Background checks and the "mentally ill"

[Tanfodude]

So what do you guys propose is the best way to deter these mentally ill persons from acquiring firearms, considering these ****ers are the ones who started all this mess???

 

[rvb]

So what do you guys propose is the best way to deter these mentally ill persons from acquiring firearms, considering these ****ers are the ones who started all this mess???

Maybe the answer isn't in restricting liberties, and defining "groups" of people, and keeping those groups from getting guns (gun control got much of its start in keeping the dark-skinned group from getting guns, after all)... maybe the answer is retaining people's rights to defend themselves when evil does appear.

"gun free zones," "background checks," "waiting periods," "registries" ... none of these stop violence. Violence stops violence. Why continue to believe MORE national policies will keep you safe?

Even if the "mentally ill" (whatever that is, and whoever may define it) can arm themselves, we can do much better than "save just one life" by being ARMED against them.

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Ben Franklin

I would rather have liberties fully in tact, even at a risk to my safety [and by extension, my kids' safety].

I have two young children. Of course I am sensative to Sandy Hook. It wrenched my heart out. But IMO the RIGHT answer to keeping my kids safe isn't a national policy against bad things happening... the right answer is giving the school districts and educators the tools to actually DEFEND MY KIDS as best they are able.

-rvb

 

[Pointman]

So what do you guys propose is the best way to deter these mentally ill persons from acquiring firearms, considering these ****ers are the ones who started all this mess???

They need to be adjudicated mentally incompetent by the legal system and that ruling provided to NICS. That is the current system.

A family member or the mental health doctor can initiate this.

It is interesting that the ACLU blocked mental health legislation in Connecticut

Connecticut Senate Bill 452 was proposed in February “to enhance the care and treatment of persons with psychiatric disabilities in both inpatient and outpatient settings.” But the bill was defeated in March, with opposition calling it “outrageously discriminatory.” The ACLU said the bill would “infringe on patients’ privacy rights by expanding [the circle of] who can medicate individuals without their consent.”

Link

I don't necessarily disagree with the ACLU (which unsettles me btw) in health professionals not being given sole discretion here. This was a big hangup with Manchin-Toomey and why the ACLU also expressed concern so at least they're being consistent.

In my view for any individual to be denied their rights due process must absolutely be observed.

 

[beararms1776]

They need to be adjudicated mentally incompetent by the legal system and that ruling provided to NICS. That is the current system.

A family member or the mental health doctor can initiate this.

It is interesting that the ACLU blocked mental health legislation in Connecticut



Link

I don't necessarily disagree with the ACLU (which unsettles me btw) in health professionals not being given sole discretion here. This was a big hangup with Manchin-Toomey and why the ACLU also expressed concern so at least they're being consistent.

In my view for any individual to be denied their rights due process must absolutely be observed.

I'm pretty sure those that have been adjudicated incompetent by a court are on a list. There's nothing wrong with that as long as they're adjudicating the right people.

 

[Pointman]

I'm pretty sure those that have been adjudicated incompetent by a court are on a list. There's nothing wrong with that as long as they're adjudicating the right people.

I believe part of the problem has been some state laws are preventing those states from giving that information to NICS.

But yes it reinforces the point that the "solution" isn't more laws it's enforcing the existing ones and working out the kinks such as this.