I ask you in all seriousness to ask your friend to re-think this, please.My friend has left him 1 disabled 1911 that the man carries daily.
How so?I ask you in all seriousness to ask your friend to re-think this, please.
I see nothing good coming of this.
Some of the signs and symptoms of dementia...How so?
What happens if the man becomes confused, scared then angry and the disabled firearm is mistaken for a functional firearm?
Some of the signs and symptoms of dementia...
Problems communicating, disorientation, poor judgement, mood changes and personality changes.
What happens if the man becomes confused, scared then angry and the disabled firearm is mistaken for a functional firearm?
I doubt that's what they are hoping for. But one never knows.He would get shot. Maybe that's what they are hoping for, maybe not. If he got shot I certainly wouldnt blame anyone for shooting him unless the gun never cleared leather.
Oh, yes. I see that now. I was only looking at it from one angle. Didn't think to consider it from the other one. Sadly, that's probably the most likely source of the negative outcome.Some of the signs and symptoms of dementia...
Problems communicating, disorientation, poor judgement, mood changes and personality changes.
What happens if the man becomes confused, scared then angry and the disabled firearm is mistaken for a functional firearm?
As for this if a person is indeed proved to be too dangerous to live with others either by mental incompetence or by committing of violent crimes they should be instititionalized. Any one who is then determined to have passed their period of danger should then be returned to full liberty.
I have a friend who is selling all of the guns, ammunition and accessories for the family of a man diagnosed with dementia. This is very debilitating and like alzheimers he may forget who his wife is and possibly think her an intruder. In this case I believe the family has made the correct decision. It is a matter for the family not the government.
PS. My friend has left him 1 disabled 1911 that the man carries daily. What is it the libs are always saying? Let a person die with dignity.
Institutionalized? I honestly do not know how we as LEO's can go about doing that. The most we can do on the street level is an Immediate Detention under IC 12-26-4 and it can only be up to a 24hr hold. Anything longer than that requires a doctor to go to court and few will ever take the time. Most ID's are out in 3-5hrs. I've ID'ed so VERY disturbed and violent people only to have them back home before my shift ends. Many of these people have either NO family or their family won't have anything to do with them. I've IDed some people so many times I've lost count and the medics/nurses know them by their first name. A neighboring district just IDed a guy who kept calling 911 telling us he was going to kill his neighbors (no one named specific) because he thought they implanted stuff in his head to spy on him. He also thought they were trying to poison him, etc. HE did this for a while before they finally IDed him and took his guns. This guy was flat out crazy and potentially very dangerous. He was back home within hours. Why in the hell would you let a guy carry a disabled pistol thinking it was real?
I have a friend who is selling all of the guns, ammunition and accessories for the family of a man diagnosed with dementia. This is very debilitating and like alzheimers he may forget who his wife is and possibly think her an intruder. In this case I believe the family has made the correct decision. It is a matter for the family not the government.
PS. My friend has left him 1 disabled 1911 that the man carries daily. What is it the libs are always saying? Let a person die with dignity.
This is something that many in this country do not want to accept. There always has to be someone held accountable for something bad happening.Perhaps there is no fault to be placed at all. Maybe s*** like this just happens sometimes in life... and the rest of us are left to pick up the pieces when it happens.
Blessings,
Bill
This is something that many in this country do not want to accept. There always has to be someone held accountable for something bad happening.
I see there's quite a few illiterate people in this poll.
The law clearly indicates "shall not be infringed." It does not make exception, it does not present a case or an argument contrary. Just because some illiterate judge can't seem to understand that does not change the document.
No, no man shall be denied their rights. I don't really care if you take issue with other citizens in this country, you do not have the right to decide what their rights are or are not.
If that individual is in such bad mental condition, then he or she will end up in an asylum eventually when they violate a law or demonstrate severe bodily harm to themselves or others.
There are many levels of mentally ill. The question would be where do you draw the line? Who determines if you are unfit or not? The only answer would be uncle Sam and I cannot vote for that.
The wording is, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of people to bear arms shall not be infringed." It does not say you must be in a militia to bear arms. It says that without arms we cannot have a well regulated militia or a free state.The same amendment stresses the importance of a "well-regulated" militia. I have a hard time believing that someone who has a demonstrated mental illness that can result in violent behavior should be considered part of a "well-regulated" militia.
As for OP, the poll is way to broad to be meaningful. There are many conditions that are considered mentally ill that are not sufficient to limit their rights.
The wording is, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of people to bear arms shall not be infringed." It does not say you must be in a militia to bear arms. It says that without arms we cannot have a well regulated militia or a free state.