It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

States Disarming Mentally Ill

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 11:32 PM
link   

States Disarming Mentally Ill


www.cnn.com

States appear to be taking more action to keep guns out of the hands of people with mental health problems in the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings, new figures show.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 11:32 PM
link   
Now, I think it is probably a good idea to keep guns away from the criminally insane. I do see a way that this could be abused. Anyone who has ever been prescribed an anti depressant could be considered mentally ill.

I would be curious to see the % of the population that "could" be restricted from buying firearms if they chose to use that broader definition of mental illness?

www.cnn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 12:51 AM
link   
We can probably all agree that totally crazy people don't need to have guns (yet we let them drive...). However the question is who draws the line and where does that line get drawn. Another question would be, does this violate the constitution ?

With the good comes the bad. Surely back in the constitution days they knew people were mentally ill yet they didn't add anything like :



A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed unless a doctor sees fit

or

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed except when congress says otherwise


I'm not a gun freak but even I can recognize that gun rights are slowly being taken away.

So.. stop crazy people from getting guns ? That'll work great if they have short term memory problems and FORGET they wanted a gun. However pretty much any person who wants to can obtain a gun regardless of the gun laws in play.

Back to the car thing... so we take the guns away from crazies but we let them drive ? Cars can be just as dangerous (or more dangerous) then a gun.

So on one side I can see the logic - on the other side not so much.

The VA killer and any other school shooter most likely would have found a way to get a gun even with stricter laws in place. HOWEVER if more regular citizens were packing heat the death toll would have been A LOT lower.

Perhaps some of yall remember that dude who did some shooting in Lubys. If a few of them would have had guns that dude would have been dead early into the deal. The dramatic story out of that was a women watched her parents die while her gun sat useless in her car (she was trying to be a good citizen and follow the law).

Texas now has concealed hand gun laws and you should bet your bottom dollar criminals think about that when planning their exploits. Sure you could say 'oh well the bad guys will just get bigger guns' but I think criminals value their life just like everyone else and some of them are deterred by the fact that in Texas you never know who is packing heat.

The bottom line is this : people who want guns will get them regardless of what any law says

[edit on 30-11-2007 by discomfit]

[edit on 30-11-2007 by discomfit]

[edit on 30-11-2007 by discomfit]



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 01:28 AM
link   
reply to post by discomfit
 




The VA killer and any other school shooter most likely would have found a way to get a gun even with stricter laws in place. HOWEVER if more regular citizens were packing heat the death toll would have been A LOT lower.


Yes but if everyone was packing heat the campus could turn into a wild west shootout! I'm not sure more guns is the answer. But I understand your point about self protection... there are alot of crazy folks out there



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 01:33 AM
link   
I don't believe in the wild west shoot out theory although I understand your point. Where I live many people own guns and I've never seen any type of shoot out.

In fact many people predicted Texas would suffer from this fate but to the best of my knowledge no such thing has occurred.

[edit on 30-11-2007 by discomfit]



posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 12:31 AM
link   
My main concern with the topic is that "IF" they are trying to take away the populace's guns, it would be an easy way to start. If they just make it official that anyone with mental illness can't have a weapon, which by itself would be an easy law to pass. Then it would be a very small step to say anyone who has EVER been perscribed an antidepressant or antianxiety medication is part of that population.

I am having trouble finding the exact numbers, but I would assume that a large portion of America has been perscribed them at one time or another. Especially Vets who actually have the training to use a weapon and may possibly have an axe to grind with the government.

I just see it as the so called, "slippery slope".



posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 01:15 AM
link   
would suck for me because many dr's will use antidepressants for chronic pain.

so, ive been on AD's but NOT for depression, but try telilng a beurocrat that when i apply for my permit again.

and the wild west shootout analogies amuse me, ive carried a gun, concealed for eyars and ive been in exactly 0 shootouts. hell ive never even felt the need to flash/draw/ or otherwise indicate i had one on me.

hope that doesnt change anytime soon



posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 01:32 AM
link   
I am in a similar position to Damocles, I am on Cymbalta for diabetes-related nerve pain.

I wonder how this will be implemented, is this for people who have serious mental health issues like Cho? or will every person who has been diagnosed with simple depression or anxiety (a pretty massive chunk of the population) see their Second Amendment rights placed in jeopardy?



posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 02:22 AM
link   
I have a "condition" myself.

I also have a pellet gun that looks real enough to get me shot if I ever flipped out enough to take it out of the house, but it helps me relieve stress sometimes.

My father taught me extensively the proper use and techniques for firearms. His most important rule : "Never point a weapon at anything unless you intend to kill it." I NEVER forget that.

I only fire little plastic pellets at inanimate objects, and I always keep that pellet gun locked up in a safe box whenever it's not in use.

I can't speak for everyone who has a condition, but seeing how so many people these days are on some sort of medication for some ailment or another, this smacks of some sort of nefarious idealistic agenda using the "mentally ill" as a scapegoat to get the whole process underway.

I'm not pointing fingers though, I'm just going with my gut instinct on this one.



posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 06:00 AM
link   
reply to post by xmotex
 


I think it just depends on how far they want to push it. Once they open the door to it, the option would appear to be there to go all the way. Start with the seriously insane cases, since everyone would agree that they shouldn't be armed. Just make sure that it is worded in a way that is ambiguous enough that it could be applied to a much larger group.


I will be curious to see if this gains any momentum.



posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 06:03 AM
link   
I think it's time we disarm everyone! not just the mentally ill. Because you can't tell if someone has good mental health just by looking at him.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join