View Single Post
Old November 15, 2012, 09:46 PM   #38
Spats McGee
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,590
Originally Posted by mhuxtable
. . . .I'm actually FOR a mental health check....rarely are people suffering from mental illness aware of it, and I don't think someone who is clinically depressed/bi-polar/etc should be handling a firearm.

Is there a reason why that viewpoint is out of line or anti-gun? I think any right-minded adult should have a gun...but we are having a serious problem with massacres in this country with firearms by mentally ill people that I think could be prevented if those people are identified.
Two problems:
1) Using mental illness "clinically depressed/bi-polar/etc.: as the standard by which to deny someone a fundamental, individual constitutional right is a slippery slope. Who, exactly, will make that determination? What, exactly are to be the standards? As a general matter, it becomes fairly easy to designate a politically unpopular group as "mentally ill," and begin stripping them of their rights. E.g., "Communists? Why, only the mentally ill could believe such a system could work." Next step, disarm the communists.

2) Mass murders using guns make big news in the mainstream media. However, never forget that there are something like 65 MILLION gun owners in this country who didn't kill anyone today. Run the numbers on how many total gun owners there are in this country, and compare that to the number of them who actually go on shooting sprees, and then consider whether it constitutes a "serious problem."
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some.
Spats McGee is offline  
Page generated in 0.03313 seconds with 7 queries