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.
12 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.
I would be hard pressed for a way to get the left jumping to be supporters of the Second Amendment. Might just be a clever trap.
As for the first argument, Christopher B, in Second Amendment thought "the ship has sailed" would have left us in a much worse place than where we are. We have successfully turned back a number of such ships in the last few decades; I would rather stand on principle here, too, in the hope of turning back some of those others. Getting rid of 'red flag' laws should be a goal, rather than accepting them and then allowing the next turn of the gun control rachet (or racket).
As for the second argument, which I think is Douglas' too, I'm not interested in the cleverness of the trap. I am interested in the principle. Human dignity entails a right to keep and bear arms in order to defend that dignity.
https://grimbeorn.blogspot.com/2023/01/arms-and-human-dignity.html
That's non-negotiable; anyone trying to negotiate it away from you or anyone else has already crossed the line.
There are cases of genuine mental incapacity, of course; I don't deny that. Even men who have borne arms successfully and well for many decades may come to a point when, in their elderly years, it would no longer be wise for them to do so because their minds no longer work quite right. That is a decision that has to be taken by the family, voluntarily and in a place of loving concern. It is not for the state to disarm its citizens.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the DOJ hasn't actually *done* anything yet- merely stated it's "looking at" doing something in that vein- if so, then I think it's clever politically, and hope that they will conclude that it would be wrong and don't do anything beyond restate the current rules and enforce them evenly across the board if they are going to enforce them. I'm a believer in the rules and want them enforced equally and properly so long as they are the rules- all the while as we argue about how to change them and sometimes actually do. Now, it would be fair to ask if it's proper to make moves like the one I'm describing that are "political" but I'm not sure how you avoid doing it when we disagree so starkly on so many things- any enforcement at all is political to one side's eyes. It's a difficult problem to avoid, other than by simply removing one's self from the arrangement.
As far as I can tell, we don't even know that DoJ is "looking at" this. All we have are press claims not seriously sourced.
On the other hand, it would be consistent with a form of trolling that this administration has been increasingly doing: taking a position sufficiently extreme (whether intending to act on it or not) that even the Left will argue against it. Here, limiting Americans' access to firearms, there, already getting the Left and their politicians to argue vociferously in favor of violent criminals and illegal aliens as they protest the potential of Federal law enforcement agencies, whether or not backed by National Guard troops to protect Federal facilities and those deployed Federal law enforcement personnel, coming in to enforce laws and protect the local citizens.
Eric Hines
I concur. The problem is not that mentally unwell people are getting guns, it's that they are not getting treated. They are getting humored in their delusions. It most definitely not compassionate to let them think they can change their sex.
There was a news report in which a reporter interviewed the guy who sold the latest shooter the guns. He said there were no warning signs.
This is earth, it isn't Heaven.
This is earth, it isn't Heaven.
A key point frequently forgotten in political conversations. You will hear utopian thought presented as if it answered practical problems. "I shouldn't have to be armed to walk around the city safely." Why not? A thousand years ago the Havamal advised us never to step a foot beyond our doors without our arms; a thousand years before that Jesus advised his disciples to make sure they had swords even if they had to sell their coats. It's been a long time true that at least some of us have to be armed because the world is dangerous. And not just agents of the state -- that was the chief danger to Jesus and his disciples, as it was for the Chinese under Mao, the Germans under Hitler, the Russians under Stalin... it has to be some of us.
"Health care should be a human right; no one should have to pay for it." Why not? Somebody's got to pay the doctors and for the medicine, don't they? Why not the person who needs them?
"Housing should be a human right; no one should have to pay..." Why not?
"Isn't it unfair to have to work just to live?"
So much of the talk is as if we lived in a place different from the place that all of us have ever lived, all of us as far back as anyone can see.
I agree about selectively limiting arms. It's less of a good idea than people think, and I have had a lot of experience with it. There is a law that you cannot purchase (sometimes extended to obtain) a firearm if you have had a probated commitment to a psychiatric institution. What bothered me most is that we were often discharging people to live in the most dangerous places (because they were poor or because few landlords would have them) but they were not allowed to be armed. An unintended consequence of public safety.
But it was mostly just for show anyway. Because of confidentiality laws, there are no lists of who in the state has had a probate commitment. The police can't just look it up. If they are researching a particular person they usually manage because the court case is a matter of public record. But you have to know where to look, or even to look at all. Sometimes the local police know that Sam Hall has guns in his house and was committed to the hospital in 1998, but what if Sam moves one town over?
But even if some AI record searching produced a list for the police of everyone in the last 50 years who had a commitment, who is going door to door to ask "Hey, you got any guns in there?"
Creating a soft target environment is the problem. The crazy's are few enough that in most cases an armed response by the intended victims would solve the problem quickly. But if they have to wait around for an "approved" responder, casualties can add up quick.
Banning any class of people from a right is extremely problematic.
Oops. Me, above.
Post a Comment