Guns being restricted to those with mental Health

Forums: Guns, Donaldtrump, Shootings, Guncontrol, Republican
Email this Topic • Print this Page

I am doing a project for school entitled "Should Gun Control in the USA be Stricter Towards People with Mental Health Issues Possessing a Gun?" and was wondering what peoples opinions are. If you express your opinion, please feel free to list the reasons why you have this belief.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Question • Score: 0 • Views: 3,223 • Replies: 15

@felicitybarnes,

well to be very honest, i believe that guns in general are the flaw in humanity, then obsession of guns in some southern and mainly republican states outlines the depth of the capitalist nature we have in the us .#longlivehillary #hillary2020

0 Replies

@felicitybarnes,

Gun control is just a push to ban guns by people who hate our freedom. If we allow more restrictions on the mentally ill, the freedom haters will just define ordinary people as mentally ill and use it as a back door gun ban.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

Gun control is just a push to ban guns by people who hate our freedom. If we allow more restrictions on the mentally ill, the freedom haters will just define ordinary people as mentally ill and use it as a back door gun ban.

Couldn't agree more. In my book, the more mentally ill a person, the heavier the calibre of weapon they should be allowed. A lot of people might get killed, but some of them would be liberals. In fact, the most crazy, narcissistic, power-mad psychopaths should be given control over fleets of strategic nuclear bombers and missiles. Oh wait...

0 Replies

Of course they should be made more strict. There's no benefit to society in arming people who suffer from mental health issues. Doctors, social workers, and family members can determine if an individual's mental illness is serious enough to restrict his right to own and use a firearm.

1 Reply

I like Oralloy's reasoning. Supposing I am at the mall with my Glock and I see Oralloy, who (I believe) is a disguised member of the race of lizard aliens who are trying to kill me, and I plug him, sincerely believing that he is going to kill me, he cannot complain with his dying breath that it was unfair. After all, freedom has been served.

1 Reply

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

Of course they should be made more strict. There's no benefit to society in arming people who suffer from mental health issues.

This isn't about people with mental health issues though. The Democrats want to mislabel ordinary healthy people as mentally ill so they can violate their rights.

But even if we focused on actual mental illness, that would not be justification for violating people's rights. Many people with mental illness are harmless. If someone is strongly claustrophobic, for example, that is no reason to prevent them from having a gun.

And some mental illnesses are temporary. If someone had depression but has since been cured of it, that is no justification for a lifetime gun ban.

Some people with mental illnesses are even highly vulnerable and would have a strong case for a need to defend themselves.

hightor wrote:

Doctors, social workers, and family members can determine if an individual's mental illness is serious enough to restrict his right to own and use a firearm.

Not in America. The Constitution forbids it.

1 Reply

@centrox,

centrox wrote:

I like Oralloy's reasoning. Supposing I am at the mall with my Glock and I see Oralloy, who (I believe) is a disguised member of the race of lizard aliens who are trying to kill me, and I plug him, sincerely believing that he is going to kill me, he cannot complain with his dying breath that it was unfair. After all, freedom has been served.

Scenarios like this is why body armor is a good idea.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

The Democrats want to mislabel ordinary healthy people as mentally ill so they can violate their rights.

A diagnosis of mental illness is conferred by medical specialists, not politicians.

Quote:

Many people with mental illness are harmless.

Again, the medical community can determine if a patient is a danger to himself or others.

Quote:

If someone had depression but has since been cured of it, that is no justification for a lifetime gun ban.

What if he neglects to take his prescribed anti-psychotic medicine?

Quote:

Some people with mental illnesses are even highly vulnerable and would have a strong case for a need to defend themselves.

Why not report the situation to the police or get a restraining order from a judge?

Quote:

Not in America. The Constitution forbids it.

The Constitution is not an all-powerful deity that rules by decree. Many situations arise where the Constitution is overlooked or ignored. If litigation is not pursued the Constitution is irrelevant.

2 Replies

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

A diagnosis of mental illness is conferred by medical specialists, not politicians.

Not when Democrats are present in the government. Barack Obama's executive order designated millions of disabled people as mentally ill "just because he said so".

hightor wrote:

Again, the medical community can determine if a patient is a danger to himself or others.

Maybe they can, but that has nothing to do with the Democrats' mad push to take guns away from people who are not a danger.

hightor wrote:

oralloy wrote:
If someone had depression but has since been cured of it, that is no justification for a lifetime gun ban.

What if he neglects to take his prescribed anti-psychotic medicine?

Formerly depressed people don't tend to be prescribed anti-psychotic medicine.

hightor wrote:

Why not report the situation to the police or get a restraining order from a judge?

Police reports and pieces of paper are much less effective than bullets when it comes to preventing someone from harming you.

hightor wrote:

The Constitution is not an all-powerful deity that rules by decree.

Actually that is exactly what it is.

hightor wrote:

Many situations arise where the Constitution is overlooked or ignored.

It is wrong to do this. It should never be allowed to happen.

hightor wrote:

If litigation is not pursued the Constitution is irrelevant.

The American people are happy to pursue litigation in defense of the Second Amendment.

0 Replies

For mental you should stop giving guns to mental peoples

0 Replies

@hightor,

I agree, especially with this:

hightor wrote:

A diagnosis of mental illness is conferred by medical specialists, not politicians.

Your neighbor, your ex-spouse, and most others are very likely unqualified. Right now, the best we can hope for is that the states (not to mention the military) can and will do a better job of reporting dangerous types of mental illness.

1 Reply

@roger,

H.R. 1181: Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act would do away with the policy of banning disabled veterans from having guns if they don't handle their own finances.

It passed the House. The Senate is ignoring it.

0 Replies

The bill of rights was a precondition to the adoption of the constitution and the formation of the union. Take any part of the bill of rights away INCLUDING THE 2'ND AMENDMENT, and the union itself loses its legitimacy.

0 Replies

https://scontent-dft4-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/28279186_1812315538798908_4265606635461587660_n.jpg?_nc_eui2=v1%3AAeEfhrLPnFbv4vDwF8y_zLv5xcMxoS_LZwg0qjyLc7RkbtOiUUI1Kzf9cb8v9vpgIJgiIeuD_T6scX1WN8Su-aq4wysbmn4Q_NZMv4pFQQcy0g&oh=27a0e65f44dd3691395fa8a23874e7f6&oe=5B0D62D5

0 Replies

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_w75Fw6PiU

0 Replies

Guns being restricted to those with mental Health

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know