DK Firearms

Taking guns from the mentally ill sounds good but.....

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Gulf Coast States

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • ccather

    Marksman
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Joined
    Oct 14, 2012
    Messages
    892
    Points
    63
    Location
    Pensacola
    What is normal mental health?
    What pattern of behavior will you use?
    How many millions of people in America take meds for mental conditions?
    How many veterans have mental scars?
    How many on the other side of the political spectrum are crazy?
    Who will pay the ill person for their property?

    What have you said to your doctor or psychologist?
    What have you said online?

    What if...
     

    Snake-Eyes

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Joined
    Jun 22, 2013
    Messages
    3,416
    Points
    113
    Location
    Florida
    Just another of the many slippery slope pitfalls at the other end of these gun grabs.

    Physical illness can heal. So can mental ailments. It depends. How is the patient's progress? Who measures that? It shouldn't matter unless they are so hopelessly beyond help that they have to be committed.

    Otherwise, consider this parallel:

    If you hurt your leg, are you still able to drive a car? How about after hernia surgery? Do they take your car away while you're healing? (NOPE) But wait, what's stopping you from getting your keys, in a painkiller-induced state of poor-decision-making, going for a drive, and killing people with your car? What if they banned pain-killers after that? So, the next hurt-leg person gets drunk, and does the same thing. So then, after a drunk-driver kills someone, all of us should be banned from buying SUV's, right? No?
    Ok, after a drunk-driver kills someone, we should all be banned from buying alcohol? No? How about, after a drunk-driver kills someone, the legal age for buying alcohol should go up to 25? How about banning large bottles of beer, and limiting the number of ounces per can to 8? Also, a waiting period of 3-days to buy alcohol?

    All of that would've stopped the drunk-driver, right?

    Even if we weren't talking about pissing on the 2nd Amendment, the "logic" doesn't make sense. None of these "punish the law-abiding" measures would've stopped a criminal.

    There is mentally unstable, mentally ill, mentally odd, just plain rude, just plain mean, whatever. There are LOTS of assholes with guns. Right now. You probably live near one. Ever had a firearm rampage from them? Probably not.

    This focus on mentally ill makes it sound like every mentally ill person is a sociopath waiting for an opportunity. That's bullshit. People get hurt. People heal. Brain, leg, fingernail.

    Injury doesn't equal "Evil Criminal", so why preemptively punish them?

    Innocent until proven guilty. What happened to that?
     

    Ric-san

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Joined
    Sep 29, 2012
    Messages
    2,866
    Points
    113
    Location
    Milton FL
    If you are like some of the mentally deficient folks who committed any of these school shootings :Eric Harris & Dylan Klebold, Adam Lanza, Seung Hui Cho, Nicholas Cruz....or other phsychos....you need to be under Doctors care and the HIPA laws need to be changed so that authorities will notify the government agency who manages the NICS system and not be allowed to own any weapon. If you are Joe Average who is depressed because of XYZ, and you Doctor and family feel you’re not a threat, no issue. Everyone of us here on this forum for the most part agree that folks who commit the above mass shootings use a tool for thier dirty work...a gun, a rifle, an AR.
    When I was a kid growing up in the 70’s in the Northwest side of Chicago we had a ‘lunny bin’, a no shit fenced area maybe a half square mile named ‘Dunning’; an insane asylum where folks use to be sent that had issues. Dunning is now ‘Dunning Square’, a strip mall, a new community college and a new housing tract. The demographics of the area is changing and gentrification is the new normal. Where did all the folks with mental health issues go...? Some are homeless, other live with thier families who are afraid to get law enforcement involved less they end up in our jail/prison system. A huge number are in our prison, how do I know...? My son in law is a local Correctional Officer. Until we as a nation get the mental health issues resolved, we will be locked in mortal combat with anti gun folks who claim the Constitution does not grant us the right to own a ‘weapon of war’. We didn’t loose our minds post 9/11 when TSA made flyers life miserable, nor with the Patriot Act which let’s Big Brother crawl up our collect asses with the KH-9 ‘Big Bird’ spy satellite.
    What say you...?
     
    Last edited:

    IronBeard

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages
    2,739
    Points
    113
    Location
    32566
    I do not trust this mental health thing one bit considering how accusations have been weaponized lately. I do not trust the government, and the law enforcement that serves them, to administer this fairly and impartially. This will be their word against ours and we lose, that simple. All that will be required is that an accusation or reasonable suspicion (I think I might have maybe, possibly, sort of, kinda seen/heard something.), and all of our rights will be eliminated in the name of caution.

    Here's an idea, and about the only way I support any further mental health crap beyond forcing agencies to do the job they are supposed to do. How about anyone running for or holding an elected office must undergo and pass the same background/mental health check required for firearms ownership? You fail, you cannot run for, or hold, office. You are welcome to come back after a minimum six months for another review. After all, if this is not a rights infringement, and simply a safety measure that is fair for all, it's fair for all. Anyone that holds a loaded firearm holds power. So do elected officials. Many literally hold the power to make life and death decisions. Why should they not be held to the same standard as law-abiding firearm owners? Let's see some leadership. Maybe Trump will be first and set the example......
     

    Ric-san

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Joined
    Sep 29, 2012
    Messages
    2,866
    Points
    113
    Location
    Milton FL
    You have to put trust in someone. I’ll mention to you what I tell folks at work who are big anti-government conspiracy theorists. The government, the police, the mental health folks...they are your neighbors, your friends, they are your Church community, the people on this forum. We the people make up the whole shebang here. In my posting above above I mention that Dr’s, police, EMT’s, they are the first responders to that person not acting normal, they deal with real mental issues. Of course as a citizen in good standing with the community, if you were Baker Acted for not acting normal, you will have due process. This is how we solve problems in a modern society. We don’t hunker down in our skivies staring at a computer screen while smoking a peace pipe in our Moms basement. We have to have solutions to our evolving society, like it or not. We all talk about the erosion of society from our own safe spaces, and refuse to change when confronted to a new norm, even though we are not the problem. What is happening before our eyes is a paradigm shift, either we change or go the way of the dodo bird, and best to have a say in the direction of the change vs being told (new crazy laws) imho.
     
    Last edited:

    IronBeard

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages
    2,739
    Points
    113
    Location
    32566
    All I can say is I will not assume any guilt, blame, responsibility, or accept punishment for, the deeds of others.

    Sent from my SM-J320V using Tapatalk
     

    Bay Ranger

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Joined
    Oct 1, 2012
    Messages
    1,799
    Points
    113
    Location
    Gulf Breeze (improper)
    I have mixed feelings about this mental "health" issue. There have to be some common sense/reasonable checks and balances defined. I'm mostly concerned about an unwarranted report based solely on retribution against the person that is reported..

    Let me give you a real world example. I have a friend that had his firearms ordered taken away by a local judge. He is a fine upstanding person, a retired O-6 Naval aviator. Upon retiring from active duty he flew with one of the major delivery companies. When he was flying he was certified to "carry" on his flights. He volunteers his time with local organizations.

    OK, why was he denied his weapons? His divorced son was going through a very messy child custody court case. During the court session the divorced wife told the judge that she was concerned that the ex-father-in-law (FiL) would do her harm. So the judge, in his abundance for caution, directed that all of his firearms should be removed from his house and he should not have access to them. I feel the reason she did this was to stick it to her ex-husband through her ex FiL. I don't believe that my friend would in any way try to harm his ex-DiL or his grandchildren.

    So, how do you filter out a legitimate concern from someone that just wants to cause a problem for someone else that happens to have weapons?
     

    Snake-Eyes

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Joined
    Jun 22, 2013
    Messages
    3,416
    Points
    113
    Location
    Florida
    According to this possibly soon-to-be-passed bill, it would be a misdemeanor for the ex-wife to do that. HOWEVER, good luck trying to prove that she did Not "feel" threatened.

    On the other side, it would be a FELONY for him to not cooperate.

    So her "feelings" are more important than his RIGHTS.

    No "due process".

    This will not end well.
     

    Ric-san

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Joined
    Sep 29, 2012
    Messages
    2,866
    Points
    113
    Location
    Milton FL
    I have mixed feelings about this mental "health" issue. There have to be some common sense/reasonable checks and balances defined. I'm mostly concerned about an unwarranted report based solely on retribution against the person that is reported..

    Let me give you a real world example. I have a friend that had his firearms ordered taken away by a local judge. He is a fine upstanding person, a retired O-6 Naval aviator. Upon retiring from active duty he flew with one of the major delivery companies. When he was flying he was certified to "carry" on his flights. He volunteers his time with local organizations.

    OK, why was he denied his weapons? His divorced son was going through a very messy child custody court case. During the court session the divorced wife told the judge that she was concerned that the ex-father-in-law (FiL) would do her harm. So the judge, in his abundance for caution, directed that all of his firearms should be removed from his house and he should not have access to them. I feel the reason she did this was to stick it to her ex-husband through her ex FiL. I don't believe that my friend would in any way try to harm his ex-DiL or his grandchildren.

    So, how do you filter out a legitimate concern from someone that just wants to cause a problem for someone else that happens to have weapons?


    Your friend has his due process...he can get a lawyer and fight the current judgement. That’s our system, like it or not. I don’t agree with it, but that’s our world now. Name a better country with better laws to live in...Ive been all over the world and can’t think of any myself. Sounds from the way you describe him he should have no issues being retired officer and current pilot, etc. winning back his rights.
     

    Snake-Eyes

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Joined
    Jun 22, 2013
    Messages
    3,416
    Points
    113
    Location
    Florida
    Your friend has his due process...he can get a lawyer and fight the current judgement. That’s our system, like it or not. I don’t agree with it, but that’s our world now. Name a better country with better laws to live in...Ive been all over the world and can’t think of any myself. Sounds from the way you describe him he should have no issues being retired officer and current pilot, etc. winning back his rights.


    False. "Due Process" would've allowed him to offer his side of the case FIRST. Innocent until PROVEN Guilty. This sham allowed someone's rights to be trampled on, and Then, he has to pay for a lawyer, court fees, and go without his property to Prove his INNOCENCE?

    Wrong answer.

    Just because we're the best in the world, doesn't mean we can't be better.
     

    Viking1204

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Joined
    Dec 3, 2012
    Messages
    5,193
    Points
    113
    Location
    Fort Walton Beach, FL
    Your friend has his due process...he can get a lawyer and fight the current judgement. That’s our system, like it or not. I don’t agree with it, but that’s our world now. Name a better country with better laws to live in...Ive been all over the world and can’t think of any myself. Sounds from the way you describe him he should have no issues being retired officer and current pilot, etc. winning back his rights.

    That's some BS, there was no due process to have his guns taken away. She simply said she was scared and a liberal judge took the man's guns away based solely on a pissed off woman's opinion. Innocent until PROVEN guilty has gone out the door in this country.
     

    MarkS

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Joined
    Sep 26, 2013
    Messages
    3,278
    Points
    113
    Location
    Baker,Fl.
    A friend of mine had all his guns taken for 30 days after his older sister got mad at him
    She got a temporary restraining order by saying she felt like he might hurt her. No due process he found out when the deputy sheriff served the restraining order. He was lucky that his son was allowed to take the guns home to keep


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     

    Mouser

    Expert
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Mar 8, 2016
    Messages
    495
    Points
    0
    Location
    Belleville, Alabama
    You have to put trust in someone. I’ll mention to you what I tell folks at work who are big anti-government conspiracy theorists. The government, the police, the mental health folks...they are your neighbors, your friends, they are your Church community, the people on this forum. We the people make up the whole shebang here. In my posting above above I mention that Dr’s, police, EMT’s, they are the first responders to that person not acting normal, they deal with real mental issues. Of course as a citizen in good standing with the community, if you were Baker Acted for not acting normal, you will have due process. This is how we solve problems in a modern society. We don’t hunker down in our skivies staring at a computer screen while smoking a peace pipe in our Moms basement. We have to have solutions to our evolving society, like it or not. We all talk about the erosion of society from our own safe spaces, and refuse to change when confronted to a new norm, even though we are not the problem. What is happening before our eyes is a paradigm shift, either we change or go the way of the dodo bird, and best to have a say in the direction of the change vs being told (new crazy laws) imho.

    I'm not worried about my neighbors...Joe Average who would be involved with the vast majority...most, nearly all, maybe all for awhile will do the right thing. I totally agree with people on this forum agree that people who are mentally unstable should not have access to guns or a great many things....the issue would arise sometime in the future when a cunning power grabber in a position of power figures out that they can use a law like this to circumvent the 2nd amendment...we have some in office right now...they would do it if they could, but can't.

    Layers and layers of checks and balances would be required...and it could be done imo...but to be done, we'd have to have really objective, non-partisan thinkers/problem solvers able to think now and in the future when (not if) a person or party comes to power and looks to circumvent our constitution.

    I just don't think we have anyone like that...a person like George Washington...a reluctant leader pure of heart and purpose who is able to envision a worst-case scenario. When you look at the motives of both parties...one is trying to disarm and the other is entrenched in an effort not to open the door to anything....and just remember, we have a great many problems in this country and most know, in the grand scheme of things, our world is a safer place and these shootings are such an anomaly...it would not be wise to instill a bunch of fixes that are ineffective and ultimately harm the future life, liberty and pursuit of happiness for us and generations to follow.

    Also, keep in mind above all, there should have been an intervention and no shooting...there are several things that broke down, but the people paid to keep us safe did not do their job! Humans are fallible and this isn't the first time and won't be the last time there is an issue with accountability and execution of job duties...the politicization of our law enforcement and various govt agencies guarantees it.
     

    Mouser

    Expert
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Mar 8, 2016
    Messages
    495
    Points
    0
    Location
    Belleville, Alabama
    Sounds like Trump's gaff...take the guns, then due process. I love what he is doing for the economy and I think his intentions are pure...but as the old saying goes; the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

    He must be thinking like a bureaucrat now....he should have an understanding of lean mfg and six sigma with all his business dealings and should know that lead time is a choice...there is a way to speed up critical due process issues...actually speed it up ALOT. Lead time is a choice...conscious or unconscious...it is a choice.
     

    IronBeard

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages
    2,739
    Points
    113
    Location
    32566
    I have mixed feelings about this mental "health" issue. There have to be some common sense/reasonable checks and balances defined. I'm mostly concerned about an unwarranted report based solely on retribution against the person that is reported..

    Let me give you a real world example. I have a friend that had his firearms ordered taken away by a local judge. He is a fine upstanding person, a retired O-6 Naval aviator. Upon retiring from active duty he flew with one of the major delivery companies. When he was flying he was certified to "carry" on his flights. He volunteers his time with local organizations.

    OK, why was he denied his weapons? His divorced son was going through a very messy child custody court case. During the court session the divorced wife told the judge that she was concerned that the ex-father-in-law (FiL) would do her harm. So the judge, in his abundance for caution, directed that all of his firearms should be removed from his house and he should not have access to them. I feel the reason she did this was to stick it to her ex-husband through her ex FiL. I don't believe that my friend would in any way try to harm his ex-DiL or his grandchildren.

    So, how do you filter out a legitimate concern from someone that just wants to cause a problem for someone else that happens to have weapons?
    Exactly the weaponization of accusations I have mentioned in several posts. In today's society, the expectation from the "do something!"crowd is that punishment begin immediately upon accusation, and continue as long as they see fit. You will hear little to nothing about innocent until proven guilty or making restitution to the accused.

    Sent from my SM-J320V using Tapatalk
     

    IronBeard

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages
    2,739
    Points
    113
    Location
    32566
    False. "Due Process" would've allowed him to offer his side of the case FIRST. Innocent until PROVEN Guilty. This sham allowed someone's rights to be trampled on, and Then, he has to pay for a lawyer, court fees, and go without his property to Prove his INNOCENCE?

    Wrong answer.

    Just because we're the best in the world, doesn't mean we can't be better.
    What he said!

    Sent from my SM-J320V using Tapatalk
     

    Ric-san

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Joined
    Sep 29, 2012
    Messages
    2,866
    Points
    113
    Location
    Milton FL
    Both examples sited here on how folks lost thier right to guns was family related issue, anyone notice that...? Not your nieghbor or the V.A. doctor, or your boss getting you baker acted OR feeling unsafe because you own “X” number of guns OR you have a CC permit. Think about that. While I value your opinions, I don’t agree with them. Now that said, what suggestion do you have how to make the current situation our country finds itself in...? I hear you on not wanting to change the mental health laws as they pertain to this issue, but then what? Let’s hear some pro-active ideas.
     

    Snake-Eyes

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Joined
    Jun 22, 2013
    Messages
    3,416
    Points
    113
    Location
    Florida
    "Proactive"?

    -Get rid of "Gun Free" zones for legal CCW.
    -Educate the masses about firearms: 1) LEO taught/moderated firearms safety/education courses in community centers. 2) Mandatory firearms safety courses in school. (Heck, they've got Sex Ed and ambiguous bathrooms: they're old enough to be "de-mystified" about guns.)
    -PUNISH those who commit crimes with a gun. Make the consequences known and Consistent.

    We don't need more laws, or Big Brother with a hand in our homes or breathing down our backs.

    Educated people, encouraged-by and in-cooperation-with local LEO, will be one of the best deterrents to meaningless/horrific/preventable tragedies.
     

    Bay Ranger

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Joined
    Oct 1, 2012
    Messages
    1,799
    Points
    113
    Location
    Gulf Breeze (improper)
    The point in my post is that we need some well defined criteria and procedures defined before we just automatically deny someone of their guns. "Big Gov", i.e. judges, should look at the entire picture. Past actions by the persons must be substantiated by dis-interested individuals. Otherwise, we risk taking someone's property based on the possibly vindictive desires on one person.
     
    Top Bottom