There are people who do have mental health issues, certainly. Yet some of you are old enough to remember when homosexuality was considered a mental illness; the trend has not been to make the 'science' more conservative. There is nothing at all stopping the revision of the categories of psychology to fit present fashion -- usually the fashion of the elites, psychology being the most popular major in the United States and a special predilection of Blue America. That road is going to end up paved with "your prejudices, which I have diagnosed in you whether or not they can be practically demonstrated, make you dangerous to others and in need of being disarmed."
We saw how readily psychology and psychiatry could be weaponized in the Soviet Union, where it was a standard practice to determine that opponents of the state were mentally ill (and thus in need of protective imprisonment, lobotomies, and/or drugging). It can do good in the right hands, on a voluntary basis. I have grave concerns about using it anywhere in the law, especially criminal law, and most especially as an excuse for the restriction of basic rights.
So no, absolutely not.
2 comments:
I have no patience for you, Greg. Go away.
While I generally agree with your Second Amendment absolutism, I have to disagree in part. The concept of restricting Second Amendment rights for these reasons is a ship that has already sailed. There are already plenty of 'red flag' laws in place as well as other restrictions based on conviction for various crimes. A solid standard, maybe something like an active prescription for hormone replacement (not supplement), is not unlike many other current restrictions on firearms possession. A second factor I consider is that for the most part a restriction like the one above would impact mostly those who likely fall under other restrictions such as age or existing mental illness, or are adults who seek out these prescriptions voluntarily. Yes, it would be nice if the government moved in the direction of removing restrictions on gun purchase and ownership. In the absence of a widespread change in attitude on the part of Democrats, I don't dislike the application of the Alinsky tactic that they be made to live under their own rules. Let them argue that certain people who are taking mind altering substances should be able to buy firearms because they might really need them but a woman who fears for her life has to wait to clear a background check.
Post a Comment