Comments on: Mentally Ill Gun Loophole Bill Advances

By: Frank Blankenship

Frank Blankenship — Thu, 18 Apr 2013 14:24:06 +0000

If people labeled “mentally ill” are more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators, as studies show they are, why are you making them the scapegoats for these crimes? Admission into a hospital should not mean entry into a criminal background check database! When you take away citizenship rights you create tiered classes of citizens. These tiers include people with their full citizenship rights, and those with diminished citizenship rights. We had a group of people with diminished citizenship rights not that long ago. This group of people were called slaves. Remember the 1950s and the 1960s. We had what was called a civil rights struggle lead by former slaves. We will have another civil rights struggle coming if you take civil rights away from people who have known institutionalization. We will have a struggle to have those rights, human rights sanctioned by law, restored.

By: 504

504 — Wed, 17 Apr 2013 02:25:34 +0000

Really people are y’all far gone to think you have to by a gun from the store. I do not like guns I truly feel shooting someone proves nothing a child can pull a trigger I’m pretty sure we could teach a monkey or some other animal to also…..That being said I am about 98% sure I could by a gun within 30 min off the street give me a whole hour I could have some high tech crap. So if y’all think this is gonna matter when someone wants something they are gonna get it last I checked they wasn’t doing back ground checks on the street. Also I don’t think they check insurance for meds.

By: Henry Coe

Henry Coe — Tue, 16 Apr 2013 19:00:06 +0000

this bill over time will encourage people that need help, that would be willing to get help, too not go and get help.

It also seems bogus in that people who have decided they need to get some help because some life issue is kicking their butt, say their family was killed by a drunk driver or they lost a limb while serving our country or they are having to deal with having been molested as a child or they were raped,,, etc , they take responsibility for their problem and take responsibility to work on getting over or working through the problem and now, because of this bill, they are going to be punished for being responsible and getting help?

I do not think this will be constitutional and, not to mention, I think it is ethically screwed up. i.e. someone who was brutally raped and had to go and get help to work through living with it, would likely benefit in feeling more secure by owning a fire arm so if they need to defend themselves in the future, they can and they can have a sense of security in just knowing they can.

I suppose this will also increase under the table gun sales. People who feel like they need to own a fire arm, will likely find a way to own one.

I do not think these are the people we need to be concerned with or that we should be using this HIPA violation as a screening tool for gun ownership.

We should be encouraging people who need help to go and get it. If they have a criminal history, that is different, but people who act responsibility, too go get help when they need it, IIMO, would likely be responsible gun owners.

Problem people are the ones who have problems and wont admit it and wont get help for what ever their problem is. Or may not even realize they need help.

By: elizoria

elizoria — Tue, 16 Apr 2013 17:51:18 +0000

Barry: First, are you saying that mentally ill people are dishonest? And second, this is the kind of change that is a little scary, actually. I’d like to see the definition of mentally ill, please. People who take anti-depressants and anti-anxiety medications, are they considered mentally ill? Will these folks just avoid treatment so they can have guns, then?

By: Barry

Barry — Tue, 16 Apr 2013 12:28:00 +0000

This is the kind of changes that need to be made in the effort to increase gun safety, not taking away honest citizens right to own firearms.