I strongly disagree with this. Just as I strongly disagree with a criminal record barring your right to vote. Having an arrest record can happen for all sorts of things, and it doesn’t even consider the possibility of personal reform.
The right to defend yourself is an important one, and should only be removed in the case of repeat violent offenders.
Let’s assume this proposal passes and SCOTUS upholds the constitutionality of mandatory sanity checks for gun purchases. Who decides the results of the test and makes the determination if the applicant is fit to own a gun? Is there a bright line rule or is it fully at the discretion of the doctor.
What would prevent doctor shopping? I go to Dr. Rand Paul, M.D. because he will approval gun applications so long as you don’t hold a knife to his receptionist’s throat while waiting to see him. Don’t go to Dr. Chuck Schumer because he will deny your application if you’ve ever felt sad at any point in your life.
So, how about only government doctors deciding? Again, you run into the same issue. For this 4 year period we have a pro-gun administration rubber stamping permits. Then then next 4 years everyone is insane.
Who decides what insanity is for the purposes of gun ownership?
So? The law gets passed, and either it works relatively well, or it doesn’t. People complain either way and it gets modified. This is a process.
But that’s my question. Who and what standards are used during and after the administration of the sanity test to determine if an applicant is sufficiently sane to be able to buy a gun?
How about a standard test and database of applicant results? If a potential gun owner is deemed unfit to own a gun, any subsequent negative test within a certain time period as a result of doctor shopping will be denied. Of course there will still be ways for the determined applicant to get around any safeguards, but this shouldn’t mean that we should just drop the idea altogether.
Doctors.
In any case, in my original response I was merely asking what the right to privacy has to do with a sanity test. You have the choice of maintaining your privacy by deciding not to buy a gun.
Innocent until proven guilty is a colloquial term for how our justice system works. Basically anyone charged with anyone gets a trial where the prosecutors have to prove guilt. But nobody’s being charged with anything. The determination that an object is too dangerous for casual ownership has nothing to do with any charges. Nobody’s charging gun owners with mass lunatic hooliganism, simply that an object is too dangerous for ownership. There is no reason why we can’t classify guns as illegal any more than child porn, drugs, and dead body parts. That is why its sly for you to simply slip in your sentence “Those of us who value justice and principle” as if anyone disagreeing with you does not. I love value and principle, would marry them if I could, but I still don’t want people to have assault rifles for the same reason I don’t want people to have heroin or naked pictures of kids.
Well I don’t see it in your posts, but I’ll take you at your word. What limits would you be in favor of setting for firearms?
I’ve always thought that was silly semantic wordplay. If there is no enforcement of laws, no specific spelling out of what is punishable and what is not, then your “right” to claim something unique and not covered by the government can fall under any sorts of broad legal jurisdiction. If you were to find an alien device capable of mind reading, and I’m assuming we don’t have laws against it, I am positive that the government can find some way to charge you with a crime if you used it. I believe that enforcement of our civilization allows us to have the freedom of the rights enumerated in our Constitution, but make no mistake that the government, through laws and its enforcement, is the one that grants us specific rights. In the context of this argument then, I believe the government has the power both legally and morally to revoke or restrict any such rights as it currently allows us to have. I may not like some of its decisions, but I’ll never claim they don’t have the right, the power, or the legal backing to do so
There is no reason that the same tests that may be used to determine gun ownership viability should be the same as other types of psychological tests. You’re assuming too much. If you don’t like having tests at all, just say so and don’t play this game of trying to pretend there are inherent flaws in something that doesn’t exist.
And again I would ask, “so what?” To determine if a person should own a lethal weapon, some kind of limit should be in place. If that incurs a cost, I have no problems with it. It should be reasonable, but I don’t see why it necessarily would be such a burden, especially if you consider alternative methods of payment. In schools, students can often get free counseling from onsite psychologists. The government spends billions in subsidies for things like corn and gas. There may be millions of gun owners, but if we’re serious about this, there can be similar subsidies, or a tax break, or any number of (I’m sure) NRA and government licensed doctors willing to do it for little or no payment. Forced mental evaluations will not be a burden on the vast majority of Americans. And it may just prevent the next Sandy Hook, or random guy in any random town shooting at someone.
Whoever the tests determine are crazy enough to not be allowed to have a gun
No, it is not different. What it is, is arbitrary.
What if, for example, the government decides that only violent crime ex-cons get their guns taken away? That the non-violent drug dealers, the thieves, the statutory rapists can all get guns? Some people might agree with that, some not. Then maybe you expand that a bit, all those people can get guns, but if you committed money laundering, or identify fraud, or only talked about violence but never did anything, that those people are banned? Then you keep going down the list until less and less people agree with you, stopping at some arbitrary line.
The point is, while most of us can agree that if a person did X, they should be banned from guns, the fact that X equal crime is still completely arbitrary. What if they didn’t use a gun in their crime? What if its non-violent? What if they threatened violence but never acted on it?
So I’m expanding that X. I’m saying that arbitrary notion to ownership itself. That means that certain guns are dangerous and unnecessary for self-defense or hunting and it should be banned or restricted. By the logic above, I could say that owning a copy of the Turner Diaries, belonging to any one of the FBI’s terrorist groups is reason enough to revoke their gun ownership. Same thing right? These people chose to join the KKK, or the Aryan Nation, or some Montana Freeman organization, so therefore they are definitely up to no good and anyone in their organization should not be allowed to have guns. Like you said, they lost their right over something they already did, so we’re in perfect logical agreement. There’s no reason why what they did has to be a crime
And you have the choice of voting, or freely expressing yourself. Or, you can refuse to incriminate yourself in a trial, but if you do that you have to quarter these soldiers. You can demand a warrant before we search your house, but you have to convert to this state supported religion first.
Your choice. Pick whichever right you prefer.
I don’t think I’m assuming too much. If you don’t plan on using existing tests and existing shrinks, just what do you plan on using?
Not quite getting your point here. Please help me out.
If I may, YogSosoth, I don’t know, maybe new tests? Since no law has been established yet, wouldn’t that be the logical conclusion?
No, it wouldn’t be the logical conclusion.
Existing tests are the best tools we have for finding disorders, and if somebody is a threat to themselves or others. Just how would you develop new tests?
IIRC Only a licensed psychologist can administer these tests. If you don’t want licensed psychologists to do the testing, who should do it?
YogSosoth suggested existing tests need not be used, so if he believes in testing, they’d have to be new tests, right? That’s all I meant. Didn’t mean to sound snarky. Should have added a :).
I wanted to elaborate: If “right to privacy” means “a legal right (not explicitly provided in the United States Constitution) to be left alone; the right to live life free from unwarranted publicity”, then unless the government is forcing mandatory psychological tests on all citizens, then where is the right to privacy being violated here? A potential gun owner submits to the test, but isn’t forced to take one if he doesn’t want to buy a gun. His privacy is thus maintained.
I’m schizophrenic, and as such I see no reason why I should have to be any less crazy with regards to gun ownership than the rest of the gun-toting American population.
So you tell me I need to turn in my guns cuz I’m a lunatic. I’ll get back to you on that, I know there’s a phrase I’m supposed to use. Something about prying and cold, dead something-or-other. Meanwhile keep yer distance if you don’t mind, OK?
:rolleyes:
I didn’t say anything about you, nor make any suggestion that all people who suffer from PS should automatically be banned from owning guns. I was asked for an example and I gave it. You might want to lay off the threats, no matter how jokingly they’re offered, btw.
The concern you bring up is cost. I noted that costs can be defrayed or eliminated. Then you ask me exactly what type of test I would come up with. I think that is a bit disingenuous. Maybe respond to possible negating of the costs? Or answer the question of if the costs can be reasonable, then would you support it or would you bring up a new point of contention?
Exactly what tests are irrelevant. The question is that IF tests can be reliable, cost-effective, and does not unreasonably hinder gun ownership, would you be in favor of them for the purposes of weeding out mentally ill people from gun ownership?
The tests we have now aren’t too reliable. I can’t see why new ones would be any better.
They’d end up costing a few hundred dollars. Whether that’s cost-effective is a matter of opinion..
Please define “mentally ill”.
several years ago my insurance notified me that I was going to be cancelled because someone with 3 drunk driving convictions was living at my address. There are 2 houses on a lot and he lived in the front. The same should be true for gun owners. Mentaly ill or felons should not have access to guns regardless of who owns them. I am pro gun by the way.
Please define “mentally ill”.
I have been diagnosed with obsessive compulsive disorder, social anxiety disorder, general anxiety disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and chronic depression.
I am currently on abilify, paxil, lithium carbonate, and methylphenidate.
THAT is my interest in this thread. I fear a slippery slope. Within living memory in the US persons deemed too crazy were involuntarily sterilized and/or lobotomized. If you say us crazy people can’t own guns, what right will you come for next? knives? drivers license? living near schools or playgrounds?
You shouldn’t have to give up one right as a prerequisite to exercising another.
Would you be happy if you had to give up your right to free speech in order to vote?