Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > 2nd Amendment Hypothetical

2nd Amendment Hypothetical
Thread Tools
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 21, 2017, 06:58 PM
 
The Aaron Hernandez CTE news got me thinking and let's say that:

A. We discover a connection* between CTE and suicide
B. We discover a connection* between CTE and an increased threat of the person committing violent crime
C. We are able to diagnose CTE in the living

Would you be ok with denying the CTE impaired access to firearms?

*for the purposes of this hypothetical, connection means causation, not correlation.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 21, 2017, 10:36 PM
 
The idea isn't "CTE or no", it's "danger to themselves/others or no".

If an individual who has CTE isn't a danger, it's wrong to deny them the right.

If an individual who has CTE is a danger, it's wrong to let them retain the right just because "CTE's not on the list".
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 21, 2017, 11:55 PM
 
^^ That.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 22, 2017, 12:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The idea isn't "CTE or no", it's "danger to themselves/others or no".

If an individual who has CTE isn't a danger, it's wrong to deny them the right.

If an individual who has CTE is a danger, it's wrong to let them retain the right just because "CTE's not on the list".
I think Dakar's question presumes that individuals with CTE have a proclivity for more violent behavior (e. g. towards spouses and oneself) and a lack of inhibition, and you could replace CTE with other, similar disorders such as PTSD. But these could be significant statistical effects, i. e. there may be not good way of anticipating how someone who was diagnosed with CTE will actually react.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 22, 2017, 11:27 AM
 
I'm not sure I follow.

There are all kinds of conditions which make people more violent, like Fetal Alcohol Syndrome or lead poisoning. These are still adjudicated on a case by case basis.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 22, 2017, 11:44 AM
 
Having slept on this, I wonder if haven't proposed some GATTACA level shit
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 22, 2017, 11:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I'm not sure I follow.

There are all kinds of conditions which make people more violent, like Fetal Alcohol Syndrome or lead poisoning. These are still adjudicated on a case by case basis.
Are there not conditions that lead to blanket loss of rights?
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 22, 2017, 11:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I think Dakar's question presumes that individuals with CTE have a proclivity for more violent behavior (e. g. towards spouses and oneself) and a lack of inhibition, and you could replace CTE with other, similar disorders such as PTSD. But these could be significant statistical effects, i. e. there may be not good way of anticipating how someone who was diagnosed with CTE will actually react.
True. There could be room for CTE not disqualifying, criminal record not disqualifying, both - disqualified.

To give additional context I think my hypothetical was inspired by some data on domestic abusers and access to firearms. But I believe that's contentious as well so that might be served with a thread itself.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 22, 2017, 12:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Are there not conditions that lead to blanket loss of rights?
I don't know. I can't think of one, but that's meaningless.

FWIU, being legally blind isn't one of them.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 22, 2017, 12:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I don't know. I can't think of one, but that's meaningless.

FWIU, being legally blind isn't one of them.
That ran through my head when I was posting too
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2017, 08:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I'm not sure I follow.

There are all kinds of conditions which make people more violent, like Fetal Alcohol Syndrome or lead poisoning. These are still adjudicated on a case by case basis.
I saw this on our local PBS station. Phineas Gage, railroad worker with an unusual work related injury. It gave neurologists a unique opportunity to study left/right brain functions.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2017, 08:57 PM
 
Neurological injuries can be fascinating. Have you read anything by Oliver Sacks?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
shifuimam
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Somewhere in the Pacific Northwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2017, 04:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
The Aaron Hernandez CTE news got me thinking and let's say that:

A. We discover a connection* between CTE and suicide
B. We discover a connection* between CTE and an increased threat of the person committing violent crime
C. We are able to diagnose CTE in the living

Would you be ok with denying the CTE impaired access to firearms?

*for the purposes of this hypothetical, connection means causation, not correlation.
Nope. I'm not okay with any law that makes it possible for a third-party to revoke someone's Constitutional rights. These laws are easily abused, and when you start getting into using medical diagnoses to revoke a right, things get out of control really, really quickly.

After all, it only takes a corrupt doctor willing to sign a document stating someone is a risk in order to revoke their rights, and as it stands, federal law dictates that a medical diagnosis is a permanent revocation of Constitutional rights. IOW, if you get diagnosed with CTE and are deemed a danger to yourself, no amount of treatment or rehabilitation will change that black mark, and you will forever be prohibited from buying a gun (unless you perjure yourself on the NCIS form).
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2017, 04:53 PM
 
Hey there, shif! Good to see you!
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2017, 05:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by shifuimam View Post
Nope. I'm not okay with any law that makes it possible for a third-party to revoke someone's Constitutional rights.
Is there a way to revoke rights without a third party being involved?

Originally Posted by shifuimam View Post
These laws are easily abused
[Citation needed]
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2017, 05:44 PM
 
I don't have a problem with a third party if there's a proper framework with which to address grievances.

My (perhaps incorrect) impression is the framework we have WRT the privilege given doctors is kinda loosey-goosey.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2017, 06:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by shifuimam View Post
Nope. I'm not okay with any law that makes it possible for a third-party to revoke someone's Constitutional rights. These laws are easily abused, and when you start getting into using medical diagnoses to revoke a right, things get out of control really, really quickly.

After all, it only takes a corrupt doctor willing to sign a document stating someone is a risk in order to revoke their rights, and as it stands, federal law dictates that a medical diagnosis is a permanent revocation of Constitutional rights. IOW, if you get diagnosed with CTE and are deemed a danger to yourself, no amount of treatment or rehabilitation will change that black mark, and you will forever be prohibited from buying a gun (unless you perjure yourself on the NCIS form).
If you're going to hold the constitution so sacred, people have to be more open to making amendments than they are. Giving guns to crazy people is insane.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2017, 06:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
[Citation needed]
history? people being put in asylums against their will?
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2017, 06:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
If you're going to hold the constitution so sacred, people have to be more open to making amendments than they are.
That's an entirely illogical statement. I read that 4x and it makes no sense at all.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2017, 07:20 PM
 
You're right. I should have just dismissed the point entirely.
In truth the notion of barring 3rd parties from revoking constitutional rights makes no sense either. Felons can't own guns right? 3rd parties convict people thus depriving them of rights. Some temporarily and some permanently.

Mental impairment due to injury or illness is a highly sensible reason to not have access to firearms. Someone has to make that judgement. Theres no sensible argument against the premise, just find a way you can live with for deciding who is impaired and who isn't.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2017, 08:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
You're right. I should have just dismissed the point entirely.
Heh. Whatever.

In truth the notion of barring 3rd parties from revoking constitutional rights makes no sense either. Felons can't own guns right?
Incorrect. Many, perhaps even most, felons can regain their right to own firearms. The process for being able to legally purchase again is clearly detailed in the laws of most states, it generally comes down to the nature and severity of their crime(s).

Mental impairment due to injury or illness is a highly sensible reason to not have access to firearms. Someone has to make that judgement.
A judge.

just find a way you can live with for deciding who is impaired and who isn't.
That process is already in place.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2017, 10:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
That process is already in place.
If a judge decides, who raises it with the judge? I assume people can submit themselves but almost never do. Doctor/shrink? LEOs?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2017, 04:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
If a judge decides, who raises it with the judge? I assume people can submit themselves but almost never do. Doctor/shrink? LEOs?
The state prosecutor.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2017, 04:35 PM
 
Litmus test:

Should we revoke 4th amendment rights for those deemed "dangerous" due to mental defect/injury? Afterall, if deemed a danger to society or to themselves, they ought to be searched on a regular basis to ensure they have no access to ropes, chemicals, vehicles, knives, heavy equipment, etc with which to cause harm to themselves or others.

We would also have to revoke their 14th amendment right to due process or equal protection under the law. Now that we're here, we've also got to:

Revoke 6th amendment rights for those deemed "dangerous" due to mental defect/injury. Afterall, you would need to so in order to revoke their rights without a trial or even criminal charges if deemed a danger to society or to themselves.

Revoke the 7th amendment rights for the same folks. Obviously we cannot give them a trial by jury if we are not giving them a trial at all. I mean, we're not even charging them with a crime so we gotta make sure they don't actually have any of their rights to due process, else they could easily defeat such measures in court.


You know what? Instead of shredding the constitution for this, why don't we just move all these people to border crossings and airports? The constitution does not apply in those places anyways, so we may get our cake and eat it to.

Edit:
One more thing - we'd have to carve out the Americans With Disabilities act as well.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2017, 06:53 PM
 
I seem to have struck a nerve.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2017, 08:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
border crossings and airports? The constitution does not apply in those places anyways
Wait, what?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2017, 08:26 PM
 
Legal/constitutional wrangling aside, does anyone disagree with the premise of keeping guns away from the mentally ill/brain damaged?

I don't mean all of them, just the ones considered a danger to themselves or others.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
BLAZE_MkIV
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2017, 08:32 AM
 
I think a big part of this is people with CTE don't know they have it. Once its diagnosable and the individual is aware they can change their lifestyle / behavior to mitigate the issues. Otherwise they're sociopaths.

Access to weapons is not about IQ its about right vs wrong.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2017, 01:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Legal/constitutional wrangling aside, does anyone disagree with the premise of keeping guns away from the mentally ill/brain damaged?

I don't mean all of them, just the ones considered a danger to themselves or others.
In a vacuum sure. The practical approach is much more difficult.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2017, 01:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Wait, what?
https://www.aclu.org/know-your-right...order-zone-map

Notably this doctrine includes 2/3rds of the American population, according to the ACLU.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2017, 01:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by shifuimam View Post
Nope. I'm not okay with any law that makes it possible for a third-party to revoke someone's Constitutional rights. These laws are easily abused, and when you start getting into using medical diagnoses to revoke a right, things get out of control really, really quickly.

After all, it only takes a corrupt doctor willing to sign a document stating someone is a risk in order to revoke their rights, and as it stands, federal law dictates that a medical diagnosis is a permanent revocation of Constitutional rights. IOW, if you get diagnosed with CTE and are deemed a danger to yourself, no amount of treatment or rehabilitation will change that black mark, and you will forever be prohibited from buying a gun (unless you perjure yourself on the NCIS form).
Not to mention, people will just not seek help when they need it as their rights could be "revoked" (it's not a right if it can be taken away). What incentive would they have to seek help?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2017, 01:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Wait, what?
At a "border crossing", which includes international airports, one gives up the expectation of privacy, and can be searched without a warrant or probable cause.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2017, 03:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
At a "border crossing", which includes international airports, one gives up the expectation of privacy, and can be searched without a warrant or probable cause.
But the rest of the rules still apply?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2017, 04:36 PM
 
AFAIK, for the most part. The no-fly list is sort of related, and has 14th Amendment problems (IMO).
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2017, 04:46 PM
 
The no fly list is garbage because there appears to be no recourse for being on it
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2017, 08:47 PM
 
Yup. Seems like a pretty straightforward lack of due process.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2017, 09:19 PM
 
At its foundation, your question is moot because the only way to properly diagnose CTE is post mortem.

Here's a very informative article from The Mayo Clinic. As with Alzheimer's Disease, the diagnostic criteria include microscopic inspection and testing of brain tissue after death.

Not that there are a lack of diagnostic signs that a person's brain has been overly battered. Muhammad Ali's Parkinson's Disease was attributed to the battering his head received over the years, and there are formal imaging and functional tests that can indicate permanent brain damage from repeated trauma. The key is the "encephalopathy" part of the diagnosis: dysfunction, like poor impulse control, word finding issues, memory problems, etc., does not even necessarily imply encephalopathy.

So unless/until a valid and reliable test in living people for this form of brain disease becomes available, maybe we should actually start paying attention to the more general situation of people with chronic depression due to a variety of issues, CTE included. For example, tinnitus often leads to severe depression - it is a truly maddening problem - and sometimes it's caused by head injuries. Robert Schumann, the composer, had severe tinnitus, and it's believed that it contributed to his mental illness.

I also believe that the key is not the diagnosis, but the presentation of that diagnosis. While CTE is often characterized as causing Impulsivity, this presents more often as hyperactivity and attention deficits, not explosive personality. Everyone should retain their full rights unless and until formally adjudged to be a danger to themselves or others.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2017, 12:04 AM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
At its foundation, your question is moot because the only way to properly diagnose CTE is post mortem.
C'mon GH!
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
let's say that
...
C. We are able to diagnose CTE in the living
It's clearly a hypothetical.

Also: https://www.washingtonpost.com/sport...efa_story.html
In a new study published Tuesday in the journal PLOS ONE, researchers from BU and the VA Boston Healthcare System studied the brains of 23 former football players who were diagnosed with CTE, in addition to those of 50 non-athletes who suffered from Alzheimer’s disease and 18 non-athlete controls. They found significantly elevated levels of a protein related to inflammation called CCL11 in the group of ex-players compared with the non-athletes. The levels were even higher in those who played the game longer.
McKee hopes future studies might be able to show the biomarker can be found in blood tests and perhaps show whether elevated CCL11 levels reveal anything about the severity of a subject’s disease. While the research will continue, McKee and her team are hopeful this latest discovery finally cracks open a door they have been staring at for a dozen years.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2017, 12:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
But the rest of the rules still apply?
In theory, yes. In practice? No - hence the nickname "Constitution Free zone".

The legal theories have not been really tested in court, and the government will go to great lengths to ensure that it's not (i.e. dropping cases before they can be ruled on).
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2017, 01:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
At its foundation, your question is moot because the only way to properly diagnose CTE is post mortem.

Here's a very informative article from The Mayo Clinic. As with Alzheimer's Disease, the diagnostic criteria include microscopic inspection and testing of brain tissue after death.

Not that there are a lack of diagnostic signs that a person's brain has been overly battered. Muhammad Ali's Parkinson's Disease was attributed to the battering his head received over the years, and there are formal imaging and functional tests that can indicate permanent brain damage from repeated trauma. The key is the "encephalopathy" part of the diagnosis: dysfunction, like poor impulse control, word finding issues, memory problems, etc., does not even necessarily imply encephalopathy.

So unless/until a valid and reliable test in living people for this form of brain disease becomes available, maybe we should actually start paying attention to the more general situation of people with chronic depression due to a variety of issues, CTE included. For example, tinnitus often leads to severe depression - it is a truly maddening problem - and sometimes it's caused by head injuries. Robert Schumann, the composer, had severe tinnitus, and it's believed that it contributed to his mental illness.

I also believe that the key is not the diagnosis, but the presentation of that diagnosis. While CTE is often characterized as causing Impulsivity, this presents more often as hyperactivity and attention deficits, not explosive personality. Everyone should retain their full rights unless and until formally adjudged to be a danger to themselves or others.
And what mechanism do you propose to determine whether or not someone's rights should be revoked? Being charged with a crime or simply being persecuted for seeking help?
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2017, 07:09 PM
 
Having your rights revoked isn't always about persecution. Thats why there are prisons to name just one. People make sacrifices for the greater good. Some are voluntary, some not so much.

If or when you start to lose your faculties, there should come a point where you gladly give up your guns to safeguard the lives of your family members and friends because statistically, they are the ones at highest risk. Some would call it being mature, stepping up and doing whats right, rather than throwing a bitchfit because you're having your toys taken away.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2017, 07:28 PM
 
There are well established mechanisms for determining if a person is a legitimate threat to themselves or others, and mechanisms for taking action in such cases.

Unfortunately it seems that physicians and psychologists are more concerned about getting poor survey scores than what someone who is a danger to themselves or others might do... That sort of wussy behavior is ITSELF a threat to public safety.

This (to me) is similar to the law in Virginia that said ALL psychiatric/psychological interactions and findings were "private," which kept the VT shooter's shrink from reporting him. If he'd been reported, he would have been stopped - or at least hindered - by a NICS check.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2017, 08:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Having your rights revoked isn't always about persecution. Thats why there are prisons to name just one. People make sacrifices for the greater good. Some are voluntary, some not so much.

If or when you start to lose your faculties, there should come a point where you gladly give up your guns to safeguard the lives of your family members and friends because statistically, they are the ones at highest risk. Some would call it being mature, stepping up and doing whats right, rather than throwing a bitchfit because you're having your toys taken away.
Is the argument this should be enacted legislatively?
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2017, 08:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
There are well established mechanisms for determining if a person is a legitimate threat to themselves or others, and mechanisms for taking action in such cases.
Mechanism in place today, that upon activation already revoke rights to buy a gun.

Unfortunately it seems that physicians and psychologists are more concerned about getting poor survey scores than what someone who is a danger to themselves or others might do...
This statement is ignorant and offensive to physicians and physiologists who put their patients' well-being over draconian regulations. Ever consider what being branded mental and losing your constitutional rights might do to one's mental health? How is a patient supposed to trust or listen to a physician or psychologist who just ratted him out to the government and made him a lesser citizen? Nay, not a lesser citizen, something below that because citizens are supposed to have rights.

We must not turn doctors and psychologists into the crazy police. All it will do is make people with problems hide them from those who would take away their rights (who are now, in your world, the same people they are supposed to rely on to help them). Their oath is to their patients, not to enforce gun policy at the behest of a partisan government.

That sort of wussy behavior is ITSELF a threat to public safety.
You presume too much about the motives of those in the health industry.

This (to me) is similar to the law in Virginia that said ALL psychiatric/psychological interactions and findings were "private," which kept the VT shooter's shrink from reporting him.
Yes, everyone's health records should be public record. Who's should we start with?

If he'd been reported, he would have been stopped - or at least hindered - by a NICS check.
That's speculation - the VT shooter could very easily have turned to already illegal means of getting guns and I seriously doubt it would have hindered his motivation.

How many other monsters would we have created by putting people on a crazy list and having their doctors turn on them and get their rights revoked without a trial, any kind of due process, or a chance to prove to the community you aren't a nut job?

You act as if putting people on this crazy list won't have severe and extremely detrimental impacts on their lives. At least going to jail you have a right to a trial. Here - you just lose your rights. And that's that. Doctor says so, and he is beyond reproach as is the mechanism which stripped you of your rights.


The ends do not justify the means.
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:55 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,