Are You “Psychologically Competent” to Own a Weapon?

[OldGrumpy]

If we leave the government out of making the determination of mental competence and substitute that doctors must report to NICS those treated for mental issuse which could lead to violence, and mental hospitals must report those hospitalized, would that be acceptable?

[anygunanywhere]

If we leave the government out of making the determination of mental competence and substitute that doctors must report to NICS those treated for mental issuse which could lead to violence, and mental hospitals must report those hospitalized, would that be acceptable?

These so-called experts are no more reliable than the government at determining who might be violent and who will not.

Placing anyone's 2A rights at the mercy of another is a stupid idea.

This will do nothing to prevent violent acts.

If it did then Cain's murder of Abel could have been prevented. Obviously Cain's crop was not right and he did not know what he was doing.

Anygunanywhere

[VMI77]

Is there a middle ground on the mental health issue or do we have to continue to suffer through the mental imcompetents having guns in order to protect 2nd amendment? Not trying to start a war here but I am concerned about the number of people with know mental issues who are getting access to guns.

Aside from what others are mentioning --problems with the mental health "industry" (note I don't use the word "profession")-- no, there is no middle ground. The antis see each step as part of a progression to the final goal: confiscation. They view middle ground as the other side surrendering; and they have no intention of honoring any deal they make.

[VMI77]

If we leave the government out of making the determination of mental competence and substitute that doctors must report to NICS those treated for mental issuse which could lead to violence, and mental hospitals must report those hospitalized, would that be acceptable?

No, it won't work. In the first place, the medical profession is already compromised by left-wing anti gunners, and any anti-gun doctor could take your self-defense rights away. But even assuming good intentions on the part of doctors, what is a "mental health issue that could lead to violence?." The government has already defined things like quoting the Constitution as a mental health issue that could lead to violence. But in fact, gun control is justified on the basis that the mere presence of a gun can lead to violence. Especially now, with Obamacare, the government will just define attributes of those who own guns as having mental issues that could lead to violence. They'll also punish doctors who don't go along with these new definitions.

[MeMelYup]

Psyco Test. (Circle best answer)
Question 1.
Do guns kill people?
Yes. (Person should not own guns)
No. (Go to question 2)

[JSThane]

Infringing someone's rights because they have a mental illness and "might do something" is no different than infringing their rights because they're black or Jewish or gay, and "they might do something."

There are tens of thousands, and more, people out there who under current "clinical" definitions would be diagnosed as "mentally ill." People who deal with constant depression. People who have a cheerful, energetic, easily distracted personality. People who get angry easily. People who like to view the world as pretend, and prefer imagination to reality. Many of these people already are diagnosed, as depressive, manic, bipolar, schizophrenic, and a whole host of other names.

Most of us would fall into similar categories, once you expand it to "Is experiencing or HAS EXPERIENCED symptoms." Just about ALL of us were bipolar at one point. Remember your teenage years (especially you men)? Remember being euphorically happy for no reason one moment, then fighting mad the next? Puberty makes almost -everyone- bipolar, at least for a few years.

Guess, what, take away the guns of the mentally ill, and you take away your own gun, because you used to be a teenager, might relapse at any moment, and do something.

There are extreme, isolated cases of mentally ill people who committed heinous acts and had no idea what was going on. They are the rarity, the exception, the one in a million long-shot. Denying people's rights because of them is no better than denying a black man a gun because OJ Simpson was black.

Then there are people who, while they may or may not be truly mentally ill, are just plain evil at heart. You don't have to be perfectly healthy to be a bad person, just like you can be sick and be a good person. These people may have "issues" with their mind, but they know right from wrong, and ARE able to control themselves. They -choose- to do evil things, and evil is not limited to mental illness, nor even defined by it. These evil people are more common than the truly deluded.

You cannot prevent the delusional person or the evil person from causing mayhem. I say again, YOU CANNOT PREVENT THEM FROM MAYHEM. They will always find a way.

But if you choose to define evil according to mental illness, and seek to deny, limit, curtail, or filter rights through that prism, I can only conclude that you, yourself, must be either deluded or evil. Either deluded into thinking white is black, up is down, and reality is fiction, OR evil, and seeking to hurt other people through systematic denial of rights.

I don't see ANY middle ground.

[C-dub]

Who, me? Nah, I'm fine.

[Beiruty]

Once upon a time, one was looking at 7.62 evil AR. The salesman behind the counter asked,"Sir, what do you hunt?" A quick rumbling reply, "human beings!" The salesman recoiled in shock and awe,as if he was hit by tomahawk missile. You would have love your 2ndA. No strings attached to your right to keep and bare arms.

[SherwoodForest]

Now - this is how the goal-post keeps being moved. Last month it was "mentally ill". This month it is "psychologically incompetent".
Next month it will be "depressed", "nervous", "discouraged", "unhappy".

When it is all said and done......"shall NOT BE infringed" means just precisely THAT.

Any concessions to those whose ultimate goal it is to exploit tragedy in order to incrementally disarm the people merely serves to advance their progress toward that end.

Apparently from 1791 until 2012 there were no mentally ill people in the United States of America.

Up until 1934 there were aparently no "dangerous " firearms either.

It's time for a "ROLL-BACK" to ....." shall NOT BE infringed".

That's how we protect society from criminals, and the mentally deranged........and TYRANNTS.

[MeMelYup]

What is their definition of, and who would be psychologically competent? Who is psychologically competent to legislate who is and is not?

[jmra]

This whole thing sounds too much like "the fox in the hen house" to me.