TexasCHLforum.com

What Schumer and Coburn are attempting to do may seem innocuous. Who would object to background checks to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals?

The problem is once the door is opened to background checks, the door is opened to the government making judgments of competency and there is where the infringement of the Second Amendment can be expanded to virtually outlaw guns.

http://www.teaparty.org/new-law-asks-ar ... pon-20573/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Is there a middle ground on the mental health issue or do we have to continue to suffer through the mental imcompetents having guns in order to protect 2nd amendment? Not trying to start a war here but I am concerned about the number of people with know mental issues who are getting access to guns.

OldGrumpy wrote:Is there a middle ground on the mental health issue or do we have to continue to suffer through the mental imcompetents having guns in order to protect 2nd amendment? Not trying to start a war here but I am concerned about the number of people with know mental issues who are getting access to guns.

I've been puzzling over this myself a bit over the last couple of days. First, a story.

I have a good friend who volunteers his time to drive a van to pick up Vets and drive them to a VA hospital. This friend has had a CHL several times longer than I have and is a Vietnam Vet himself. He has a lot of empathy for all the men and women that he is picking up. According to him, about 25% of his clients should be restricted from gun access. Most of those have major mental issues and it would be apparent to almost anyone who was around them for more than 5 minutes.

But here is the problem. The mental health profession does a really, really lousy job of formal assessments, in and out of the military. More often the ones that they want to label as having major issues are the ones with the more treatable conditions. Some of the outwardly aggressive ones do have anger management issues but are not really as psychotic as others who appear to be more laid back and end up snapping out and committing some heinous act.

Even when the person has been identified - like Lochner, it is rare for them to be put into the system while harmless but vocal ones are often taken for "evaluation." Our daughter is a police dispatcher and she has a group in her town that go repeatedly to John Peter Smith in a police car for psyc evalutations but are pretty harmless and are back on the streets in days.

While not everyone would accept it as a parallel situation, I see the State vehicle inspection system as an example of what a mental health evaluation system would look like when run by the government.
1. the stated purpose is to keep the "derelicts" off the roads.
2. a significant % of the derelicts evade the system and remain on the road.
3. the evaluation stations have their own agendas and often mislabel their "clients" for their own gain
4. those of us who go to great pains to properly handle our vehicles from a safety and even an emissions view are more likely to be hassled by the system than those who know where to "buy" their inspections.
5. even when they are caught, rarely are the derelicts taken off the streets. It is kinda like the Chicago thugs not getting sent to jail for under the draconian gun laws there.

Call me jaded or just too cynical but I cannot see a government system that has to deal with large quantities of people that could be used as a model for how to deal with the mental health exceptions. Instead, I'd expect another TSA. Perhaps the worst part for me, however, is that I see the potential for political corruption. This Federal administration has shown time and time again their willingness to punish those who openly oppose them Even if the system were flawless, I am gravely concerned that it could be used as a political weapon. There are no checks and balances.

Edit: grammar error

I may ruffle some feathers here and maybe even sound like a Scientologist in the process (I am most decidedly NOT), but the mental health industry is fraught with corruption, abuse, and incompetence. Psychiatrists have the highest suicide rate of any advanced profession, and they prescribe "modern" anti-depressants like Pez regardless of whether or not they may be misdiagnosing someone. Talk therapy used to be the gateway to healing the mentally ill, and now it's these SSRI pills that by their manufacturers' own admission can aggravate suicidal tendencies and psychosis. I have lost a couple of friends to suicide who complained to me that these medications were making them feel worse. When I urged them to see the doctor regarding a tapering program, they both told me that the doctor said to keep taking them, prescribed even more, and advised them it would just take time to work...and then threw something like Xanax or Klonopin into the mix.

took a couple of psyc classes in college, most of the people there including the teacher were all wack tring to figure out were their lifes headed south.

I don't know. . . some people would label me insane for not liking mob movies, especially "The Godfather". I just don't see the appeal. On some people's scales, that defines me as "crazy".

Can anyone know the evil in a person's heart (or mind) before evil has manifested???

Or do we always see 20/20 hindsight???

AndyC wrote:Yep, you're a loony. Can I have your firearms now?

Is that how this works? You can all deliver your guns to me here in Alvin

Redneck_Buddha wrote:I may ruffle some feathers here and maybe even sound like a Scientologist in the process (I am most decidedly NOT), but the mental health industry is fraught with corruption, abuse, and incompetence. Psychiatrists have the highest suicide rate of any advanced profession, and they prescribe "modern" anti-depressants like Pez regardless of whether or not they may be misdiagnosing someone. Talk therapy used to be the gateway to healing the mentally ill, and now it's these SSRI pills that by their manufacturers' own admission can aggravate suicidal tendencies and psychosis. I have lost a couple of friends to suicide who complained to me that these medications were making them feel worse. When I urged them to see the doctor regarding a tapering program, they both told me that the doctor said to keep taking them, prescribed even more, and advised them it would just take time to work...and then threw something like Xanax or Klonopin into the mix.

I thought that was dentists.

OldGrumpy wrote:Is there a middle ground on the mental health issue or do we have to continue to suffer through the mental imcompetents having guns in order to protect 2nd amendment? Not trying to start a war here but I am concerned about the number of people with know mental issues who are getting access to guns.

I can tell you what is not the middle ground; having the government involved in the decision of whether or not someone is mentally competent. Even with all the problems the mental health industry has, they pale in comparison to what mental health care would look like in the hands of the government. First of all, it would be fraught with potential for fraud and favoritism. Secondly it would cede to the government unlimited power over the lives of all citizens.

As it currently stands, to find someone incompetent before the law requires the decision of a judge based upon presented evidence. There are protections in place, including rights to appeal, that make it difficult to fraudulently commit someone and assigns penalties for getting caught doing so. The interests of all parties are considered, and the government is, or at least should be, an impartial third party.

If the government takes over the decision, the fox is guarding the hen house and freedom is gone. This is an issue worth going to war over.

baldeagle wrote:

OldGrumpy wrote:Is there a middle ground on the mental health issue or do we have to continue to suffer through the mental imcompetents having guns in order to protect 2nd amendment? Not trying to start a war here but I am concerned about the number of people with know mental issues who are getting access to guns.

I can tell you what is not the middle ground; having the government involved in the decision of whether or not someone is mentally competent. Even with all the problems the mental health industry has, they pale in comparison to what mental health care would look like in the hands of the government. First of all, it would be fraught with potential for fraud and favoritism. Secondly it would cede to the government unlimited power over the lives of all citizens.

As it currently stands, to find someone incompetent before the law requires the decision of a judge based upon presented evidence. There are protections in place, including rights to appeal, that make it difficult to fraudulently commit someone and assigns penalties for getting caught doing so. The interests of all parties are considered, and the government is, or at least should be, an impartial third party.

If the government takes over the decision, the fox is guarding the hen house and freedom is gone. This is an issue worth going to war over.

+1, well stated.

AndyC wrote:Yep, you're a loony. Can I have your firearms now?

But seriously folks, I know there are individuals who shouldn't be allowed to have a firearm. I'd start with all the anti-gun politicos and Hollywood libertards who are scared to death of an inanimate object that they kills people. That's not rational thinking by any psychological standard, if you ask me, and definitely should be reported to the authorities.

v-rog wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

OldGrumpy wrote:Is there a middle ground on the mental health issue or do we have to continue to suffer through the mental imcompetents having guns in order to protect 2nd amendment? Not trying to start a war here but I am concerned about the number of people with know mental issues who are getting access to guns.

I can tell you what is not the middle ground; having the government involved in the decision of whether or not someone is mentally competent. Even with all the problems the mental health industry has, they pale in comparison to what mental health care would look like in the hands of the government. First of all, it would be fraught with potential for fraud and favoritism. Secondly it would cede to the government unlimited power over the lives of all citizens.

As it currently stands, to find someone incompetent before the law requires the decision of a judge based upon presented evidence. There are protections in place, including rights to appeal, that make it difficult to fraudulently commit someone and assigns penalties for getting caught doing so. The interests of all parties are considered, and the government is, or at least should be, an impartial third party.

If the government takes over the decision, the fox is guarding the hen house and freedom is gone. This is an issue worth going to war over.

+1, well stated.

I agree, I'm onboard as well...

BTW, I'm not looney...I just stare a lot...

Let's see....

The government decides who gets proceeds from redistributuin of wealth. That has worked out well.

The government decides which illegals get to stay and who has to leave. That has worked out well.

The government decides how to fight wars. That has worked out well.

The government decides the foreign policy and how our ambassadors and staff operate. That has worked out well.

The governemtn determines who and how to monitor for terrorist activity. That has worked out well.

Let's let the government make mandatory background checks to determine who is mentally competent.

We are all safe. Everyone needs to get back to work or whatever you do. Nothing to see here.

Anygunanywhere