Thanks for all the input.
This is a discussion on <Human Events> "Who Should Not Carry a Gun?" within the Carry & Defensive Scenarios forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by adric22 Well, the good news is that most of the people who should not own guns have already lost their legal right ...
Thanks for all the input.
As someone who is in a family with a history of ADD and ADHD were is the magical line drawn?
I can't even think of one person who only suffers from some form of ADD that isn't responsible enough as an adult to not handle firearms. If anything, having ADD helps you to learn to focus so you can succeed in life. It's just a harder journey is all. I'm betting that if I were tested for ADD I'd be diagnosed with it as well. I have all the classic symptoms assoiciated with it, as does my Father, and my brother has been diagnosed as having mild to moderate case of ADD.
My cousin who had pretty bad ADD as a kid served this country in the Army and handled a gun without any problems.
We have careers, homes, and have not committed any crimes. Well, ok, my cousin who suffered PTSD got into a domestic dispute shortly after leaving the military as he was receiving counseling, but that has nothing to do with having ADHD. That had to do with a career choice.
I can name almost a dozen other people I work with who are diagnosed as having ADD and function within society with no issues.
I think the author comes off as arrogant and elitist. Then again, he may want to take away my rights because I "might" be a problem. No thanks.
Although I agree with the author's basic principles of responsible gun ownership, I really dislike gun-snobs. Over the years I have met so many older men at the range that think normal citizens that do not live at the gun range cannot handle gun ownership. The bottom line is I want the opportunity, like gun-snobs, to protect myself and my family from being brutalized by criminals. It's that simple. Everything else is BS.
Here's my issue with this guy's article...and it worries me that he's a psychologist...who defines the states of intellectual/attention deficit? Who defines "common sense"? Who defines "Hot under the collar". What an emotionally biased bunch of CRAP! To me it sounds like "If I don't think you should carry, you shouldn't carry". This is the same thing we're (2nd Am. advocates) trying to prevent the government from doing! The only thing we can do is quantify things like convictions and commitments and use those as LEGAL criteria. I don't think this guy should be a shrink...so he shouldn't be a shrink, right?
He's basically saying that dumb asses shouldn't be armed. Good in theory. But, who decides who is a dumb ass or not?
Let's back up a minute...
Does anyone agree with the concept that along with 'rights' there are attendant 'responsivbilities?' For example, the right to free speech does not free you to shout "fire" in a crowded theater, or to slander someone, or freedom of the press does not allow libel or publisning child pornography. Could it possibly be that the R2KBA does not allow for the potentially dangerous or minors, or paranoid schizophrenics to carry firearms? Is it appropriate for children to have access to firearms until they do something harmful with them or should they be limited a priori until the age of majority?
We also have the opposite problem, and that is unquestionably folks get adjudicated as mentally ill when they are not. I saw that a lot in the days when the state ran large holding facilities. I've seen a couple examples of it as moderator of another forum.
Complex problems don't have simple answers. Our states effectively have experimented with everything possible from "constitutional carry" to "may issue," "shall issue," "won't issue." Dang if I think any of these many paradigms seem to make a wit of difference in overall crime statistics or overall incidence of random unprovoked violence.
If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
Unalienable rights endowed by our Creator include the right to life and self defense. Historically, the head of the family, the father, guides the decisions and teaches the responsibilities of the family members. When is junior ready to handle and shoot firearms safely? When should grandpa gracefully surrender the things of youth? To allow the government to infringe upon our rights, or turn them into lesser privileges, is to abdicate our first principles and enslave our posterity. Are we a society of civil laws that punishes the wrongdoer, or will we permit ourselves to be ruled by the elites and their purportedly beneficent restrictions that keep us safe from ourselves?
Liberty, Property, or Death - Jonathan Gardner's powder horn inscription 1776
Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito.
("Do not give in to evil but proceed ever more boldly against it.")
-Virgil, Aeneid, vi, 95
WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.
It boils down to elitism, in my opinion. I imagine a world in which there was a genuinely neutral, ultimately wise and fair entity that had the ordained power to grant us mortals the license to procreate, operate motor vehicles, possess firearms, technology and fire, would be likely a better place. Back here in the real world, no man-based institution can have that sort of authority on the front-end of our human process. Many folks wind up losing their rights as they fail to function correctly in society, but we don't have a screening process to earn these rights in the first place, and that is a very good thing by and large.
The point I'm trying to get at is that just because a shrink or some pencil pushing government official thinks you might be dangerous, doesn't mean you are. We are all responsible for ensuring that we can handle the decision to carry. In the instance of someone who is mentally ill and TRUELY a danger to themselves or others, the family and friends of said individual have a responsibility to ensure that person gets the help they need.