Lindsey Graham may have voted against Feinstein’s assault weapons ban, but he favors making it illegal for those deemed to be mentally ill to own a gun. As an example, he referred to a 2005 case involving a woman who threatened to kill then-President George W. Bush. She pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity. However, she was still able to purchase a gun, and she even tried to use it earlier this year.
Graham’s proposal would integrate a mental health database with the National Instant Criminal Background System to prevent an instant like the 2005 case from happening. Fox News expounded on Graham’s proposal:
“Under the proposal, a person would be added to the database for such reasons as being an imminent danger to themselves or others, found guilty but mentally ill in a criminal case, found not guilty by reason of insanity, found incompetent to stand trial, committed to a psychiatric hospital or required to have psychiatric outpatient treatment.”
This seems to be the acceptable conservative solution to gun violence. Many conservatives are using this as a way to sound “reasonable” on the issue and to convince our opponents that we really do want to do something about gun violence. It sounds like something Obama might call a “common sense” approach. But conservatives should know better that we don’t need yet another government mandate.
And why are we supposed to follow the liberals’ line of thinking and focus on gun violence instead of just violence altogether? Violent criminals, whether insane or not, should have punishments that meet their crimes. If a murderer is put to death, I guarantee that that person will never again commit a crime. Having a merciless civil government that punishes evil-doers appropriately and consistently would go a long way in not only making our society safer, but also in enacting justice on those who commit criminal acts.
Under this mental illness proposal, one doesn’t even have to be mentally ill in order to be barred from owning a gun. If you were admitted to a mental health facility either voluntarily or involuntarily, that’s enough to get you on the gun blacklist.
Just look at Jason Ergoff, a conservative Christian and gun owner from Pennsylvania who frequently called in to radio stations to voice his concerns over Obama’s anti-Christian agenda, something that we all here might agree on. But it was enough for one of Ergoff’s “friends” to call law enforcement and state that he was concerned for Ergoff’s mental health and that he was also a gun owner.
This was all it took for local police to come and pick Ergoff up and take him in for a 20-hour psych evaluation, which ended with his being urged to take medication for his “psychosis.” And as a condition of his release, he had to give up his guns and consult with a crisis counseling center upon his discharge.
That’s where this mental health proposal will lead. Will one of your “friends” place an anonymous tip with your local police, alerting them of your “radical” political views that that might stem from a mental illness? And maybe they’ll throw in that you own guns and might be a potential danger to yourself or others. That’s all that it would take, and you would have to relinquish your 2nd Amendment rights. Is that really what conservatives should be in favor of?