Do you support people who hear voices telling them to kill being allowed to keep their guns?

[Auld Phart]

how does hearing voices make them dangerous??

depends on what the voices are telling them.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Don't take the chance. Confiscate their weapons.

And take them into custody.
Because even without a firearm, they are a danger to themselves and others.
Right?

 

[kaz]

Generally speaking, I do not and cant imagine why anyone would support a simple diagnosis as a means to remove rights.

This places WAY to much onus on medical doctors to invade rights when the medical community is not geared for that. They are geared for provide support and treatment. There is a reason there are different standards in courts than there are other institutions, courts have a lot of power to limit or remove your rights.

Further, if you want to stigmatize seeking mental health help the FASTEST way to do that is to attach criminal penalties to seeking help. And make no mistake about it, removing and infringing on rights are criminal penalties.

What you are saying is logical, reasonable and rational, which is why it's ridiculous to believe because we are talking about gpverm,emt, which is none of those.

The first question to ask yourself when giving any power to government is, will the left abuse this power. The answer is clearly yes. The left will call any conservative deranged and remove their right to a gun for political rather than mental reasons. We have to stop dancing around this. The left is using our legal system to end democracy. Stop being so naive, Dorothy

 

[progressive hunter]

The thread title was: "Do you support people who hear voices telling them to kill being allowed to keep their guns"

Are you actually contending that does not make someone dangerous?

I need more info than that,,,

who doesnt have an inner voice expressing someone that you should kill??

mine tells me that pedophiles, rapist and murderers should be killed,,

theres a big problem on stories like this is we only get a snippet of info and never hear the whole story,,

 

[progressive hunter]

depends on what the voices are telling them.

what I want to know in this case is why didnt they take it further and go to the courts to have his rights removed,,

did it not meet the requirement or did the people involved in his evaluation allow him back on the streets knowing he was a danger,,

 

[Auld Phart]

what I want to know in this case is why didnt they take it further and go to the courts to have his rights removed,,

did it not meet the requirement or did the people involved in his evaluation allow him back on the streets knowing he was a danger,,

I agree.

he should have lost his access to firearms at this point,

Cops Sent To Gunman’s Home For Mental Health Check Weeks Prior To Massacre

According to new reports, law enforcement was sent to Robert Card‘s home prior to the mass shootings that occurred in Maine last week. Robert Card was named a suspect in the tragic events that took place on Wednesday. It was later revealed that the 40-year-old army veteran had mental health...

www.yahoo.com

 

[progressive hunter]

I agree.

he should have lost his access to firearms at this point,

Cops Sent To Gunman’s Home For Mental Health Check Weeks Prior To Massacre

According to new reports, law enforcement was sent to Robert Card‘s home prior to the mass shootings that occurred in Maine last week. Robert Card was named a suspect in the tragic events that took place on Wednesday. It was later revealed that the 40-year-old army veteran had mental health...

www.yahoo.com

see that doesnt tell me much at all,,

what about his threat to shoot up a NG base?? that alone should have warranted at least charges that would have gotten him into court,,

and he didnt hear voices,, he thought them,, and who hasnt had inner voice tell them something while in an emotional state,, that wouldnt cut it to remove his rights,, but the threat should have,,

 

[Michelle420]

If they are that dangerous yes they need to be monitered 24/7. However, there are instances when someone is very mentally ill but their family has the ability to monitor and care for them. In that case no weaponary but also no locking them up. It's a slippery slope because of the way they diagnose everyone with some form of a mental condition it seems.

 

[FA_Q2]

What you are saying is logical, reasonable and rational, which is why it's ridiculous to believe because we are talking about gpverm,emt, which is none of those.

The first question to ask yourself when giving any power to government is, will the left abuse this power. The answer is clearly yes. The left will call any conservative deranged and remove their right to a gun for political rather than mental reasons. We have to stop dancing around this. The left is using our legal system to end democracy. Stop being so naive, Dorothy

What was naïve in what I said?

Where was I supporting governmental action?

Did you even read my statement?

 

[FA_Q2]

I need more info than that,,,

who doesnt have an inner voice expressing someone that you should kill??

mine tells me that pedophiles, rapist and murderers should be killed,,

theres a big problem on stories like this is we only get a snippet of info and never hear the whole story,,

The vast majority of people.

You are just trying to avoid the point if you are going to equate hearing voices with inner dialogue. That is monumentally ignorant.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If they are that dangerous yes they need to be monitered 24/7. However, there are instances when someone is very mentally ill but their family has the ability to monitor and care for them. In that case no weaponary but also no locking them up.

Why should they not be locked up?
They are a danger to themselves and their families.

 

[jwoodie]

The federal government is largely restricted to specifying what types of military weapons may be privately owned. Individual states have much more latitude regarding when, where and who may possess firearms. As mentioned previously, states may detain individuals who are an imminent danger to themselves or others. However, the issue of whether such an individual should have his future rights to possess a gun depends on specific state laws regarding gun ownership and registration.

For example, if a state law requires registration to buy or possess a gun, then a background check is also permissible before accepting the registration. If another state doesn't have any restrictions on buying or possessing a gun, then prohibiting an individual from exercising these rights would be unconstitutional.

 

[kaz]

What was naïve in what I said?

Where was I supporting governmental action?

Did you even read my statement?

Untighten the grip a few notches

 

[progressive hunter]

The vast majority of people.

You are just trying to avoid the point if you are going to equate hearing voices with inner dialogue. That is monumentally ignorant.

not avoiding anything since we know very little about the whole story,, do you know more about it than the rest of us?? if so what do you know that we dont??

I would be more focused on the outright threat to NG and not some so called voices,,

why if he did make these threats was he not charged?? thats the real question to me,,

 

[Michelle420]

Why should they not be locked up?
They are a danger to themselves and their families.

If they have family that can care for them 24/7 I think nurture is always better than institution when possible. It's cheaper too because a tax payer is not covering the bill of mental hospital. If they can't be cared for properly then lock them up.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If they have family that can care for them 24/7 I think nurture is always better than institution when possible.

They are a danger to those family members.
And themselves.

 

[kaz]

Why should they not be locked up?
They are a danger to themselves and their families.

Because government decides that they need to be locked up and government is a lot scarier than they are. Trump is facing what, 91 counts of "Democrats want a single party government where they are the single party." That is pure terror to any rational mind

 

[kaz]

They are a danger to those family members.
And themselves.

And government is a threat to those family members and themselves and everyone else. Democrats are going for it. We have to stop pretending we have a free country

 

[M14 Shooter]

The federal government is largely restricted to specifying what types of military weapons may be privately owned. Individual states have much more latitude regarding when, where and who may possess firearms. As mentioned previously, states may detain individuals who are an imminent danger to themselves or others. However, the issue of whether such an individual should have his future rights to possess a gun depends on specific state laws regarding gun ownership and registration.

For example, if a state law requires registration to buy or possess a gun, then a background check is also permissible before accepting the registration. If another state doesn't have any restrictions on buying or possessing a gun, then prohibiting an individual from exercising these rights would be unconstitutional.

This is completely off topic.

 

[Michelle420]

They are a danger to those family members.
And themselves.

Not all mental illness is a danger. That's why I think it is a slippery slope Like for example if someone loses their temper in public or have alot of stress and they are over reacting, they could be deemed with an anger management disorder and have rights taken away. I mean look at the way politics works. In Canada they are already looking into euthanizing the homeless, disabled and mentally ill.