Skip to main content

View Diary: End the Flow of Illegal Guns (160 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Who decides who the dangerously mentally ill are? (5+ / 0-)

    And then the follow up #1:  After the dangerously mentally ill have been identified and deprived of their rights through due process, why would they be allowed to continue wandering the streets looking for something other than a gun to kill with?  Shouldn't they be locked up in the name of public safety?  Don't you care about the children?

    Follow up #2:  Will you also, through due process of course, also deny the parents of the dangerously mentally ill the right to own a gun?  Because that's about the only thing that would have prevented the Sandy Hook shooting.  A legal gun, used by a mentally ill man, stolen from his mother who legally owned it.

    So come on Senator, let's see a bill that says the parents of the mentally ill, Special Needs parents, Autism parents, Asperger's parents will all be denied gun ownership to better keep guns out of the hands of their mentally infirm children.  Feeling up for a little discrimination?

    •  Please....let's not go too far over the cliff (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BachFan, DefendOurConstitution

      looking for reasons NOT to pass some legislation.

      •  I didn't. I asked serious questions (5+ / 0-)

        Senator Gillibrand wants to keep guns out of the hands of the "dangerously mentally ill", and wants to prevent another Sandy Hook type shooting.

        Okay, so let's start.  When do we start locking up the Asperger's kids, and when do we take the guns away from their parents?  Come on, don't you want to stop the next crazy kid from killing people?  Don't you want to lock them up and then bask in the illusion of safety?

        Yes I am looking for reasons NOT to pass knee-jerk legislation, and it's called innocent until proven guilty.  If you want to pass laws taking rights away from the guilty, fine.  But first you have to define who the guilty are, and what their crime is.

        Are you ready for being the parent of a mentally ill child to be a crime for which those parents can be denied constitutional rights?  Because that's what Senator Gillibrand is basically saying.  This isn't a game, this is real.

        So let's see some real, serious answers.

        •  YEEARGH!! (3+ / 0-)

          Autism spectrum is not dangerous mental illness. This cannot be said enough.

          •  That's the whole point (4+ / 0-)

            If we're going to start denying rights to and/or locking up those with "dangerous" mental illnesses (and their parents), then first we need to define who the mentally ill are, and who is also most at risk for mishandling guns.

            We know an Asperger's kid stole his mom's gun and killed her.  Can you PROVE, yes PROVE beyond any doubt that if an Autism parent owns a gun, that the Autism kid will never get a hold of it and play with it?  Dangerous or not, it's a risk yes?

            So do we deny Autism parents gun rights to keep guns from causing accidents?  And where do we draw the line between the dangerous mental illnesses and the non-dangerous ones?

            I'm not the one who started down this road.  Ready to reject the discrimination of our Constitutional rights based on mental illness yet?  Either we're innocent until proven guilty, or we're not.

            •  an assessment process takes place - obviously (0+ / 0-)

              and then YES - NO guns for those people if they are considered a danger, or they LIVE with people considered a danger to themselves or others

              •  In a court of law, right? (0+ / 0-)

                Constitutional rights can only be removed through due process in a court of law.  This isn't going to be a mark on a chart from a regular doctor's visit.  Our rights are not so fragile.  The assessment as you put it, must be done in front of a judge.

                I just want everyone to know that keeping guns out of the hands of the "dangerous" mentally ill basically involves dragging every person in America with a mental illness into a court to defend their sanity and their rights.

                It will be unprecidented to tell Ameican citizens that they no longer have Constitutional rights because their child is crazy.  I also have to wonder how long the politically correct crowd will stand for thousands or millions of people with mental illness to essentially be found to be violent criminals in a court of law.

                Have fun with that...

        •  Lanza had no diagnosed MI (3+ / 0-)

          Praxis: Bold as Love

          by VelvetElvis on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 04:11:16 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I don't see where anyone said what you suggest n/t (0+ / 0-)
      •  He's playing "Devil's Advocate" with questions (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VectorScalar

        that are sure to come up. The questions will sound snarky, but there will be grains of concern in them that do need to be contemplated.

        Once a law is in place, is it not likely that an unscrupulous leader will come along eventually who will seek to twist its interpretation to pursue personal agendas, or perhaps to serve the goals of political masters?

    •  a gun safe would have stopped it (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      a2nite, DefendOurConstitution

      requiring gun safes like most other first world countries do should be pretty non-controversial

      Praxis: Bold as Love

      by VelvetElvis on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 04:10:13 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site