To those who support anti-gunners wanting mental health checks for your Rights? Homesickness reason to deny 2nd Amendment Rights...this is why.....

[Donald H]

Hey shtstain, nowhere on the 4473 does it ask why you want a gun. Liar.

You have a good point and it's likely a winning point. It's not my business and certainly not my concern but it does look like most people will be legally carrying guns on Hawaii's streets.

 

[Open Bolt]

OK, so put your rhetorical money where your rhetorical mouth is: what mental illnesses SHOULD have their gun rights limited?
I assume, being a good 2A Defender you will say NONE, but I'm genuinely curious.
Should there be ANY mental illness that keeps people from access to guns? If so what are your guidelines?

If a court finds that an individual person is a danger to himself or others, that would qualify. The person should have the right to have a lawyer to defend him in court.

An example would be if someone was schizophrenic and thinks that the president is giving him orders to assassinate people.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

If a court finds that an individual person is a danger to himself or others, that would qualify. The person should have the right to have a lawyer to defend him in court.

So are you going to pay a lot more in taxes to cover the thousands upon thousands of new court cases to assess mental illness for gun ownership purposes?

Let's say I suffer from terrible depression. I may have even been institutionalized a couple of times. But, of course, no COURT finding is involved. Should I be able to get a gun or in your world do I have to go before a special "court" to determine my sanity?

How do you plan on working that?

An example would be if someone was schizophrenic and thinks that the president is giving him orders to assassinate people.

That's an obvious and easy mark. I'm talking about the much larger, more subtle versions of mental illness that hide something that might be much worse in the making.

You've now proposed an entirely new COURT for that. We can't even keep up with court cases as they are NOW.

And your proposal would be a serious tax hike for everyone.

But, OK.

 

[Donald H]

If a court finds that an individual person is a danger to himself or others, that would qualify. The person should have the right to have a lawyer to defend him in court.

An example would be if someone was schizophrenic and thinks that the president is giving him orders to assassinate people.

You're suggesting that every mentally ill person who desires to carry a gun, would first need to have his/her day in court.

Hardly practical and certainly an infringement on his/her 2A rights!

The only failsafe solution is to grant every mentally ill person his right to have guns, and then see what he does with them.

Otherwise mentally ill persons' 2A rights will be stripeed away.

 

[Open Bolt]

So are you going to pay a lot more in taxes to cover the thousands upon thousands of new court cases to assess mental illness for gun ownership purposes?

Why would there be new court cases? I don't anticipate any big increases.

Let's say I suffer from terrible depression. I may have even been institutionalized a couple of times. But, of course, no COURT finding is involved. Should I be able to get a gun or in your world do I have to go before a special "court" to determine my sanity?
How do you plan on working that?

Normal court will suffice. If someone feared you were suicidal, you could be ruled a danger to yourself.

I would also like to have a system where suicidal people could voluntarily and temporarily hand in their guns for safekeeping until they got better.

You've now proposed an entirely new COURT for that. We can't even keep up with court cases as they are NOW.

No. Existing courts are fine.

And your proposal would be a serious tax hike for everyone.
But, OK.

I don't see where the increased expense would come from.

 

[Open Bolt]

You're suggesting that every mentally ill person who desires to carry a gun, would first need to have his/her day in court.

No. They would posses that right already.

It would take a court (with due process) to strip that right from them.

 

[Donald H]

No. They would posses that right already.

It would take a court (with due process) to strip that right from them.

You stuck your foot in your mouth and got caught.

If a court finds that an individual person is a danger to himself or others, that would qualify. The person should have the right to have a lawyer to defend him in court.

No court has a right to decide if a person is entitled to own guns. No court will decide that until the person has demonstrated that he/she shouldn't have been permitted to carry guns.

Don't carelessly relinquish other citizens' 2A rights, based on suspicions of mental illness.

Blood was spilt to established 2A rights. Blood will need to be spilt to take them away.

Allowing mentally ill citizens to kill others is a small price to pay for America's vision of what freedom means.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Why would there be new court cases? I don't anticipate any big increases.

You said it would have be determined by a court. That was your response.

Normal court will suffice.

LOL. Not if we are going to put a huge number of people through it, it won't. We can't keep up with court cases as it is.

If someone feared you were suicidal, you could be ruled a danger to yourself.

Again, you go with the low-hanging fruit.

You act as if someone couldn't have a severe mental illness that didn't rise to the occasion of a CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER that anyone can see. No, that's not how mental illness works all the time. In fact I bet quite a few of America's best mass-murderer-shooters might have skated for quite some time under the radar of mental health professionals.

I would also like to have a system where suicidal people could voluntarily and temporarily hand in their guns for safekeeping until they got better.

I'm OK with that. I don't know why you limit all mental illness to only the most insane or the suicidal. It's like you think mental illness is all obvious extremes.

I don't see where the increased expense would come from.

That's because you don't understand that America's courts are overloaded now as it is. If you want everyone's mental health interpretted based on COURT FINDINGS then you will have to have the money come from somewhere.

I know a lot of Conservatives don't understand that there is no "free lunch", so much is given to them that they get spoiled and they think it's ALL free.

Sorry, that isn't how it works at all.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Don't carelessly relinquish other citizens' 2A rights, based on suspicions of mental illness.

Indeed! The mentally ill should have as many guns as they want!

Blood was spilt to established 2A rights. Blood will need to be spilt to take them away.

That sounds like someone with florid fantasies of persecution and paranoia. Best to arm people with that view.

Allowing mentally ill citizens to kill others is a small price to pay for America's vision of what freedom means.

A very small price to pay. So can we dispense with everyone acting like they feel "sad" when there's been another mass shooting? "THotz-n-Prayerz" are a joke. We couldn't care less as a nation.

We as a nation seem to PREFER the shootings.

America loves more mass shootings and the people who die are to be quickly forgotten as more bodies on the alter of the Second Amendment!

 

[Donald H]

Indeed! The mentally ill should have as many guns as they want!



That sounds like someone with florid fantasies of persecution and paranoia. Best to arm people with that view.



A very small price to pay. So can we dispense with everyone acting like they feel "sad" when there's been another mass shooting? "THotz-n-Prayerz" are a joke. We couldn't care less as a nation.

We as a nation seem to PREFER the shootings.

America loves more mass shootings and the people who die are to be quickly forgotten as more bodies on the alter of the Second Amendment!

I'm trying to find some common ground with the pro-gunners, and compromising on their rights to slaughter each other has no cost to me.

But really, I'm just saying that everybody has their 2A rights, regardless of whether or not they are severely mentally ill.
Those people will maintain their rights until they demonstrate in blood that they shouldn't have those rights.

Could we consider instances for which those rights must be curtailed?

If a mentally ill person starts shooting windows out without harming others, should he/she lose those rights? That's not an open and shut case without a court deciding. The police don't have a right to decide, we're told.

 

[Open Bolt]

You stuck your foot in your mouth and got caught.

I've not noticed such a thing happening to me.

No court has a right to decide if a person is entitled to own guns.

That is incorrect. Every time a court convicts someone of a felony they strip them of their right to own guns.

No court will decide that until the person has demonstrated that he/she shouldn't have been permitted to carry guns.

Of course.

Don't carelessly relinquish other citizens' 2A rights, based on suspicions of mental illness.

I won't.

Blood was spilt to established 2A rights. Blood will need to be spilt to take them away.

Don't worry. That will never happen.

Allowing mentally ill citizens to kill others is a small price to pay for America's vision of what freedom means.

Freedom doesn't mean permitting dangerous people to have guns.

If a mentally ill person starts shooting windows out without harming others, should he/she lose those rights?

Their own windows? Other people's windows? Out in the open countryside? In a city where gunfire might be regarded as disturbing the peace?

 

[Open Bolt]

You said it would have be determined by a court. That was your response.

Yes.

LOL. Not if we are going to put a huge number of people through it, it won't. We can't keep up with court cases as it is.

I do not anticipate any increase in the number of cases.

Again, you go with the low-hanging fruit.
You act as if someone couldn't have a severe mental illness that didn't rise to the occasion of a CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER that anyone can see. No, that's not how mental illness works all the time. In fact I bet quite a few of America's best mass-murderer-shooters might have skated for quite some time under the radar of mental health professionals.

If a person is not clearly a danger to himself or others, then he has the right to have guns.

I'm OK with that. I don't know why you limit all mental illness to only the most insane or the suicidal. It's like you think mental illness is all obvious extremes.

It's because you are asking about cases where someone could be legitimately deprived of their rights.

That's because you don't understand that America's courts are overloaded now as it is. If you want everyone's mental health interpretted based on COURT FINDINGS then you will have to have the money come from somewhere.

I'm not asking for everyone's mental health to be evaluated by the courts.

If someone is brought to court for an assessment that they are a danger to themselves or others, the court can find that they are and deprive them of their rights.

Most people will never be brought into court for such an assessment.

 

[Failzero]

2A/RTKBA purists think ( Illegals ) ( Most Mentally Ill ) ( Islamists/Terrorists who entered the Country Illegally or Legally (Refugees) (Escaped Convicts ) Prisoners let out of Jail due to Overcrowding or Covid) ( Registered Sex Offenders ) (Drug Abusers) ... should not have their 2A/RTKBA rights Infringed upon

 

[miketx]

2A/RTKBA purists think ( Illegals ) ( Most Mentally Ill ) ( Islamists/Terrorists who entered the Country Illegally or Legally (Refugees) (Escaped Convicts ) Prisoners let out of Jail due to Overcrowding or Covid) ( Registered Sex Offenders ) (Drug Abusers) ... should not have their 2A/RTKBA rights Infringed upon

You're a liar like all left scum.

 

[koshergrl]

If a court finds that an individual person is a danger to himself or others, that would qualify. The person should have the right to have a lawyer to defend him in court.

An example would be if someone was schizophrenic and thinks that the president is giving him orders to assassinate people.

Then that person should be institutionalized! I’m so sick of people saying we must give up our constitutional rights while at the same time refusing to lock up the crazies and criminals.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Then that person should be institutionalized! I’m so sick of people saying we must give up our constitutional rights while at the same time refusing to lock up the crazies and criminals.

Your lack of knowledge of American history is well noted.

The US decided back in the 1960's to shutter and close up the "mental institutions". It was JFK's dream to move mental health back to a more supportive community-based system. Only problem was that as time went on America did the "cost savings" part by de-institutionalizing (and ELIMINATING AVAILABLE BEDS) of the mentally ill but never followed up with putting money into community mental health care initiatives.

Finally in the 1980's Ronald Reagan helped complete the process and now today America has a massive mental health crisis which we are dealing with by simply turning them loose to fend for themselves in a society that couldn't care less about them.

Thankfully for the mentally ill the NRA decided that they could cry alligator tears over the lack of mental healthcare as a naked attempt to distract the conversation from guns. Meanwhile the NRA and the Gun-Advocates aren't actually interested in FIXING mental healthcare, they just want everyone to know that their precious GUNS don't play a role in the mass shootings.

Given that the mentally ill are actually PEOPLE it would be refreshing if gun-fetishists would stop blathering on with their uninformed and repulsive views of mental health.

Thanks.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Then that person should be institutionalized! I’m so sick of people saying we must give up our constitutional rights while at the same time refusing to lock up the crazies and criminals.

Oh, yeah, can I just say how wonderful it is to see such nastiness and bile ("crazies") posted over a signature that contains a BIBLE VERSE?

LOL. So are you quoting the Bible ironically?

 

[koshergrl]

Your lack of knowledge of American history is well noted.

The US decided back in the 1960's to shutter and close up the "mental institutions". It was JFK's dream to move mental health back to a more supportive community-based system. Only problem was that as time went on America did the "cost savings" part by de-institutionalizing (and ELIMINATING AVAILABLE BEDS) of the mentally ill but never followed up with putting money into community mental health care initiatives.

Finally in the 1980's Ronald Reagan helped complete the process and now today America has a massive mental health crisis which we are dealing with by simply turning them loose to fend for themselves in a society that couldn't care less about them.

Thankfully for the mentally ill the NRA decided that they could cry alligator tears over the lack of mental healthcare as a naked attempt to distract the conversation from guns. Meanwhile the NRA and the Gun-Advocates aren't actually interested in FIXING mental healthcare, they just want everyone to know that their precious GUNS don't play a role in the mass shootings.

Given that the mentally ill are actually PEOPLE it would be refreshing if gun-fetishists would stop blathering on with their uninformed and repulsive views of mental health.

Thanks.

Actually, my grasp of history (particularly of this topic) is EXCELLENT and nothing in my previous post shows a lack of understanding. I know why thd crazies are in the streets. The leftists determined that crazy could be cured by drugs and so the APA launched a movement to shut down the mental hospitals and treat all the nuts as outpatients. It was a complete and total racket meant to bring them a LOT if money. Except they released the loons and then didn’t pay up. The idea was to create a massive system of outpatient services...and of course the psychiatrists would be paid a lot of money to create and run them. Didn’t happen. That and oh yeah the meds don’t cure crazy, and crazy people wouldn’t have the sense to consistently take them if they did.

 

[koshergrl]

Oh, yeah, can I just say how wonderful it is to see such nastiness and bile ("crazies") posted over a signature that contains a BIBLE VERSE?

LOL. So are you quoting the Bible ironically?

Crazy people who want to deny people the ability to defend themselves from violent crazy people always whine about the idea of limiting the freedom of violent crazy people.

 

[miketx]

Oh, yeah, can I just say how wonderful it is to see such nastiness and bile ("crazies") posted over a signature that contains a BIBLE VERSE?

LOL. So are you quoting the Bible ironically?

What kind of leftist double talk babble bullshit is this?