• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Too Crazy To Own A Firearm...

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
I have been fixed on a general argument that mentally ill individuals ought not be allowed to own firearms.

Now, if some person has no grasp of Reality, they ought not own firearms, IMO.--for instance: Someone who believes they are from planet Mars, and can travel through time, and that humans are actually robots created by some far-off alien civilization.

Back to Reality (at least A Reality)...

If an individual is sane enough to be deemed responsible for their 'actions' then they ought to be permitted to own firearms; anyone disagree with this assertion? I realize that the assertion is that individuals would be "deemed sane enough."--if you disagree with the assertion that individuals ought to be 'deemed' anything, I understand; I am not asserting that that is my view, that individuals ought to be deemed, it's just that individuals are, by the System.
 

DocWalker

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
1,922
Location
Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
This is a subject that is wide open.

Who will determain the level of sanity that is required to own a gun? The goverment?

What if the goverment said anyone that is taking mediciation for ANY mental disorder isn't allowed to have a gun.

What if the goverment decided that anyone being compinsated for a mental disorder can't have a gun. Reference the military PTSD VA benifits or anyone getting Medicaid or Welfare due to a mental problem.

This is a scary issue as there are a lot of people that have been given medication for depression or other mental issues. Think of all the people the goverment could disarm with one bill signed by the president.

Scary.....
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
This is a scary issue as there are a lot of people that have been given medication for depression or other mental issues. Think of all the people the goverment could disarm with one bill signed by the president.

.

That's what I'm getting at though, if you are sane enough to be tried in court for any act then you ought to be permitted to own Firearms.

I have been thinking much lately about whether mentally ill individuals ought to be permitted to own firearms.
 

DocWalker

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
1,922
Location
Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
That's what I'm getting at though, if you are sane enough to be tried in court for any act then you ought to be permitted to own Firearms.

I have been thinking much lately about whether mentally ill individuals ought to be permitted to own firearms.

I agree it should only be the worse citizens of America that can't own weapons like Charles Manson, Jeffrey Domer, John Hinkley, and all politicians.

You know the VERY WORSE people in our sociaty.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
I have been fixed on a general argument that mentally ill individuals ought not be allowed to own firearms.

Now, if some person has no grasp of Reality, they ought not own firearms, IMO.--for instance: Someone who believes they are from planet Mars, and can travel through time, and that humans are actually robots created by some far-off alien civilization.

Back to Reality (at least A Reality)...

If an individual is sane enough to be deemed responsible for their 'actions' then they ought to be permitted to own firearms; anyone disagree with this assertion? I realize that the assertion is that individuals would be "deemed sane enough."--if you disagree with the assertion that individuals ought to be 'deemed' anything, I understand; I am not asserting that that is my view, that individuals ought to be deemed, it's just that individuals are, by the System.
Typically we have folks whose sanity should be questioned who are the ones deciding whose sanity must be determined.

....far-off alien civilization? Nope....the NSA. :uhoh:
 

ManInBlack

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
1,551
Location
SW Idaho
Two things:

1) Political abuse of psychiatry - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry_in_the_Soviet_Union

What happens when political views are determined to be a sign of mental illness? Recently, a professor made the news for suggesting that opposition to the theory of anthropogenic global warming should be treated as a mental illness. I have also heard accusations that a person who stockpiles guns and groceries is "paranoid," that those who don't believe in sending their children to government mind-laundries are "unstable," etc. The bottom line is that any classification, by which folks can be denied their rights, can be twisted around to encompass any target population. This is especially true among relativistic liberals like Beretta, who profess that there are no universal truths, and that everything is subject to interpretation.

2. "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."
 

J_Oliver

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2010
Messages
151
Location
Haw River, North Carolina
Most of the antipsychotic medications can be/are prescribed for multiple uses other than a psychotic condition. So what happens to the folks with controlled forms of epilepsy or sleeping disorders that are prescribed antipsychotic medications for their disorders? Should they not be allowed to defend themselves and their families?

Sent from my DROID2 using Tapatalk
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee

F*ck a bunch of commies; we are talking about America.

What happens when political views are determined to be a sign of mental illness?

Then we will deal with that issue.

[snippers] The bottom line is that any classification, by which folks can be denied their rights, can be twisted around to encompass any target population. This is especially true among relativistic liberals like Beretta, who profess that there are no universal truths, and that everything is subject to interpretation.

Hee hee, you called me a Relativist.

2. "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."

Infringement is a matter of degrees. Don't get me wrong, I believe many things ought to be what you believe they ARE. Where we diverge is in application, things that ought, are not always, and if they are, well, it is a matter of degrees.
 
Last edited:

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
Most of the antipsychotic medications can be/are prescribed for multiple uses other than a psychotic condition. So what happens to the folks with controlled forms of epilepsy or sleeping disorders that are prescribed antipsychotic medications for their disorders? Should they not be allowed to defend themselves and their families?

Sent from my DROID2 using Tapatalk

I will give an example (maybe I shouldn't LOL): I take a thyroid medication because apparently I have had a thyroid issue for many years, but was unaware of it...until, well, I started having severe Mania's (still functional) about two years ago, and six months ago it got so out of control I had to be hospitalized--for a time I did not carry, not because I didn't trust my sanity, just that I was in no position to even drive for a while; my wife carried instead. I have asked myself if someone like me ought not be permitted to own firearms, and I say: Yes, people like me ought to. The reason: Even when I am in a mania, I am still sane, if that makes sense; I just might seem to be insane to people observing me. So, the OT here was that if a person is sane enough to be charged for a crime by their unlawful actions, then they ought to not be barred from owning, and carrying firearms.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
I have an example of a CRAZY PERSON...

So, I am sitting here online, and just outside my window I can see the school two of my children attend. I look out the window and this man walks up to a huge fir the school has growing at the corner of the lot, and starts cutting the tree down. LMAO...so, Seattle's finest pull-up, and get into with the guy, then arrest the guy. The guy is crazy, IMO. Then again, maybe he is perfectly sane, and making a political statement.
 
Last edited:

Jack House

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
2,611
Location
I80, USA
Bat crap insane individuals perhaps ought to not own firearms. But what ought not happen and what should be illegal are very different things.

Also, you keep saying permitted. Do you not believe in the RKBA?

Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk 2
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
Bat crap insane individuals perhaps ought to not own firearms. But what ought not happen and what should be illegal are very different things.

Also, you keep saying permitted. Do you not believe in the RKBA?

Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk 2

I meant to word it so that it wouldn't be misunderstood that I was starting an discussion about whether we should be "permitted" or "not-permitted." I believe I stated something along the lines of "barred" as it relates to firearm ownership, but I did use the term "permitted" as well; in the barred sense.
 
Last edited:

ManInBlack

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
1,551
Location
SW Idaho
I meant to word it so that it wouldn't be misunderstood that I was starting an discussion about whether we should be "permitted" or "not-permitted." I believe I stated something along the lines of "barred" as it relates to firearm ownership, but I did use the term "permitted" as well; in the barred sense.

What is the difference between between an action being barred by government and not permitted by government, when the penalty for both is loss of life, liberty, and/or property?
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
What is the difference between between an action being barred by government and not permitted by government, when the penalty for both is loss of life, liberty, and/or property?

To save an argument I meant to leave out the term 'permitted.'

In answer to your question: Permitting is based on the premise that the Government can not-Permit therefore Permit. Barring is merely the premise that the individual is inherent with the Right to own firearms, and bear them, but can be barred, if, let's say: You are freaking insane...I know, i know, "who decides who is 'insane'? Trust me, there are insane people out there that ought to be barred from owning firearms, and I'm not talking about political beliefs, or any non-sense like that. I am talking individuals who suffer from a lack of capacity to control, for instance, Ideations, where they are unable to decipher Reality from their own thoughts. That is not to say that Schizophrenics for example, ought to be barred, there are plenty that have their issue under control, and are able to decipher Ideations (whether internal or external) from Reality.

*Also* Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness is not exclusively wrapped-up in the ownership of a firearm. There are plenty of individuals who lack the emotional, and intellectual capacity to own firearms that can pursue those three things in their own way.

I will offer another example: When I was in the hospital there was a man there that had a brain injury that left him for the most part rational, but he would become psychotic (the violent kind) just sitting there doing a simple thing like eating his dinner; and he had no control over the outburst, even on medication. That is a man that ought be barred from owning firearms.--he was incapable of controlling his violent impulses; it was actually quite sad to see.

I would love to walk through a psychiatric hospital and you tell me that some of the individuals that are in there ought to be able to purchase firearms; you have obviously never taken a walk through a psychiatric ward.

The penalty may be the same, but they are not derived from the same premise, IMO. Also, the term Permitted, implies a Power to Permit or not-Permit. I, in my response, did not mean in any way to assert that the Government has the Power to not-Permit therefore Permit.

I wonder: Is the Government capable of utilizing its Power is such a way that it bars a person who lacks the emotional, and intellectual capacity (as the man I used as an example), but outside of that is barred itself from barring any other individual? I believe the Government can function in that way.
 
Last edited:

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
As much as I should know better, I'll bite.

The problem with allowing the government to say who can and can't have firearms at all is that once they can prohibit one person its not long before the standard is changed for others. A standard, of sanity as described by the OP, can be progressively changed over the years too easily and even to the point where only those who are of the exact same mindset as the standard writers is allowed to have a means to defend onesself. The point of disallowing the government to stop someone from having arms is that EVERYONE has the same need to provide for their own defense.
 

Gil223

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2012
Messages
1,392
Location
Weber County Utah
Most of the antipsychotic medications can be/are prescribed for multiple uses other than a psychotic condition. So what happens to the folks with controlled forms of epilepsy or sleeping disorders that are prescribed antipsychotic medications for their disorders?

IANAL, but as I understand it, and the way it stands right now, the prevailing prohibition applies to those who have "been adjudicated" mentally ill, not to people who are simply taking anti-psychotic drugs as treatment for other conditions. I agree that we don't need loonies running around with guns. Pax...
 
Top