USAF_Vet
Member
Under what criteria do we allow the government to bypass due process and lock someone up for being mentally ill? That's a question you have continued to evade. You don't believe that 'men in white coats' will be on every corner in America, waiting to drag off anyone who shows any odd behavior or has the potential to be dangerous, meanwhile, legislation is being pushed to make it that easy. The firearm restraining order bill makes it quite simple to confiscate property and lock people up. While both are temporary in nature, there are mile wide loopholes. Committal into a mental ward always has strings attached and a lot of fine print. Property confiscation is not any better.
alsaqr said "i refuse to buy into the "slippery slope" argument being put forth by those who oppose laws preventing adjudicated mental cases from owning guns."
We already have laws that prevent adjudicated mental cases from owning guns. They are loosely enforced. What good will another law do if we can't or won't enforce the ones we already have? Its not a slippery slope argument. Its an argument against redundancy. Not all mental illness diagnoses prevent gun ownership. Those that do, aren't clearly defined and not often reported to NICS. Someone mentioned they know a couple bi polar individuals, one is a problem, the other isn't. While it would be easier to blanket all bi polar diagnoses as potentially dangerous and therefore cannot own guns, you'd be stripping away a lot of rights from stable people. People like myself. The slippery slope isn't redundant legislation, or the constant threat a fear of being carted off to a mental ward, but its the violation of the civil rights of people who are no threat to anyone. But the fact is, every single person on the planet is potentially dangerous and violent.
We, as the gun owning community, are in large part responsible for this mess. When the antis said it was all about guns, we refuted that and said its about mental illness. Now that the legislative focus has shifted from guns (which we said weren't the problem) to mental health (which we said was the problem) we now want to shift the focus elsewhere. We constantly complain about politicians 'shifting the goalpost' but now we're doing the same.
I'm OK with a free society and the inherent danger it invites. But I feel like I'm in the minority with that opinion. I don't have the answers, maybe there are no answers.
Violence is a part of civilization. It always has been. That's never going to change, not with strategically placed armed guards, not with carting off potentially dangerous people, not with legislation, not with less guns, and not with more guns. Violence is a part of every society, from the most free, to the least. So with that in mind, do we turn the freest society into one less free, for a very small gain at a very large cost? Or do we accept the freedom is dangerous? Is there some acceptable middle ground where we are no less free, but yet still more safe? The idealist in me would love to think that's possible, but the realist doesn't buy it.
alsaqr said "i refuse to buy into the "slippery slope" argument being put forth by those who oppose laws preventing adjudicated mental cases from owning guns."
We already have laws that prevent adjudicated mental cases from owning guns. They are loosely enforced. What good will another law do if we can't or won't enforce the ones we already have? Its not a slippery slope argument. Its an argument against redundancy. Not all mental illness diagnoses prevent gun ownership. Those that do, aren't clearly defined and not often reported to NICS. Someone mentioned they know a couple bi polar individuals, one is a problem, the other isn't. While it would be easier to blanket all bi polar diagnoses as potentially dangerous and therefore cannot own guns, you'd be stripping away a lot of rights from stable people. People like myself. The slippery slope isn't redundant legislation, or the constant threat a fear of being carted off to a mental ward, but its the violation of the civil rights of people who are no threat to anyone. But the fact is, every single person on the planet is potentially dangerous and violent.
We, as the gun owning community, are in large part responsible for this mess. When the antis said it was all about guns, we refuted that and said its about mental illness. Now that the legislative focus has shifted from guns (which we said weren't the problem) to mental health (which we said was the problem) we now want to shift the focus elsewhere. We constantly complain about politicians 'shifting the goalpost' but now we're doing the same.
I'm OK with a free society and the inherent danger it invites. But I feel like I'm in the minority with that opinion. I don't have the answers, maybe there are no answers.
Violence is a part of civilization. It always has been. That's never going to change, not with strategically placed armed guards, not with carting off potentially dangerous people, not with legislation, not with less guns, and not with more guns. Violence is a part of every society, from the most free, to the least. So with that in mind, do we turn the freest society into one less free, for a very small gain at a very large cost? Or do we accept the freedom is dangerous? Is there some acceptable middle ground where we are no less free, but yet still more safe? The idealist in me would love to think that's possible, but the realist doesn't buy it.
Last edited: