Curious to know what you think. Should a person with ptsd have guns?
Keep in mind not all ptsd is extreme.
I know several people with ptsd who I completely trust with and around guns. Meanwhile some say anyone with ptsd should not have access.

All the ones complaining of PTSD from an election should probably not have guns as they should probably be in a padded room...

There are plenty of people that I know that have PTSD and I fully trust them with firearms. They were all carrying one when they had a the traumatic experience. On the other hand there are people that I know that walked the same path and I would not trust with a firearm. Primarily for their own safety. I think there should be a standard of mental health regarding such liberties. One could argue that a standardized mental health testing be administered prior to any firearm ownership. But that would then step on our freedoms and liberties that we all hold dear. Just my $.02

Known many with PTSD over the years.If that is a dis qualifier, ask them why.
The left would have you believe anyone leaving the military are suffering and questionable.

My vietnam vet dad would probably be tagged with PTSD by today's standards though he would deny it and just might tell you what he thinks about sad sacks and crazy going in crazy coming out guys he knew. He taught me gun safety and every gun in the house was loaded and in reach.

If people with PTSD couldn't have firearms the military would have a really tough time recruiting. Serve your country and come back to have your rights stripped. Most young people would see that as a possibility and not want to take that risk. Besides PTSD or not you are still responsible and accountable for your actions.

“...shall not be infringed.”

While it may seem like a good idea to a liberal mind, restricting a constitutional right based on a medical diagnosis would be a very dangerous and slippery slope. As has been mentioned, many of us were taught to hunt and shoot by men who could or may have been diagnosed. Remember, the Constitution was created for freedom, not safety.

If somebody is to sick from a mental illness to hold a job, he is to mentally ill to hold a gun.

X2

First of all, those who would give up their freedom for safety deserve neither. Second, mentally ill people as a whole are actually less violent than the general population, and are more likely to be a victim of violent crime than the general population. If anything, you could actually make a case that the mentally ill have more of a need to protect themselves than the average joe.

Do you see anywhere in the Bill of Rights guaranteeing your right to a job?

There used to be family structure that would step in and take care of that, but we know what happened to family structure.
There used to be mental institutions for the mentally ill, but that was deemed cruel and unnecessary, so now they roam the country with the same rights as everybody else.

GMU had counseling stations around campus for those on the edge when Kavanaugh was appointed. I don't think guns are their go to when their feelings get hurt. lol

X2

There is a man in our community that has mental issues and is good most of the time. But when he gets off his meds. He is wacko and I would not trust him with a gun as far as I could throw him.
There are also people that have been in ICU that will get PTSD from a trauma.
Tell me that the ones that have killed all these kids in the last few years were not mental. This is were the problem lies. People in there right mind do not slaughter children.
We have all seen people in our lives that you just know are not all there. When you are around them they give you a different since than everybody else.
How to protect them from hurting you,someone or there selves is the issue that needs to be addressed some how without loss of there rights.
I just do not remember all of these killing when I was growing up. Or it is the instant news reporting that is fueling the fire for copy cats.
If this keeps up we are going to loose our 2nd. Then what is going to happen is going to get even worse IMHO.

First, we cant loose our right to keep and bear arms. It can be removed from the constitution, but by the very nature of being a right, it cannot be taken away. Only privileges can be taken away. The government can unlawfully try to restrict it, but cannot take it away. Second, we should only punish people for what they actually do, not what they might do. Rights can be taken away from criminals, after due process is afforded, for a time as part of a punishment. Once that punishment is served rights should be restored. But it's a dangerous argument to say that we should take rights away from people because they *might* do something bad.

It will be the typical spineless scumbags who were too 'busy' to go fight who will be lined up to restrict the freedom of those that did. When the regulation is passed by the spineless, they will once again be too 'busy' to go around collecting the guns from those with PTSD. They will use men more courageous than them to do that dirty work. I put these twerps with the pee stained hind legs one class lower than maggots.

loosegoose.
I get what you are saying. But if you would see this guy I was talking about you would understand. When not on his meds he walks up and down the street talking to himself looking weird big eyed some times pointing his finger at people and saying bang. So what would you do if it was your child or wife that he done this to. Next time it could be the real thing would you still say that about his rights. There is a line that should not be crossed with mental illness.

I am going to go hard line on caution of taking anyone's guns away.

because they really are not a significant risk to others.

if they had an ounce of their training left they could just build themselves an IED if they wanted to hurt people.

they could also find a gun if they wanted to hurt people.

really you think they need a gun to hurt people what about knives and improvised weapons. cars , poison , chemicals.

no government has ever successfully disarmed an entire population places with the least access to legal arms often have the highest murder rate.

attempting to take arms from those who served in the armed forces is just attempting to disarm those with the knowledge and training to use arms in the defense of their country and freedom.

think about it if King Gorge had known that it would be the very colonial fighters who trained and fought along side his army in the French and Indian wars that would lead the uprising in 1775 , knowing British military tactics as well as the red coats themselves.

if someone feels so strongly that an individual is a danger to themselves and others then they have a duty to place that person in protective custody under medical supervision. if they do not feel that person is enough of a risk to be placed in a mental health facility involuntarily. then they have no concern warranting the removal of arms from a citizen not duly convicted of a crime barring them from such ownership.

if a person voluntarily enters treatment in or out patient they should retain all rights unless otherwise placed in protective custody through due process.

Hal Aggers, if you feel there is a threat to your family, then YOU have a responsibility to protect them. Not to try to get the government to take away someone else’s rights.

The solution to crazy people having guns is the same it’s always been: carry your own. Believing the government is responsible for your family’s protection is a liberal mindset.