Gun Control

[commando]

How could anyone have been against keeping the severely mentally ill from buying guns?

the world may never know

[Fru]

I'd love to hear a self described "Pro Life" individual, tell me why the mentally ill should have guns.

[Cdog923]

I'm done caring. They're gonna give mentally unstable individuals guns, Deb Fischer just voted to gut public education, and Conway and Spicer are going to gaslight enough people into starting a war with Australia.

[Fru]

I'm done caring. They're gonna give mentally unstable individuals guns, Deb Fischer just voted to gut public education, and Conway and Spicer are going to gaslight enough people into starting a war with Australia.

 

Right now is an imperative time to start caring.

[Cdog923]

 

I'm done caring. They're gonna give mentally unstable individuals guns, Deb Fischer just voted to gut public education, and Conway and Spicer are going to gaslight enough people into starting a war with Australia.

 

Right now is an imperative time to start caring.

 

I do, but it's awfully disheartening when a Senator ignores thousands of calls and emails from constituents to toe the party line.

 

This education thing has hit me pretty hard.

[Enhance]

I'd love to hear a self described "Pro Life" individual, tell me why the mentally ill should have guns.

According to one man I saw on Facebook, these millions of people "shouldn't have had their gun rights taken away by an unnecessary law in the first place."

 

IMO if you don't have the mental capacity to handle your finances then you certainly shouldn't be allowed to have a gun.

[Enhance]

 

 

I'm done caring. They're gonna give mentally unstable individuals guns, Deb Fischer just voted to gut public education, and Conway and Spicer are going to gaslight enough people into starting a war with Australia.

 

Right now is an imperative time to start caring.

 

I do, but it's awfully disheartening when a Senator ignores thousands of calls and emails from constituents to toe the party line.

 

This education thing has hit me pretty hard.

I hope Fischer runs for re-election and the education decision bites her in the ass and gets her out of office.

 

I voted for her in the past - not anymore.

[Fru]

 

 

I'm done caring. They're gonna give mentally unstable individuals guns, Deb Fischer just voted to gut public education, and Conway and Spicer are going to gaslight enough people into starting a war with Australia.

 

Right now is an imperative time to start caring.

 

I do, but it's awfully disheartening when a Senator ignores thousands of calls and emails from constituents to toe the party line.

 

This education thing has hit me pretty hard.

 

 

I know what you mean. Hard to not grow despondent with this utter buffoonery playing out before us.

 

I'm reminded of JFK in these times. "One person can make a difference. Everyone should try."

[Fru]

 

I'd love to hear a self described "Pro Life" individual, tell me why the mentally ill should have guns.

According to one man I saw on Facebook, these millions of people "shouldn't have had their gun rights taken away by an unnecessary law in the first place."

 

IMO if you don't have the mental capacity to handle your finances then you certainly shouldn't be allowed to have a gun.

 

 

IMO if you put gun rights, profits, govt expansion, etc before life, then you are not 100% Pro Life.

[knapplc]

In 2013 after the Naval Yard shooting, the NRA told us:

The NRA leader also blamed the U.S. mental health system and its inability to track those with mental health problems, and noted that some states fail to include those adjudicated as mentally ill in the national instant check system for gun purchases.

 

"We have a mental health system in this country that has completely and totally collapsed. We have no national database of these lunatics," LaPierre said.

 

 

Where's LaPierre now to tell us how badly we need this regulation? Wayne?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wayne?

[Making Chimichangas]

Medical records are private. They are confidential. There are laws and regulations surrounding when and how they can be disclosed. As such, someone diagnosed with a mental health condition will never be prevented from buying a gun, unless they have previously committed a felony. Then, it would be the commission of the felony preventing them from buying, not their mental health record.

 

And unpopular opinion: I believe that pre-emptively banning people from buying guns, or anything else, on the idea that they might do something bad, is unacceptable. No one wants to see another shooting, mass or otherwise, but punishing people before they commit any crime is wrong.

 

It is equally wrong to pry into people's health records in order to see if they're safe. A free society cannot be free if government has access to everyone's health records, emails, phone calls, texts, etc. And it doubly cannot be free if people are denied the right to buy a gun, a car, a butcher knife, because they might do something wrong/bad.

[Cdog923]

 

And unpopular opinion: I believe that pre-emptively banning people from buying guns, or anything else, on the idea that they might do something bad, is unacceptable. No one wants to see another shooting, mass or otherwise, but punishing people before they commit any crime is wrong.

 

 

 

Your first point contradicts your second point.

[Saunders]

Here's the ACLU's take that's not riddled with political hyperbole.

 

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is pleased to support H.R. 3516, the Social Security Beneficiary 2nd Amendment Rights Protection Act. All individuals have the right to be judged on the basis of their individual capabilities, not the characteristics and capabilities that are sometimes attributed (often mistakenly) to any group or class to which they belong. A disability should not constitute grounds for the automatic per se denial of any right or privilege, including gun ownership. Accordingly, we endorse the Social Security Beneficiary 2nd Amendment Rights Protection Act.

 

https://www.aclu.org/letter/aclu-endorses-hr-3516-social-security-beneficiary-2nd

 

 

I suggest reading the letter in the link.

 

Also, this:

We recognize that enacting new regulations relating to firearms can raise difficult questions. The ACLU believes that the right to own and use guns is not absolute or free from government regulation, since firearms are inherently dangerous instrumentalities and their use, unlike other activities protected by the Bill of Rights, can inflict serious bodily injury or death. Therefore, firearms are subject to reasonable regulation in the interests of public safety, crime prevention, maintaining the peace, environmental protection, and public health. We do not oppose regulation of firearms as long as it is reasonably related to these legitimate government interests.

 

At the same time, regulation of firearms and individual gun ownership or use must be consistent with civil liberties principles, such as due process, equal protection, freedom from unlawful searches, and privacy. All individuals have the right to be judged on the basis of their individual capabilities, not the characteristics and capabilities that are sometimes attributed (often mistakenly) to any group or class to which they belong. A disability should not constitute grounds for the automatic per se denial of any right or privilege, including gun ownership.

 

https://waysandmeans.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/ACLU.pdf

 

Once again, it's important to read what's actually at stake. This was akin to the "Terror watch list" no fly fiasco.

[Fru]

Medical records are private. They are confidential. There are laws and regulations surrounding when and how they can be disclosed. As such, someone diagnosed with a mental health condition will never be prevented from buying a gun, unless they have previously committed a felony. Then, it would be the commission of the felony preventing them from buying, not their mental health record.

 

And unpopular opinion: I believe that pre-emptively banning people from buying guns, or anything else, on the idea that they might do something bad, is unacceptable. No one wants to see another shooting, mass or otherwise, but punishing people before they commit any crime is wrong.

 

It is equally wrong to pry into people's health records in order to see if they're safe. A free society cannot be free if government has access to everyone's health records, emails, phone calls, texts, etc. And it doubly cannot be free if people are denied the right to buy a gun, a car, a butcher knife, because they might do something wrong/bad.

 

Confidentiality has limits. If you walk into a therapist's office and say "I'm suicidal and I have a gun at my home and I'm going to kill myself tonight" it is a responsibility for the therapist to contact authorities. Just as it would be if someone walks in and says "I'm going to kill children on a playground."

[TonyStalloni]

 

 

And unpopular opinion: I believe that pre-emptively banning people from buying guns, or anything else, on the idea that they might do something bad, is unacceptable. No one wants to see another shooting, mass or otherwise, but punishing people before they commit any crime is wrong.

 

 

 

Your first point contradicts your second point.

 

The desire for a government with that much power is a government that I don't want. I doubt you do either.