Free mental health treatment for gun enthusiasts

sanctionthebook_69568570_695963007555112_7175017575524204283_n.jpg

denver-shooting-suspect-lyndon-mcleod.jpg

mcleod3.png





Guy loses his mind, kills 4 people.

So why don't we provide free government sponsored mental health care to mentally ill gun enthusiasts.

If the psychiatrist says they're too crazy for guns, they don't get to have access to guns anymore.

This would be a small group of people. The decision of the psychiatrist can be appealed.

What do you think?
It's already part of federal gun laws that those adjudicated to be mentally ill are prohibited from owning guns
 
It's already part of federal gun laws that those adjudicated to be mentally ill are prohibited from owning guns

That's true.

The only thing I would add is that parents, school or place of work could report you to police. The police would look into it and see if there was evidence that you were crazy. If the cops think you're crazy too, they could put you in the program where you receive free mental health care.

It could even be that the psychiatrist says that you can get your guns back as long as you agree to take your meds.
 
lol

If you're crazy, and you say crazy things, who cares?

If you're crazy, take your gun and kill tattooists, that's a problem.
Otis here is a product of progressive indoctrination, because he doesnt believe a baby should be protected inside or outside the womb, then he wonders why some progressive people go out and murder others. It all starts with the definition of "The Sanctity of Life". Too many people dont give a shit about life, which is why they murder others...

Liberal Hypocrisy1.jpg
 
If the psychiatrist says they're too crazy for guns, they don't get to have access to guns anymore.
This would be a small group of people. The decision of the psychiatrist can be appealed.
What do you think?
Due process requires the state take their case to a court before a right can be removed.
You propose exactly the opposite.
So... no.
 
In December 2016, The Social Security Administration finalized President Barack Obama’s rule that required the SSA to identify and report to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) individuals unable to work because of severe mental impairment and can't manage their own Social Security financial benefits. The thought was that those certain Social Security recipients could pose a danger to themselves or others and should not be able to buy guns.

This regulation was first proposed in the summer of 2015 and finalized it in December 2016, Obama's last full month in office.

On February 28, 2017, within two months of taking office, Trump repealed that restriction. It was one of the few times he didn’t have the media in the Oval Office so after signing something he could hold it up for all to see.

This was done quietly.

Earlier in February, the GOP led House had also voted to reverses the SSA rule on reporting possibly dangerous individuals to NICS that had been signed by George W. Bush after the Virginia Tech massacre to ensure that individuals who are deemed unqualified to possess guns due to mental health or other reasons could be easily identified through NICS.

Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney did his job in removing any responsibility from the president’s rhetoric.
We need to figure out how to kind of create less of those kinds of people as a society and not trying to figure out who gets blamed going into the next election.”

"There's no benefit here to trying to make this a political issue. This is a social issue."

Mulvaney called the shooters "crazy people" who "should not be able to get guns. Sick people who are intent on doing things like this should not be able to buy guns legally."
 
In December 2016, The Social Security Administration finalized President Barack Obama’s rule that required the SSA to identify and report to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) individuals unable to work because of severe mental impairment and can't manage their own Social Security financial benefits. The thought was that those certain Social Security recipients could pose a danger to themselves or others and should not be able to buy guns.
Yes. And this violates the constitution in several ways.
Thus, Trump rightfully threw it out.
 
Due process requires the state take their case to a court before a right can be removed.
You propose exactly the opposite.
So... no.


So parents, school, or place of work report the suspect to police.

Police investigate, decide the guy is too crazy to have guns.

Police refer him to the program. If the nutt agrees to go to the program, he receives free mental health care.

If he refuses, a judge can order him to go. (There's your due process.)

It will save tattooists lives.
 
Speaking of your ignorance...
Still warting for your response:
It's been days, you moron.
I'm done arguing with an idiot, about hunting rifles.
Go ahead, hunt with an AR-15 I don't give a fuck.
 
So parents, school, or place of work report the suspect to police.

Police investigate, decide the guy is too crazy to have guns.

Police refer him to the program. If the nutt agrees to go to the program, he receives free mental health care.

If he refuses, a judge can order him to go. (There's your due process.)

It will save tattooists lives.






The problem you have is that you keep relying on the worthless government to do something, yet both incidents could of been avoided but thanks to the brown turd Obammy, the police couldnt do anything until it was too late.



Thanks Obama...
 

Forum List

Back
Top