You are exactly the kind of crazy person that confounds America. (I say in jest, not meaning any offense)
In the wake of Newtown, a lot of states wanted to enact gun control measures, in my state, and in this example specifically, we wanted to enact gun control measures against the mentally ill.
As an advocate of the second amendment, I was initially for the idea, though against the majority of the bill, until I heard testimony from mental health professionals in the area who found the measures appalling, which was especially confusing to me, since they generally supported the bill, and specifically the ban on some semi-automatic rifles (referred to erroneously as assault rifles).
Through their testimony, I learned then that even of those diagnosed with potentially 'dangerous' mental disorders (mania, schizophrenia, etc.) that many of them were perfectly non-violent. Ultimately, my opinion was formed on the same grounds as most of my other opinions, which is that disorder or no, rights should not be curtailed without due process.
So, conceding that you shouldn't be eligible for top secret level positions, how do you feel about your second amendment rights? What about the right to vote? (And yes, I acknowledge that comparison often comes off as inflammatory, though I don't intend it to, and have had little good luck in explaining why it shouldn't.) -- And, so it's qualified up front, there's no wrong answer here.
Allowed to own a gun? Absolutely, positively not. Even if I were to assume a staunchly right wing position for myself for the sake of answering your question, no way should I be allowed to possess firearms. I don't have to decide to go off my meds to go crazy, I could simply be suddenly subjected to "stressors" (having a child, wife dying, losing a job) that spark up my serotonin faster than I can nuke it down with an extra few hits of Zyprexa. Suddenly in my beautiful mind the CIA is out to get me again, and in spite of what the founding fathers wanted for me, no, I shouldn't have a gun, and aggressive measures ought to be taken by society to try to ensure that.
So, assuming that we agree that people should be allowed to own guns, how do we, the other members of society, know which mentally ill persons should be allowed to and which shouldn't? Should your rights be suspended on involuntary commitment? Were you ever involuntarily committed? Was there ever a life event of yours that you would mark as the 'moment' that should have triggered to society that you shouldn't own a firearm?
Apologies if these questions are invasive, or even if they're just taken as rude. They feel rude of me to ask, and for that I apologize, but I've never had the luxury of speaking to someone so seemingly objective about their own situation before.
Edit: I redact the question. I don't know why, but it makes me feel dirty asking it, and I'd rather I hadn't. Thanks anyway.
Yes, involuntary commitment, at least a post-72 hour commitment imposed by a judge, should be a dealbreaker. Having filled a Klonopin prescription no, but having filled a lithium prescription yes. Unipolar depression isn't quite the softball mood disorder people may realize (in comparison to bipolar), I wouldn't want citizens prone to major depressive episodes to have guns either, and it's also noteworthy that those diagnosed with depression often turn out to have something more colorful, such as bipolar.
edit: As for bipolar CIA agents on Homeland, they should be restricted to carrying pistol-shaped tasers.
Now I'm trying to remember if I can recall any scenes in which Claire Danes' character enters a scene intentionally armed. My memory is failing me though.
In the wake of Newtown, a lot of states wanted to enact gun control measures, in my state, and in this example specifically, we wanted to enact gun control measures against the mentally ill.
As an advocate of the second amendment, I was initially for the idea, though against the majority of the bill, until I heard testimony from mental health professionals in the area who found the measures appalling, which was especially confusing to me, since they generally supported the bill, and specifically the ban on some semi-automatic rifles (referred to erroneously as assault rifles).
Through their testimony, I learned then that even of those diagnosed with potentially 'dangerous' mental disorders (mania, schizophrenia, etc.) that many of them were perfectly non-violent. Ultimately, my opinion was formed on the same grounds as most of my other opinions, which is that disorder or no, rights should not be curtailed without due process.
So, conceding that you shouldn't be eligible for top secret level positions, how do you feel about your second amendment rights? What about the right to vote? (And yes, I acknowledge that comparison often comes off as inflammatory, though I don't intend it to, and have had little good luck in explaining why it shouldn't.) -- And, so it's qualified up front, there's no wrong answer here.