Keep guns from mentally ill

  • Follow Letters

I am a firm believer in the right to bear arms, and in limiting the right to bear arms for those individuals who should not own or purchase a firearm, in order to protect them and society at large.

As my own family has been subject to a mentally ill person buying a firearm and taking their own life, it would have been a blessing to us to have been notified that this person had bought such and gotten the person help in time to stave off the anguish we felt and still feel today. This where I personally draw the line in this issue, and I am saddened by the failure of a congressional bill that would have greatly expanded background checks to include the severely mentally ill.

While I am a firm believer in the Second Amendment, a veteran and an avid hunter, something needs to be done to stop mentally ill people from purchasing arms and doing themselves and others harm. I need not point out all of the tragedies this nation has experienced from the recent rash of senseless killings at the hands of the mentally ill.

This is just plain common sense, and until something is done to stop all of this, then tragedies such as the ones at Newtown, Denver, Tucson, Virginia Tech and the like will become more commonplace.

Comments (16) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
jkline
527
Points
jkline 04/26/13 - 05:19 am
2
1
Of course, I do not agree.

1. There are over 400 different forms of "mental illness." When I go over the list, I realise that every human being on this planet can have one of these "mental illnesses" applied to their "condition," for they include many things that happen to any normal person. Even a person who has given up smoking can be listed under "nicotine withdrawal," on the list of "mental disorders." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mental_disorders

2. It has been disproven time and again that any law will prevent a person from obtaining a weapon, if he decides that he wants one.

3. The Constitution was written as it was for a good reason. The Founding Fathers did not trust officials to decide who should or should not arm themselves any more than I do. So, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." To have the government decide this is obviously and infringement. To order that people with "mental disorders" cannot be armed is a blank check for civilian disarmament, which is clearly the end goal anyway, for every person on this planet can be said by somebody to suffer from one or more of the listed "mental disorders."

This approach to civilian disarmament is not fooling anyone who really looks closely at it.

Truth Matters
6824
Points
Truth Matters 04/26/13 - 05:59 am
0
3
Guns, etc.

"No law" will prevent those with ill-intent from getting a gun but many expect this country, Homeland Security, FBI, and CIA to stop every would be terrorist attack. Yet already many are blaming the current admin for not stopping terrorists. If we are asked to accept gun violence as a part of living in a free society then an extension of that seems to be we had better understand that terror attacks will be also to a degree.

I am grateful that many would-be terror acts have been stopped, but I don't think all will be. Much like Israel we have entered an era where this will be something that we will have to contend with and learn to fight but know we may never eliminate the threat.

Sad but true.

Bizkit
31329
Points
Bizkit 04/26/13 - 07:18 am
3
1
Oh yeah great. The answer is

Oh yeah great. The answer is obvious to discriminate against mental illness-which is against the law. These knee-jerk reactions of reacting to crime by taking away innocents freedom is getting old. Terrorist and criminals win.

t3bledsoe
14290
Points
t3bledsoe 04/26/13 - 08:28 am
2
3
Good letter !

I can not figure out if this writer is lib. or conserv., but many libs. agree with everything in this letter. I don't care if you personally wrote The 2nd Amendment, THERE ARE CIRCUMSTANSES WHERE GUN LAWS ARE AN ABSOLUTE MUST !!

Bulldog
1324
Points
Bulldog 04/26/13 - 08:54 am
3
1
The issue is violence, not guns

The issue is human violence, not guns per se. There are two general groups who attempt to curtail our rights to firearms. The first are the obvious "gun grabbers" whose eventual goal is to subjugate the general population. The second is the group of unthinking people who do not or can not understand the concept of individual responsibility. Individuals, not inanimate objects, are the cause of all violence and until the root causes of violence are addressed we will continue to see carnage on an hourly basis. Violent people will find a way to hurt others. The list of everyday items which can be used to hurt others is endless. Until violent people are removed from society we must remain free to defend ourselves.

deestafford
27565
Points
deestafford 04/26/13 - 09:05 am
3
1
As appears to be the case, definitions are the fly in the

ointment. Trying to define mental illness and what "mental illnesses" would be under the category of "do not sell a gun to" seems to be the big hurtle. I believe there are many mental illness people who should not even have access to a knife much less a gun. As long as we have organizations such as the ACLU that appear to have the goal of society degradation no matter the ultimate cost, we are going to have problems.

As to the comment about terrorism and this administration, Obama has made the country less safe because of his political correctness and sympathy toward Islam refusing to see it as a radical element the size that it is. I think it would be hard for a rational person to list two things he has done to make the US safer...and don't include,"He got Bin Ladin".

faithson
5158
Points
faithson 04/26/13 - 09:22 am
2
4
list two things he has done

gotta love it when the 'haters', who use some pretty irrational conclusions, call for 'facts' they will only dispute.

Jon Lester
2297
Points
Jon Lester 04/26/13 - 09:44 am
3
0
All the progress we've made trying to de-stigmatize

mental health issues is at risk, with all these statist authoritarian types on the supposed "left" wanting doctors (and even social workers) to violate medical privacy and report anyone with the slightest "potential" to be a danger to themselves and others. If this goes through, the people who need help the most, won't get it. And where has Big Pharma been in this debate? Their supposed treatments have been a common factor among mass shooters in the last 15 years or so.

carcraft
25803
Points
carcraft 04/26/13 - 10:15 am
3
2
The Liberal agenda screws up the works!

Years ago those that were mentally ill and considered a threat to themselves and others were locked up. Now we let them roam the streets (many home less because they can not function in society) thanks to the liberal ideal of "not institutionalizing them" back in the 70's and 80's. Then they passed all these neat laws like HIPPA etc so our health care information could be kept secret. Now they want the mental health care information passed around to law inforcement and kept on file with those conducting back ground checks. Well some will say police need to know this, yet if an underage girl gets an abortion her name and the name of the person that got her pregnant are closely guarded information even though in some cases it is prima facia evidence of broken laws. So it is OK, according to liberal dogma, to use health care information to take away peoples rights but not be able to access health care information to prosecute criminals abusing young girls! The out come of all this is that people that need mental health care may not get it because it may impinge on thier rights as a citizen there by creating a choice of accessing health care that is a right at the expense of thier right to the 2nd amendment! You can always count on liberals for inconsistancy, especially if it harms a favorite cause like gun control or abortion!

dichotomy
32906
Points
dichotomy 04/26/13 - 10:18 am
4
1
" I am saddened by the

" I am saddened by the failure of a congressional bill that would have greatly expanded background checks to include the severely mentally ill."

Unfortunately, the proposed law DID NOTHING to require "severely mentally ill" people to be reported and DID NOTHING to establish, or link, any database of mentally ill people to the EXISTING background check system. So, the proposed law that "greatly expanded" background checks would NOT have included the "severely mentally ill" since there was no provision for reporting or building a database of the mentally ill people. So, the proposed law would have fixed ZERO, NADA, NOTHING and would NOT have prevented ANY of the recent mass shootings. And we already have laws against "straw buyers" which are NOT enforced so the "private sales" background check is useless and could not be enforced anyway except during law enforcement entrapment operations.

The proposed gun control was nothing but political lip service public relations which would have accomplished nothing and some of which was unenforceable. The ONLY ones affected would be law abiding citizens.

nocnoc
42520
Points
nocnoc 04/26/13 - 11:23 am
3
1
IF the law "only" added Mentally ILL reporting to prevent

purchases or ownership, I could have supported that limited additional line to the 100's of anti-gun laws already on the books.

But the liberals & obama Anti-gun bill was nothing about keeping guns out of mentally ill peoples hands.

If was just about weakening the 2nd amendment and banning rifles and pistols of honest citizens.

Why can't the liberals address to problem and cause.

Every mass shooting in the last 20 years has been caused by deranged persons.

Darby
25614
Points
Darby 04/26/13 - 11:40 am
4
1
"THERE ARE CIRCUMSTANSES (sic) WHERE

GUN LAWS ARE AN ABSOLUTE MUST !!"

.
We already have a plethora of gun laws. Enough already! Enforce those on the books or write them out of existence.

Get away from the concept that for every problem, there is a government solution just waiting to be written into law?

KSL
129373
Points
KSL 04/26/13 - 05:59 pm
1
1
Darby

Love your comment. And plethora has always been one of my favorite words, along with dearth.

CobaltGeorge
158552
Points
CobaltGeorge 04/26/13 - 07:27 pm
3
0
I Have Had A CWP Since I Retired From The Army 1977.

I carry daily when away from Cobalt Park. I have never shoot anyone, don't plan too except when a gun is pointed in my direction or my family is in danger. With that said, this Background Check would classified me as a mental ill,,,,,,,,,, CWP gone and all my many guns and ammo also.

Now why would it? If you read it close, there is a portion that states that if you or a family member has experience a tragic death by a human with a gun, then you are classified having unstable mental problem.

My 4th son was shot through the heart along with his two friends in the head, he was stuffed in the trunk of his own car and dumped into the lake. So there, I have lived 26 years as a mentally ill person. A gun didn't kill him & friends, a drug dealing mentally ill teenager human did who was given the gun by a mentally ill father to make a delivery.

Before anybody jumps to conclusions, All 3 didn't have anything to do with drugs, just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Background Check as proposed will not solve the mentally ill gun killings, all it will do (as planned) will erase the 2nd and castrate all law abiding American citizens.

KSL
129373
Points
KSL 04/26/13 - 08:30 pm
2
1
The very danger in allowing a

The very danger in allowing a government with employees with a cookbook to make these discussions. You give up commons sense in favor of static written rules which can not cover every single situation.

Darby
25614
Points
Darby 04/26/13 - 10:03 pm
1
0
KSL -

There was a time when I thought that I had just about rounded out my vocabulary. Sort of like that guy, don't remember his name but he was the first government bureaucrat to head up the U.S. Patent office. He recommended to the president that the office be closed, in that everything that could be invented, had been invented.

But then I discovered that as long as my tiny little brain continued to function, and as I read, I continued to learn.

Two of my favorites are troglodyte (Because we seem to have so many more today than ever before.) and Luddite for no good reason other than the fact that I know more than a few.

Back to Top

Top headlines

'Go Downtown' initiative gets mixed reviews

The "Go Downtown" initiative aims to foster a downtown environment that welcomes the college community and creates business for merchants. The event is held every third Thursday of the month ...
Search Augusta jobs