Tuesday, January 18, 2011

Guns vs Mental

There is the call of arms as in every aftermath of tragedy.
Those who stand up for the 2nd Amendment and those who
want more gun laws. But if they would improve on the laws
as they stand now.. enforcing them, with a few more items of
who should be on the no sell list.

But seems like we should have the call on the mental impaired.
So far each one of the shooters has mental problem before they
did the horrible thing.

We have the Arizona incident… the sheriff or police were involved with
this man on several calls. The college he was at, and another incident or two.
So why wasn’t he put on the list of “person of concern”? The man who hit
his neighbors in Bayview, Idaho, had been involved with the sheriff several
times before he decided to walk into his neighbor’s house. Yes, I realize
that he used a hammer and one doesn’t need to get a permit to use a
hammer (nor should we) . But surely there were warning signs.
Isn’t there a way to have such a person valuated? Then there is the young man who went into the Virginia College… and shot people, he too, had been involved with several calls of concern before he went off the deep end.

Why don’t we have a list of those who should not be owners of guns,
who have been in trouble, contacted by the sheriff or police over such
things??? Shouldn’t that list be on the do not sell guns to persons list
along with spouse abusers?

Seems like mental illness is the last on the list of concern for most
people. And one of the first departments of cuts when the government
cuts their budget.

So in my humble opinion, we should have a list of mental problems for
gun dealers to use. And we should have a legal evaluation for those
who show such signs of violent acts. When their thoughts are bouncing
off the walls of normal thoughts, and have violent intent… we should have
a program for the safety of all… them as well as us.


Margie's Musings said...

If one actually reads the second amendment, we find that what it calls for is a well regulated militia...not individual gun rights.

We need to read that amendment with a knowledge of the culture of America at the time it was written. There was no standing army. Each state and even communities had a militia and that was what the amendment was addressing....arming the militia.

Now we have a standing army and a police force...not militias.

dan.gier said...

Please read the Supreme Court rullings on this.
In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two Second Amendment decisions. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, UNCONNECTED to service in a militia. McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits State and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.