Quote of the Day: Predictable Side Effects Edition

3760c93063a11bca69e9f1bf3e8a11bd

“(I)f the (background check) law only accomplishes good things and not bad things—that is, if there are no costs worth considering in trying to enforce an often feckless law—that might not be such a big deal. But: I always like to make this point, though it means nothing to those for whom the right to own a gun for safety or pleasure means nothing: background checks to ‘catch’ people prohibited from owning guns by federal law are going to harm an overwhelmingly large number of people who would never harm anyone with the weapon they are being kept from owning. It takes a very high level of belief that essentially no one should own a gun to believe that everyone who the law has connected to illegal drugs should not be able to access the best means for self-protection.” – Brian Doherty in Dylann Roof and Background Checks: Not Loopholes, Just Predictable Lack of Bureaucratic Competence [at reason.com]

comments

  1. avatar the ruester says:

    If they really “support the second amendment but,” a false positive from NICS should get more than an “oh well.” Makes you wonder if the incompetence is built into the system, to illicit calls for more system.

    1. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

      It’s likely not intentionally built in, it’s just the natural consequence of the G gets its hands on the system.

  2. avatar Vee says:

    The problem here is with criminalization of drugs, not with background checks. All drugs should be legalized, and all criminal convictions for offences that only have to do with drugs should be expunged. Then the background check system should be narrowed and strengthened so that only people who truly could pose a danger will come back “positive,” and those people who do are always prosecuted.

    1. avatar Curtis in IL says:

      So you’re o.k. with people selling heroin, crack and meth to children across the street from the grade school?

      1. avatar Shire-man says:

        Can’t speak for Vee but I sure am.
        Nothing says “just say no” better than stepping over a classmates dead OD’ed body on the way to class.

        I’m tired of hearing about the alleged heroin epidemic. Stop trying to save the lives of junkies and watch it take care of itself.

        1. avatar m11nine says:

          I have heard that the present increase in heroin in IL is from the tightening up of the supply of oxycodone. Some people will always seek a high somewhere. It will not stop because doctors are getting in trouble or pharmacies increase their security measures. “Legalize” would be messy, but there is a natural drug market that is unstoppable.

          I accept that messiness, just like I accept the various risks of gun ownership (that, when possible, I mitigate to a large degree in my life).

        2. avatar Indiana Tom says:

          Nothing says “just say no” better than stepping over a classmates dead OD’ed body on the way to class.
          I actually have had friends and acquaintances die of drugs. It is a very good reminder not to take hard drugs. BTW, drug laws are worthless. Everybody in HS knew who the druggies and drug dealers were, and some of them were prominent kids in society. The kids knew when the drug dogs and searches were coming at school due to the fact that the cops kids were the ring leaders of the drug scene. I think some of the cops were in the drug trade as well.

        3. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

          You say that, but that’s never the way things work in America. No matter what moronic, self-injurious thing people want to do, which in principle they should be allowed to do whether on the basis of it being a “right” or something else, the problem is that these same morons ALWAYS end up imposing their stupidity on the rest of us.

          We have to support it. We have to accept it. We have to hire it, insure it, cover it, admit it, serve it, pay for it, bake cakes for it, subsidize it, understand it, treat it, cure it, clean up its mess, adopt it, offer college majors in it, bend over backwards not to offend it, impose self-censorship around it, take sensitivity training for it, teach it, celebrate it, listen to it, engage in massive collective self-delusion about it, you name it.. it.

          It’s NEVER just live and let live. Everybody always wants to do whatever the hell they want, then when the inevitable costs and responsibilities roll around, they want to export those to everyone else in society. This is where true libertarians get frustrated with greedy, shortsighted and selfish faux libertarians. If ever druggies and all the other special little snowflake groups would ever grow up, sign an iron clad document that the crap they want to do will be paid for only by themselves, and no one else, then we can have a conversation. That’s never the way it works, however, so you’ll always have even liberty-minded people wanting to control other people’s behavior.

        4. avatar Yawnz says:

          Clearly both the possibility of death from OD, getting killed by rival dealers, or getting thrown in jail isn’t much of a detterant. Personally I think drug laws are litmus tests for stupidity. You know it’s illegal and dangerous, but you do it anyway.

        5. avatar Geoff PR says:

          “I’m tired of hearing about the alleged heroin epidemic. Stop trying to save the lives of junkies and watch it take care of itself.”

          You’re going to be hearing a whole lot more about opiate addiction in the next few years..

          “Genetically Modified Yeast Will Make It Possible to Home-Brew Opiates”

          http://www.wired.com/2015/05/genetically-modified-yeast-will-make-possible-home-brew-opiates/

          The gist being yields are low now but will improve with time.

        6. avatar Grindstone says:

          Portugal decriminalized drugs and treats addiction as a medical issue, not a criminal one. Usage has dropped as well as the number of addicts. But that would require government actually caring about the people and not increasing it’s power over them.

      2. avatar tfunk says:

        Because that doesn’t happen at all now, right?

      3. avatar CarlosT says:

        I am also not Vee, but there’s a large gap between “legalized” and “sell it to first graders.” Currently, rightly or wrongly, there are minimum ages for purchasing certain products, and there’s no reason we couldn’t do the same for these products as well. Just like it would be illegal to sell a first grader a beer or a cigarette, it would be illegal to sell him a joint or baggie of heroin.

      4. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

        You can support a product or service being legal while supporting legal restrictions on where and when those products and services can be sold. For example, alcohol is legal, but you can’t sell it to minors outside a school.

      5. avatar ThomasR says:

        You mean the way the kids currently buy crack, cocaine, meth, alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana, etc. from the local teenager drug dealer?

        I don’t know about you, but when I was a teenager, the code of silence among us was as strong as any “Omerta” code among the mafia, and most everyone was aware of which fellow student sold what ever intoxicant, or illegal drug, (Which was everything) one could want to buy at any particular moment.

        The fact that at a time when we were the most experimental, with the least consequence legally, (you know, we’re juveniles) with everything illegal,the stats show the most common “illegal” substance used is pot, alcohol and cigarettes, 30%to 40% is used at least once a month by teenagers. Yet heroin, cocaine, meth and crack is used in single digits.

        In other words, teenagers actually used their own estimation of what is most dangerous, when everything is verboten, to decide to stay away from the most dangerous substances.

        So why would this change if the War On Drugs was ended? They still would be unable to “legally” use any of these substances, it would still be illegal, they’re juveniles.

        Oh, right, we would need to first decide that those who are no longer juveniles, that are adults, would have the free choice, as adults, to actually be treated as adults and decide what they could put in their own bodies.

      6. avatar Grindstone says:

        THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!!!

      7. avatar BDub says:

        I always love how the moment you bring up legalization of drugs, you always get somebody screaming about selling drugs to children. First, nothing about illegality prevents drug sales to children, and secondly all legal drugs (except caffeine!) are age or otherwise restricted – alcohol, nicotine, prescription medications etc. SO lighten up on the fear-mongering hyperbole long enough to consider the benefits of ending the drug-war and you might surprise even yourself.

        1. avatar MarkPA says:

          This is a good point. If the illegal dealers are counting on the market from under-age buyers they aren’t going to be able to make much of a living.

          The younger the child the less access the child will have to money to pay high prices. In just a few years the kid will become “legal” whereupon he would be able to buy drugs in the legal market. The prices in the legal market will be so low that whatever drugs leak into the illegal market of under-age buyers wouldn’t lead to a profit margin worth the risk of getting caught doing illegal sales. The penalty for dealing to under-age buyers can be made punitive enough to discourage the majority of dealers.

          I don’t use drugs and I don’t discount their potential to do damage to users. However, I’m convinced that:
          – prohibition of drugs produces worse consequences than the drugs cause;
          – there is no Constitutional warrant – at least at the Federal level – for prohibition of drugs.

    2. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

      Ideally there should be no such thing as a consentual crime. If two consenting adults wish to make a transaction, be it selling and buying drugs or sex or gambling, etc., they should have the freedom to do so. However, there is always a disconnect between the ideal and the reality. The reality is that some people simply don’t want to work. Black markets give these people something to do. If you take away his black market that punk selling drugs on the corner is probably not going to get a job at McDonald’s. So before you legalize all drugs you have to ask yourself ‘what is he going to do?’ The answer is he will probably move on to non-consentual crime like burglary or robbery. I’d rather have him selling drugs.

      That said, the ‘War on Drugs’ has been an abject failure and should be abandoned immediately. And there are probably too many people who use marijuana to justify a black market for it.

      1. avatar KCK says:

        It is not the seller (an enterprising individual) that is the risk to convert to robbery or burglary if drugs are legalized but the user that is now down to $5 a day for his habit from $250 for which he has to steal $500 worth of goods and fence. He would now only have to trade some of his food stamps. Still not right but way less of a crime burden on the rest of us.

        1. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

          You’re supposing that the addict is capable of holding down a job. And that his habit costs $250/day. Right now it’s cheaper to get stoned than drunk. Granted, for a bum living on the streets, coming up with $20 a day to feed his addiction likely requires some sort of criminal activity. But the ‘enterprising individual’ is not going to go work at McDonald’s. Belief that he will is to deny human nature. There will always be criminals.

          Anyway, we have historical evidence that what I said is true. The mob didn’t disappear when prohibition was repealed, it opened up new criminal enterprises. Not that the repeal wasn’t a good thing, but it would have been better had prohibition never been implemented in the first place. The same thing could probably be said on the prohibition of drugs. Personally, if I were made King of America, I’d legalize marijuana and proceed with caution.

      2. avatar Pg2 says:

        The war on drugs has not been an abject failure, because it’s intent was not on eliminating to illegal drug trade. It’s intent was to reduce Americans rights and give the Govt more power with less constitutional restrictions, and it has been an amazing success. Btw, where do you think all these street drugs come from?

        1. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

          You probably have a point when it comes to the original intent, but as it was sold to the public, it has been a failure.

      3. avatar ThomasR says:

        Except there is the example of Portugal. They decriminalized all drugs and put the massive amount of money spent in putting drug users in jail and used some of it for treatment programs.

        Guess what, over all drug use has gone down, as well as overall violent crime. This is what happens when adults are treated as such.

        1. avatar Ralph says:

          Meh. Portugal is a small nation of only 10 million with a homogeneous population and a remarkable absence of Crips, Bloods, Latin Kings, Mexican Mafia etc. etc. The economy is entirely different. Portugal had a repressive dictatorship not too long ago so the culture is entirely different. Besides, the change in Portugal’s drug laws in 2001 did not reduce drug use in Portugal, which remains illegal.

          What works in Portugal has nothing to do with what might work in the US.

    3. avatar MarkPA says:

      We PotG need to treat the political issue of drug legalization VERY CAREFULLY.

      I’ll preface my remarks by stating that I do not advocate recreational drug use. Instead, my position is that our war-on-drugs causes more severe problems than it solves. Moreover, I don’t see a Constitutional warrant to control recreational drug use.

      PotG: Go ahead and advocate strongly for decriminalization or legalization of drugs.

      Just do NOT do so in the context of a discussion of GUN rights.

      Look around you. There are lots of people on each side of the gun-rights issue and lots on each side of the drug-rights issue. There isn’t a strong correlation between a voter’s position on one right vs. the other right.

      Winning a new convert on one right will not help much to win a convert on the other right.

      Offending an anti-gun or anti-drug person by coupling gun-rights with drug-rights will harm the cause for the other right.

      Take, for example, the Black inner-city grandmother who is afraid for her life and sees what drugs have done to decimate her community. We want to encourage her to protect herself. If she won’t buy a gun and train herself she should nevertheless support her neighbors who do so. They will contribute to her safety. Here is a potential convert on the gun rights issue.

      This Black inner-city grandmother is apt to be a much harder sell on the drug rights issue. Her grandchildren, or neighbors’ children, may have destroyed their lives through drugs. She looks to the Government to solve all her problems: provide her with food-stamps, housing allowances, and to change the drug culture in the streets.

      Now, take the upper East Side card-carrying Progressive who wants to control both drugs and guns. She can be brought to understand that throwing concussion grenades into baby cribs doesn’t do much to control drugs. She is sophisticated enough to understand that drug prohibition raises the profit margin which creates the incentive to build the market. This voter can easily buy-into the idea that the war-on-drugs is a dubious proposition.

      Nevertheless, she is not going to be able to identify with the “gun culture”. She is just too deeply ensconced in her aversion to violence to recognize any countervailing argument about guns.

      To the extend that we PotG conflate the issues of gun rights with drug rights we are being counter-productive.

  3. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

    The government (all governments) likes to treat ‘rights’ as though they were ‘privileges’. Under certain circumstances a person should lose his or her rights. For instance if you commit a violent felony you should lose your right to own a gun for as long as you are a threat to others. However, even if the state could guarantee that you never got access to a firearm you could still harm other with other weapons like knives, hammers, schedule 80 galvanized pipe, etc. So the better solution is to deny those who pose a threat to others their right to walk around as free men.

    1. avatar ThomasR says:

      Exactly. If you can’t be trusted to carry a firearm in public, you shouldn’t be in public.

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        Agreed. Which is why truly violent offenders need to be kept in a cage forever.

  4. avatar Bob says:

    If you have a list of people to dangerous to own a gun, what else are you preventing them from owning/doing? ‘Cause if these people are that dangerous I don’t want them out and about or having children.

    Knowing that some mentally ill nut job couldn’t get a gun is great unless your the family that they stab to death in line at McDonald’s.

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      It should be pointed out that answering YES to any question on a NICS that is a disqualifier for purchasing the gun in question automatically identifies you as someone who is not actually smart enough to purchase that gun.

  5. avatar Roy says:

    The longstanding restrictions on felons owning guns is the cultural root of ALL gun control. Think about it.

    1. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

      I think the ‘root’ of all gun control was racism. Felons with guns is more of an excuse for gun control.

      1. avatar Gary McClenny says:

        By Jove, Gov., I think you hit the nail square on the head!

      2. avatar KCK says:

        Since most of Blacks criminality is drug based and prohibits them from owning guns, and you want Blacks not to have guns, it follows to continue to keep drugs illegal, giving cover to the intent to keep Blacks disproportionately disarmed.

        1. avatar Chris T from KY says:

          The libertarian fantasy of legalized drugs only works if you eliminate the welfare support system. I have noticed this is never coupled with drug legalization. Does Portugal or Denmark have welfare for drug users?
          How is giving welfare to a drug user freedom? It looks like a government slave is being maintained.

    2. avatar tfunk says:

      You mean the longstanding restrictions on felons having guns from…1968? I’m thinking there may have been some gun control efforts before this, and based on some other cultural root

      1. avatar JR Pollock says:

        The prohibition on felons having firearms started with the Federal Firearms Act of 1938.

        https://www.google.com/search?q=federal+firearms+act+1938&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

    3. avatar MarkPA says:

      Probably not. I’m NOT saying “Unequivocally not”, just probably not.

      According to Clayton Cramer in the pre- and post- Revolutionary period some subjects/citizens were disarmed as a consequence of committing a crime. He doesn’t elaborate on this, so I don’t have a strong sense of what to make of what he has written. Moreover, Samuel Adams is on record as saying that “peaceable” persons should never be disbarred from the use of arms.

      Just for the moment, let’s assume that we could find in the records of the Revolutionary era compelling evidence that felons were disbarred. By the historical analysis method used by SCOTUS in Heller, that would easily and clearly justify disabling felons of their 2A rights.

      Exactly how much could we make of such evidence (under the assumption I’ve proposed)? NOT MUCH. First, there were not as many crimes classified as felonies at that time; and these were all or mostly common law crimes such as murder or horse-theft. Today’s felony list – especially at the Federal level – is much longer. It is not the least bit clear that felony-check-kiting would have been construed as a 2A-disabling offense in the Revolutionary era.

      Moreover, capital punishment for a felony was a thing at that time. If you committed a homicide you would be highly likely to be hanged upon conviction. In such a context, the disposition of your 2A rights was rendered moot. Conversely, if you were NOT hanged, there would remain a question of 2A rights. I conjecture that if you were not hanged for stealing a horse then you would probably not been dis-armed. Conversely, if you were not hanged for manslaughter in a tavern fight then you might have been likely to be disarmed.

      If we could successfully exhume the historical record of the Revolutionary era and confirm my conjectures then we might have a much better foundation for the constitutionality of 2A-disablement upon the commission of a crime. Yet, I don’t think this would matter much.

      What we have to deal with is the political situation on-the-ground today. It does us PotG NO good to beat the drum for felons in general. We have much better tactics available to us.

      First, the blanket consequence for all felonies of 2A-disablement doesn’t make sense. To bar a single mother from defending her children because of her felony check-kiting conviction is obviously nonsense. We should be concerned with criminals with a history of violence alone.

      As respects released violent felons we should argue that at lest a few of these may have become rehabilitate after a time. Admittedly, not many; but if just one, he deserves an opportunity to seek forgiveness and ask for reinstatement of his 2A rights.

      The domestic violence prohibiting criteria are an even messier can of worms. Again, it does us NO good to defend wife-abusers in general. Instead, we ought to be arguing that there must be plenty of cases where individuals are unjustly convicted of domestic violence. Or, the situation has cooled-off for a long enough time (the couple have divorced and live far apart). Or, the incident just wasn’t that severe to begin with (shouting, throwing of pillows.)

  6. avatar Gatha58 says:

    Many articles like this appear to refute the idea that decriminalization of drug USE is a bad idea http://www.rawstory.com/2010/12/portugals-drug-policy-pays-eyes-lessons/
    Do a search using Portugal drug decriminalization or similar terms and see what pops up.
    So, why do we keep doing the opposite in our country ? Seems it is time for a change in policy on drug use and maybe on legalizing drugs. What we have been doing for so many years does not seem to be working. And our current methods of handling drugs and drug users seems to funnel more profit to the Cartels in Mexico and other Bad Guys.

    1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      Portugal, as a country, hasn’t been relevant since about 1600, and today cannot even manage their finances without descending into near-Greece chaos. All of a sudden we’re supposed to take public policy advice from Portugal, because a few druggies got their skirts blown up after reading an article or two? Please.

      1. avatar Craig says:

        Things Portugal has given us:

        1. Brazil and Goa.
        2. Chourisco and some breads.
        3. Fall River, New Bedford, East Providence, Bristol, Warren, and some other towns in RI and Mass.
        4. Some wars before we were independent.
        5. An example of legalizing drugs.

      2. avatar MarkPA says:

        That Portugal is not particularly relevant in general is no reason to discount it’s contribution to our knowledge of societal management.

        Just because something worked in Portugal doesn’t mean it would work anywhere else (perhaps other than in Spain). Even so, we should look at whatever evidence is available anywhere and see if we can stitch together a picture of what sorts of things have been made to work better – wherever they have worked – then what we have been doing.

  7. avatar KCK says:

    And what about all the Dr. shopping drug abusers who are doing it “legally”.
    Don’t have to lie on the 4473 but are not essential the same riskas other non-legal abusers.

    If black lives mattered in Chicago, eliminating the illegality of drugs would reduce the need for drug organizations to protect their turf and selves with guns. Not the theater of NICS checks with which drug dealers never involve themselves (circular here) because they are prohibited felons.
    I guess we are used to the theater when we watch a TSA agent scrutinize an infants diaper as closely as a bearded Muslim with a ISIS shoulder patch.

    1. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

      The War on Drugs is a game of Whack-a-mole. As soon as you hit one source another one pops up. Nothing is accomplished but massive amounts of money wasted. The authorities in Washington and Chicago actually believe that they can cut off the supply of drugs to the inner cities and then the violence would stop.

      1. avatar Indiana Tom says:

        The same stupidity applies to guns as well.

      2. avatar Pg2 says:

        Did you ever consider it was designed to be this way? With today’s technology and surveliance capabilities, how do you suppose this never ending supply of drugs hits the streets?

  8. avatar Unknown Prosecutor says:

    I almost want there to be UBCs just to watch heads explode when the used gun market dries up and new guns fly off the shelves… If you impose costs such that buying a used Glock 19 from some Joe costs only $40 less than a new one, I’m just going to buy new… Not to mention the hassle factor of negotiating about and finding a gun store to meet at and waiting for the check.

    They can’t say it out loud, but I bet manufacturers are secret rooting for UBCs for all transactions.

    1. avatar Azman says:

      In general, manufacturers tend to dislike any restrictions placed on making what they can best sell.

    2. avatar Craig says:

      I’d hate to burst your bubble, but that’s not how the market works in a situation where private sales have to have a background check before the sale. The used market isn’t really affected, unless the government imposes other weird restrictions like an AWB, pre-ban/post-ban, a list of approved guns, etc.

      RI has a law where private sales have to go through a background check process and the used market is relatively normal. I’m not in favor of the process, I’m just saying your prediction is concurrent with what I’ve seen in reality.

  9. avatar gsnyder says:

    Article too wordy. Reads like nonsense. We know Background checks are a feel good thing.

  10. avatar MarkPA says:

    This guns & drugs issue is a difficult one.

    First, let’s be very clear. guns & drugs has NOTHING to do with BCs. Whether FFL-BCs or UBC for non-dealer sales. NOTHING.

    Let’s assume world where there is no BC as prior-restraint; not in the FFL, not in non-dealer transfers. If a drug user is found with a gun by law-enforcement he is apt to be discovered to be Drug-user-in-Posession. He is caught either:
    – in possession of drugs
    – under the influence of drugs
    – having a drug arrest on his record.

    This guy is apt to be charged as an illegal drug user in possession of a gun. The issue is with the Prohibited-Persons law; not with BC as a prior restraint. If there were neither a NICS database nor an NCIC database there would still be a risk of possession of drugs or being found under the influence of drugs that would trigger the Prohibited-Persons law.

    Our beef here is with the Prohibited-Persons law. We need to focus on the right – not the wrong – law. Each prohibiting criteria needs to be looked at critically in light of its constitutionality and efficacy. (E.g., prohibiting Americans who have renounced their citizenship is perfectly constitutional but of dubious justification.)

    Drugs are REALLY DIFFICULT. Apparently, there is good empirical evidence that the combination of habitual use of illegal drugs with certain mental illnesses promotes violent behavior. It is NOT:
    – all mental illness alone (in the absence of drugs); nor,
    – all drug use alone (in the absence of mental illness)
    It is just certain mental illness diagnoses and certain illegal drugs.

    I THINK that the best first step to take here is to reduce the general “mental illness” criteria down to only those specific diagnoses for which there is strong evidence of association with violence. A patient with chronic agoraphobia should not be stripped of her 2A right to keep a handgun in the home just because of this particular mental illness no matter how severe.

    Next, the drug criteria alone (i.e., absent any mental illness diagnosis) needs to be made more sophisticated. Perhaps a chronic user of most drugs really should be dis-abled. It would not follow from this that an occasional user of most drugs should be dis-abled.

    Finally, mental illness in combination with non-chronic drug use seems to deserve analysis. If and to the extent that there is any reasonable evidence of increased violence from patients having certain diagnoses combined with certain drugs used non-chronically, then we need to admit of prohibiting based on such combinations. Even if the scientific evidence is not compelling, as a political matter under present circumstances, we aren’t going to get traction providing this class of patient any 2A relief.

  11. avatar Sixpack70 says:

    The biggest mass murderer of the decade didn’t even use a gun, but he also passed a bunch of background checks and medical screening. When are they going to close the “crazy pilot crashing a plane with 149 peope onboard” loophole?

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/black-box-adds-to-signs-that-german-co-pilot-deliberately-crashed-plane/2015/04/03/aaff24fc-d9f6-11e4-b3f2-607bd612aeac_story.html

  12. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    And you could have a post every day(on TTAG) about government incompetence…because people are incompetent. And Portugal is not a country to emulate-the next Greece along with Italy,Spain and whoever lives above their means(hmmm-they all have a nice climate)…

  13. avatar Judge Johnston says:

    OF HEADSHRINKERS, UNUSUAL BELIEFS, AND PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

    Another aspect that is really the Trojan Horse to ban ownership for whole classes of persons is the psychological conditions issue. Psychology has it’s place but it is generally one step up from leeches and bleeding people, Right now, generally it is set correctly, you have to have been subject to a forced commitment to a mental hospital by a court.Then, there is a procedure to get your rights back.

    But how many people would agree with this condition as denying firearms ownership: “If applicant had been under the care of any mental health professional at any time within the past 7 years.” Sounds reasonable right? But, I have a friend that had ADD and since his psychiatrist is trained to treat that, that is who he sees.

    When you think what happened in the “good old days” of the USSR it really becomes frightening, People who held strongly to certain beliefs, such as the existence of God or in Liberty were deemed mentally ill.

    Suppose an future edition of our Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (currently the DSM-V) classified the following as a metal disease or disorder: 1. The belief that states are sovereign and because of that sovereignty states have a right to nullify or declare invalid statutes passed by Congress which they deem to violate the Constitution (Principles of ’98) . This is a delusion which raises a substantial possibility that the patient will commit acts of violence.; 2: The patient will seek persistent solitude, either completely alone of with his family, often moving to extreme rural locations, growing their own food, making power, refusing to send his children to substandard government schools. The patient will usually have extreme right wing political beliefs, such as in a literal reading of the Constitution (some even in the Bible) and often has paranoid beliefs that elected officials are not working for the good of the people but rather some sinister hidden group,
    3: The patient owns large numbers of firearms (in excess of 4) sometime many dozen. He will often purchase large or even extreme amounts of ammunition (in excess of 1,000 rounds per caliber). When confronted with these actions he will often lie, and claim the reason for the large amounts of ammunition is because there was a “fantastic sale” or that he is a competitive shooter and actually uses that amount of ammunition during a certain time period. Some will go to extreme lengths to attempt to preserve this ammunition for some future use, such as packing it in military ammunition cans, placing it in plastic food bags and removing all air, even placing humidity absorbers with it. Some even attempt to hide their stockpile from some mythical government search by building false closets and the like. There tends to be a common theme among these patients: “The Ant and the Grasshopper” for which this syndrome has been names. There is a common belief that their guns and ammunition will be need because of: a government firearms ban and subsequent seizures; the takeover of the government by a despot and in such a case they belief they have the right if not the obligation to depose him and restore the rightful constitution or a government based on the theory of “the consent of the governed.” To justify this, they rely on the writings a delusion, paranoid, alcoholic 17th Century English Philosopher named John Locke and an early American dreamer, Slaver Holder, Slave Rapist, and hypocrite name Thomas Jefferson. This group is the most dangerous of any because they have an absolute belief (delusion) that they are correct and further believe that they have the right to take the law into their own hands by doing such things a firing upon underprivileged persons entering their homes in search of food or diapers, resisting government agents by lethal force who have the obvious right to enter their homes, at any time for any purpose claiming that this requires a “warrant” a document relegated to the history books.

    Most middle class voters who watch more that 10 hours of television a week would think that this is “common sense gun control” and approve.

    On the issue of drugs, try this one, I teach a self defense course at Gunport here in Mobile County (well Coden, Alabama to tell the truth) and we spend about 3 hours going over the law, when lethal force can be used, never let anyone search you, your car, how or take a blood or urine sample without a court order signed by a judge.

    A student mentioned that she had arthritis in her back and she was taking a great new drug approved for it, Cymbalta. The problem is Cymbalta had been approved for years as an anti-depressant and had recently be FDA approved for her condition. Now if the government, in it’s wisdom, added to the list of prohibited buyers of firearms “anyone currently taking any type of antidepressant whether or not it has been prescribed by a physician or not or who has taking such a medication within the last 7 years.: That catches the folks that have had it prescribed by their GP or Orthopedic Surgeon. Hence my advice, never allow a blood sample because if this lady very justifiably shoots and kills an armed robber and she submits to a “routine drug test” I know what a number of district attorney’s would do (even as the law stands today).. First leak it, then the newspaper reads: “Woman on Anti-Depressants Shoots and Kills Area Youth,,,Authorities Investigating Why She Had Concealed Carry Permit and How She Slipped Through the System”.

    If some race baiters make a racial issue of the shooting (as in she is White and the teenager is Black) she is half way to the penitentiary.

    My conclusion, be very suspicious of any attempt to add or strengthen anything regarding mental heath. Everybody is fine until they are not.

    And we all thought Orwell’s 1984 went too far!

  14. avatar neiowa says:

    The Feds have everyone’s digital drivers license photo stored. Run them thru the facial recognition software for facial/neck tattoos, piercings and doppy haircuts and close the “moron loophole”. Self selected. Problem solved and we all can be happy (so says SCOTUS).

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email