search
top

Giffords & Kelly Group: Get Help? Surrender Your 2A Rights

If you look at all the mental health “reforms” that the gun control crowd is pushing these days, if even half of them passed, the end result would be that I’d never seek medical help for any problem I might have with depression, alcohol abuse, or anything like that. I’d suffer through it. Since I’ve generally not had those kinds of mental health issues, I don’t anticipate needing that kind of help, but I do sometimes have issues managing stress, and these proposals would make me wary of even getting help there.

When it comes to guns, I simply don’t trust the medical profession, so I wouldn’t trust that if I went to see a medical professional, he wouldn’t report me to “the authorities,” and next thing you know I have a SWAT team pointing guns at my family while they torch the safe to get the guns. I don’t believe I’m on the only one who feels this way.

So do the anti-gun folks want to create even more stigmas that prevent people from seeking the help they need? We don’t even bother to keep people who are obviously and dangerously mentally ill off the streets. Also, what of the practical aspects? Where are all these “temporarily confiscated” guns going to end up stored? And at whose expense?

20 Responses to “Giffords & Kelly Group: Get Help? Surrender Your 2A Rights”

  1. wizardpc says:

    That’s exactly what they want. Then, 15 years down the road, they can point to studies showing that gun owners commit suicides at rates higher than non-gun owners and that this time, they’re looking out for your safety because you’re too crazy to know better. And they’ll have numbers to back it up. And, probably, monthly anecdotes splashed all over tv news.

  2. Erin Palette says:

    As I wrote in a blog post last year, “Your fear of guns is infringing upon not only my Right to Free Speech, but also my access to mental health care.”

    • Braden Lynch says:

      This is the sinister side of HIE (Health Information Exchanges) for our glorious (ahem) attempt at socialized health care. Basically, if you ever indicate firearms ownership, it will be recorded and can be accessed forever and any change in your health status could be used to seize your firearms.

  3. The Jack says:

    Nothing says “We want to destigmatize seeking mental health” quite like *literally* turning those who seek mental health into second class citizens.

  4. Pete says:

    I got referred for a PTSD eval. I never once mentioned guns, gun ownership, target shooting as a hobby, anything basically gun related during it.

  5. DamDoc says:

    I think its time to just realize folks are going to get hurt or killed with guns.. Just like with cars, ladders, swimming pools, trampolines, motorcycles, kitchen knives, etc, etc, etc…. As “the one” says, “dont do stupid shit”… Just leave us the fork alone. End of story.

  6. Granny Grunch says:

    Has anyone considered the number of police who have had “nerve” pills prescribed by ntheir doctor in order to handle the stress of the job? The number is very impressive. And then there is the NOK who take those “pills” because of the stress caused by the stress of their significant other. There is something very wrong and very bad if They go after the citizen and ignore Their own.

    • Brad says:

      Interesting point. I don’t ever remember the question of medications coming up in a case of a questionable police shooting.

  7. Chris from AK says:

    After reading their “reforms” I think, has this not already been done?

    Idea Two: “Authorize law enforcement to remove access to guns, with court oversight and plenty of protections to prevent abuse of this authority.” The owner of the guns would “only” get them back once he or she was “no longer a danger to themselves or others.”

    Yeah, it is called “arresting someone.” Putting someone into custody often removes access to guns. Alternatively, on the mental health front, it is called involuntary commitment. Most states have some sort of provision for that.

    Idea Three: “Require schools, including colleges and universities, to report violent or suicidal people to a court or administrating agency.” These people would also have their firearms confiscated, but “could regain their firearms access…after a certain period of time.”

    Schools are already required to report crime under the Clery Act. Violent people can generally be charged with a crime and then arrested. See above.

    Idea Four: “Allow courts to issue ‘Gun Violence Restraining Orders.'” These result in temporary gun confiscation.

    Like the Lautenberg Amendment, right?

    Idea Five: “Temporarily ban those who have been involuntarily hospitalized from purchasing or possessing firearms.”

    Like the longstanding ban on people who have been involuntarily committed, right?

    I can either conclude that (1) these people have no idea what current laws exist, (2) are lying and intend to push draconian measures that go well above the “ideas” described above, or (3) have crap for brains (as Joe from ID would say).

    I suppose those three possibilities aren’t mutually exclusive.

    • SPQR says:

      They want to include temporary involuntary commitments, those done without full due process hearings, in possession bans. And they want to remove a person’s ability to petition for restoration.

    • Brad says:

      Your conclusions are dead on correct. However considering past gun-cult behavior I strongly lean towards #2.

      This current domestic violence/mental health effort strongly reminds me of the campaign to ban so-called “assault weapons”, where the cultists deliberately invoked machineguns in order to ban self-loading rifles. I strongly suspect another bait-and-switch con is afoot. Someone needs to dig through the fine print of the latest bill that Schumer is supporting to expose the new poison the cultists are pushing.

      • TS says:

        I can think of a couple other reasons:

        4) they want to build on their own narrative that we currently have no gun control. If they propose a new law, the general population would assume their proposal isn’t currently law. “Wow, I can’t believe ‘gun trafficking’ is legal. Damn NRA! Thankfully my congress woman, Gillibrand, wrote the ‘Anti-gun trafficking law of 2013′”

        5) by passing a law making something double secret illegal, it looks like they are “getting something done”.

  8. KM says:

    I got an email from Ken & Barbie’s group saying that I haven’t donated to their cause.
    Darn it…I must have made the same silly mistake I did last year and mailed the check to the NRA instead!

    Dear Giffords, I’ll send you lots of money when I win the lottery, get tired of shooting and want my rights taken away. *pinky swear*

  9. Crotalus says:

    Above all, what makes anyone think that these confiscations will be temporary? The police NEVER return confiscated guns.

    • Chris from AK says:

      Unless they return them as part of a package deal with a giant “Publisher’s Clearinghouse” style check to Alan Gura. :-P

  10. RAHFan says:

    “If someone can’t be trusted with a gun then they shouldn’t be allowed out in public without a minder.” If they are such a threat that you have to take their guns and lock them up, you really should lock up the owner instead. In many cases it would be easier, and more honest.

    Then again when does the state worry about honesty…

  11. dustydog says:

    @RAHFan,
    No need to for involuntary servitude behind bars, if you can manage involuntary servitude without the bars. Keep the sheep unarmed and scared…

  12. Zermoid says:

    So, their idea is to leave a dangerously crazy person in the same house with famiy members while removing all means of defense from those family members? BRILLIANT!

    IF someone is so dangerous they cannot be trusted with weapons why the hell would you leave them running loose?
    If they aren’t that dangerous why deprive them of their God Given Rights?

  13. I had a serious drinking problem, and I very well made sure to never mention that I was also a gun owner. I didn’t even want to take the chance that they’d be confiscated. If I knew they would be, I’d never get help. That would be sad and bad, for me and for any others seeking help. We should never put barriers in place for people seeking help- its hard enough to get them there, so giving them another reason will make it even harder.

  14. Jeff Dege says:

    When it comes to guns, I simply don’t trust the medical profession

    I wish I had that much faith.

    I spent most of my life sick and miserable and obese, because I thought that the reason that reason that advice I was getting from the medical profession wasn’t was because of what I was doing wrong.

    Turns out that it’s not so much that the medical profession hasn’t any idea how to deal with chronic disease, it’s that the advice they’ve been giving out for the last 40 years has been flat-out wrong.

    Immensely profitable, but wrong.

top