Mental Health and the 2nd Amendment

[PKendall317]

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?

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/12/22/us/when-the-right-to-bear-arms-includes-the-mentally-ill.html

 

[ModernGunner]

Well, unless and until such medical records are allowed to be utilized running the (otherwise ineffectual) background checks, I'll vote 'No' simply because there's no "It won't make any difference" option, LOL...

 

[88GT]

Yes.

 

[PKendall317]

Yes.

Why yes? I'm not disagreeing with you just trying to pick your brain.

 

[Darral27]

There are many levels of mentally ill. The question would be where do you draw the line? Who determines if you are unfit or not? The only answer would be uncle Sam and I cannot vote for that.

 

[SteveM4A1]

If they are that much of a threat to society, they shouldn't be free.

 

[atvdave]

I think it needs to be on a case by case basis. I'm sure there are some mentally ill people who shouldn't be around fire arms, but there are also some who would not hurt themselves are others. I would also like to know who determines what makes a person mentally ill?

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Question is too broad to answer.

 

[atvdave]

Question is too broad to answer.

That's why I put Undecided.

 

[BogWalker]

If they are that much of a threat to society, they shouldn't be free.

Agreed. My opinion on letting felons own firearms as well. If they're too dangerous to trust with a firearm, they are too dangerous to trust in the general population.

 

[KLB]

Any free person should have the right to have the means to defend themselves.

 

[jamil]

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?

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/12/22/us/when-the-right-to-bear-arms-includes-the-mentally-ill.html

I said yes because, how can you predict which mentally ill people would be just like Lanza?

By keeping all mentally ill people from having access to firearms, we're essentially creating a class of people that don't have the right to bear arms just because some people who were mentally ill caused harm with firearms.

 

[88GT]

Why yes? I'm not disagreeing with you just trying to pick your brain.

No prob. Other posts have pretty much covered it. "Mentally ill" is a broad category. I do not favor the wholesale prohibition of something for the actions of a few.

 

[cce1302]

Any free person should have the right to have the means to defend themselves.

Yes.


Also, because I don't trust mental health professionals any more than I trust politicians and lawyers.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Also, because I don't trust mental health professionals any more than I trust politicians and lawyers.

The new hotness these days is to scream "MENTAL ISSUES" when a shooting occurs. Now, sure, that takes some of the heat off of legal gun owners... but don't be too quick to think that can't come back to bite us. With the wrong people in-power, the term "mentally ill" can be loosely applied to near anything.

Have anxiety? No gun for you. Depressed? No gun. Global warming denier? Obviously you're mentally unfit to own a firearm. Donated money in favor of traditional marriage? Guns don't belong in your hands.

Not liberal? No gun.

 

[Mark 1911]

I strongly disagree with giving anyone blanket power to arbitrarily deny someone's 2A on a whim. There should be extreme grounds to deny 2A rights. "Serious mental illness" is not PTSD. Some goof ball in an office saying that a veteran has PTSD should never have the power to send in a SWAT team to steal someone's guns. If someone has a mental illness but has never committed a crime, then why should their 2A rights be denied? I voted no, but the more I think through this, the more I think the real answer is "yes". If someone hasn't committed a felony, then there is no reason to take their guns away.

 

[rabidsquirrel]

I've taken medication in the past for depression and anxiety. Does that make me mentally ill? I hope not. Would I want my schizophrenic neighbor packing heat? Hell no! (I've had a legally insane neighbor, it's scary, trust me) I'll vote undecided for now since the boundaries are not well defined. However, I think a board of psychiatrists should have the capability to declare a person unfit to own firearms (ie a sociopath deemed likely to harm others).

 

[tv1217]

I think it's a case by case thing. There also has to be a line that, once crossed, you should taken out of society and never allowed back. I think a mass shooting of random people is past that line.

On the other hand, someone who finds out their significant other has been unfaithful and blows them away should get a medal.

 

[Spike_351]

In order to give a solid answer there has to be a CLEAR line drawn. Type of illness? Almost all soldiers who have seen combat have some form of PTSD and could be denied because of it. In order to determine what is to far you need to consider.

1. Type of illness

2.severity of illness

3.likeliness to harm others

ECT...the list could go on but you get my point. My ex gf was diagnosed with PTSD, depression, anxiety, bi-polar disorder, and was not a threat to anyone or any living thing for that matter. The ptsd was because of being the victim of a violent crime, so there are many circumstances to consider.

 

[TopDog]

Define seriously mentally ill. And clearify who gets to assign the label seriously mentally ill. Are we talking serial killer that ate his victims and is now released from prison by a democrat president. In that case I say, no, not really a good idea. Are we talking a BS medical system set up by liberals where they ask every single person they see if they own a gun and if the answer is yes they are labeled seriously mentally ill, then yes. So how about more definition to the question.