>>>The executive order does not apply to people who voluntarily seek mental treatment. Kaine said such an action might discourage people from seeking mental help.
>>
>>That was exactly my point, although I didn't put it in such a summarized form. I think that is a reasonable order then, unless I think of another angle that ticks me off. ;-)
>
>Mike
>
>You seem to keep focusing on this mental health thing, because you took meds in the past. Now I'm sure you're all perfectly normal and rational but this debate is not about you. It's about nutters offing people with firearms, and where to draw the line at issuing firearms. In a way, your position is just as the gun lobbyist, directly from YOUR personal corner. Just as NIMBYs resist the installation of a garbage incinerator near their houses so you resist any talk of restricting gun ownership if it touches your own mental health issue.
>
>Talk on this forum is not going to end up as law so you might as well stop defending "yourself" and look at the longer picture.
>
>It strikes me that most of these massacres are by mentally deranged kids who end up taking their own lives, so we never know, but one thing seems certain - they are seriously unhappy, depressed and at odds with the world. So, if someone is taking, or has taken meds for depression, then it only stands to reason that they may well be a liablity (yourself excluded of course)
>
>My two penn'orth :-)
>
>(don't hate me!)

I have said in the past that if restrictions like these come into effect then it will be a slippery slope. What happens if another incident happens with the restrictions in place? They become more restrictive.