Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

1.4K

The subject of mental illness is where the Gun Grabbers have been making the most progress in recent years. Many states have put "Protective Risk Order" laws on the books to infringe 2A rights of people deemed mentally unstable even if they have not committed any crimes.

I take a hard line view of gun control and practice a zero tolerance policy. All my life I have listened to the the mantra of "common sense gun regulation" and at a fairly early age I came to understand that this was nothing but the top of a slippery slope. Gun grabbers would never be satisfied. Every gun control victory only emboldens them to tackle more aggressive goals. I came to understand that one side of the "debate" was acting in bad faith. Everything was an incremental step towards an end goal of total gun bans. It has only been in the past few years that the left has been bold enough to be honest publicly that this is their end goal. So I oppose any and all gun regulation even if on the surface it seems to make sense.

Mental illness and Protective Risk Orders are one of those areas where many people on the right side of the political aisle have been convinced to vote for more gun control.

My take: If they are a danger to themselves or to others they should be incarcerated or committed. If you don't think that they pose such a danger to themselves or to society then they should not have their rights infringed.

The subject of mental illness is where the Gun Grabbers have been making the most progress in recent years. Many states have put "Protective Risk Order" laws on the books to infringe 2A rights of people deemed mentally unstable even if they have not committed any crimes. I take a hard line view of gun control and practice a zero tolerance policy. All my life I have listened to the the mantra of "common sense gun regulation" and at a fairly early age I came to understand that this was nothing but the top of a slippery slope. Gun grabbers would never be satisfied. Every gun control victory only emboldens them to tackle more aggressive goals. I came to understand that one side of the "debate" was acting in bad faith. Everything was an incremental step towards an end goal of total gun bans. It has only been in the past few years that the left has been bold enough to be honest publicly that this is their end goal. So I oppose any and all gun regulation even if on the surface it seems to make sense. Mental illness and Protective Risk Orders are one of those areas where many people on the right side of the political aisle have been convinced to vote for more gun control. My take: If they are a danger to themselves or to others they should be incarcerated or committed. If you don't think that they pose such a danger to themselves or to society then they should not have their rights infringed.

(post is archived)

[–] [deleted] • 7 pts

Shall not be infringed upon. As long as you are a legal tax paying citizen, even if you have been to prison there should be no restrictions on owning weapons.

[–] • 6 pts

It should never be infringed.

They could list me of having ODD (oppositional definance disorder aka fuck authority) and I could never buy a gun again.

Then again the const. is just rights that are taken from you and given back to you for a price. No individual or group has the right to despense rights as they see fit. There is only Natural Law.

[–] • 5 pts

I also think that these "Protective Risk Order" laws are the top of a slippery slope. First it will be mental illness as a justification but that only sets the precedent that the gov can infringe 2A rights based on what you think and the content of your character. Next will come "Anger management issues" and then "Radical Ideology".

[–] • 2 pts

No. Any infringement is a wedge waiting to be weaponized against the govt's enemies

[–] • 2 pts

Does having a mental illness mean you don't have aright to defend yourself?

[–] [deleted] • 1 pt

It doesn't matter. Main reason is, if you say mental illness is a reason to revoke a right, WHO DECIDES WHAT "mentall illness" IS?

What if it's a left-wing group that considers religious beliefs to be a mental illness?

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

The only time a mental illness will affect your RKBA is when such a person is institutionalized.

Of course, access to the owned guns is not going to be allowed. Ownership should not be affected.

When released from the institution the access restriction is removed as well.

All freemen have the RKBA.