What Part of “Shall Not Be Infringed” is So Hard to Understand?
ESPN Commentator Gets Called Out For Being Racist Live On Air
March 9, 2023
The CHICKS Go On An Interview Blitz At CPAC
March 10, 2023Despite the Second Amendment leaving absolutely no room for uncertainty, gun rights are a hot topic for debate, and one that people are desperate to find “common ground” over. Or so they say.
I personally, as the title of this article suggests, am in the camp that believes that the actual text of the Second Amendment is so short and direct because it really is that simple: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
But for the sake of argument, let’s entertain some of the popular common ground proposals.
One of the easiest of these to get behind is restricting access to firearms among the mentally ill. Sounds pretty good, right?
Two thirds of people who responded to a Twitter poll by Tim Pool thought so.
And Pool’s audience isn’t exactly populated by the most anti-gun among us. But being in the majority doesn’t mean you’re right, and this is one of those situations where that is patently untrue.
ALLOW ME TO EXPLAIN.
First of all, having a mental disorder does not automatically make you unstable. Take, for example, I dunno. . . YOURS TRULY. Hello, it’s me. I have a diagnosis of clinical depression and generalized anxiety disorder. I went to therapy, got myself some SSRIs, and I’m vibin’. I can say with some confidence that neither I myself, nor any of the people who know me well, would advocate that I am particularly unsuited to carry a gun. And I wouldn’t even have to point a gun at them to get them to say so! I’m a delight!
So, unsurprisingly, we gotta introduce some nuance to the discussion. I mean, we did already, because. . . uh. . . SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, but anyway, let’s say that only certain mental health diagnoses are enough to disqualify someone from their God-given right to self-preservation.
Who’s gonna make the diagnosis?
Whether or not mentally unstable people should have guns is really a strawman. It’s not about whether it’s a good idea, it’s about whether it can/should be enforced by the government.
But don’t take my word for it:
That’s the problem with “finding common ground” around issues like gun rights. There actually isn’t any.
I would like my armored tank now, please.
3 Comments
The question asks if you have ever been adjudicated as a mental defective or been confined to a mental institution. That requires an action by a judge, not a shrink. As for convicted felons, that is not violence related. It is criminal behavior related. Shall not be infringed is often omitted in discussions as is the free exercise thereof in the first amendment. The definition of militia is also misconstrued. When those words were written the militia was every able bodied and armed man available. The second amendment was written to give citizens the ability to overthrow a tyrannical government. They had just done it once and there was no guarantee tht they would not have to do it again in the future.
It’s obvious there are certain classes of individuals that should not have weapons, that is a fact. But going about it is a minefield. Spike Cohen made the biggest point. Another topic is, people convicted of a felony lose their right to possess firearms. That applies to every single felony conviction, no matter what. It makes sense for violent crimes such as murder, rape, so on and so forth. But felony insider trading? Gun rights (and voting rights) are gone despite insider trading not involving a single drop of blood (paper cuts notwithstanding).
Never give power to the government you would not trust your worst enemy to have. Inevitably someone who doesn’t like you is going to have that power.