Will we/they create a witch hunt?

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

BBQJOE

Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2007
Messages
737
Location
ARIZONA
Will we/they create a witch hunt?
Of course we all don't want crazy people with bad intentions to own firearms.
But is that to say that a mentally disturbed person should have the right to defend himself from an attack stripped away from him? I guess that has already been decided.

I keep hearing folks, including the NRA bringing up the "mental health" issue.

I think we all know how the mentally ill who have proven their willingness to commit crimes should be dealt with.
But I think what looks like an up and coming push towards culling out the mentally ill could become a really slippery slope.

I see it coming to a point where all someone has to do is pick up a cell phone, call the police, and tell them they think you are crazy.
Before you know it, you will have more problems on your hands than you ever thought possible.

Who will be the people to determine who is crazy, and how much evaluation and inspection will you have to be subject to to prove to those questioning your sanity that you are indeed not insane? You will be guilty before proven innocent.
Right now, it doesn't take anything more than an upset girlfriend or spouse to make a call, report valid or invalid abuse, and bada bing, you can lose your guns.
And quite possibly you might have your gun rights revoked just because you were brought forward for analyzing.

We need to be careful in what we say, or think we might want, because one thing can certainly lead to another.
__________________
Sent by my S&W M&P 9mm

Our rights are not gifts from the government.
 
I worry about this in our schools as well. I fit the description of a "mass murdering school shooter" when I was in high school. Every quiet, nerdy, picked on kid will have more to gain by just taking bullying then reporting it and being called out of class to see the district shrink.

The seemingly good ideas are good on paper, but all they have to do is redefine "making your own ammo" as crazy...and we're boned.
 
There are those who believe that anyone who has an interst in guns beyond banning them has a mental health issue. They will act subtly, but expect any rule, regulation, technicality etc. will be exploited If it can be used to remove a gun from someone "lawfully".
 
With so many kids being "diagnosed" as having ADD/ADHD nowadays, many are getting classed as "mental" because of that. They may find it hard to get guns later because of this insidious diagnosis.:scrutiny:
 
I don't think mentally ill people should have access to firearms either, but this is a very fine line being drawn here. All it will take is a check mark in a box on an evaluation form, and you're done.
 
I don't see any need to go further than what's already on the 4473 ... you are a prohibited person if you have been adjudicated as mentally defective or have been involuntarily committed.

I've heard "mental health" described as "soft science". I take that to mean that while there are certain standards, they are "flexible" and "open to interpretation", hence you can have several "experts" with differing conclusions about a set of facts and circumstances. THAT'S NO GOOD!

Adjudications and committments are the result, I believe, of recognized due process (or they certainly should be). To me, that's "hard science" and taking it further is not a good idea. What's next; "phrenology"?
 
They've already started the witch hunts in California.

If it flies there, look for it to be introduced to your home town in the not so distant future.
 
There will probably be a rigged standardized true/false test, that no one taking it can pass.
I'm guessing no less than 500 questions.

Having to take the test itself, will disqualify you from owning firearms.

Also, turn your neighbor in for possibly being nuts....get a Walmart gift card!!!
 
It could easily become just like child abuse is now. One anonymous call to a hot line and the SWAT team is busting down your front door and stealing your guns. That's assuming they can even pick the right house to destroy. And then, who is it that gets to make a determination...... Some brainwashed head shrink and/or a slime bag lawyer? And what about all the overactive kids that get tagged as ADD or ADHD because they can't be disciplined without the parents being prosecuted for child abuse.

The only mental deficiencies I can go along with being reported to NICS is if the status is determined by a court to be violent.
 
Already the case in CA.

In California just possibly having a problem that an officer says may pose a danger to self or others results in a 5 year ban.
Not even being proven to have a problem, just the screening results in a five year ban.
No court, no appeals process, no innocent unless proven guilty. Not even guilty unless proven innocent. Becoming a prohibited person is automatic.


In California a statewide computer system red flags any such people that legally purchased a registered firearm, which results in an armed team going to confiscate all thier guns.
 
Adjudications and committments are the result, I believe, of recognized due process (or they certainly should be). To me, that's "hard science" and taking it further is not a good idea. What's next; "phrenology"?
Click to expand...

Adjudication in most places involves at least a judge or magistrate making a decision to issue an involuntary commitment order. I'm very disturbed to hear that it sounds like California has gone to a much more nebulous standard of even being subject to a police officer hold meaning "adjudication." For police a 72 hour hold (or however long inpatient care will actually bother keeping someone) can be a very appropriate short term solution/response to an immediate situation. I've done them and lots of times it's the right thing -- but it's not an examination of the whole person and whole picture. And making it such is not only not fair to the citizens effected by it, it is not fair to the LEOs making that call.
 
When things like Newtown happen people think only a person with a mental problem could have done such a horrible thing. We just cannot comprehend such actions and conclude only a crazy person could do this but what is a crazy person. These are horrific violent crimes that require planning and forethought which suggest the person who commits such a crime is not "crazy" at all. The problem is our point of reference. We have no other way understand it so we classify it as the act of a madman. It has to be because no regular person could do such a thing. Right.

The one act that speaks volumes is the shooter taking their life before being taken into custoday. It speaks of "choice". Its an act that counters the claim that the person who committed such an act is indeed crazy.

So in a failing effort to prevent a reoccurence we start the witch hunt for anyone that can be determined as "mentally ill". So who makes the determination? How is it made? Knowing full well that such crimes are impossible to prevent how far as a society do we go to prevent the unpreventable.

Of course if one changes the skin color and economic status of the victims then we wouldn't be discussing this months later. It would have been forgotten and the news media would have seen it only as a one day story.
 
Those that want to include all mental illness need to be reminded that being a homosexual was considered a mental illness not too long ago. Pretty sure the mentally ill are not capable of consenting to any sort of contract, including marriage. They are setting themselves up for issues further down the road.
 
I would venture that NYS is already instituting witch hunts getting folks to turn in neighbors who have guns. Reminds me of what the Nazis did during WWII in the Warsaw Ghetto and similar locales - it made their conquest of those people that much easier
 
Glad you brought this up, because this issue hits home with me. A good friend of mine has guns, and lots of 'em; in fact, I provided a written character reference for him when he applied for his carry permit a dozen or so years ago. But over the years he's changed---and not for the better. It began with prescription drugs, which he began taking to ease his mental state rather than to relieve physical pain. As the years went by, he became abusive to his wife and kids, and distanced himself from his friends. He even kicked through the glass door (while wearing a foot cast!) at a local supermarket in an agitated state, simply because it didn't open fast enough. Most everyone who knows him now considers him "crazy," whatever that means, and would be uncomfortable to know he owns guns.

My wife says he should be "reported," to which I replied, "To whom?" What agency, what person, what authority could take any meaningful preventive action in his case? And what if I, as the reporter, was wrong? I believe he is an accident waiting to happen, but there's little I or anyone else can do about it. Who knows, maybe someone feels that way about me, and I'd hate to be the target of a witch hunt.
 
One of the biggest problems IMO with the anti gunner's basic philosphy is that they believe they can somehow prevent crime from happening preemptively. Sounds great but I think once you actually start down that road you will at some point be asked (or forced) to give up just about all of your rights only to find that it will not and cannot work. Unless we keep everyone locked up in a padded room so they can't hurt themselves or anyone else. Then we'll all be "safe". I don't think I will ever "want" to be THAT "safe".
 
BSA1 said:
I don't think mentally ill people should have access to firearms either

With an estimated 26.2 percent of Americans ages 18 and older — about one in four adults — suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder in a given year you sure are seeking to ban a lot of people.

Maybe you need to re-examine your position.

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publ...count-mental-disorders-in-america/index.shtml
Click to expand...

I'm not buying it. 1 in 4 is way too high an estimate. In my opinion, it's just a way the psychiatric lobby has convinced NIH (national institutes of health) to publish their "party line" just to make money diagnosing and treating more potential lifelong patients. A whole lot of money can be made by such an "estimate". Then after seeking and receiving treatment, government swoops in and declares all of the 26.2 percent ineligible to own firearms because they are "mentally ill".

chuck
 
Doctor: Do you own guns?
Patient: Yes, a couple.
Doctor: Why?
Patient: For self defense, in case someone tries to hurt me or my family.
Doctor: That's paranoia, we better have you checked out by a government paid psychiatrist to see if there are any other mental problems.

And off you go to be "checked" out by someone who is paid to have an agenda.

^^^This is why I don't like the whole "we need to keep guns out of the mentally ill" plot everyone is spouting these days.
 
One of the strategies of the antigunners is to maximize the classes of people who are excluded from owning guns. If they can demonize a group of people (such as "wife beaters") in the public mind, they'll target that group. We saw that with the Lautenberg Amendment. Now the demons are people with mental issues, whether or not they have proven violent tendencies. (Perversely, excluding people with mental issues from having guns will mean that fewer of them will seek treatment.) Ultimately, the antigunners would like it so that if you had an interest in having a gun, that would be evidence that there was something mentally wrong with you, and therefore you shouldn't have it. The perfect Catch-22.
 
I believe there is a simple solution. Considering most of these "nuts" plan their attacks, choose soft targets, write up some sort of grievance list and plan some kind of "out" after the the act, even if it is suicide, I believe the solution is make our society free enough that you may expect to be shot immediately upon displaying behavior that is harmful to others. "An armed society is a polite society."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top