Gun ban for the mentally ill

No way! you can't take away my guns just because my other personality is that of a meglomaniac penguin! He might be insane but I am clearly all together with my thoughts. How about this. If you have multiple personalities you can have your firearms some of the time? You know when your stable personality is in controll?

But seriously I know what your all saying and it's true. If you are seriously detrimental to yourself or others mentaly you should not have access to a firearm of any kind. Let them have machetties like normal psychopaths Shesh

Originally posted by eyewitness86
I have dealt firsthand with this subject, personally. Just because a psychiatrist or mental health worker makes a preliminary diagnoses does NOT mean that the client will be institutionalized, not at all.

True. I have been diagnosed with about three different mental illnesses, and I am not even on any kind of medication. I really don't understand it.

Often people have undiagnosed mental illness. Depression can strike 1 in 4 of us and it doesn't necessarily last.

More dangerous psychotic problems go unrecognised too. It's all very well making well meaning legislation but it needs to be enforcible.

Let's not forget the side effects of steroid rage and alcohol abuse, on and on. You can't make a rule for every circumstance and every exception to that rule.

That is the biggest flaw of the US Constitution making it a right to bear arms rather than a privelige.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
I don't buy it. Psychology and psychiatry both have turned into nothing more or less than money making rackets.

OOOOOOOOUUUUUUUUUUCCCCCCCCCCCHHHHHHHHH!

I majored in psychology! Excuse me while I go find some bandages and ointment to put in my wounds.

Flyer, no offense to anyone, but that is pretty much the conclusion that I have come to. Of course, there is an exception to every rule.

Here is an explanation of the bill in question, compliments of the NRA:

H.R. 2640 provides federal funds to states to update their mental health records, to ensure that those currently prohibited under federal law from owning a gun because of mental health adjudications are included in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). For many years, NRA has supported ensuring that those who have been adjudicated mentally incompetent are screened by the NICS.

In several ways this bill is better for gun owners than current law. Under H.R. 2640, certain types of mental health orders will no longer prohibit a person from possessing or receiving a firearm. Examples are adjudications that have expired or been removed, or commitments from which a person has been completely released with no further supervision required. Also excluded are federal decisions about a person’s mental health that consist only of a medical diagnosis, without a specific finding that the person is dangerous or mentally incompetent. The latter provision addresses very real concerns about disability decisions by the Veterans Administration concerning our brave men and women in uniform. Remember that one of the Clinton Administration’s last acts was to force the names of almost 90,000 veterans and veterans’ family members to be added to a "prohibited" list. H.R. 2640 would help many of these people get their rights restored. H.R. 2640 will also require all participating federal or state agencies to establish "relief from disability" programs that would allow a person to get the mental health prohibition removed, either administratively or in court. This type of relief has not been available at the federal level for the past 15 years.

This legislation will also ensure—as a permanent part of federal law—that no fee or tax is associated with a NICS check¾a NRA priority for nearly a decade! While NRA has supported annual appropriations amendments with the same effect, those amendments must be renewed every year. This provision would not expire. H.R. 2640 will also mandate an audit of past spending on NICS projects to determine if funds were misused in any way.

It is also important to note what H.R. 2640 will not do. This bill will not add any new classes of prohibited persons to NICS, and it will not prohibit gun possession by people who have voluntarily sought psychological counseling or checked themselves into a hospital for treatment.

www.nraila.org...

I think that makes it pretty clear what this bill does and does not do.

More:

H.R. 2640, the "NICS Improvement Amendments Act"


[edit on 2007/7/1 by GradyPhilpott]

I guess you gave into the mentally ill propaganda. Throughout my life, I've known people who were mentally ill. They are in no means capable of killing people with a gun. By that I mean their conscience is too great to let them do that.

It is a fact, that there are more murders commited by non mentally ill people than there are mentally ill.

Cooper said that there will be mentally ill slave labor camps. So perhaps the gun ban has been implemented in order disable the mentally ill's ability to defend theirselfs.

How dare you people accuse all mentally ills as "crazy" after you saw only one commit a murder.

Columbine was caused by bullying, and the shooters did not kill the people who were nice to them.

The Virginia tech shooter was a troubled man, he did not get the help he needed. And then there goes the media declaring him evil. Mentally ill people aren't evil, they are troubled.

[edit on 7-10-2007 by wildcat]

Originally posted by wildcat
I guess you gave into the mentally ill propaganda. Throughout my life, I've known people who were mentally ill. They are in no means capable of killing people with a gun. By that I mean their conscience is too great to let them do that.

yes, but there are different forms of mental illness, this isn't propaganda. i'm simply saying that certain people are too unstable to be trusted with a weapon

It is a fact, that there are more murders commited by non mentally ill people than there are mentally ill.

yes, but that's because mental illness is a wide variety of disorders. i'm not saying to ban guns for people with ADD, but people with disorders that predispose them to violent acts.

Cooper said that there will be mentally ill slave labor camps. So perhaps the gun ban has been implemented in order disable the mentally ill's ability to defend theirselfs.

ok come on, that's BS. no matter how armed a populace is, they can't defend themselves from a government action... they might have been able to back when this country was founded, but today is a much different story.

Originally posted by wildcat
How dare you people accuse all mentally ills as "crazy" after you saw only one commit a murder.

...i'm a mentally ill person myself.

Columbine was caused by bullying, and the shooters did not kill the people who were nice to them.

yes, and the insanely easy access they had to guns really didn't do much to help the situation.

The Virginia tech shooter was a troubled man, he did not get the help he needed. And then there goes the media declaring him evil. Mentally ill people aren't evil, they are troubled.

he didn't get the help he needed... hmm... maybe if we had a psychological check on people who were buying guns, he might have.

I went to college for psychology and had to make it a minor rather than a major once I realized what a crock the whole "science" is. These guys wield limitless power to sway public opinion, destroy lives and elevate themselves to gog-like heights. Get them all mixed up with government and you have a recipe for disaster.

How many kids are diagnosed with ADHD? All of these kids will be denied their Constitutional right to bear arms? How long before we start microchipping people with so-called mental illness?

These things always start with prisoners then move to the hospitalized then move to the elderly and newborns and before we know it we'll all have our "diagnosis" and we'll all be chipped and we'll all be cataloged.

I would rather live with the freedom to defend myself against a lunatic with a rock or knife or gun than give into these manufactured fears and impossible promises just to lose the right to defend myself against such lunatics.

Any law like this would not have prevented either of the following:

I wonder if Bloomberg will acknowledge that this rampage was stopped by a bystander with a concealed firearm?
lunatic with a knife stopped by an off-duty with a gun

But then there's the off-duty in Wisconsin who shot up a high school party so I don't want to hear any of this "the bystander in NY was a cop so it's okay for just them to have guns" idiocy.
off-duty shoots 6

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
I went to college for psychology and had to make it a minor rather than a major once I realized what a crock the whole "science" is. These guys wield limitless power to sway public opinion, destroy lives and elevate themselves to gog-like heights. Get them all mixed up with government and you have a recipe for disaster.

yea... because all the concrete evidence that supports their claims is completely crock..

How many kids are diagnosed with ADHD? All of these kids will be denied their Constitutional right to bear arms? How long before we start microchipping people with so-called mental illness?

ok, i never said anything about ADHD people getting this so-called "right" taken away. i said those with conditions that predispose people to unstable behavior and violent acts.

and the slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy.

These things always start with prisoners then move to the hospitalized then move to the elderly and newborns and before we know it we'll all have our "diagnosis" and we'll all be chipped and we'll all be cataloged.

again, slippery slope argument, it's a logical fallacy.

I would rather live with the freedom to defend myself against a lunatic with a rock or knife or gun than give into these manufactured fears and impossible promises just to lose the right to defend myself against such lunatics.

why would you lose this "right" to defend yourself?

Any law like this would not have prevented either of the following:

I wonder if Bloomberg will acknowledge that this rampage was stopped by a bystander with a concealed firearm?
lunatic with a knife stopped by an off-duty with a gun

um..question:
was the man holding the gun mentally unstable?

But then there's the off-duty in Wisconsin who shot up a high school party so I don't want to hear any of this "the bystander in NY was a cop so it's okay for just them to have guns" idiocy.
off-duty shoots 6

well, this is a developing story, we don't really know the whole situation. maybe cops need more checks on their mental stability (which is kind of true, considering how much stress they're under)

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


How is the slippery slope a "logical fallacy" here? There are no measures in place to prevent this from happening. I keep hearing comments about using a board of professionals and examiners to determine mental stability. Are these people somehow immune to corruption? Without personal ideals or politics that may influence them? Completely, absolutely and wholly neutral? That's like assuming that the Supreme Court is neutral when we all see depending of who is in the White House each justice is picked specifically because they are biased in on direction or the other.

I know people love to ignore slippery slopes and call them out as paranoid extremes (does that qualify me as mentally unstable? uh-oh!) but it's a reality of any legislation. Slippery slopes get 18 year olds with 16 year old sex partners put on sexual offender lists, put pot smokers in prisons, hand out welfare to the middle class and create countless other loopholes and problems across the board. I'm not willing to allow room for any such loopholes in my right to bear arms. As it is too many liberties have been taken with issuing and denying permits, limiting areas in which carry is allowed and other more absurd things like banning a bayonet lug or barrel shroud.

Current regulations in existence are already in violation of the second amendment and the mere fact that they have not been repealed freaks me out. We start connecting all of this to the governments idea of what qualifies as mental illness and we can pretty much kiss the second amendment goodbye. Sure it will still be on the books but only wealthy, influential white people with their own personal law firm will be able to have them.

[edit on 8-10-2007 by thisguyrighthere]

If you try and take away my guns, I might just go crazy.

What then?

Originally posted by whaaa
If you try and take away my guns, I might just go crazy.

What then?

I can see it now.

Knock, knock.

Who's there?

The police.

The police, why?

We're here for your guns.

Why? I'm not crazy!

Denying your crazy? That's the first indication of being crazy.

I'm sure simply questioning the actions of an extension of government will qualify you as paranoid, delusional, unfit.

Of course the on the states payroll social worker they brought along with them will sign whatever forms they need signed and there go your guns.