Do people with a mental health diagnosis have the right to have guns?

AmericanFurryBoy

Let’s try this again. What do you mean by a Mental Health Diagnosis?

John_C_87

Let's not, and say we did.

Having a right principle to ownership of property is a very low standard to set as a unified goal of any kind, let alone by use of unregulated democratic vote.

The idea of asking the person is the goal of mental capacity. It is more than likely the person does have a right, it simply is unclear if that person must share this principle with you or not. Owning a common defense to the general welfare and ownership of a fire-arm are not the same.

The question that is asked by united state constitutional principle is, do all those who vote to end a common defense assume the burden of common defense on behalf of the declared mentally ill? This is a dangerous precedent to undertake and it is the removal of independence.

I would not prefer that some individuals not hold an unregulated common defense to general welfare. By saying No your constitutional goal in creating a united state that can be shared in filed grievance to establish that the person would not be capable by ability of preserving the common defense to general welfare.  

YeshuaBought

@AmericanFurryBoy Are you ? Look it up. Mental illness is a neuropsychiatric disease. EVERYONE with a functioning brain knows this. Neuropsychiatric diseases such as bipolar disorder are caused by genetic and neuroligical anamolies in the brain. Now answer the question.

YeshuaBought

@John_C_87 Nope. Mental patients don't have the right to have guns. Guns are a responsibility for neurotypical people, and not a right for mental patients. I am TIRED of crazies going off and shooting people. I can't tell if you are serious or trolling.

MayCaesar

Why do you keep asking these questions and then attacking everyone who disagrees with your opinion? It is clear that you are not interested in any meaningful debate, so why post these things here?

Mental health diagnoses come and go. Not so far back homosexualism was considered a mental illness; nowadays it is not. Not so far back schizophrenia was considered an illuminated state where the individual could consort directly with spirits and/or gods; nowadays it is considered an illness. If history has taught us anything, it is that medical diagnoses related to one's mental processing abilities and physical reactions to them are highly subjective, and should not be a part of modern policy making.

Everyone has the right to bear arms, as a consequence of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. If you believe this false, then you must be following a different constitution, and hence cannot make an argument in the medium of the American legal system.

John_C_87

@MayCaesar,

The right to bear arm is a detail of common defense to general welfare. The argument by united state is set in the preservation of judicial separation. This is not say the United States of America. This is kind of important as the 2nd Amendment is not the united state which insures the ownership of fire-arm as personal property. It is adding limit of infringement as grievance for simple address of congregation of those who exorcise this Constitutional United State.

 

@YeshuaBought

Do you understand the basic principle of common defense? The person who conducts mass murders is a suspected criminal. The idea of mental capacity is a criminal defense not common defense to general welfare. The end result is the ability to preserve United States Constitution is a requirement for constructional right. A person demonstration of this type of behavior can take place long before the understanding of mental capacity can be explained clearly to others.  

There are people who pose a threat to the general welfare as they wave medical professionals in the public like a person might wave a fire-arm. This type behavior is a threat to common defense that should be explained with a little better detail as you are setting a burden of blame wrongfully on a Doctor so you might appease some personal insecurity. This without the burden of independence.

Do you know what the word instigator means? A person that might support a public admission of guilt to a crime can be viewed as an instigator, a person who consistently provokes two or more groups against each other can be described as an instigator. Not to emphasize constitutional principle but as union we are looking to stop criminal act, not prevent criminal act as the crime must take place first. Yes I know this is a drag as it is just safer and easier the other way a around. So much less work and less costly. We strive to prevent recurrence of heinous criminal act. That the acts are being performed by multiple people who are not connected is suggesting there is something other the mental stability as the united state.

AmericanFurryBoy

@YeshuaBought
IT DEPENDS ON THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE CONDITION

Oppolzer

I'd say no. I understand "right to equality," but I perceive it as disingenuous. We live in a society where everybody is treated differently, from physical to internal aspects. There's no such thing as everybody being treated equally. 

It's unfortunate that they have a mental disadvantage, but defects in the brain caused by a mental condition affect an individual's thinking, mood, and behavior. However, I believe in this to a certain extent. Like @AmericanFurryBoy said, it's dependent on the seriousness of the condition. If specific conditions are more benign than others, then I'd say yes. Although, conditions with significant severity, I'd say no.