be used to resist their tyranny.

We don’t think of such things because we’re not budding tyrants – it’s takes a certain mindset to consider these issues as they do.


21 posted on 09/26/2013 2:04:58 PM PDT by Voice of Reason1 (Absolute power corrupts absolutely Lord Acton 1887)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Twotone

As the article mentioned, there is already mechanism in place to a judge these cases – the Left clearly wants to push the envelop past this point.


22 posted on 09/26/2013 2:13:19 PM PDT by Voice of Reason1 (Absolute power corrupts absolutely Lord Acton 1887)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Voice of Reason1

IT is pretty much standard practice for Leftists to call anyone who opposes them “insane,” “crazy” or “mentally ill.” Watch them try to make it official through American Psychiatric Society...


23 posted on 09/26/2013 2:15:23 PM PDT by Little Ray (How did I end up in this hand-basket, and why is it getting so hot?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chickensoup

Oh yes, then there’s that…. My thinking was best expressed by Han Solo – ‘I’ve got a really bad feeling about this’

Obamacare will not only be a vote buying wealth redistribution scheme, but as you said, they will most likely will use it to the max for their tyrannical intentions.


24 posted on 09/26/2013 2:24:39 PM PDT by Voice of Reason1 (Absolute power corrupts absolutely Lord Acton 1887)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Voice of Reason1

Two gun control politicians are recalled and less than a week later, the voices set off Alexis to go commit mass murder with a gun. Coincidence?


25 posted on 09/26/2013 2:31:18 PM PDT by TBP (Obama lies, Granny dies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Voice of Reason1

The Party of Compassion loves to exploit death to advance their perverted little ideology.


26 posted on 09/26/2013 2:31:49 PM PDT by TBP (Obama lies, Granny dies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Voice of Reason1

Locking up the insane should have no reference to guns at all.Any NRA or conservatives who support any legislation re the insane that would mention guns in any context at all are helping to “redact” out the 2Amd.


27 posted on 09/26/2013 2:32:51 PM PDT by arthurus (Read Hazlitt's Economics In One Lesson ONLINEhttp://steshaw.org/economics-in-one-lesson/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Voice of Reason1

Better than any such legislation and certainly more effective would be ending the existence of any “gun free zones.”


28 posted on 09/26/2013 2:34:12 PM PDT by arthurus (Read Hazlitt's Economics In One Lesson ONLINEhttp://steshaw.org/economics-in-one-lesson/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TBP

It does cause one to question the timing.


29 posted on 09/26/2013 2:35:53 PM PDT by Voice of Reason1 (Absolute power corrupts absolutely Lord Acton 1887)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: DBrow
If a person is adjudged insane and for that reason incarcerated then there is no reason to make it illegal for him to possess guns. Passing laws to make it illegal for the unstable to have guns invites big time the definition as unstable of everyone who does not conform perfectly with the liberal requirements. The confiscations would get underway quickly as friendly judges used their rubber stamps on the piles of prefabricated "judgments"
30 posted on 09/26/2013 2:39:00 PM PDT by arthurus (Read Hazlitt's Economics In One Lesson ONLINEhttp://steshaw.org/economics-in-one-lesson/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Voice of Reason1

Rule #1: If they come to take your gun...


31 posted on 09/26/2013 2:49:06 PM PDT by PLMerite (Shut the Beyotch Down! Burn, baby, burn!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Voice of Reason1
And then we’ll start dumbing down the definition of “insane” to include as many people as possible.

Not if it takes a jury trial. It would be so expensive that the local government would be forced to use it judiciously.

32 posted on 09/26/2013 2:54:15 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (Islam offers choices: convert, submit, or die.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar

The difference is when someone screams “fire” when there isn’t one, we only punish the one who yelled “fire”, not everyone who’s ever yelled.

But that would be common sense.Something leftists lack.


33 posted on 09/26/2013 3:01:04 PM PDT by TurboZamboni (Marx smelled bad & lived with his parents most his life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Twotone
then we can stop people from buying guns who are clearly not rational.

According to whom? Once there are conditions, then there will be people deciding to whom those conditions apply, you know like quoting the Bible, or Constitution, maybe even voting GOP, tho that one may be worthy of the classification, if they keep up their ways.

34 posted on 09/26/2013 3:11:10 PM PDT by itsahoot (It is not so much that history repeats, but that human nature does not change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Voice of Reason1
Since we all agree that the insane shouldn’t have guns, we’ll pass a law to enforce that. And then we’ll start dumbing down the definition of “insane” to include as many people as possible.

It is how liberal's will use a sane law... they'll abuse it until it's a horror. Remember when all of us wanted to help people who were blind ... now we have half of Detroit living on 'disability'?

35 posted on 09/26/2013 3:12:09 PM PDT by GOPJ ( Politicians who fear the people seek to disarm them. - - Bill St. Clair)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

Then they will find a work around on that – just as they’ve done by militarizing the police to get around the Posse Comitatus Act


36 posted on 09/26/2013 3:25:49 PM PDT by Voice of Reason1 (Absolute power corrupts absolutely Lord Acton 1887)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Voice of Reason1

“...it involves having people adjudicated as such in a court of law with the opportunity to defend themselves...”

That’s not a very clearly stated mechanism. What has to happen to get a seriously deranged individual into such a court? Some act of violence or public disturbance?

It seems with all the recent mass shootings by mentally ill shooters, there were plenty of people aware of the individual & their issues. We are still missing that step that stopped them from easily acquiring a weapon.

A doctor flagging the individual to the NICS seems a reasonable start. Not for simple depression, but for signs that an individual is clearly delusional or showing signs of psychosis.

Yes, no doubt leftists (including doctors) might abuse such a system. But some kind of civil penalty by the person appealing such a designation in order to exercise 2nd A. rights might be attached to legislation for cases of clear abuse.


37 posted on 09/26/2013 3:29:59 PM PDT by Twotone (Marte Et Clypeo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Twotone
A doctor flagging the individual to the NICS seems a reasonable start.

That is not reasonable to me. The idea is to keep innocent folks from getting shot. If I have to get government permission to buy a gun there is no right to keep and bear arms. There is government granted privilege to buy a gun, but they can kick in my door and take it if some leftists decides I am "mentally ill".

No sale.

If we really did have a right to Keep (own) and Bear (carry around) a gun the whackos would only get off a shot or two before getting scragged. Like the subway scene in Predator 2. Stop looking to Mommy government to "protect" you. Ain't gonna happen.

38 posted on 09/26/2013 4:16:50 PM PDT by SpeakerToAnimals (I hope to earn a name in battle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Voice of Reason1
Then they will find a work around on that – just as they’ve done by militarizing the police to get around the Posse Comitatus Act

Then why have a Constitution? The point is to arrive at the correct method in law and then let Federalism and Natural Law work. That is the system we have. Else, it is anarchy. I am suggesting the same standards for how we put people in prison. That's a pretty high threshold.

39 posted on 09/26/2013 4:21:35 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (Islam offers choices: convert, submit, or die.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

That would be fine if it stayed that way – but the Leftist-Marxists are all about Incrementalism.

They will start from there and with each crisis ratchet the screws a little tighter.


40 posted on 09/26/2013 4:26:17 PM PDT by Voice of Reason1 (Absolute power corrupts absolutely Lord Acton 1887)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: SpeakerToAnimals

The Leftist-tyranny fans want to incrementally make it more and more like you need their permission to exercise your commonsense civil right of self-defense.

Once they’ve achieved that nirvana of control that permission will be withdrawn.

You can bank on it if we let them get away with it.


41 posted on 09/26/2013 4:30:22 PM PDT by Voice of Reason1 (Absolute power corrupts absolutely Lord Acton 1887)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Voice of Reason1

American general of the Revolutionary War “Mad” Anthony Wayne would have been prohibited from owning guns.


42 posted on 09/26/2013 5:16:04 PM PDT by kiryandil (turning Americans into felons, one obnoxious drunk at a time (Zero Tolerance!!!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Voice of Reason1

In the case of Alexis I still say his gun purchase was not proper-—even before he might have been a head case. He could not have purchased, even a long gun, in my state at least, because he could not have proved residency. He was living in a MOTEL. His NIX background check would have asked for his permanent address and he didn’t have one yet. And his Navy ID card would not have had an address on it. His drivers license reportedly was current but from Texas. We’re not getting the whole story regarding the shotgun purchase which means there’s more than one nut-case involved in the story.


43 posted on 09/26/2013 5:22:52 PM PDT by cherokee1 (skip the names---just kick the buttz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Voice of Reason1
That would be fine if it stayed that way – but the Leftist-Marxists are all about Incrementalism.

That is what happened to the Constitution. It was ours to keep. Hence, this is not so much about the structure of how such decisions are made but about the mindset of the people. No matter what, no one can devise a system that can preclude the consequences of depravity in the general population. Hence, your concern is misplaced.

BTW, having just finished Balko's book on the topic, I'm well apprised of the concerns you related about militarization of the police.

44 posted on 09/26/2013 5:23:01 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (Islam offers choices: convert, submit, or die.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: SpeakerToAnimals

You are already being vetted (getting permission) to buy a gun by having to go thru the NICS process. That doesn’t stop a private sale, of course. At this time.

Do we want to stop truly insane people, or not? If we do, then something along these lines is reasonable. I have an uncle who was diagnosed at a young age with schizophrenia. He was, at times, violent. To my knowledge he never had or tried to get a gun. I would not be happy to hear that he did.

The ACLU fought to close down all the insane asylums. What stops the former residents from doing some major harm?

And I know there is no perfect safety in this world. But some things can be done that won’t be more devastating than what we already experience.


45 posted on 09/26/2013 5:41:59 PM PDT by Twotone (Marte Et Clypeo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: arthurus

“Passing laws to make it illegal for the unstable to have guns invites big time the definition as unstable of everyone who does not conform perfectly with the liberal requirements.”

Yup that’s the plan. And having a nurse, physicians assistant, a doctor, psychologist, police, school counselor make this determination by checking off a box is not due process.

Indoctrinate the kids in school (with all these huge deals with pointing fingers, saying “gun”, chewing pop-tarts)...along with an attrition plan for those who have guns might get the job done in 50 years.

We stopped keeping the mentally unstable in hospitals long ago. It started with a series of court decisions in the late 60’s and ended with emptying out our mental hospitals. It is very difficult to round someone up and get them treatment these days. Rather than recognize the failure of this liberal plan for equality and utopia, they blame guns, which fits their plan of “no opposition”.


46 posted on 09/26/2013 7:49:10 PM PDT by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Twotone

“A doctor flagging the individual to the NICS “

And an anti-gun doctor will flag everyone he gets the name of. That’s not constitutional due process, with or without appeal.


47 posted on 09/26/2013 7:51:57 PM PDT by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: cherokee1

You can buy long guns across state lines. For now. It’s handguns that must go FFL to FFL.

Whatever address was on his drivers lic had to match the one he put on the 4474 form, and that’s all.

I bought a shotgun in Nevada like that, and a rifle in some other state.


48 posted on 09/26/2013 7:55:10 PM PDT by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: DBrow

Then you include in any legislation a penalty for doctors abusing the system. Make them pay any legal fees incurred by applicant, plus a hefty fine. There are ways to deal with this.


49 posted on 09/27/2013 7:10:49 AM PDT by Twotone (Marte Et Clypeo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Twotone
You are already being vetted (getting permission) to buy a gun by having to go thru the NICS process. That doesn’t stop a private sale, of course. At this time.

It does in Colorado now. Universal background checks on all private sales. No FFL will do the check so any private sale is de facto banned in Colorado. Because of people like you who cannot see the problem with background checks.

Name a mass shooter that did not legally buy a gun after passing NICS. The Sandy hook shooter did not, he killed and stole to get guns. Virginia Tech, Batman Movie, Giffords and a federal judge, all passed one of your SFW background checks.

Background checks are de facto gun bans. They do NOTHING for public safety.

Background checks make progressives feel good. That is all.

50 posted on 09/27/2013 9:04:02 AM PDT by SpeakerToAnimals (I hope to earn a name in battle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-53 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson