Should People Who Attempt Suicide Lose Second Amendment Rights, and, If So, for How Long?

Man, I hate these slippery slope cases. I'm sure we all are aware by now that the Left wants to use "mental illness" as a means to suspend or take away your 2A rights. We should remember that things like OCD are considered a mental illness so someone who say washes their hands obsessively could lose their 2nd amendment rights. Who is actually "qualified" to determine who's mentally ill? dangerous or a threat to themselves? In some states even a licensed councilor can make this diagnosis. I don't know about you folks but I have seen several licensed councilors who I would call mentally ill kooks and don't want them anywhere near that kind of power. A judge? not qualified. A Psychiatrist? Would want several opinions from more than one. 90% of those who attempt suicide never try it again so those odds alone should be taken into consideration.

The main issue, as I said, are those who are interested in gun control and not suicide control. It won't end with just attempted suicide losing their 2A rights but will quickly expand to a wide encompasing "mental illness" reason and a wide net will indeed be used to "define" it. This suicide narrative is just another end to their means.
 
So, if a governing body, such as the VA determines (adjudicates) you to be a threat to yourself and unstable, and diagnoses you with a mental illness, but never commits you to a hospital and also decides you're competent with your finances...

Guns or no guns?
You might want to get a second opinion
 
Man, I hate these slippery slope cases. I'm sure we all are aware by now that the Left wants to use "mental illness" as a means to suspend or take away your 2A rights. We should remember that things like OCD are considered a mental illness so someone who say washes their hands obsessively could lose their 2nd amendment rights. Who is actually "qualified" to determine who's mentally ill? dangerous or a threat to themselves? In some states even a licensed councilor can make this diagnosis. I don't know about you folks but I have seen several licensed councilors who I would call mentally ill kooks and don't want them anywhere near that kind of power. A judge? not qualified. A Psychiatrist? Would want several opinions from more than one. 90% of those who attempt suicide never try it again so those odds alone should be taken into consideration.

The main issue, as I said, are those who are interested in gun control and not suicide control. It won't end with just attempted suicide losing their 2A rights but will quickly expand to a wide encompasing "mental illness" reason and a wide net will indeed be used to "define" it. This suicide narrative is just another end to their means.
I agree with most of this, with a little bit of devil's advocacy.

There are folks on all sides, left, right, up down, who simply don't understand "mental illness" in the slightest, and want to weaponize all of it. Case in point, my neighbors who are always-Trumpers, very pro gun (One is an RSO at a range even), went on a very long winded rant about how all the mental defectives, including anyone LBTGQ, seeing a therapist for any reason, etc and so forth have no business owning guns because it "hurts all us normal gun owners."

You might want to get a second opinion
For a diagnosis I agree with? Took me 7 years to get the VA to agree with me, and now I should tell them to change their mind? 🤣

That said, I've gotten multiple opinions. All in agreement.
 
Last edited:
Nope.

I believe that people should have access to firearms, period. If they're a threat to society, they should be executed or behind bars (I guess the flaw in this is that they have to do something first).

I also believe that people should have access to safe, effective and clean suicide. Motive matters not: if you want to end it because you're sad that you ran out of corn flakes or if you're in incredible pain because you're fighting late stage cancer, go ahead and exit this way.

I just wish that there was a way that it could be done without leaving a giant mess for the family to discover and have to clean up. An establishment where you can be guaranteed that you'll be dead and that your family will have a presentable corpse delivered to their funeral home after organ harvesting would be great. It could even be a way to earn money for the family by donating the organs to those willing to pay for them.
 
I agree with most of this, with a little bit of devil's advocacy.

There are folks on all sides, left, right, up down, who simply don't understand "mental illness" in the slightest, and want to weaponize all of it. Case in point, my neighbors who are always-Trumpers, very pro gun (One is an RSO at a range even), went on a very long winded rant about how all the mental defectives, including anyone LBTGQ, seeing a therapist for any reason, etc and so forth have no business owning guns because it "hurts all us normal gun owners."


For a diagnosis I agree with? Took me 7 years to get the VA to agree with me, and now I should tell them to change their mind? 🤣

That said, I've gotten multiple opinions. All in agreement.
I’m not a fan of the VA, most doctors are just clerks and I would never accept their diagnosis on anything as final. While it costs me a fair amount I have chosen private insurance and it allows me to get things checked and diagnosed quicker and a much better quality result.

Back to the point at hand I do believe there is a level of mental illness where having firearms is not a good idea at all. Having a close friend go through a very tough run with mental illness , it was clear to me they needed to get better help and remove access to firearms. No one heeded that advice and he blew his head off. So there is a point indeed
 
there is a level of mental illness where having firearms is not a good idea at all.
i think with any suggested signs of any mental illness the subjected person should be immediately mortified.
we need some special commissions established, and every gun owner should be immediately evaluated - as only crazy people may not like our best in the world government and want to own something that may harm other people. it is a very severe mental condition and it should be dealt with without any mercy.
 
Anyone who is willing to take their own life,should not be able to own a firearm.
The last partner I had at Brink's came in one morning got into one of the trucks.
He then threw the deadbolts to the doors, and blew his brains out.
 
Anyone who is willing to ... , should not be able to ....
exactly!
anyone who is willing should be corrected. your role is not to do 'willing', you do what you told to do, you. 'willing' my ass.
know your place and dig that trench!
 
I agree with most of this, with a little bit of devil's advocacy.

There are folks on all sides, left, right, up down, who simply don't understand "mental illness" in the slightest, and want to weaponize all of it. Case in point, my neighbors who are always-Trumpers, very pro gun (One is an RSO at a range even), went on a very long winded rant about how all the mental defectives, including anyone LBTGQ, seeing a therapist for any reason, etc and so forth have no business owning guns because it "hurts all us normal gun owners."


For a diagnosis I agree with? Took me 7 years to get the VA to agree with me, and now I should tell them to change their mind? 🤣

That said, I've gotten multiple opinions. All in agreement.
For sure but we should remember that the Left is not looking to understand mental illness nor have a rational discussion regarding it. They want to use it as yet another vehicle in their quest to ban all firearms.
 
Man, I hate these slippery slope cases. I'm sure we all are aware by now that the Left wants to use "mental illness" as a means to suspend or take away your 2A rights. We should remember that things like OCD are considered a mental illness so someone who say washes their hands obsessively could lose their 2nd amendment rights. Who is actually "qualified" to determine who's mentally ill? dangerous or a threat to themselves? In some states even a licensed councilor can make this diagnosis. I don't know about you folks but I have seen several licensed councilors who I would call mentally ill kooks and don't want them anywhere near that kind of power. A judge? not qualified. A Psychiatrist? Would want several opinions from more than one. 90% of those who attempt suicide never try it again so those odds alone should be taken into consideration.

The main issue, as I said, are those who are interested in gun control and not suicide control. It won't end with just attempted suicide losing their 2A rights but will quickly expand to a wide encompasing "mental illness" reason and a wide net will indeed be used to "define" it. This suicide narrative is just another end to their means.
A judge doesn't make a desision in a vacume. And a judge is rarely the expert in the matter being heard. His role is to conduct a hearing. The expert witnesses testify as to what their opinions are. A preponderance of the expert opinions, plus consideration of any extenuating circumstances, is what determines the judges decision.

It's a big deal, with many involved and opportunity to present conflicting opinions. And it's this way for a reason. To prevent, as much as possible, mistakes, or a single individual from condemning a person.

On top of this, a judge can't be held liable if he makes the wrong decision, so no incentive to over condemn just to cover his ass. The VA would not have this, so an individual is motivated to over condemn because, to them, that's better that letting a sane man walk free and chance being held responsible for his actions.

Taking away any right should not be easy.
 
Case in point, my neighbors who are always-Trumpers, very pro gun (One is an RSO at a range even), went on a very long winded rant about how all the mental defectives, including anyone LBTGQ, seeing a therapist for any reason, etc and so forth have no business owning guns because it "hurts all us normal gun owners."

...what's his NES username?
 
It all rolls back to one simple, basic concept: anyone too dangerous to themselves or others to be trusted with a gun, should be locked up.

And no, I'm not in favor of locking up people for spurious reasons.

If someone is found to be truly dangerous, they will be dangerous no matter what is legally forbidden to them.

If they're not, they should enjoy full rights.
 
 
you really gotta love the persistence of how socialists pursue the mass disarmament.

 
Last edited:
Of course they should not lose their 2nd Amendment rights. When they are feeling better and value their lives again they may need to defend themselves against a variety of possible attacks, those attacks being anything from a scumbag on the street to a tyrannical government.
 
I reviewed a manuscript submitted for publication to a medical journal a year or two back that surveyed friends and family of suicidal people - those who indicated to mental health care professionals intent, suicidal ideation, past unsuccessful suicide attempts, etc. In such cases, HIPAA privacy regulations have some ‘slack’: “Section 164.512(j) of the Privacy Rule permits covered entities to disclose PHI if the disclosure is necessary to prevent or lessen a serious and imminent threat to the health or safety of a person or the public and the disclosure is to a person or persons reasonably able to prevent or lessen the threat, including the target of the threat. Note that this disclosure, without patient consent or authorization, is not limited to notifying law enforcement or health care providers but authorizes disclosure to “a person or persons reasonably able to prevent or lessen the threat.” Typically, immediate family were involved by the mental HCP, who then often involved friends. Overwhelmingly, friends and family indicated that they were able to address firearms access without law enforcement/judicial intervention. The paper was rejected, as it didn’t follow the Red Flag/Gun Seizure narrative preferred by the academic medical community.

While loss of firearms access was involved, there was no revocation of 2ndA rights or firearms seizures by government. I’m not advocating taking anyone’s guns away, just pointing out alternatives to government involvement in such matters.
 
I just couldn’t imagine how embarrassing it would be to try and end your own life and fail…. That’s the kind of thing that would make you wanna kill yourself.😝
 
No. But I guess it could depend on the case. Let’s say a 22 year old kid who has never had a girlfriend before tries to commit suicide by swallowing pills because his 1st ever girlfriend broke up with him. He gets treatment and goes on to crush it and he’s now 30 and wants to protect himself, family and property and shoot 3 gun on the weekends. He ABSOLUTILY should be able to own a gun.

Now, let’s say a young 28 year old airline pilot tries to crash the plane and take everybody with him for whatever reason but his mass murder/suicide mission fails and everybody lives then YES, no guns for you. Sorry but if you have no regard for anybodies life and try to take ppl with you then you shouldn’t be able to have a butter knife in the kitchen.

There is a very special place many leagues under hell that is reserved for ppl who commit suicide and purposely take ppl with them, especially a parent who takes the kids with them.
In that case the attempted murders make him a PP and the suicide issue is moot.
 
What about the people that have anxiety,depression and were responsible about it and saw a doctor?

What if the same person went to get therapy for those as well voluntarily?

Because 4473 says no go if you are medicated for any of those. Unless I'm reading it incorrectly

Question 11e
IMG_20230309_143559.jpg
 
What about the people that have anxiety,depression and were responsible about it and saw a doctor?

What if the same person went to get therapy for those as well voluntarily?

Because 4473 says no go if you are medicated for any of those. Unless I'm reading it incorrectly

Question 11e
View attachment 729795
It says “unlawful”…seeing a doc voluntarily for anxiety and being prescribed a med does not apply to that
 
What about the people that have anxiety,depression and were responsible about it and saw a doctor?

What if the same person went to get therapy for those as well voluntarily?

Because 4473 says no go if you are medicated for any of those. Unless I'm reading it incorrectly

Question 11e
View attachment 729795
You're reading it incorrectly.

The words "unlawful" and "adjudicated" should be the tip here.
 
It says, "unlawful user of or addicted to".

Millions of Americans are addicted to legally prescribed controlled substances.
Quoting myself to point out that "unlawful user" also includes taking any controlled substance (think painkiller) that wasn't prescribed to you for your current condition.

Throw your back out and take one of those expired Percocets (Vicodin, OxyContin, oxycodone, etc.) left over from your spouse's surgery? Congratulations, you're an unlawful user of a Schedule II opioid narcotic.
 
There is nothing in the constitution or the bill of rights that says someone suicidal shouldn’t have 2A rights.

And suicide should also be a constitutionally protected right.

It’s your life, end it when you want.
 
Maybe we should just post "Suicide Free Zones" in the woods, buildings, cars, houses and everywhere it works for Guns and is the Progressive Way!
 
OCD as a disqualifier? Would that carry over to someone who, lets say, may or may not have to remove all traces of copper from the barrel of their firearm? Asking for a friend.
 
Back
Top Bottom