Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

Once again our basic rights are being offered as sacrifice to another madman. The bodies in Tucson were not even cold before the Brady Bunch and their moles within Congress began to wind up the claxon which screams; “Gun control! Gun control!” And why wouldn’t they? Feel-good, arbitrary bills restricting our 2A rights are much easier to discuss and pass than tackling the real issue in the Tucson shootings as well as in the Va Tech shootings and even in the Brady/Reagan shootings.

No, it’s not rhetoric, it’s not bullying. It’s reporting dangerous mental health issues and getting them into the NICS. Both Laughner & Cho telegraphed their instability loud & clear for anyone who was willing to listen. In fact, some did listen. Both Cho and Laughner were declared mentally ill, a danger to themselves and to others and ordered to seek treatment. And then . . .

There is a recognized problem with getting information like this into the NICS to keep firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill. Other disqualifying information makes it into the system rather quickly, felony violations and such. But, not mental health issues. The main reason for this is the direct pipeline between law enforcement and the NICS database. Even though Cho’s order to seek treatment was court ordered, that information never made it to the NICS.

Even Hinckley had been committed. Had the Brady Bill been in place when Hinckley purchased his .22 I would bet a paycheck he would have passed. And this, folks, is the cause we must get behind. At the state level we must lobby our politicos to get a reliable system in place to make certain that information about unstable people (as adjudicated by medical professionals) gets to the NICS system quickly. Otherwise, our 2a rights will continue to be eroded and good, sane folks will be denied their rights.


{Did everyone do all they could do to stop these two? No. The staff at Va Tech could very well have expelled Cho and held him until his parents showed up to take him back to NOVA. Could he have slunk back to Tech? Yes, but the distance may have discouraged him. Even with Laughner, I watched at least five interviews with other community college students in AZ who said they feared Laughner. You know, if five people reported his actions to AZ police, he might have been stopped.}

A noble idea but we all know the government cannot and will not stop with just mental health issues, They'll tack on a ton of other things that theyve been dying to get into such asystem nad repay the smug ass gun lobby in spades. NICS is for the storage of Criminal information and being just mentally ill usually doesn;t qualify unless a crime was recorded.Any attempt by the powers that be will turn into legislative free for all and given an inch they will surely take several miles if they have even a slight idea that they are being supported for the "good of the people" I don;t know how it can be handled but giving Uncle Sam and his minions of morons the green light is not it IMHO. Look at the veterans coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan that seek a little counseling and nthe next thing they know their gun rights have been denied by Uncle buttwipe without so much as a hint of due process. I fully beleive that given the opportunity the Government would abuse the syatem to its fullest if allowed to act as the gate keeper to who does and does not get to buy a gun..

I know it can be a hard pill to swallow, but the fact of the matter is that there are evil people in the world who are determined to do evil things. No amount of good willed legislation can prevent that. As long as man walks the earth, there will be murders and assassinations. Plain and simple. To enact laws that punish people for crimes not yet committed rob us of our freedoms of choice, whether we choose right or wrong.

You could pass laws to keep the guns out of the hands of most mentally unstable people, but there would still be plenty who fall through the cracks. How many civilian types regularly take a full psyche evaluation? Do you feel like submitting to one by a trained professional before every firearm or ammunition purchase? I don't know about you, but I feel that is a HUGE infringement on my rights and one I will never support no matter how many potential politician's lives it may save.

Amen and pass the rolls!

NRB451 wrote:I know it can be a hard pill to swallow, but the fact of the matter is that there are evil people in the world who are determined to do evil things. No amount of good willed legislation can prevent that. As long as man walks the earth, there will be murders and assassinations. Plain and simple. To enact laws that punish people for crimes not yet committed rob us of our freedoms of choice, whether we choose right or wrong.

You could pass laws to keep the guns out of the hands of most mentally unstable people, but there would still be plenty who fall through the cracks. How many civilian types regularly take a full psyche evaluation? Do you feel like submitting to one by a trained professional before every firearm or ammunition purchase? I don't know about you, but I feel that is a HUGE infringement on my rights and one I will never support no matter how many potential politician's lives it may save.

Rest assured the eval would be performed by a highly qualified govt Dr. who could recognize any character flaw you might have based soley on your answer to question three " why do you like the color blue?".....


,,,,yeah, I don't think the eval is going to help much. It will help the grabbers , because eveyone who owns a firearm will fail the evaluation on some basis.

Wait! I fear my meaning was lost. I am not, in any way suggesting that an eval be performed before every gun purchase or ANY gun purchase. What I am suggesting is that there must be created (or repaired) a more efficient and precise way that evals done on such people as Cho & Laughner (evals which had nothing to do with gun purchases) make it into the NICS.

I understand that the grabbers may take the idea and turn it into; "Let's make everyone get a psych eval before a gun purchase" but I don't see that as having much chance of success.

Hope that clears things up and thank you all for your thoughts.

I can't get behind this, few of the "mentally ill" are dangerous in any way, and to be honest, these poor people need guns more than anyone else.

Many times the government offices they are forced to frequent to get their services are in really bad areas.

IMHO I wouldn't trust the evaluators to treat each case fairly... Also one evaluator may not think the same as another, WHat one may see as harmless another may, as an example , Be an Anti gunner and list people for the smallest of things,, So and so;s dog died and he's a bit out of sorts could possibly get a persons gun rights denied if the wrong evaluator got wind of so and so's minor depression .,,,,, Big Problem , No easy solution'

Howdy, Y'all,

Rich, your heart is in the right place and I agree with you in principal. It's a shame, but we can't trust the gubmint to keep things honest and above board. For that reason alone I would not support making it any easier for them to strip someone of their freedom(s).

Regards,

George

Kreutz wrote:I can't get behind this, few of the "mentally ill" are dangerous in any way, and to be honest, these poor people need guns more than anyone else.

Well, just beat me with a stick then...a liberal who thinks mentally ill should have guns and every liberal psychiatrist wants to "find" that you are mentally ill. There's a solution for ya...

Sorry Kreutz, cant help myself on that one...

zephyp wrote:

Kreutz wrote:I can't get behind this, few of the "mentally ill" are dangerous in any way, and to be honest, these poor people need guns more than anyone else.

Well, just beat me with a stick then...a liberal who thinks mentally ill should have guns and every liberal psychiatrist wants to "find" that you are mentally ill. There's a solution for ya...

Sorry Kreutz, cant help myself on that one...

Its true, the vast majority of the diagnosed mentally ill are not violent, and lingering social stigma simply paints them as "dangerous lunatics".

I believe everyone has the right to self-defense.

For the record I am not a fan of psychiatry, and I think if you got rid of SSI you'd see the number of "mentally ill" drop by 80% overnight, but it would bug me someone was denied their right to protect themselves because someone said they were crazy; a label which could apply to anyone.

Drug companies pushed very hard to have things like guilt, binge-eating, behavioral addictions (you know, like watching TV), and guilt put into the DSM-5 (the new psychiatric diagnostic tool) so they could then market drugs to fix these new diagnoses.

just to put things into perspective this is a current eval of mental health in America:

. The National Institute of Mental Health reports that One in four adults-approximately 57.7 million Americans-experience a mental health disorder in a given year

got it from this website.
http://www.nami.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Inform_Yourself/About_Mental_Illness/About_Mental_Illness.htm

That's 1/4 of the population would be deemed unworthy of self protection.

Kreutz wrote:

zephyp wrote:

Kreutz wrote:I can't get behind this, few of the "mentally ill" are dangerous in any way, and to be honest, these poor people need guns more than anyone else.

Well, just beat me with a stick then...a liberal who thinks mentally ill should have guns and every liberal psychiatrist wants to "find" that you are mentally ill. There's a solution for ya...

Sorry Kreutz, cant help myself on that one...

Its true, the vast majority of the diagnosed mentally ill are not violent, and lingering social stigma simply paints them as "dangerous lunatics".

I believe everyone has the right to self-defense.

For the record I am not a fan of psychiatry, and I think if you got rid of SSI you'd see the number of "mentally ill" drop by 80% overnight, but it would bug me someone was denied their right to protect themselves because someone said they were crazy; a label which could apply to anyone.

Drug companies pushed very hard to have things like guilt, binge-eating, behavioral addictions (you know, like watching TV), and guilt put into the DSM-5 (the new psychiatric diagnostic tool) so they could then market drugs to fix these new diagnoses.

I agree that the mentally ill need protection. Several years ago had a mentally retarded woman in the church. Found out she was being sexually abused by her father. It got real ugly.

Just jerkin yer chain on the other stuff...I dont care for psychiatrists, psychologists, or counselors. All witch doctors AFAIC...