Best
915 Comments
Post
  • #3
    !
    On the surface it seems like a good idea and if implemented properly would be effective. However considering the source, the vague language, I can't say I support it as of right now.
  • #13
    !
    That can be said about 99% of any legislation proposed by lawmakers. I'd have to see details, but I can see this easily abused.
  • #57
    !
    "Dangerously Mentally-ill People Shouldn't Have Guns, Lawmaker Says"......oh, yes they should....sadly that's how some feel...obviously dangerously mentally ill people shouldn't have guns....and...people who have been declared a harm to themselves or others...probably should need to be cleared by a shrink before purchasing a gun...but....the slippery slope concept...could easily come into play ...on this one
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • R Load more replies

  • #23
    !
    The proposed wording is so vague that only a fanatic would support it. The way it is set up it is very easy to get on the list and almost impossible to get off of it without a tremendous amount of time, energy, and expense. Cicilline has one objective and that is NOT saving us from dangerous people, it is total gun control.

    @Firestorm @GedankPol @DrPeeper @AntiPorcheria @Thunderchicken @Slayer98_l @Knightkore @Vance1 @Marine1 @TheGrif @Lineman66 @Rocker @miketost @SAS86 @Belinos @BobSmith @MongoAPillager @Bobolinsky @CaryNickel @N0rthman @The_Bald_Guy @HawkTheSlayer @BravoJuliet @rickv2 @MedicineBow @1971Tennessee @DAClark1911 @concerned_cit @williamDT @BelinKS @MarkJM @mountain-folk @AMScountryboy @truthsayer @NOObama @Tacitus_01 @Robbo03712 @Galt45 @DrNickels @BillH @Bill2E @Paultron @Sam-T-Jones @MedicineBow @FordPrefect @Tamal_Pais @Cunnivorex @BravoJuliet @presSTOMPYFOOT @MongoAPillager
  • #47
    !
    @PauldenZangpo Yep it is very, very vague. That's what I did for a living for a while, reading and trying to figure out what proposed legislation actually meant for a Senator.
  • #94
    !
    @PauldenZangpo Well, we have to pass it to see what's in it?
    DISCLAIMER That was sarcasm for those that disagree with you..
  • #95
    !
    @Ratpackjimmy yes, Nancy Pelosi has diarrhea of the mouth. Everything I need to know about Democrats I learned when they retained her as minority leader after losing the House.
  • R Load more replies

  • #54
    !
    @Wafflecone what part of CA already having the laws he was proposing did you not get?
  • #56
    !
    @Wafflecone what gives you the right to ignore the constitution and due process based on arbitrarily saying x class shouldn't have guns? Your starting to sound a lot like Jim Crowe.
  • R Load more replies

  • #1
    !
    This legislation might sound good to some people, but it is just the opposite. If this becomes law random bureaucrats will have the power to strip us of our rights without due process of law. Could there be anything more antithetical to the American way of life?

    Unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats will be able to punish Americans for thought crimes! This guy should be kicked out of congress for even suggesting such a thing. It is outrageous. His other ideas aren't much better: Ban ALL semi-automatic firearms? Even more restrictions on buying and ownership....what would those be? No concealed carry reciprocity? Way to make every out of stater a target! This dink doesn't even know that guns already come with safety locks.
  • #5
    !
    "...This guy should be kicked out of congress for even suggesting such a thing. "
    What? You support censorship and refuse the 1st Amendment, which unlike your weapons is what actually keeps you free???? And yet, all the rhetoric about your "rights". LOL.
  • #88
    !
    @Unfit2serve Ummmm.....warring against the Constitution.....in any form is treason.....

    IF someone is intentionally making laws to attack the 2nd Amendment.....that would be treason.....
  • #97
    !
    @Knightkore pardon, but we all know your absolute interpretation of the Constitution is nothing short of ivory tower intellectualism. An offense to the intent of the men who crafted it; wiser men that understood no right is absolute or without limitations.
  • R Load more replies

  • #15
    !
    Words are easy.....actions are hard.

    I would support this type of law IF and only IF it targets only patients of untreatable mental illness. Has an appeat process. Has time limits for reevaluation.

    Unstable violent people shouldn't bebout on the streets until they are stable. So if they are not on the streets no need for a law.
  • #101
    !
    Its already against federal law for someone who been adjudicated as "mentally ill" to own, posses or purchase a firearm.
    The fact is, legislation like this is not aims at criminals or the insane, It is aimed at you and me.
  • #149
    !
    The problem is... "stable" can be a transient state. With chronic mental illness (I have family members with bipolar disorder), one can be "stable" one week and "unstable" the next with little or no warning. I personally think that those with chronic mental illnesses should not be allowed to own firearms, but that's just me.
  • #212
    !
    @cpeter133 then folks who run out of coffee? the link is here somewhere saying caffeine is or could be a mental illness,and folks want to trust those who come up with that for any reason?
  • R Load more replies

  • #66
    !
    Chilling effect on anyone to seek counseling. Duty to report would also mean that the legal obligation and consequence on the Mental Health Worker would be a criminal act if not "diagnosed", noted or reported. And no MH professional is able to predict future behavior. What if the person gives absolutely no warning or sign and commits a murder? Go back to the MH professional for failure to report or stop? Try that with predicting suicide. A feel good idea that is Half Baked.
  • #117
    !
    Not the way the medical field works. No one expects a doctor to be a diviner of the future; if a question arises, their notes will be studied for whether there were notable signs of violent behavior. A psychotic break can happen any time without warning; this law is targeted at patients with known violent tought processes.

    I personally would add alcoholics and many forms of drug addictions to the list as well.
  • #154
    !
    @cpeter133 I think people who have dealt with irrational people (mentally ill, alcohol or drug problems) understand the problem far better than those who haven't (or who have but dealt with it via denial). I'm not against gun ownership, but I have spent my entire life dealing with mental illness in my family, as well as a brother who is a drug addict. Nothing more powerless than watching someone run off the rails and the law tells you you can't do anything about it.
  • #157
    !
    @theprinterlady The family of that young man is a prime example. They saw him going off the rails, but the police apparently didn't put much stock in what the family was telling them (they didn't even take it seriously enough to watch the publicly available videos)... without training, they just said, he's alright, and left him (and his guns) there to explode on society another day.
  • #191
    !
    @cpeter133 - sure and we have malpractice insurance because of what reason exactly then? The very first time that a mental health professional treats and individual who then goes on a rampage you had best believe a strew of lawyers will be presenting cases saying they should have reported this person.

    This will then lead to a) an overabundance of over-reporting just so they can cover their behinds and b) fewer mental health professionals as the cost of the insurance will sky rocket after the first successful lawsuit thus making it too costly to practice any longer.
  • #215
    !
    @nova_guy And I don't have my spare tire because I want a flat. More check lists: Are you suicidal? Yes or No. Are you homicidal? Yes or No. Do you own a firearm? Yes or No. Civil liberties versus Coercion. No surprise that we will go toward mandated community based treatment. It is already being test advertised and used.

    Of the three laws passed: Kendra's, Laura"s and Kevin's...only one based on the use of a firearm. All three perpetrators had sought mental health counseling..
  • R Load more replies

  • #40
    !
    This guys proposal would disqualify just about every cop from carrying or owning a gun.

    "if a mental health professional determines that the individual is likely to cause serious harm to themselves or others."
  • #59
    !
    Well, you helped me answer the poll question... I initially was leaning towards mixed feelings, but after some research I did after reading your post. You're right to an extent (the extent that many in law enforcement may not necessarily be considered stable) considering after researching I concluded I have a much better chance of being killed by a cop than a crazy mass shooter or a terrorist for that matter. Where's the logic in that?
  • #588
    !
    @Curmudgeon Why do you think this is worth mentioning ? cops end up eating their guns because they are criticized and penalized by the libtards that run this country. Criminals have more right than most LEO's have today
  • R Load more replies

  • #181
    !
    I'm very wary of this. People can be mentally ill only for a short time and get it under control quickly with medication. There's post-natal psychosis, for one. Major Depression for another. Some have a mental health crisis once in their life and are fine for the rest of their lives. Is it fair to give them a lifetime ban from owning a firearm? A "mental health professional" can be a 22-year old Psych-Soc 1 with a Bachelor's Degree in Physical Education making $25K a year. They hire youngsters at these Community Mental Health Centers that are still wet behind the ears. All you need to get hired some times is a Bachelor's in anything. Also, thinking they might get reported to the government as "dangerous" might deter people from seeking mental health treatment. This being perhaps the most insidious thing about this. I don't think the Congressman thought this one out very well.
  • #79
    !
    I have seen many instances where badly mentally ill people get sharp pointy things and do there best to harm others but not much is said about that hmmmm.........
  • #161
    !
    The difference between the "sharp pointy things" is that they are not designed totally for killing humans at a distance. Guns are. If you can't see that distinction, then that's the problem as far as I'm concerned. One cannot possibly eliminate all the ways that someone can harm themselves or others... but we needn't be handing someone who is a threat to themselves or others a way to kill people at a distance and say, gosh, there's nothing we can do about this bloodshed. Along with keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, we need to do something that makes it easier for outsiders to get someone treatment when they start running off the rails. Right now, it's nearly impossible to intervene, as the latest shooting and killing tells us. Sad when even the cops aren't trained enough to go look at evidence before deciding someone is harmless.
  • #206
    !
    But that's the point: Imagine how much more harm they would do with guns. "Sharp pointy things" are dangerous in the hands of mentally ill people, but guns are many times more dangerous. Bystanders often have the guts to gang up on a mentally ill person and take the sharp pointy thing away from him. But bystanders hardly ever have the guts to gang up unarmed and take a gun away. What this country needs is more guts and less guns. Guns are mostly for cowards and insane people.
  • #659
    !
    You can kill someone with a tire iron, but you very seldom
    hear about one going off accidentally and killing someone.
    Notice the difference between a tire iron and a loaded gun?
  • #721
    !
    Or how about a car being "accidentally" knocked out of gear and running into a crowd of kids at a park either. And that does happen and it happens with cars going through store fronts and other structures. You are not making a good point. Just leave it at that.
  • #722
    !
    @theprinterlady Most of these shooting occur up close and personal. And the latest shooting also proved that he used knives to kill at least three people, how you rationalize that one?
  • R Load more replies

  • #31
    !
    On a personal level about getting on a government list and not being able to get off!

    I have a good friend who was fishing LEGALLY in a wildlife area. He had a competition rifle in the locked trunk of his car in a gun box also locked with zero ammo. As he was leaving after a morning of fishing he opened the trunk to put the fishing equipment away a ranger drove up and saw the gun box. He was arrested for hunting out of season with a firearm and possession of a firearm. The weapon was confiscated by the ranger. The report stated that it had been in a locked trunk in a locked gun box and that it was not displayed until the ranger "asked to see the rifle to verify that it had not been fired". It had not been fire in over a week at a gun range. Charges were later DROPPED, but the gun has not been returned and he has a "life time" ban on being in the area and his licenses for hunting and fishing were revoked. This was over 5 years ago and it has still not been resolved.
  • #77
    !
    He must have run into a real ass wipe. Believe it or not there are some rangers who are leftist anti hunters. The problem is to much of this is left up to law enforcement. I asked a cop once, what was the law concerning guns in transit. The gun has to be "out of reach", and separated from the ammo. Hell, that's basically up to the cop to determine. Run into an ass wipe and you'll lose everything. They shouldn't be able to confiscate a gun just because they want to. And 5 years? That's bullshite. I'd have to see about a law suit.
  • #225
    !
    That's a little ridiculous. If charges were dropped, why wasn't the rifle returned? I don't see how a ranger could justify just holding onto it.
  • #326
    !
    BillH - And your point is? I had the "government" claim I owed them 70K in sales taxes from a business I owned. I didn't. I still had to have my attorney fight the charge. I won. That's the way the government works. Ever get a traffic ticket you fought in court and won? Is the system perfect? No. If it was, attorneys would be out of business.

    So, since your buddy was wrongly put through this BS by the ranger, we should just let anyone who wants to carry a gun?

    Could someone explain to me how driving is considered a 'privilege', and owning a gun is considered a 'right'. Guess if there had been cars in 1776, there'd be an amendment for the right to own (and drive) a car.
  • #590
    !
    @Ets101592 Unfortunately you are right Cops are uninformed or misinformed about carry laws. A lot of bad calls are made by some well intended Police .....and some dick heads who do it on purpose.
    SC has some lax gun laws Most if not all cops have to assume everyone is armed until they prove otherwise to protect themselves . You get stopped Keep your hand on the steering heel and inform the cop you are either a CCW holder and you are or are not armed or there is a gun in the glove box This is for the officers protection as well as your own
  • #187
    !
    It depends on what the definition of metally ill is. You can be considered mentaly ill if you have a divorce or a death in the familey or suffer from type of anxiety, wihich can be treated So when you say mentaly ill you need to be more specific because their is adiffeence between bieng a person like the shooter in Sana Barbera than the average person going through some type of depression or a person who suffers from anxiety. This kid posted all of his crazy ideas on facebook and when the parents finally listened to his freinds it was too late He was just a rich spoiled bratt who was able to get guns because of his powerful father. What about knoives are we going to ban them. I any of the other young men had a gun to defend himself thgis tragity would not have happened.
  • #78
    !
    All just one more scheme to force us to get permission to buy a gun. Liberals wouldn't stand for this if it was to be able vote, buy a car, or get a bank account, so why do they think it should apply to gun ownership?
  • #105
    !
    You actually do have to get permission to open a bank account. They check your social security to make sure that you aren't in bad standing with other institutions and you have to sign paperwork saying you won't screw it up.

    I could argue that these Voter ID laws are basically permission to vote.

    Unless you have cash on hand, you need permission to take a loan out to buy a car.

    None of the above are designed to kill you rapidly if you use it properly.
  • #185
    !
    @falco_alba - Not all banks check your previous banking history and signing a contract with the bank is not "asking permission" to open an account. It is you agreeing to terms with the institution.

    You could argue that about Voter ID laws but you'd be wrong. Providing an ID to show you are who you claim to be is not "asking permission".

    Same thing applies when obtaining a loan for a vehicle. You are not "asking for permission to buy the car" you are agreeing to terms of a contract to pay for the item.
  • #239
    !
    @nova_guy wrong on all counts. applying for a loan is asking permission to borrow money. and yes, all banks will check out your credit history, and your banking history.
  • #246
    !
    @dances-weebles Asking a bank for money it owns is NOT in any way similar to asking for government permission to exercise a right recognized by the Constitution.
  • R Load more replies

  • #72
    !
    On the surface it looks good. Nevertheless, one has to define what determines whether a mental issue is "dangerous" or not.

    I've worked for mental health and 85% of the American population qualifies for a mental health diagnosis of some sort or another. The mental health system is quite adept at inventing them. Is this proposal an attempt to keep firearms out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them or a left handed attempt to deny people the right to own them?
  • #127
    !
    The criteria are very specific and strict. There are a lot of boxes the doctor has to check off before the patient can be put on the "no guns" list. There is also a robust appeals process built into the law, so if a person really is not a lunatic, they can go through that process and get off the list.
  • #137
    !
    @AaronK
    I believe the real goal of this proposal is to make it very easy to be put on the list and make it very hard and expensive to get off the list
  • #164
    !
    As AaronK points out, there are safety's built into the law. I'm all for protecting people from those who would abuse the commitment process (like what used to happen often with women)... but somewhere between not being able to intervene until a threat is imminent and the ability to commit at will is a nice wide space of middle ground that we need to take advantage of as a society. Depending on those who are mentally ill (and thus by definition not entirely rational) to make rational decisions is... irrational on our part.
  • #243
    !
    @AaronK

    You think so? Mental illness just doesn't work that way. It's not like measles that can be seen or a heart condition that can be detected by a person in pain or by sophisticated tests. The person with a mental illness is often the last one to know.

    A mental health diagnosis is often not all that accurate. I've seen people come into the system with two contradictory diagnosis. The diagnosis is often arrived at by what the doctor sees. If a second doctor sees the same patient he can, and often does, give a second diagnosis.
  • #70
    !
    I agree that guns should be kept from the mentally ill. However, I cannot agree with the method proposed because ut leaves too much leeway for mental health "professionals" to strip citizens of their constitutional rights. Rather, that is a duty left to the courts, not a private or public entity with little (if any) oversight. Furthermore, by broadening the powers of these professionals there very well could be (and I'm sure already has been) an overwhelming decrease in individuals seeking help thus further complicating the problem. Then what do we do? Require everyone to submit for mental health evals annually? Allow the testimony of friends, relatives, ex-spouses, or others with a possible hidden agenda to be grounds for involuntary commitment? Its a slippery slope and we cannot allow fear to motivate legislation.
  • #19
    !
    Just another slippery slope offering a little security while taking away a little liberty.
    Just exactly what most anti-gun nuts want..........
  • #458
    !
    What is to prevent some anti 2nd Amendment Democrat mental health professional from imposing his left wing extremist anti gun agenda on citizens, claiming people are likely to harm themselves or others, just to prevent Americans from owning guns?!
  • #55
    !
    It's a step in the right direction but more needs to be done. They need a Baker Act* law in blue states. The PC non-judgementalism of Dems allows mentally ill to get worse and plot their plans unnoticed. Even the cops screened him as a nice guy!

    The only way to prevent some similar events is to do two things:

    1). Parents and relatives should put a troubled kid away for awhile. Like the Amish do, but only the troubled kids until their hormones settle down and his/her mental illness can be controlled. These crimes usually happen during hormone changes when meds may not work effectively, so lock up the kid in a supervised community awhile, paid for via surtaxes on the parents;

    2). In post-crime cases, the parents who didn't put away their festering kid, they should be made accountable somehow. Fine and tax them for reparations to the victims and other families. This will compel other parents to be more proactive in dealing with their own evil spawn.

    Gun control is a useless electioneering tactic. There are similar crimes in Europe and Asia, where nobody is allowed guns. Plus they use bombs (like Boston) and knives (China) as well.

    Current laws should be updated to make the relatives more proactive, given rights to pre-emptively strike or pay later. The kin could send the spawn overseas to cheap nut farms. A whole new industry is waiting to happen.

    Also, I think jail and prison costs should be entirely paid for by surtaxes and fines on the relatives of criminals.
    Doing the above is only way to reduce crime here. That and stringing up the lawyers. Lawyers should be prohibited from holding lawmaking elective office-- a major conflict of interest.

    * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Mental_H...
  • #204
    !
    No. Families cannot be trusted. One of the abuses for decades was committing a person so they could control the money or they did not like the person they were dating. One loses all of their civil rights once that happens.
    Family does not mean friend.
  • #116
    !
    this has absolutely nothing to do with "thought police". nobody is talking about busting someone for saying or thinking anything. the law specifically allows doctors whose evaluation of a patient meets certain very specific criteria to report those patients to the FBI and then it requires the FBI to take very specific and constrained actions with regard to that person.

    "thought police"implies the criminalization of speech or thought. this does neither, in fact this law criminalizes nobody.
  • #497
    !
    @Thunderchicken Yeah it's kinda spooky. Nobody wants the criminally insane to have a firearm. But what happens when the Doctor is an activist like some judges I've seen. Suddenly everyone who owns a gun is nuts scenario . What recourse does one have then.
  • #39
    !
    @Arumizy

    Have YOU ever suffered from a mental illness or dealt with someone who has? Due process, my ass. Would you hand a drunk a gun? No, because he's not in his right frame of mind and neither is a mentally ill person.

    Ten years ago my son had a bad drug problem and was not in his right mind most of the time. I desperately wanted him hospitalized, but because he was 18 I had no say. HE had to agree to it. Seriously? Like he would know what was best for him?

    Because I couldn't trust his actions, I took my son's guns (the one's his grandfather had bought for him) out of the house and stored them at my dad's house. My son's "rights" were stripped the minute he became a danger to himself and others. Certainly he could have killed me with a butcher knife. He could have gotten a gun on his own. But it wouldn't be because I turned my back and pretended all was well.

    He's drug-free now, but when you're dealing with someone who is mentally unstable, for whatever reason, there needs to be a way to get them intervention. If there's nothing wrong with them, then the doctors can determine that and release them; but families should have the right to get help for their loved ones when it's needed most.
  • #51
    !
    @PayThatCEO actually I have PTSD and I deal with that everyday. Due process is one of out most basic rights, and is protected by the constitution. While you did what you did out of love you still more or less took his rights away. I'm all for allowing committal and speeding up the process to get them in court. But I can never be for the arbitrary removal of due process.
  • #60
    !
    @Arumizy

    So you wouldn't take the car keys away from a drunk? You wouldn't take a gun away from someone who is mentally unstable for fear of taking his "rights?" And if either the drunk or the crazy killed someone and you had had the chance to stop it beforehand, YOU are as guilty of murder as they are.
  • #67
    !
    @PayThatCEO Drunk one can determine and even have police measure a BAC. Cops were there interviewing prior and walked away. And your "YOU are as guilty of murder as they are" is a great attitude for the mental health professional and anyone seeking treatment. A chilling effect on both. Sure open up...no problem.
  • R Load more replies

  • R Load more comments...
Post