Skip to main content

View Diary: WHAT PART OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT SAYS THE MENTALLY ILL DONT HAVE A RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS? (87 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Let me treat this seriously (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pdxteacher

    Rights enumerated in the constitution have, since the first, not been considered absolute.  You have no right to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater, slander another person, or talk sexy to a five year old, even though you have a guaranteed right to Freedom of Speech.

    You have no right to sacrifice a human (even a volunteer) to an Aztec god, or have a collection of temple prostitutes that perform sex for money, or to kill heretics, even though you have a right to Freedom of Religion.

    The restrictions placed upon the enumerated rights in the Constitution and its amendments, however, must be limited and reasonable.  Insanity, when defined as interacting with something or someone who is not real, or radically misinterpreting reality (as in hallucinations) has always been considered a disqualifying event for the possession of firearms.  If you cannot tell reality from non-reality, then you might someday use that weapon on the large winged blue moose trying to eat your head, and shoot someone - or yourself.

    However, the category now is Mental Illness, and that category is far broader than Insanity.  Is a bipolar person a hazard with a gun?  Depressives?  Asperger's Syndrome sufferers, or other high-functioning autism-spectrum sufferers?  Non-high-functioning autism-spectrum sufferers?  Where is the cutoff?  Which are hazards, and which are not?  These questions have not yet been fully answered, and are still in a state of flux.  As such, in some places the law simply substituted the blanket "Mentally Ill" for "Insanity" in laws restricting gun rights.  Opening that back up will require court cases designed to show that people with Syndrome X are no more violent or at hazard of shooting someone randomly than are "Normal" people.

    The law allows for case-by-case evaluation on a rational basis for exceptions to a blanket right, such as the right to bear arms.  Children don't have the absolute right to bear arms.  Neither do felons, or the "insane".  No right that can impinge on someone else's rights is absolute.

    Is that any clearer?

    --------------
    In short, our current system and philosophy is creating a country of a few million overlords and 300+ million serfs.
         BusinessInsider.com

    by Laughing Vergil on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 02:21:58 PM PST

    •  It's clear. but you've already started down that (0+ / 0-)

      path of making things up. People were allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater in 1787. We just started making things up based on common sense but the logic has clouded with every new RESTRICTION on our rights. The only pure rights you have are the ones with no restrictions. As far as guns are concerned, people don't really show up as mentally ill until they do something classified as mentally ill. Would an adult on Ridalin be considered mentally ill?? How about anyone taking the amount of meds most Americans are taking in any one day??? It's such a maze of spagetti logic it's just easier to scratch the 2A.

      "It's no measure of health being well adjusted to a profoundly sick society"

      by buckshot face on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 02:32:17 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site