Anti psychotic medicines and RKBA

[Doc Holliday]

Would anyone be in favor of suspending the 2A for patients taking anti psychotic drugs, such as those for bi-polar disorders, mania or severe depression? I know 4473 Question 11E address 'unlawful users' or 'addicts' of any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug or any other controlled substance...but what about LEGAL use? Do you feel comfortable with someone having those kinds of mental issues being armed? Would you be in favor of pharmacies forwarding a list of patients receiving those anti psychotic drugs to law enforcement for followup, possibly preventing the next mass shooting?

Just throwing it out there for discussion.

 

[admin]

I will preface this by stating that I am not going to answer your question, but will share my experience with someone who suffered from one of those issues... my only experience with those types of issues was with my ex-wife. When we got married, she had not told me that she was bipolar - I didn't know before we got married, that is. A very short while after we got married, in one casual conversation she informed me that she had been diagnosed bipolar and had been on medication for it, but that she had decided to stop taking it because she didn't like how it made her feel and didn't think she needed it anymore. Being the ignorant young man I was at the time, it didn't mean much to me, so I thought to myself, "ok - wish you had told me beforehand, but what could I do now?" After a couple months, her behavior became VERY different. Extreme manic episodes. Out of the blue she'd be super-happy - for seemingly no reason - just very, very happy. I found it odd, but happy=good. However, there was an equal number of episodes on the flip-side - and those were scary because I never knew when that version of her would surface. And when it did, it was VERY worrisome. At the drop of a hat, without any reason, she'd flip out and do things like throw her phone across the room at the wall (had to repair a hole in our wall)... or smash a glass on the ground... break a computer monitor... or any number of other very destructive things. It led to a breakdown of the marriage very quickly despite my attempts to get her on medication and work with her. It got to the point that I was always walking on eggshells and avoiding her as much as possible. To just get out of the marriage, I gave her everything she asked for in the divorce, no lawyers involved. It was really, really bad. I don't know if that's typical of people with bipolar disorder or not - but that's my experience.

At the time, I was not a gunowner, BTW. Not out of a conscious choice - just hadn't gotten into guns yet. As to whether I would want my ex-wife possessing, carrying or having access to a firearm while I was married to her - no way. I am answering for my specific situation at the time not answering OP's general question. I was scared enough when she'd flip out anywhere near the kitchen and just waiting for a knife to come flying one of those times. It seems that whatever was within her reach when she had an episode would become the manifestation of her anger. For the record, she never hit me with anything she'd thrown or destroyed, but the phone came very close to hitting my head - may have been a coincidence; not sure if I was the target. It was like her anger was always directed at whatever was closest to her that would "react" in a dramatic way.

 

[Crippledtrigger]

Let me say if you are so dangerous that your guns need to be taken that outpatient therapy is probably not appropriate.

Same goes with any other red flag or gun rights suspension. If you are that dangerous then guns are not the underlying danger that needs addressing.

 

[admin]

To play devil's advocate, what if taking a pill on a daily basis helps make a person like my ex-wife above, appear "normal"? Should they be allowed to roam among us in that state and manner?

 

[Doc Holliday]

To play devil's advocate, what if taking a pill on a daily basis helps make a person like my ex-wife above, appear "normal"? Should they be allowed to roam among us in that state and manner?

I would think that taking the medicine, regardless of the effect, is a de facto indication of serious mental problems with that individual. Now here is the part where I contradict myself: Until a crime is committed by them, no, we can't restrict their freedom...HOWEVER, since we KNOW they have a mental condition, I personally don't think they should have access to firearms for the duration of that mental illness for the same reason we have some restrictions on minors, they may not have the facilities to grasp the gravitas of firearms. I don't think anyone would feel comfortable giving a gun to someone who has mental issues, including hallucinations, blackouts and hearing voices.

Were most of those school/theater shooters on medications for mental issues? If so, would a welfare check on them every X months have done some good? Everyone says 'it's not a gun issue, it's a mental health issue', so let's start there.

 

[admin]

I can understand both sides of this issue. On one hand, you will get the "shall not be infringed" absolutists who believe that there is no justification to take guns away from someone who has not done anything illegal. Usually, this is the same mentality that suggests that driving while drunk is OK ("victimless crime") until that person gets in an accident or hits/kills someone. Well, by that time it's a bit too late - at least for the person who just died or family affected. It's a fine line to walk. How close does someone need to be to potentially committing some act that would end the life of someone else before some authority can preemptively take away a freedom or right from that individual? Who gets to decide where that "line in the sand" is? Can that line ever ben moved based on who holds authority? Difficult questions - and I don't have good answers for them, myself.

 

[shooter444]

I think, comparing a RIGHT, to a PRIVILEGE, is bad form!

Infringing on a drivers licence, usually, only effects an individual.

Infringing on a Human Right, is a path taken, that can effect the entire world.

Bad form, imo.

RIGHTS have been CLEARLY defined by this Nation's founders to be Creator Endowed and Inalienable,... definitions are available instantaneously on the net.

Since the beginning of this Nation, I have never read any suggested that a Right has a Line that can be moved,... except by those seeking power, who are hindered by said Human Rights protections from the US Constitutional!

 

[admin]

I think, comparing a RIGHT, to a PRIVILEGE, is bad form!

Infringing on a drivers licence, usually, only effects an individual.

Infringing on a Human Right, is a path taken, that can effect the entire world.

Bad form, imo.

RIGHTS have been CLEARLY defined by this Nation's founders to be Creator Endowed and Inalienable,... definitions are available instantaneously on the net.

Since the beginning of this Nation, I have never read any suggested that a Right has a Line that can be moved,... except by those seeking power, who are hindered by said Human Rights protections from the US Constitutional!

If you're referring to my post, I never mentioned a driver's license even once - in fact a driver's license is completely immaterial to the comparison I laid out, since one doesn't need a license in order to drive.

 

[Crippledtrigger]

I think, comparing a RIGHT, to a PRIVILEGE, is bad form!

Infringing on a drivers licence, usually, only effects an individual.

Infringing on a Human Right, is a path taken, that can effect the entire world.

Bad form, imo.

RIGHTS have been CLEARLY defined by this Nation's founders to be Creator Endowed and Inalienable,... definitions are available instantaneously on the net.

Since the beginning of this Nation, I have never read any suggested that a Right has a Line that can be moved,... except by those seeking power, who are hindered by said Human Rights protections from the US Constitutional!

Actually, comparing a right to a privilege is not bad form. It's the exact opposite.

Bad form is doing something against accepted social norms. We all know its mainstream acceptable normal woke behavior to conflate and confuse rights and privileges into a bastardized unrecognizable mash up that's easily attacked.

A better term would be treasonous. IMHO.

What about my right not to be killed by a psychotic drugged up idiot hearing voices telling him to kill me? I absolutely have that right.

For me it goes back to the fact red flag laws are first and foremost gun confiscation laws written by anti's.

If someone is so dangerous that they need to be neutered then the person should be taken in for treatment and evaluation and their court hearing. Those laws are on the books and the process is clear.

Taking a nail gun from a carpenter does not magically make him not a carpenter nor make him unable to do the work of a carpenter. He has a vast tool box at his disposal from which to choose another tool to use to do carpenter things with.

 

[Flash]

Mrs. Flash spent 31 years working for the County, mostly with mental health patients. The last 11 years was strictly with County Behavioral Health (PC. term forMental Health).

She had a lot of face to face with people with mental problems and she said the biggest thing they worried about was a patient who was doing fine on his prescription meds deciding he didn't need them any more and stopping taking them.

At that point, they frequently became suicidal or violent or both.

So, someone who has never committed a crime can decide they no longer need the drugs and become full on violent.

How do we feel about that? I don't like it at all but don't see where we can do anything about it.

 

[shooter444]

Flash,... " I don't like it at all but don't see where we can do anything about it."



Once again, as Flash has stated, this is exactly how the world turns!!!

The Demonscat Deep State has been pitching the concept of a violence free US society for so long, idiot sheep actually believe it! Nothing,... NOTHING,.... is further from the truth!!!

 

[338lapua]

To play devil's advocate, what if taking a pill on a daily basis helps make a person like my ex-wife above, appear "normal"? Should they be allowed to roam among us in that state and manner?

Having grown up with a batshit crazy mom with borderline personality disorder and having friends that were bipolar and depressed hell no on them having one. I still remember the bipolar friend who shot off a drum mag in his MP-5 in his house hitting the house next door, nobody called in on him because he was nuts and they were afraid he would kill them, neighbors sold house and moved.

I think if you are on any anti depressant type drugs or any treatment for depression or biploar you don't get to have one. I think if you are autistic you need to be looked at first to make sure as I know some that can handle it and some who can't. Everyone I knew on these drugs still had the mood swings and were just as big of a risk on them and most times more of a risk on them. The guy who shot his house up quit taking his and started drinking heavily and the drinking made him much less of a risk as he couldn't stand up half the time he was so wasted.

You look at most of the mass shooters and they are all on some kind of Prozac type of drug so that should answer it for you right there.

 

[Flash]

The last place I worked for as an employee before I started my business had a Sales Manager who was bipolar. One day I guess he was off his meds because he looked over at me and said "I'm a black belt in Karate and can kill you with my bare hands in 2 seconds."

My reply was "can you stop a .44 Magnum?"

This came up in depositions a while later and the owner's lawyer laughed his butt off because the bipolar guy told the story under deposition and obviously felt he was in the right and that I should be arrested.

He was wrong. He could've been dead wrong.

 

[mjf]

i have a couple exes that are bipolar. hell no i would not feel comfortable with them owning a firearm. even the meds stop working after a few years and they have to find something else that works. the second part of the question get slippery and i dont know how you manage or police it. i know alot of people who have been on psych meds temporarily for various issues in life. does not make them crazy. how do you diferentiate ?

 

[impulse]

People who are viewed as a potential threat to society, should maybe not be in society. Reopen the asylums.

 

[shooter444]

If people who are viewed as a potential threat to society, are in asylums,... who would the Demonscats get to do their mass shootings?

 

[Ballistic Therapy]

People who are viewed as a potential threat to society, should maybe not be in society. Reopen the asylums.

There used to be an asylum off Cortaro Rd north of Tucson years ago.
Back then it was out in the desert away from everything.
We lived about 3/4 of a mile from it.
I would take my 22 out in the desert shooting and would walk by it quite often.
I would stop and watch the people through the fence.
The way the people were treated and cared for was not a pretty sight.
It was a horrible place , especially for a kid to see.
Not everyone there was insane. It wasn't only for the insane , it was for the people nobody wanted anymore.
I really felt sorry for them and would not wish it on anyone.
They tore it down in the early 70's and built a housing development there.
Not many people know where the name of the development came from , but they named it after the asylum.