Not again.....

[bdee]

Well, we can talk about mental illness, or the left can talk about gun control. It sounds like you'd prefer to discuss gun control. Otherwise crazy people are going to keep doing crazy things, and eventually the public will seek solutions. I guess at that point you can discuss with the left their ideas on reasonable gun control measures. Once the public is fed up, you will lose that argument.

 

[jrbfishn]

Trick question. It describes various conditions not normalcy. But I would have thought you knew that.

Normal. The one condition no psychiatrist has ever been able to describe or diagnose.


Well,,,,,, except themselves of course. They are fine, the rest of us are screwed up.

sent from an idgit coffeeholic

 

[grasshopperglock]

Well, we can talk about mental illness, or the left can talk about gun control. It sounds like you'd prefer to discuss gun control. Otherwise crazy people are going to keep doing crazy things, and eventually the public will seek solutions. I guess at that point you can discuss with the left their ideas on reasonable gun control measures. Once the public is fed up, you will lose that argument.

Your view is scary. Not in my life time. Trust in that.

 

[bdee]

Your view is scary. Not in my life time. Trust in that.

Didn't realize you were born after 1994... interesting.

 

[Younggun]

Well, we can talk about mental illness, or the left can talk about gun control. It sounds like you'd prefer to discuss gun control. Otherwise crazy people are going to keep doing crazy things, and eventually the public will seek solutions. I guess at that point you can discuss with the left their ideas on reasonable gun control measures. Once the public is fed up, you will lose that argument.

Lol, bullshit.

The left doesn't want to talk about mental illness. When they do, they morph it in to gun control.

What you have talked about would simply cause people to avoid seeking any help when they actually do have an issue because the solution is "lock them up".

 

[grasshopperglock]

Didn't realize you were born after 1994... interesting.

Cling to your views. Drink your Kool-Aid.

 

[bdee]

Lol, bullshit.

The left doesn't want to talk about mental illness. When they do, they morph it in to gun control.

What you have talked about would simply cause people to avoid seeking any help when they actually do have an issue because the solution is "lock them up".

Fair enough. If and when the public does get fed up with these mass murders, they will be the ones controlling the conversation. It happened in 1986 with Reagan, it happened in 1994 with Clinton, it can happen again. Maybe the public will ignore this mass murder. Maybe the next one. Hell maybe they'll ignore the next 27 mass murders. Once it gets to that point, you won't be able to control the conversation, and yes the left wants to talk about guns. And at that point the general public will be receptive.

 

[grasshopperglock]

Fair enough. If and when the public does get fed up with these mass murders, they will be the ones controlling the conversation. It happened in 1986 with Reagan, it happened in 1994 with Clinton, it can happen again. Maybe the public will ignore this mass murder. Maybe the next one. Hell maybe they'll ignore the next 27 mass murders. Once it gets to that point, you won't be able to control the conversation, and yes the left wants to talk about guns. And at that point the general public will be receptive.

Sounds like a pre planned script. Ever since 2008.

 

[Younggun]

So we compromise, right?

Because when we do, they are always happy with it and don't try to compromise anymore of our rights away.

 

[vmax]

No compromise! NONE
In fact, keep fighting daily to get back what we have lost, like repeal the NFA and the illegal use of the Commerce Clause to restrict firearms


let the left talk all they want to and let them get the votes for a Constitutional Convention and strike down the 2A
I won't be holding my breath waiting.

IF they can do something along those lines, I figure Texas will tell the rest of the country to FO as it should

 

[jrbfishn]

In that case, I would think several states would.

from an idgit coffeeholic

 

[bdee]

Texas, Georgia, Oklahoma, and any other state you might be referring to, would do about the same regarding gun control as they did in 1986, 1994, and 1996.

 

[jrbfishn]

Your comprehension is showing again.

Or lack thereof, I should say. You might want to take a look at which way gun laws have been going in several states the last couple of years as well. Yes, several have gotten even more stupid, but others are starting to see the lies that were told by liberals.
Yeah, the people are getting fed up alright. They are getting fed up with being punished for what criminals do and the tools they use.

from an idgit coffeeholic

 

[bdee]

So in 1996 they passed the Brady Bill, how many of its provisions are being protested to this day?

1. Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
2. Is a fugitive from justice;
3. Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;
4. Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution;
5. Is an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States;
6. Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
7. Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced U.S. citizenship;
8. Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner, or;
9. Has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

For me, the only one that I would strip is number three as I would legalize drugs. On number one, I would say only for those convicted of violent crimes, and depending on the severity only for a set duration. In fact for eight and nine, I would say that it should be a set period of time, which could be renewed indefinitely.

But what I am talking about is number four. It is already law, and to me it seems reasonable. It takes a judge, and after due process, with testimony, to strip someone of their rights. But with the guy from Aurora, various people knew, including psychiatrists at the school, knew he was a nutcase. Yet no provision was available to get him before a judge, and thereby, despite being arguably certifiable, he was still able to legally purchase weapons.

So rather than talk about gun control, I prefer to talk about mental illness before I am forced to talk about making harder for me or you to get those guns.

 

[grumper]

The thing is mental illness covers a huge range of behaviors. Should sex addicts be prohibited from buying firearms? What about OCD folks afraid of germs like Howard Hughes? Anorexics? Workaholics? Folks who have an irrational fear of heights?

You can't just say everyone taking antidepressants is banned either. Because some are used to treat other illnesses. Like Elavil is prescribed for sufferers of Interstitial Cystitis (a painful bladder condition).

I agree with what was said up above. The people who knew these loons were about to go out and hurt people either failed to notify the authorities or were accomplices. The enabler parents and web forums where they openly discuss and plan massacres need to be held accountable..

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

I agree, and sometimes it would happen anyway. Thinking that we can legislate away bad things or evil is naive, and frankly, egotistical.

While we're at it maybe we can make a law to tell ISIS to be good boys. Probably be just about as effective.

 

[bdee]

The thing is mental illness covers a huge range of behaviors. Should sex addicts be prohibited from buying firearms? What about OCD folks afraid of germs like Howard Hughes? Anorexics? Workaholics? Folks who have an irrational fear of heights?

You can't just say everyone taking antidepressants is banned either. Because some are used to treat other illnesses. Like Elavil is prescribed for sufferers of Interstitial Cystitis (a painful bladder condition).

As I've stated several times, here in Texas we need to pass a law that places the 2nd Amendment under strict scrutiny. That is the key. Then at that point, the answer to all of your questions is only if the prosecutor can prove that denying them this right meets some compelling governmental interest, of which public safety is one. So in the case of a sex addict, would allowing this person legal access to guns severely limit the government's ability to protect public safety. At this point I can't think of a single situation where that were true. Anorexia, the real danger appears to be being a danger to oneself, but would having access to a gun change that?

So I am not proposing a change to the law regarding who is to be considered mentally ill, I am saying that the government would have to prove a compelling governmental interest before stripping someone of their rights.

 

[texas skeeter]

I still say the pills were more likely the cause than the symptom. Find one that doesn't list depression as a side effect.

I already stated somewhere earlier in a thread that the Meds are/were a big part of this problem. But either way these whack jobs still are not getting the proper treatment they need to get better.

 

[Southpaw]

So I am not proposing a change to the law regarding who is to be considered mentally ill.....

But that's the problem. There is no definition of what "mental defect" makes one prohibited and what does not. And every time someone wants to institute a mental hygiene gun buying scheme, they to never identify what would be considered a prohibited condition.

 

[bdee]

So I am not proposing a change to the law regarding who is to be considered mentally ill,/QUOTE]

But that's the problem. There is no definition of what "mental defect" makes one prohibited and what does not. And every time someone wants to institute a mental hygiene gun buying scheme, they to never identify what would be considered a prohibited condition.

But if we here in TX pass a law that brings the 2A under strict scrutiny, every time one of these cases in adjudicated, the prosecutor would have to prove a compelling governmental need before stripping someone of their rights.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Strict+Scrutiny