Mental Health and the 2nd Amendment

[XDS45]

I am on meds for depression/anxiety but I am no threat towards anyone. I won't go into detail about myself and I only see a Dr to get the meds needed.I don't see a therapist since I have been dealing with this since 2008.
It should be on a case by case basis if someone with a mental illness should be able to own a firearm. Not everyone is a threat just because they are depressed or taking meds for it.

 

[Kutnupe14]

No. To the best of my knowledge they were given the choice between military and incarceration.

So they were able to just sign up and their slate was washed clean? Or did they have to actually serve out their commitment to be released from their obligation to the court. I, personally, don't know for sure, but I'm thinking that a guy wasn't free from incarceration simply by signing on the dotted line.

 

[Kurr]

Voted Yes. I think everyone outside of incarceration pretty much should be able to own.

Of course I also think we have a responsibility to own as well.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Voted Yes. I think everyone outside of incarceration pretty much should be able to own.

Of course I also think we have a responsibility to own as well.

Why does "incarceration" keep coming up? What version of the Constitution is incarceration mentioned? Truth be told, the Constitution doesn't address when anyone's rights can be infringed. So if one is to read the document like Forrest Gump, a person NEVER loses any of their rights, free or not.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

The law clearly indicates "shall not be infringed." It does not make exception, it does not present a case or an argument contrary.

Then I assume you believe death row inmates should be allowed to have loaded firearms in their cells, as you have stated there is no exception in the Constitution, including for those who are incarcerated.

 

[jbombelli]

When you're incarcerated you lose just about ALL of your rights. Nobody has argued otherwise except for maybe Kutnupe in a weak attempt to make some of us feel like hypocrites.

Taking the fact that incarcerated criminals lose their rights, and extrapolating that into (not a direct quote) "... Therefore we can limit anybody's rights in whatever way we think is reasonable" is patently absurd.

 

[Bunnykid68]

A lot of people think I am mentally ill just because I find enjoyment out of firearms and of course I think those people are ****ing nuts and assbags

 

[level0]

Should people who are seriously mentally ill, like Adam Lanza, Ivan Lopez, and Aaron Alexis, be allowed to purchase or posses firearms or have confiscated firearms returned to them?

Mentally ill like Dianne Feinstein? Or that hag mouthpiece of Moms Demand Dumbassery?

My short answer to your question is "yes".

 

[Kutnupe14]

When you're incarcerated you lose just about ALL of your rights. Nobody has argued otherwise except for maybe Kutnupe in a weak attempt to make some of us feel like hypocrites.

Taking the fact that incarcerated criminals lose their rights, and extrapolating that into (not a direct quote) "... Therefore we can limit anybody's rights in whatever way we think is reasonable" is patently absurd.

I'm not arguing that, because it's true. To use a commonly repeated phrase to my benefit.... What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

 

[jbombelli]

I'm not arguing that, because it's true. To use a commonly repeated phrase to my benefit.... What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

I apparently understand it a whole lot better than you do. You extrapolate it into the government being allowed to infringe any way it sees fit.

 

[2A_Tom]

I was wondering during the first 4 pages where our resident INGO officers were.

To kut and bbi I suggest you read the book The Founders Second Ammendment it is full of letters debating the 2A. There was almost total agreement between the founders that the second's language did not extend to felons. However in reading it I could not ascertain whether they counted someone a felon once he had served his time.

I must say that our police friends have been remiss in making any rational argument for their sweeping no vote.

I was also quite surprised at the company I keep in my yes vote.

 

[1861navy]

Yes to the poll question. Being "seriously mentally ill" is so broad and generic, and as GFGT pointed out, a tactic for furthering anti 2nd amnd. rights. No of course to violent convicted felons, and people like Adam Lanza. Anyone with a neurological disorder could be classified as having a "Serious Mental Illness" by .gov, in a nation where millions have been diagnosed with some form of mental illness that would be a civil rights tragedy.

From: NIMH · The Numbers Count: Mental Disorders in America

"Mental disorders are common in the United States and internationally. An estimated 26.2 percent of Americans ages 18 and older — about one in four adults — suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder in a given year.[SUP]1[/SUP] When applied to the 2004 U.S. Census residential population estimate for ages 18 and older, this figure translates to 57.7 million people.[SUP]2[/SUP] Even though mental disorders are widespread in the population, the main burden of illness is concentrated in a much smaller proportion — about 6 percent, or 1 in 17 — who suffer from a serious mental illness.[SUP]1[/SUP] In addition, mental disorders are the leading cause of disability in the U.S. and Canada.[SUP]3[/SUP] Many people suffer from more than one mental disorder at a given time. Nearly half (45 percent) of those with any mental disorder meet criteria for 2 or more disorders, with severity strongly related to comorbidity.[SUP]1[/SUP]"

• "Approximately 20.9 million American adults, or about 9.5 percent of the U.S. population age 18 and older in a given year, have a mood disorder.[SUP]1,[/SUP][SUP]2[/SUP]
• The median age of onset for mood disorders is 30 years.[SUP]5[/SUP]
• Depressive disorders often co-occur with anxiety disorders and substance abuse"

• "Major Depressive Disorder is the leading cause of disability in the U.S. for ages 15-44.[SUP]3[/SUP]
• Major depressive disorder affects approximately 14.8 million American adults, or about 6.7 percent of the U.S. population age 18 and older in a given year.[SUP]1,[/SUP] [SUP]2[/SUP]
• While major depressive disorder can develop at any age, the median age at onset is 32.[SUP]5[/SUP]
• Major depressive disorder is more prevalent in women than in men"

And the list goes on and on. So, according to those numbers, if the anti gunners have their way, we could potentially be looking at the removal/confiscation of firearms from millions of people across the country.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

I must say that our police friends have been remiss in making any rational argument for their sweeping no vote.

Kenneth Anderson is my rational argument.

And why aren't you chastising the non-LEOs that voted no?

http://www.indy.gov/eGov/City/DPS/IMPD/About/Memoriam/Pages/tlaird.aspx

 

[88GT]

One guy does something bad with a gun and you want to penalize all gun owners?

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

One guy does something bad with a gun and you want to penalize all gun owners?

Not all, just the ones that aren't mentally stable enough to own guns.

 

[KLB]

Not all, just the ones that aren't mentally stable enough to own guns.

How do you know which ones aren't?

 

[nakinate]

If you make it illegal for any mentally ill person to own a firearm then when you have opposition to the .gov that is armed you just have them diagnosed as mentally ill and disarm them.

 

[nakinate]

FWIW I voted "undecided". I think it is a discussion worth having, but I see potential problems on both sides.

 

[SteveM4A1]

That's an incredibly poor argument. It's akin to say saying since blind people make dangerous drivers, they shouldn't be free either. If serious mental illness means "detacted from reality," then there's no way they should have a firearm.

Oh Kutnupe, that is one incredibly poor analogy.

My statement is quite clear. The only way to know if someone is a threat to society is through their actions. I don't care how "detracted from reality" they are. If they have done nobody harm, then they deserve the same rights as others. The whole argument that stripping one's rights away is ok, even though they may have done nothing wrong, is very disturbing. It all boils down to personal responsibility. Make one responsible for their actions, not what COULD happen.

 

[88GT]

Not all, just the ones that aren't mentally stable enough to own guns.

How do you know which ones aren't?

Yes, how does one know?