Listening to the radio last night, I heard a very earnest progressive commentator talk about "sensible gun control." The number one item on his list was, of course, the mental health issue. Keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, but of course! I have dealt with that before, and you can go HERE to read my pearls of wisdom on the fallacy of that approach. This little excerpt from that piece sums it up pretty well, in my humble opinion,
If you think the science of global climate whatever is up in the air, wait until you delve into the looney world of mental health. The mental health profession is full of quack "therapists" and quack theories; few things there are settled science; and that profession is as subject to the vagaries of the winds and tides of fashion and politics as any other. Let us not forget the uses of psychiatry in the dead and unlamented Soviet bloc. Even, however, without going back to the USSR, I would point out that my father was a psychiatrist, and in his old Diagnostic and Statistical Manuals (DSM) homosexuality was listed as a disorder, "a sociopathic personality disturbance" to be precise. It was a disorder or mental disturbance until it just wasn't--you can read the account of how that change happened here.
Would then those persons treated for homosexuality, and have that on their medical records, be denied their second amendment rights? This, in turn, leads to the raising of many other questions: What standards would be used to determine mental illness for the purpose of gun denial? Who would make those standards? How would authorities running a background check gain access to those medical records? How would we redefine the ancient notion of patient-doctor confidentiality? How would those mental health sessions be flagged in the Great Database? How would one prevent that information from leaking and from being used for political or blackmail purposes? How would this not dissuade people who need some help from getting it? I am sure you can think of dozens more questions.The progs have added a couple of new twists to their "common sense" approach to gun control. One of my favorites, brought up by the commentator mentioned above, would ban what Obama has called "weapons of war" from ownership by civilians.
Weapons of War! As we gun nuts call them, WOW! What a great phrase: conjures up images of noisy smoky tanks, armored vehicles, Maxim guns, land mines, etc. But, no. Our progs are not talking about those. They, apparently, are talking about the sort of weapons used by the Muslim murderers in San Bernardino. Progs love coming up with catchy bumper sticker phrases. I hate to burst their little bubble, but what is the definition of a WOW? Which war, for example? As my son noted to me today, at one time a musket was a WOW. Am I denied the right to a musket? How about swords, knives, chains, rocks, sticks, fists, and feet? All of those have been used in wars. The weapons used by the Muslim murderers, in fact. were not WOWs. As far as I can tell, the military do not use AR-15s. No. The progs don't care about that; they, clearly, are going to define whatever they want as a WOW--much like they have with "assault rifle." In other words, if it's scary to a prog, then, by definition, it's a WOW. I have served in countries where 9mm and .45 are declared military weapons (parabellum, for war) and are denied to civilians. In one country, 9mm was forbidden for civilians, but not .38 or .357. I don't pretend to understand those sort of calls. To repeat, any weapon at any time can be declared a WOW, and, hence, banned under prog "common sense" gun control.
Yet another cry has gone up: Ban people on the "terror list" from buying weapons! Common sense, no? I am not exactly sure what "terror list" the progs are bandying about. I know of "no-fly" lists, and as a DCM in some rough places, I helped put together Visa Viper lists of people who should be denied visas to the US. The process of making up these lists is highly inexact and subjective. Just getting names right is a major ordeal. The process consists of coffee-drinking bureaucrats sitting around a table with incomplete and perhaps inaccurate information from a variety of open and covert sources of varying reliability making judgement calls. There is no due process; no elevated standards of evidence; and it is almost impossible to correct mistakes. At least our Visa Viper list was aimed only at pesky foreigners. The sort of list the progs are talking about is aimed at American citizens--and, by the way, the Muslim murderers in San Bernardino were on no list.
So should a list drawn up in secret by bureaucrats responding to who knows what political agendas and masters with no due process, no right of appeal, be used to deny Constitutional rights? I wonder about that, eh? Tough call . . .. Let's put it this way: Do you trust Obama, who has used the IRS and EPA, for example, to go after political opponents, to draw up a list to deny people their rights? We all know, of course, that the list-makers will be tasked with ensuring that the list is diverse and does not overly target any protected group . . . If the government is so sure about this "list," why not arrest and try the people on it? What's next? Lists to deny freedom of speech and religion? Why stop with guns? So many questions.
Amazing, ain't it? The same crowd who get weepy over a handful of blacklisted Communist screenwriters, and outraged over Trump's call to halt Muslim immigration to the US, now want government drafting secret lists to deny people their rights. Progressives . . .