• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

GOP Gun Debate On Mental Illness Discussion; Should they get guns?

Divergent

Divergent

Banned
Joined
Jul 9, 2015
Messages
781
Reaction score
150
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
First thing said, they are correct about people with Mental Illness being the problem. What they got torn on and did not elaborate was "Should people with Mental Illness be allowed to buy a gun".

One Conservative said no. The other said yes it's the issue, but indirectly said they should be able to buy a gun via 2A.

The Big Question. SHOULD PEOPLE WITH A MENTAL ILLNESS BE ABLE TO BUY A GUN? Because the 2A says yes.

I'm guessing some will say, "They will just get them anyway". The Nihilist perspective of "why have laws, some people will break them anyway".
 
Divergent said:
First thing said, they are correct about people with Mental Illness being the problem.
Click to expand...

Except we aren't the problem.

If America wants to have a conversation about guns-whether that leads to restrictions on gun owners or not- it needs to not demonize us and reduce our liberties in the process. Whether we are allowed to have guns or not isn't nearly as consequential as the discussions that are coming up as a result of the American people's inability to come to consensus about firearms. Because the American people are not able to agree on firearms, the default solution has been to expand the institutions, weaken our ability to receive treatment in the community, eliminate or reduce our civil rights groups, and view us only as "criminals" even though the vast majority of us are law abiding citizens and are far more likely to be victims of violence than the rest of the general population.

In essence, the public's solution to the gun problem is to dramatically increase the likelihood that we can't live in society anymore and shouldn't have someone defend our liberties.

I find that unconscionable.
 
Last edited:
Fiddytree said:
Except we aren't the problem.

If America wants to have a conversation about guns-whether that leads to restrictions on gun owners or not- it needs to not demonize us and reduce our liberties in the process. Whether we are allowed to have guns or not isn't nearly as consequential as the discussions that are coming up as a result of the American people's inability to come to consensus about firearms. Because the American people are not able to agree on firearms, the default solution has been to expand the institutions, weaken our ability to receive treatment in the community, eliminate or reduce our civil rights groups, and view us only as "criminals" even though the vast majority of us are law abiding citizens and are far more likely to be victims of violence than the rest of the general population.
Click to expand...

"Except we aren't the problem."
 
Divergent said:
"Except we aren't the problem."
Click to expand...

I have a severe mental illness, as do a lot of the folks I grew up with and work around today. We aren't "the problem." A very small minority are.
 
Fiddytree said:
I have a severe mental illness, as do a lot of the folks I grew up with and work around today. We aren't "the problem." A very small minority are.
Click to expand...

Well let's discuss it then. I won't pry on your mental illness. Do you think that anyone with any mental illness should be allowed to buy a gun?
 
Divergent said:
Well let's discuss it then. I won't pry on your mental illness. Do you think that anyone with any mental illness should be allowed to buy a gun?
Click to expand...

I think that many times people (and their families) need to evaluate and reevaluate whether having a firearm is a good idea given their existing or previous mental health, but I would rather we stick with the system we currently have for it or strengthen it for maintaining fidelity to it.

I, myself, will never own a gun. It's not so much related to my mental health as it is not feeling the need or affinity for one. In our family, we stressed not getting anything dangerous, because my sibling at a very young age was quite destructive and prone to well over a dozen fight or flight scenarios a day. We had a safe and tended to lock all regularly sharp objects (kitchen knives, scissors, etc.) This was for not only our protection, but his own.

However, I stress that I am largely skeptical of renewed gun control legislation efforts and whether they would accomplish even a small amount of what its proponents argue it would.

That being said, I reiterate. When people bring up mental illness around the gun conversation, it's not generally with our best interests in mind. It's about safeguarding citizens from "criminals" or "crazy loons." Republicans bring it up because they don't want to lose on gun control, and Democrats bring it up because they want to win on gun control. Further, neither necessarily are interested in our well-being or in our political constituency. Not long ago, liberals used deinstitutionalization as a talking point against Reagan, not because the conservative movement failed to fund community services (which is true), but because "the crazies are now out and it's Reagan's fault." Deinstitutionalization is also brought up by conservatives who like law and order and have no personal connection to mental health issues.
 
Fiddytree said:
I think that many times people (and their families) need to evaluate and reevaluate whether having a firearm is a good idea given their existing or previous mental health, but I would rather we stick with the system we currently have for it or strengthen it for maintaining fidelity to it.

I, myself, will never own a gun. It's not so much related to my mental health as it is not feeling the need or affinity for one. In our family, we stressed not getting anything dangerous, because my sibling at a very young age was quite destructive and prone to well over a dozen fight or flight scenarios a day. We had a safe and tended to lock all regularly sharp objects (kitchen knives, scissors, etc.) This was for not only our protection, but his own.

However, I stress that I am largely skeptical of renewed gun control legislation efforts and whether they would accomplish even a small amount of what its proponents argue it would.

That being said, I reiterate. When people bring up mental illness around the gun conversation, it's not generally with our best interests in mind. It's about safeguarding citizens from "criminals" or "crazy loons." Republicans bring it up because they don't want to lose on gun control, and Democrats bring it up because they want to win on gun control. Further, neither necessarily are interested in our well-being or in our political constituency. Not long ago, liberals used deinstitutionalization as a talking point against Reagan, not because the conservative movement failed to fund community services (which is true), but because "the crazies are now out and it's Reagan's fault." Deinstitutionalization is also brought up by conservatives who like law and order and have no personal connection to mental health issues.
Click to expand...

I've been on forums for a long time. Sometimes there are people that look like a Wolf trying to be a grandma with a secondary account. In fact, every person I've ever say they want to ban guns had the same vibe.

Do you think there are people out there that will make a secondary account just to push a point?
 
Divergent said:
I've been on forums for a long time. Sometimes there are people that look like a Wolf trying to be a grandma with a secondary account. In fact, every person I've ever say they want to ban guns had the same vibe.

Do you think there are people out there that will make a secondary account just to push a point?
Click to expand...

I can't speak to webforums. I can speak to actual national and state legislation and movements within the political parties, however. The gun conversation is really harming our people, because liberals and conservatives cannot agree on firearms.
 
Divergent said:
First thing said, they are correct about people with Mental Illness being the problem. What they got torn on and did not elaborate was "Should people with Mental Illness be allowed to buy a gun".

One Conservative said no. The other said yes it's the issue, but indirectly said they should be able to buy a gun via 2A.

The Big Question. SHOULD PEOPLE WITH A MENTAL ILLNESS BE ABLE TO BUY A GUN? Because the 2A says yes.

I'm guessing some will say, "They will just get them anyway". The Nihilist perspective of "why have laws, some people will break them anyway".
Click to expand...

I guess it would depend on the mental illness and past history but, we allow them to vote. I dont see how mental illness can disqualify them for owning guns but still allow them to vote. Yes a gun can directly harm someone but electing a bad person into office can do a lot of harm as well. If someone isnt qualified to make judgements about how to use a gun why would they be qualified to make judgements about how society is to be run?
 
Crovax said:
I guess it would depend on the mental illness and past history but, we allow them to vote. I dont see how mental illness can disqualify them for owning guns but still allow them to vote. Yes a gun can directly harm someone but electing a bad person into office can do a lot of harm as well. If someone isnt qualified to make judgements about how to use a gun why would they be qualified to make judgements about how society is to be run?
Click to expand...

Great post. What you seem to be fighting is party bias, the most disruptive thing in politics. It makes people justify common sense to push their parties perspectives. I agree, it depends on the mental illness with either voting or BUYING a gun.
 
Notice the typical gun junkies won't touch this topic.

Because their perspective is 2A, gun no matter what, no matter who, no matter age, no matter situation.
 
Divergent said:
First thing said, they are correct about people with Mental Illness being the problem. What they got torn on and did not elaborate was "Should people with Mental Illness be allowed to buy a gun".

One Conservative said no. The other said yes it's the issue, but indirectly said they should be able to buy a gun via 2A.

The Big Question. SHOULD PEOPLE WITH A MENTAL ILLNESS BE ABLE TO BUY A GUN? Because the 2A says yes.

I'm guessing some will say, "They will just get them anyway". The Nihilist perspective of "why have laws, some people will break them anyway".
Click to expand...

Yes and no.

If someone is suffering from mild forms of mental illness sure

If someone has been committed to state custody as a danger to themselves or others, probably not.

It's a very subjective issue. If I were in the debate as a candidate I would say "on a case by case basis"

The other thing to remember, if someone enjoys hunting or shooting sports and feels they will lose their guns if they seek help for a problem, is that better for society?
 
Divergent said:
First thing said, they are correct about people with Mental Illness being the problem. What they got torn on and did not elaborate was "Should people with Mental Illness be allowed to buy a gun".

One Conservative said no. The other said yes it's the issue, but indirectly said they should be able to buy a gun via 2A.

The Big Question. SHOULD PEOPLE WITH A MENTAL ILLNESS BE ABLE TO BUY A GUN? Because the 2A says yes.

I'm guessing some will say, "They will just get them anyway". The Nihilist perspective of "why have laws, some people will break them anyway".
Click to expand...

Depends on the mental illness. If someone is actually a threat to other people then they should be sent the loony bin until they are no longer a threat to other people and when released they should have their all their constitutional rights restored. I do not know if anti-2nd amendment trash know this but someone who is hell bent on killing other people will still find a way.They will use a gun,bomb,car some other other means that they can use to murder innocent people. Adam Lanza for example murdered his mother and stole her firearms.While Andrew Kehoe murdered 44 people at a school with bombs.
 
Divergent said:
First thing said, they are correct about people with Mental Illness being the problem. What they got torn on and did not elaborate was "Should people with Mental Illness be allowed to buy a gun".

One Conservative said no. The other said yes it's the issue, but indirectly said they should be able to buy a gun via 2A.

The Big Question. SHOULD PEOPLE WITH A MENTAL ILLNESS BE ABLE TO BUY A GUN? Because the 2A says yes.

I'm guessing some will say, "They will just get them anyway". The Nihilist perspective of "why have laws, some people will break them anyway".
Click to expand...

That question cannot be answered until you define the mental illness. I will say however that if someone (anyone really) cannot be trusted to own a firearm without injuring someone else, they should not allowed to allowed to be part of the general population.
 
Divergent said:
Notice the typical gun junkies won't touch this topic.

Because their perspective is 2A, gun no matter what, no matter who, no matter age, no matter situation.
Click to expand...

where do you dream that crap up? I have been the longest and most avid pro gun poster in this history of this board and I think some people should not be able to own guns. those adjudicated mentally incompetent for example.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom