The right answer is that it depends , and the poll does not offer the correct answer as a choice. Obviously, a person suffering from psychosis should not be allowed to possess a gun. IMO, such people should not be allowed to have guns, even if their condition is treatable with medication. The risk is to great to society.

 

However, people with mild mental health issues that do not impact their judgment and do not make them any more violent than others without such issues, should not be deprived of their constitutional right to bear arms. Most people with mental health issues are no more likely to commit a crime with a gun than somebody with a broken leg.

 

Before reflexively responding yes to this poll, ask yourself how liberals could abuse a law depriving the "mentally ill" of their guns, because if they can abuse a gun control measure, then they will abuse it.

 

If an agreeable measure to define mentally ill can be reached I would think that there would be overwhelming support.

If an agreeable measure to define mentally ill can be reached I would think that there would be overwhelming support.

I agree, but the OP is overly broad. If somebody was diagnosed with attention deficit order, mild OCD, mild epilepsy, or mild autism, then the gun control fanatics could be counted upon to exploit a poorly written law. That is why I voted yes.

 

If the real goal is to protect the public, then there would be widespread support for such a law. If the real objective is to deprive as many American citizens as possible of their Second Amendment rights, then the law will go nowhere.

I agree, but the OP is overly broad. If somebody was diagnosed with attention deficit order, mild OCD, mild epilepsy, or mild autism, then the gun control fanatics could be counted upon to exploit a poorly written law. That is why I voted yes.

 

If the real goal is to protect the public, then there would be widespread support for such a law. If the real objective is to deprive as many American citizens as possible of their Second Amendment rights, then the law will go nowhere.

 

Agreed. On the surface this would seem to be common sense, however sensibility is anything but common these days.

Many on here that are anti-gun or at least wishing for many more restrictions, would be shocked if they knew how many gun sales were denied by Firearms Licensed Sellers each day. The law is set up that if the FFL holder/agent has any question or concern about selling someone a firearm they can refuse to complete the sale. Will they stop every sale to someone with a violent strain, no, but several sales are stopped each day.

 

I personally have denied many over the years, one of which ended up potentially saving my own Father-in- Laws life. In every case that I denied, the person was acting in a odd or unusual manner and we didn't feel good selling them a firearm.

 

Yes there are some dealers that will sell without any concern or worry as long as they pass the NICS checks. The vast over whelming majority do a good job and are the first line of defense against "Sketchy" gun sales.

I like to explain to people that Mental Illness is somewhat of a sliding scale. Imagine we all have a number between 0 and 100. 0 means absolutely no mental illness and 100 means the craziest person on the planet. We all have a number on this scale.

 

There are so many questions. At what number do we say no to a gun, other rights? Who decides on the number? How do we decide on the number?

 

And this is a slippery slope, what about alcoholics? Drug users? Impulse Control Issues which may or may not be considered mental illness? God complexes? IQ level?

 

And what about PTSD? If we are going to deny guns to anyone suffering from PTSD that should eliminate most ex military members, retired federal agents, and retired police officers from owning a gun.

 

I am just glad Clinton didn't elected because if she did I was going to take the plunge and purchase an AR15. With Trump in charge I think 2 handguns is enough.

 

I voted No for what it is worth.

I like to explain to people that Mental Illness is somewhat of a sliding scale. Imagine we all have a number between 0 and 100. 0 means absolutely no mental illness and 100 means the craziest person on the planet. We all have a number on this scale.

 

 

There are so many questions. At what number do we say no to a gun, other rights? Who decides on the number? How do we decide on the number?

 

And this is a slippery slope, what about alcoholics? Drug users? Impulse Control Issues which may or may not be considered mental illness? God complexes? IQ level?

 

And what about PTSD? If we are going to deny guns to anyone suffering from PTSD that should eliminate most ex military members, retired federal agents, and retired police officers from owning a gun.

 

I am just glad Clinton didn't elected because if she did I was going to take the plunge and purchase an AR15. With Trump in charge I think 2 handguns is enough.

 

I voted No for what it is worth.

 

And none of us scores a 0.

And none of us scores a 0.

 

And if anyone thinks they score a Zero, that's going to be a High Number.

At quick glance I thought this poll was… should the mentally ill be president?? lol

 

Absolutely not. And it was a great thing when she was beat. Saved us all for more pain and suffering.