4 ms·
> A world where my mentally ill neighbor can nuke the town when he gets pissed off is not really one I'm interested in living in, and I doubt it's a scenario th
by vageli 5y ago
> A world where my mentally ill neighbor can nuke the town when he gets pissed off is not really one I'm interested in living in, and I doubt it's a scenario the Founders envisioned.
This is a strawman, mentally ill individuals who have been diagnosed as such are already barred from possessing firearms.
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/identify-prohibited-persons https://www.atf.gov/firearms/identify-prohibited-persons
edit: To the downvoters, can you explain why?
- ceejayoz 5y ago> This is a strawman, mentally ill individuals who have been diagnosed as such are already barred from possessing firearms. So, shall be infringed in certain scenarios?
- vageli 5y agoThe infringement is limited to a very specific class of people who are a small subset of the general population. Consider that convicted felons may not own firearms, is that an infringement? I would argue that it is not, as you lose certain rights when you are convicted, just as you lose certain rights when you are deemed to be mentally ill or of unsound mind.
- ceejayoz 5y agoIn other words, we agree "shall not be infringed" has exceptions, and are just haggling over where the line is.
- psyc 5y agoYour wording is misleading. That applies to people who have been court committed (even the majority of hospitalizations are voluntary or tagged 'voluntary' as a courtesy), or deemed 'mentally defective' by a court. That is a much higher bar than what you wrote. There are plenty of people with mental health diagnoses who have never been court committed.